It's not even that though - as soon as you start cutting up the book itself, you get heckled at for "looking too closely". It's not my fault I always read with a pen in handOriginally Posted by islandclimber
, it's my teachers'
.
It's not even that though - as soon as you start cutting up the book itself, you get heckled at for "looking too closely". It's not my fault I always read with a pen in hand
Now, JBI, just to clarify things I actually a lot of the time enjoy reading your posts (I always know I am going to gain a new insight I hadnt thought of.
BUT
I do disagree with your fundamental point here in the section quoted above as to what constitutes a discussion. It may not be a discussion to the level of which you would like, but it is possibly still a discussion that others may enjoy having.
There once was a scotsman named Drew
Who put too much wine in his stew
He felt a bit drunk
And fell off his bunk
And landed smack into his shoe ~(C) Ms Niamh Anne King
I don't think anyone is saying what other people should or shouldn't read, neither are they making value judgements about them. Many people will float from different "levels" of art, literature and music, especially to unwind and there is nothing wrong with that. At the moment I am either listening to Bach or Different World from Iron Maiden, over and over again.
However there can be no serious debate as to the depths and merits of these two artists, and as with reading the bottom line is that not all books are created equally.
When it comes to reading itself personally I would never even pick up Twilight or works of a similar nature, but what other people do is up to them. Reading for me is a serious pursuit and I can't be satisfied with sub-standard literature, it disgusts me quite frankly. I do not or cannot enjoy reading rubbish. To relax I do listen to music, write stuff and watch TV, mostly films or comedies, (must catch "When Animals Explode" but I never read trash, Dan Brown made me sick! (I had to read it for a class.)
I though, like JBI, would like to think that I form my own conclusions from reading of a text and certainly don't champion a work just because it has a penguin on the front cover.
On the whole I would like to think that I am open and not knowingly do I criticise others' reading (I've never posted on a Twilight thread) and I believe Lit Net is a very welcoming place to post.
I think the problem arises however, when people do start to champion trash as great literature and label great literature as trash. "Madam Bovary is boring" sort of criticism, will not go down well with many people on here, and I am am one of them. We have to realise that some texts are better than others by far.
Other than that, I am sure that people are free to discuss whatever they like and certainly shouldn't think otherwise about posting on books they enjoyed, because I do think this forum is still the best literature forum around.
I quite enjoyed the discussion on wasteland there, although I'm not quite sure who I agree with there...
and I agree, it is not the stating of a general opinion on a work, or whether one enjoyed it, that is discussion, it is actually looking closely at the work, and discussing what you found in it that made it so worth reading and recommending, it is about going beyond general opinions and discussing specific facets of the work.. but here the problem is, that I don't think those who start these threads on "relatively" mediocre works are wanting to look closely at the work, as of course they must know that it won't hold up when one reads too critically..
Well there's two questions there. One has to do with the reading and discussion in LitNet, and the other is about reading generally. For LitNet, there are restraints placed on the discussion. One topic that can't be broached is politics, so you could say that Admin and the mods do control that part of the discussion. If you tried to bring up Naomi Klein's latest book, or something like that, you would probably be shot down. Beyond that, the threads are controlled by two sets of people: those who start the threads, and those who monitor the threads. The first post usually directs the conversation to something particular, and that controls the conversation to a certain degree. The mods also have control over what gets said, and how the site is set up. If you start a thread on a specific author in the author lists, your thread will get moved to that author's subforum if you don't start it there originally (a system which keeps many good discussions out of the eye of most LitNetters, if you ask me). So some people do own the discussion on LitNet--that is, they have the right to control what gets talked about and what doesn't. Generally, though, that control isn't exercised because someone's tastes are offended. Most people seem pretty open to talking about whatever, and I've never seen a thread shut down because the topic it's too lowbrow. In that sense, there is no ownership on LitNet. No one has control over the discussion based on taste alone.
The second question about reading in general is more problematic because ownership is harder to determine. In between author and reader there are so many different people, and all of them exercise some level of control. Publishers and book sellers obviously have some control over the market. There's also reviewers. The reviewers job is to exactly what you complain about above. They tell readers what should and should not be read, and they might even make you feel guilty about picking up a Steven King book. Academic standards affect whether a book will be determined canonical or not. The demographics of the readership will determine what gets attention, as well. As readership becomes increasing female--which it is in the US--the literature we produce will reflect that. There's promotion and advertising that also affects how books are received and which get front-store placement. All of these own reading to a certain extent.
I'm certainly in your camp Mathor, and I wish we could get more people involved with the Henry V discussion, or the poetry bookclubs, or the thread Dark Muse started on Poe, or the DH Lawrence short story thread. To me, that's what LitNet is all about. I think we should be able to talk about more than just those kinds of texts, though. I don't think there's necessarily anything damaging about discussing the latest popular hit. Also, I don't know what you mean when you say that your favorite threads are being "replaced" with threads about Harry Potter. Do you mean that they're diverting attention, or covering up your thread? That's hardly a crime. If posters want to talk about Harry Potter, I don't think anyone can stop them (besides those I mention above). Perhaps there should be some kind of division drawn between classics and pop lit in the forum, but any distinction you draw is going to be disputed. There's so many texts hugging the line between art and entertainment that it seems like that would just create problems. I don't even think the crisis is as bad as you characterize it. In the "General Literature" forum maybe there's a flood of threads on Harry Potter, but that makes up such a small sliver of the total activity on LitNet. Like I mentioned before, there are still plenty of threads devoted to close reading of classic, literary texts. If you like Poe, Chekhov, Lawrence, Shakespeare, Rousseau, or Wallace Stevens there are threads devoted to each of those writers. The Lawrence thread has something like 5000 posts, too. The Chekhov thread just crossed 1000 posts, so I wouldn't despair about the Twilight thread having a place in the "General Literature" section. If you want to talk about literature, the opportunities are there.
And I don't think anyone would deny you that position. The question, though, is about ownership. Who gets to determine what should be talked about and who shouldn't? If you think the discussion is tedious, no one would stop you from saying that--even if they might find it incredibly out of place and rude. It's when you begin saying that, not only do you find it tedious, but that no one should post on something that you find tedious that you're claiming ownership. I think that kind of ownership should belong to really only the person who opens the thread and the mods. I suppose in threads with hundreds of posts that ownership becomes more diffuse, as those who have contributed a lot to the discussion might take on more control--and as the original post becomes less important. In any case, though, I don't think an acute sense of tediousness grants a person any special ownership of the conversation.
I'll make a note.
Right, and I don't mean to suggest that you were claiming ownership. I was just trying to hash out exactly what does give someone control over reading and what doesn't.
"Par instants je suis le Pauvre Navire
[...] Par instants je meurs la mort du Pecheur
[...] O mais! par instants"
--"Birds in the Night" by Paul Verlaine (1844-1896). Join the discussion here: http://www.online-literature.com/for...5&goto=newpost
Oh, I don't have control, and I don't have any real control over what people post - that isn't my point - my point is, as long as I stay within the forum rules, that same right applies to me as well, so if one wishes to make a post discussing Dan Brown, my voice has the same right to be heard, despite the fact that I am criticizing rather than praising, or close reading rather than dismissing for the sake of it. - I usually only respond in many cases, with full length posts once someone has quoted and disputed what I have already said, which is a good, healthy form of conversation - but the knife needs to be turned back on the original poster - it's saying, you don't own it, but at the same time, it needs to say "neither do I."
There is this immunity presumed with this scare word "Elitist", but saying any book at all is good, or bad, is an elitist comment. IT is just as elitist to say Harry Potter is good as it is to say it is Bad. It's just, we seem to yield to the Good as being somehow more populist because more people in the world who discuss Harry Potter like it. Generally though, the question of Good or Bad is not really what I wish to discuss, and it's always, unfortunately, those elements of my posts which seem picked at, and quoted, and then commented on, to make me seem like I'm only talking about how bad the work is - what I'm really looking at discussing is what is inside the work, and though what I find is bad, quite often, even in some of my favorite works, that is still what I'm going for - not to prove something is bad, but to discuss the inner workings of the text.
Take the Harry Potter thread that suddenly just spawned - I get more people quoting me and saying how I'm elitist for saying it isn't good, but very few people seem to be giving any counterargument that shows perhaps its strengths, or other things inside it - there is little desire for that on many of these threads - instead, they take the least significant pieces of my posts, and use those to proclaim that I am chanting an elitist manifesto, whereas, if people generally read my posts, they would note that I often champion books many people would never consider elitist at all, and my main concerns on the Potter have to do with what I think the book preaches, and what I think other books, like the undiscussed Caitlin Sweet's A Telling of Stars (which everybody has not read, yet which they should, so they can know what great children's fantasy is) offer perhaps a better book, culturally, as well as stylistically, without any of the entertainment quality being compromised.
There are people here, for instance, who take classic to mean "untouchable" too, which is problematic - I think I've gotten into as many arguments cutting up classical texts as I have contemporary, or popular ones - they think a sonnet untouchable, or that one cannot say something about Shakespeare that isn't praise, or something of the sort, which isn't true either - the line between good literature and bad literature, though important, isn't even what I'm concerned about in the slightest, yet it is always what people seem to jump on every time I post.
That's why, it seems, the poetry board gets the best discussions going on it - because what is being discussed has nothing to do with good or bad, but generally always goes to the work itself. The problem though, is that to understand what people say or are saying, one needs to read the poem over and over again - the "The Man With the Blue Guitar Thread" is a good example of that - it is a rather daunting conversation to enter, because, every day you find you need to reread the poem just to read the next comments on it, but even so, with novels I don't think it would be that tricky - some Jane Austen threads on these forums seem to get there fore instance.
2 things.
1. Having seen the repsonses, I am generally pleased. There seem to be a great many 'liberal' readers here, and that's good enough for me to want to hang around. (as if me hanging around was particularly important)
2. In spite of the guilty parties' apologetics, the comment was originally made to the effect that those who read Stephen King don't really belong here. (At least that's what I read into it). However, and refreshingly, that viewpoint seems to be in the minority.
I for one will continue to read 'Heart of Darkness' along side of "Mack Bolan - Deadly Force" and eagerly discuss both
and BTW - Da Vinci code was boring, and so was Return of the Native.
and also BTW- Heart of Darkness is still my favorite book of all time, and Moby Dick was pretty darn good too!
No, and I didn't mean to suggest that was your point. I was responding mostly to your attack on tediousness, and was trying to show that it doesn't have any bearing on ownership. You were not connecting the two, but I saw how someone might.
True, but it's easy to cross that line. It's only a short walk from saying "this is tedious" to "this is tedious, so we shouldn't have it on LitNet." You're right that the first is perfectly within the rules of LitNet, but the second might not be. I would also say that just because it's within the rules of LitNet and that you're entitled to it doesn't make it right. Some people might consider it poor form if you come into a book club discussion of a text and just tear it apart and leave. That doesn't really help anyone. It takes a lot of work to get a conversation going and that can undo a lot of effort. If someone has some substantive criticism of the text at hand, and they think it will help the conversation, then by all means say it--not everything has to be praise--but purely antagonistic, dismissive criticism hurts a good discussion. Again, no one would be breaking the rules by being dismissive and antagonistic, but they would be acting in poor form.
Are you talking about the person who started the thread? I think they do have some ownership. If I start a thread on all the good things that could said about Moby Dick, and you trash it, then I can tell you to go away. If I start a thread on just Moby Dick, though, and you trash it, then obviously you're right to post. The OP does have control, but only so much as it specifies.
That's a whole other matter. Yes, people do use the word "elitist" as a scare word, but there's nothing you can do about it but call them on it. All you can do is just say what you just said to me to them.
Again, true, but not really to the point. In this situation, too, all one can do is argue with people. No one can claim that they own the discussion and that the other person should quit.
Oh, yeah, I completely agree. I just get annoyed--and maybe I'm overreacting--when posters in the "General Literature" part of the forum complain about how there's such a poverty of thought in the "General Literature" threads, and that we should all get down to discussing texts. When I go to threads on individual texts where close reading is happening, where are these people? They're nowhere to be found. I have to go back to the "General Literature" section to find them, and when I do they're talking about how frustrated they are that no one is talking about texts! Ahhh! Take the Henry IV discussion, mayneverhave wrote two great posts on the play. He touched on just about everything one could mention with the first act, and practically no one responded. Or look at any other official LitNet bookclub. Twenty votes will be cast, and three people will show up to discuss the work. I know it can be work sometimes trying to post, but that's because you have to read and think--which is what so many claim they want to do. I also know that it involves talking about a text beyond the narrow circle of ones you're familiar with, and that you might say something wrong. Suck it up. Yeah, you're going to have to ask questions about things you don't know, and you're probably going to say something stupid at some point and someone will correct you. There's so little activity, though, that half the time I have to correct myself when I say something stupid. Anyway, that's my pet peeve. If there's one great thing about the "General Literature" part of the forum, it's that you can go off on your pet peeves like that.
"Par instants je suis le Pauvre Navire
[...] Par instants je meurs la mort du Pecheur
[...] O mais! par instants"
--"Birds in the Night" by Paul Verlaine (1844-1896). Join the discussion here: http://www.online-literature.com/for...5&goto=newpost
This thread is quickly dying but I'll try to keep it alive a little longer.
Suppose there is a number scale where 1 is the most basic straigtforward book. A story, lacking in any particular depth, but a great story none the less.
Something like one of Ian Flemings James Bond books for example could be a 1. Then at the opposite end we have a complex literature laced with hidden meanings an symbolism and mythological reference and historical religious reference etc. This would be a 100. Something like perhaps James Joyce, or something by Thomas Hardy, or whoever you might think represents the epitome of that kind of writing. I think I like to read stuff somewhere around the 70 mark. Something i can still mostly 'get' but has a little more depth. That doesn't mean 70s are better than 40s or 30s, they're just 'different', they have different qualities.
What's wrong with enjoying a good spy novel or mystery novel anyways? Are they really such horrible things just because they 'only' tell a good story?
I actually like the idea of a literary spectrum. That's how I tend to think of literature. I'm not sure I would agree with the scale.
It should be more like:
1 = horrendous literature (terrible prose that you want to gouge out your eyes and plot that makes no sense, plus just a dumb idea)
2 = bad (but has a few redeeming qualities where you could see potential for some of the ideas at least.)
5/6 = Maybe a Harry Potter.
10 = certain Shakespeare works.
Of course everyone's scale will vary. The thing is as a writer I've read A LOT of newbie writers attempts at fantasy, horror, and Sci-fi, etc. I know what REALLY BAD genre fiction looks like. I've had the experience of torturing myself just to finish reading someone's story. After you've done that and seen now bad fiction can be I think you get a very different perspective.
"You understand well enough what slavery is, but freedom you have never experienced, so you do not know if it tastes sweet or bitter. If you ever did come to experience it, you would advise us to fight for it not with spears only, but with axes too." - Herodotus
https://consolationofreading.wordpress.com/ - my book blog!
Feed the Hungry!
Quark I'll join the Shakespeare discussion once I get my complete works sent out to me, although I can't say I am too upset about missing Henry V as I don't particularly enjoy it..but I'll try to drop in and say a thing or two sometime..
I just had, for instance, on a random thread, a good discussion with Virgil on a piece of Eliot's Waste Land - we didn't agree, but I am happy for the conversation, without the actual tedium of "I don't like", or "I like", removed - the actual deep meaning of the poem was what we were discussing, and although we didn't agree, I think we both got something out of the other's posts - that's called discussing - "What do you think of", or "Did you enjoy" is not real discussion.
Damn! JBI... how did you allow me to miss out on that?!
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
I think there is a difference between saying you don't like a book, and saying you shouldn't like a book. That's what elitism is. The crack about Stephen King and Starbucks carries that connotation. The message is - if you do like that kind of book you shouldn' be posting on these boards.
It isn't ?
dis·cuss (d-sks)
tr.v. dis·cussed, dis·cuss·ing, dis·cuss·es
1. To speak with another or others about; talk over.
2. To examine or consider (a subject) in speech or writing.
I WANT to know what people thought of a book and wheher they 'liked it'. I'm interested in people's emotional reaction to a book. I WANT to know what they FELT.
I get the feeling you are reducing reading to strictly an intellectual analytical exercise. And as you describe yourself as a reader of poetry, this suprises me even more. I'm not arguing that such 'close' reading and analysis is incorrect, rather I am saying its not the only thing that reading is about.
JBI- That's why, it seems, the poetry board gets the best discussions going on it - because what is being discussed has nothing to do with good or bad, but generally always goes to the work itself. The problem though, is that to understand what people say or are saying, one needs to read the poem over and over again - the "The Man With the Blue Guitar Thread" is a good example of that - it is a rather daunting conversation to enter, because, every day you find you need to reread the poem just to read the next comments on it, but even so, with novels I don't think it would be that tricky - some Jane Austen threads on these forums seem to get there fore instance.
Oh, yeah, I completely agree. I just get annoyed--and maybe I'm overreacting--when posters in the "General Literature" part of the forum complain about how there's such a poverty of thought in the "General Literature" threads, and that we should all get down to discussing texts. When I go to threads on individual texts where close reading is happening, where are these people? They're nowhere to be found. I have to go back to the "General Literature" section to find them, and when I do they're talking about how frustrated they are that no one is talking about texts! Ahhh! Take the Henry IV discussion, mayneverhave wrote two great posts on the play. He touched on just about everything one could mention with the first act, and practically no one responded. Or look at any other official LitNet bookclub. Twenty votes will be cast, and three people will show up to discuss the work. I know it can be work sometimes trying to post, but that's because you have to read and think--which is what so many claim they want to do. I also know that it involves talking about a text beyond the narrow circle of ones you're familiar with, and that you might say something wrong. Suck it up. Yeah, you're going to have to ask questions about things you don't know, and you're probably going to say something stupid at some point and someone will correct you. There's so little activity, though, that half the time I have to correct myself when I say something stupid. Anyway, that's my pet peeve. If there's one great thing about the "General Literature" part of the forum, it's that you can go off on your pet peeves like that.
I think that part of the problem with the discussions on individual authors is related to the way the site is laid out. It is rather difficult to quickly scan over the various authors and discover where new comments have been posted. Any post related to a discussion of Shakespeare, or Blake or Keats is immediately tossed over into this section of the site... which effectively removes the discussion from view and essentially archives it (or embalms it). One of the advantages of the poetry club discussions has been the fact that these are readily accessible... any member can rapidly check to see whether any new discussion has been posted. To check on a discussion of Shakespeare, for example, I have to find his name on that huge list and then upon opening that site I find further links to all the plays and must check the dates of the latest postings on each an every one to discern whether anything new has popped up. It would certainly be great if active discussions on Shakespeare, Blake, Poe or any other such author on the individual writer's list could be kept upon the General Literature page until such time that they become inactive.
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
Yeah, I'd like to get back to the Shakespeare discussion, too. I think I misnamed the play, though. We're actually doing Henry IV, instead of Henry V. I'd be up for doing Henry V after this play, as some have expressed interest in it, but right now I'd just like to get this discussion going.Quark I'll join the Shakespeare discussion once I get my complete works sent out to me, although I can't say I am too upset about missing Henry V as I don't particularly enjoy it..
I think that's true, and I would even say that what's great about LitNet is the different approaches people take to the same text.
Something like that would help immensely. At one point I tried to get discussions like that their own subforum on the "General Literature" forum or some other prominent place, but ran into resistance from those running the threads who didn't want their threads moved. Maybe if we had two links running to the same discussion (one in the "General Literature" forum and the other under the author's forum) that would get the threads exposure, but not disrupt those already in progress. In any case, you're right that there needs to be some change. The reading groups seem to get slighted by the way things are organized now.
"Par instants je suis le Pauvre Navire
[...] Par instants je meurs la mort du Pecheur
[...] O mais! par instants"
--"Birds in the Night" by Paul Verlaine (1844-1896). Join the discussion here: http://www.online-literature.com/for...5&goto=newpost
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
