Anyone else hate it when

[spearmint]

someone lends you a book to read? Someone lent me their copy of Rant by Chuck P. and sent my reading list into a frenzy. Don't give me pop-lit books to read! I have a list!

[islandclimber]

What I hate is when friends who don't really read much besides garbage, tell me I should really read this book they are reading, or have read.. invariably it always turns out to be complete trash, so I don't read most of it, but that seems to bother some people, makes me a snob or something.. I suppose, I shouldn't tell friends that the books they like and recommend to me are garbage.. but I just can't help myself :D

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yeah sometimes, especially when "non readers" lend you books because you are a "reader":

"Oh, I have this book you must read, I couldn't put it down, and I know you read a lot, it is called The Da Vinci Code, it is fantastic, I will lend you his other one called Angels and Demons, it is not as good but it is still really good, I finished that in five days, but I finished the other one is two and a half days, it’s the best thing I have read …”

That sounds really snobby, but still. Anyway, I had to read The Da Vinci Code for University so eventually they won in the end.

Edit: I wrote this in reply to the original post, but island, you got there before me with the same thought.

[andave_ya]

EEEEW, yeah!!! Pop-lit, as it has already been said, is a nightmare, especially when I try to read it and can't get into it and force myself to finish it while my mind keeps wandering off to other books, CLASSICAL books, that are ever so much better than this one....

[spearmint]

I get that 'snob' and 'elitist' tag sometimes, but seriously, when you're used to reading good literature you're forced to continue those kinds of selections. Everything else is like reading TV.

[andave_ya]

I get that 'snob' and 'elitist' tag sometimes, but seriously, when you're used to reading good literature you're forced to continue those kinds of selections. Everything else is like reading TV.

Reading tv...:) nice. I'm definitely gonna use that phrase when someone starts philosophizing to me about books and it turns out to be an inane pop-lit book :p

[mayneverhave]

I just finished Paradise Lost and my friend recommended "Life of Pi"..

[Etienne]

I just finished Paradise Lost and my friend recommended "Life of Pi"..

So what? Life of Pi is not a bad book.

[islandclimber]

Yeah "Life of Pi" is actually pretty good.. I definitely would not call it pop-lit or genre trash, that's for sure..

[Tallon]

I don't know anyone else who reads... so it has never happened to me.

[spearmint]

I don't know anyone else who reads... so it has never happened to me.

Where are all the readers? Reading?

[mona amon]

LOL, none of my friends or family read either. I cannot even discuss Harry Potter with anyone I know. Thank goodness for the internet!

[Tallon]

Where are all the readers? Reading?

:D indeed.

[Kevets]

So what? Life of Pi is not a bad book.
Agreed. There's a point where snobbery can keep you from reading some very good books. Although recommendations from friends are always chancy.

I go through phases. And some of the modern books I've read (Water for Elephants, Art of Racing in the Rain, Cold Mountain, Life of Pi, Kite Runner) I have really enjoyed, whereas I had to have a forced march through Crime and Punishment.

[kelby_lake]

I go through phases too

[Pecksie]

When I'm "forced" to borrow a book I don't want, what I usually do is read the back cover or skim through a few pages (so as to know what it's about), keep it for a couple of months, and return it saying thanks, I enjoyed it, blah blah (usually offering some sort of comment, based on the half page I've read).

Sometimes you just can't say 'thanks, but it's crap and I'll stick to my own books if you don't mind" :)

[Emil Miller]

When I'm "forced" to borrow a book I don't want, what I usually do is read the back cover or skim through a few pages (so as to know what it's about), keep it for a couple of months, and return it saying thanks, I enjoyed it, blah blah (usually offering some sort of comment, based on the half page I've read).

Sometimes you just can't say 'thanks, but it's crap and I'll stick to my own books if you don't mind" :)

A chap I know was good enough to give me some feedback on the two books I have written so far and so I felt obliged to take on board a book he gave to me called 'Fear' by L. Ron Hubbard. The cover told me exactly what to expect:- haunted house, bats flitting around in the moonlight a woman screaming etc. I read it in less than 4 hours and it was the worst book have ever read. Apparantly R L Hubbard is the founder of the Scientologist movement so, even without the cover, I might of guessed.

[Dr. Hill]

I am a regal snob when it comes to literature, especially considering that, as I'm 17, every one of my peers are reading Twilight.

[Joreads]

I am a regal snob when it comes to literature, especially considering that, as I'm 17, every one of my peers are reading Twilight.

I started and finished Twilight last night. I could not put it down it is one of the best books I have read in a long time.

[Jeremiah Jazzz]

I am a regal snob when it comes to literature, especially considering that, as I'm 17, every one of my peers are reading Twilight.
same sadly...no other 17 yr old thinks James Joyce is cool :lol:

[JBI]

I don't know - I heard in the forth volume of Twilight the vampire guy knocks up his girlfriend, and she's pregnant with some sort of demon-halfbreed baby, who tries to eat its way out of her womb.

In concept, that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Sorry to say, this was brought up during a break in one of my lectures by a person sitting near me, and me and the girl I sit beside couldn't help but uncontrollably laugh.

[Joreads]

I don't know - I heard in the forth volume of Twilight the vampire guy knocks up his girlfriend, and she's pregnant with some sort of demon-halfbreed baby, who tries to eat its way out of her womb.

In concept, that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Sorry to say, this was brought up during a break in one of my lectures by a person sitting near me, and me and the girl I sit beside couldn't help but uncontrollably laugh.


JBI I will let you know when I finish the fourth book if that is the case or not :lol:

[PabloQ]

I have very strong opinions on opinions because they are so personal. About 25 years ago, I had a good friend with whom I had a mutual appreciation of Kurt Vonnegut's work. He was child of the 60s and recommended some books by Richard Brautigan. I found them entertaining. I made the mistake of giving him my copy of Another Roadside Attraction by Tom Robbins. He read 20 pages, declared it trash, and tossed it back to me.

To this day, I hesitate to recommend books, TV shows, or films to anyone. These are matters of taste and personal preference. So where I might say that I enjoyed x or y, I'm very careful not to push it on to anyone else. Likewise, I usually politely say something to the effect that I will take a look at it, whether I intend to or not.

[Tournesol]

I get that 'snob' and 'elitist' tag sometimes, but seriously, when you're used to reading good literature you're forced to continue those kinds of selections. Everything else is like reading TV.

I also love this anology.
The one I like to use, is that trash-lit is likefast food. The masses love it, cheap, etc. But real, good, worthy literature is a carefully crafted gourmet meal that only selected and chosen few may enjoy...

[Taliesin]

someone lends you a book to read? Someone lent me their copy of Rant by Chuck P. and sent my reading list into a frenzy. Don't give me pop-lit books to read! I have a list!

Actually, what's wrong with Rant?


(I didn't like "Life of Pi" very much but I admit that it was mainly because it was diagonally opposed to my world-view, being a hardcore agnostic and skeptic.)


And I have actually been lent "Angels and Demons" about four years ago. Well, yes, I didn't enjoy it very much, but I generally try not to look down on people who like it, since I very much enjoy better pieces of speculative fiction to which a lot of snobs look down to - so I don't look down on people for their reading habits so that people wouldn't look down on mine.

[cipherdecoy]

I started and finished Twilight last night. I could not put it down it is one of the best books I have read in a long time.

Are you serious? My friend sent me the e-book and I couldn't go beyond the first few pages, so I read it in bits and pieces. I'm quite skeptical of the kind of books whose audience is skewed to a particular gender. My skepticism could be unfounded though...

[Joreads]

Are you serious? My friend sent me the e-book and I couldn't go beyond the first few pages, so I read it in bits and pieces. I'm quite skeptical of the kind of books whose audience is skewed to a particular gender. My skepticism could be unfounded though...

Yes I am serious, each to their own that is the beauty of reading I guess. I loved it and I know a few people that couldn't read it also. Thats what makes the world go around:lol:

[Tallon]

Actually, what's wrong with Rant?


(I didn't like "Life of Pi" very much but I admit that it was mainly because it was diagonally opposed to my world-view, being a hardcore agnostic and skeptic.)


And I have actually been lent "Angels and Demons" about four years ago. Well, yes, I didn't enjoy it very much, but I generally try not to look down on people who like it, since I very much enjoy better pieces of speculative fiction to which a lot of snobs look down to - so I don't look down on people for their reading habits so that people wouldn't look down on mine.

I notice people say 'speculative fiction' a lot on these forums. It sort of annoys me, maybe i'm looking at this the wrong way but it feels like giving in to people's assumptions about Sci-Fi and coming up with an alternative name for it. Sci-Fi is a genre laden with ****, but so are all the other genres, you have to search for the gems and i kind of like that.

[Jeremiah Jazzz]

I also love this anology.
The one I like to use, is that trash-lit is likefast food. The masses love it, cheap, etc. But real, good, worthy literature is a carefully crafted gourmet meal that only selected and chosen few may enjoy...

excellent! I'm gonna use that one from now on.

[JBI]

I notice people say 'speculative fiction' a lot on these forums. It sort of annoys me, maybe i'm looking at this the wrong way but it feels like giving in to people's assumptions about Sci-Fi and coming up with an alternative name for it. Sci-Fi is a genre laden with ****, but so are all the other genres, you have to search for the gems and i kind of like that.

Actually, speculative fiction is a term to basically group sci-fi, fantasy, and horror (in the marketing sense) together, since the lines are often blurred, and specific publishers often publish all three.

[Tallon]

I'm aware that it is used as a grouping sometimes, but i still don't see why. Those are all pretty distinctive groups and should be refered to properly. But, i don't want to get into the taxonomy, it is definitely used as a cushion.

[JBI]

You need the label. Stephen King's It for example, places under horror, as it is a horror story, yet it has fantastical elements - a demon clown thing. Where does it belong then? I know - an umbrella term.

Either way though, unless you deliberately like wading through **** to find gold, The categorization doesn't really matter. There are too few "speculative fiction" works that really make it into literary circles, and by then they just get appropriated into another title, like Dystopian or something.

[togre]

This might be taking things in a little different direction, but do you ever receive unrequested books or movies for gifts? I have a sister (who is a great reader and all around awesome person) who is forever trying to get me books or movies that she thinks I'll like. It causes me physical pain. Even more so because I enjoy a little literary junk food (I refer to them as potatoe chip books) mixed in. So I read some not terribly deep sci-fi. But there is an aweful lot of sci-fi that I could not make myself read. But she doesn't knows the difference. She knows her brother reads sci-fi, so guess what I get for Christmas? You guessed it--toilet-paper!

On the other hand, I've had some really good experiences sharing books back and forth with my father. He's really old, a retired farmer, but he reads and has a great knowledge of history and other stuff. We swap history books and I've started to feed him a few interesting sci-fi ones on occasion. So it's not always bad.

[TheFifthElement]

I love it when people recommend books even if I don't get round to reading it, or if I do read it and don't like it, the fact that they're trying to engage me on a subject I actually care about really means a lot to me. And sometimes it works out and sometimes it doesn't. One person's trash is another person's treasure. It's all opinion, likes and dislikes, at the end of the day.

I would rather someone bought me a book I didn't like than chocolates or socks (okay, maybe not socks, I like socks) or perfume or jewellery or some other 'gift' type thing that I won't ever use. If I don't like the book I can always swap it, that's what book swapping sites are for. And have I lost something by reading it? I don't think so. All input is valuable, in some form or another.

I truly don't understand people who only read 'classics'. Isn't that just another way of letting someone else tell you what is good and what is not, what you'll like and what you won't? Might as well go with the mass market: at a root level there isn't really a great difference. In both cases you allow another group, the media or a previous generation or a critic, to make your choices for you; and if you think about it, Classics are just 'pop' fiction that have aged well. To my mind the only way to judge a book is to read it, and then if you do like it it only means you like it, and if you don't like it it only means you don't like it. Shame to limit your choices because of prejudice, n'est pas?

[weltanschauung]

This might be taking things in a little different direction, but do you ever receive unrequested books or movies for gifts? I have a sister (who is a great reader and all around awesome person) who is forever trying to get me books or movies that she thinks I'll like. It causes me physical pain. Even more so because I enjoy a little literary junk food (I refer to them as potatoe chip books) mixed in. So I read some not terribly deep sci-fi. But there is an aweful lot of sci-fi that I could not make myself read. But she doesn't knows the difference. She knows her brother reads sci-fi, so guess what I get for Christmas? You guessed it--toilet-paper!

On the other hand, I've had some really good experiences sharing books back and forth with my father. He's really old, a retired farmer, but he reads and has a great knowledge of history and other stuff. We swap history books and I've started to feed him a few interesting sci-fi ones on occasion. So it's not always bad.

man, my mom always gets me the stupidest books to read like it's the holder of the secret of the seventh seal of goodness. urgh.

i love it when people tell me the stupidest and most obvious mediocrity like it's the most obscure piece of philosophy ever.

[Dori]

Nobody recommends books to me; they only criticize me for having not read Twilight yet.

[islandclimber]

I truly don't understand people who only read 'classics'. Isn't that just another way of letting someone else tell you what is good and what is not, what you'll like and what you won't? Might as well go with the mass market: at a root level there isn't really a great difference. In both cases you allow another group, the media or a previous generation or a critic, to make your choices for you; and if you think about it, Classics are just 'pop' fiction that have aged well. To my mind the only way to judge a book is to read it, and then if you do like it it only means you like it, and if you don't like it it only means you don't like it. Shame to limit your choices because of prejudice, n'est pas?

ummm.. who said they only read 'classics'??? I don't only read classics, I read alot of contemporary lit, and I find there are many fantastic new writers out there... but when people recommend to me contemporary "cr*p"... well then I am not going to read it, and if they continue to recommend garbage off the best selling mass market paperback shelves.. well it can get slightly annoying...

I don't need to read romance genre bestsellers to know they are garbage and won't suit my taste.. good thing for me these are almost never recommended or given as gifts seeing as I am a guy and all.. same with most of the new garbage fantasy/sci fi/horror junk out there... I don't need to put myself through the torture of reading this to know that I won't enjoy it... at least I would rather not..

although, every so often I will read a few books from a genre just to check.. I read most of the Harry Potter books.. maybe a mindless and slightly entertaining read in my opinion.. I've read a Stephen King book or two.. and the again quite a mindless read.. I read a romance novel by erica jong or something like that and it was so awful i almost wanted to actually use it for tp... :D and I have read a smattering other contemporary mass market fiction, such as Clancy, Brown, Grisham, etc.. and found nothing good about any of them.. maybe some cheap entertainment can be derived but I would much rather watch a film for mindless entertainment.. reading just doesn't do the trick for me in terms of mindless entertainment.. I would rather be challenged to think, and to feel, and see things differently when I read... just my opinion though.. :D

[TheFifthElement]

ummm.. who said they only read 'classics'??? I don't only read classics,

I've encountered many people who claim to only read 'classics'. Clearly you are not one of them, though I don't recall saying that you were. If you have some insights as to why people make that choice I'd be very interested to hear them.


I read alot of contemporary lit, and I find there are many fantastic new writers out there...

Yes, I find that too. Which is why it seems strange to me to limit oneself to a particular genre. Kind of like saying, 'from now on I will only eat rice.' It's not wrong, it's just that I find it odd. Which was the point of my statement 'I truly don't understand people who.... I don't understand it. I would like to.


I don't need to read romance genre bestsellers to know they are garbage and won't suit my taste..
Well, 'garbage' is a generalisation which I don't think you can make, though 'doesn't suit my taste' is perfectly valid. But just because something generally doesn't suit your taste, that doesn't mean that you won't like it. I generally don't like to eat fish, but I like tuna. I think there has to be a 'on balance of probabilities' about it, because really until you've actually read the book you don't really know either way, though it is probably safe to say that it is less likely you will enjoy it. But not impossible. I haven't read any 'chick lit' for a long time but that doesn't mean that it is already pre-determined that I would not like one if I did. Or maybe I just object to the concept of pre-determined. But I found this with science fiction. It is easy to dismiss science fiction as a genre, filled with space opera and all that. And I've read a fair number of science fiction novels that I didn't enjoy. But then there is Asimov and Philip Jose Farmer. I think I would be poorer for not having read them. So I could say that on balance of probabilities I won't enjoy science fiction, but already I know there are exceptions to that rule. I only know if I read. That was my point.


I would rather be challenged to think, and to feel, and see things differently when I read... just my opinion though.. :D

Oh I agree, that is my preference too. But if I have a friend who enjoys crime novels and they read one and really enjoy it and recommend it to me, because I am their friend and they like to share the things they enjoy with their friends, does that make them a bad/thoughtless/annoying/stupid person? I don't think so, but that seems to be the theme of the thread. Unless I've misread it?

[Drkshadow03]

Actually, speculative fiction is a term to basically group sci-fi, fantasy, and horror (in the marketing sense) together, since the lines are often blurred, and specific publishers often publish all three.

Sort of. Originally the term was coined and embraced by actual Speculative Fiction/Science Fiction writers, the wikipedia entry here has a fairly decent and accurate history of the term (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculative_fiction). Academia, scholars, the amateur critics in fandom, and writers of genre are more likely to use the term than the publishers themselves. So I wouldn't define it as a marketing term exactly. Personally I see it more as a label of convenience that brings together fantasy, Sci-fi, horror (anything in opposition to realism) for critics and fans to discuss genre works.

This terms becomes problematic in the way I just used it as an overarching genre that is in opposition to realism when applied to horror for some of the reasons you hinted at. After all, horror might be about a psycho-deranged serial killer (something that can happen in real life) and have no fantastical elements like a ghost or a demon-clown.



Either way though, unless you deliberately like wading through **** to find gold, The categorization doesn't really matter. There are too few "speculative fiction" works that really make it into literary circles, and by then they just get appropriated into another title, like Dystopian or something.

Also, it's not rocket science to find decent genre work. Pretty much read the Classics. LeGuin, Asimov, Delaney, Ellison, Dick, Gibson, Wells, Butler, Herbert, etc. Read "Best of" lists put together by fans, critics, and writers (then compare to see what titles appear on multiple lists), flip through critical reviews, read more traditional reviews, see what people are writing and talking about in fandom.

I generally don't have to spend too much time wading through crap (at least how I would define crap. As they say your milage may vary) because I already know which writers and which books by them are worth checking out, plus if I want some newer writers I already have a list of people whose viewpoints I trust.

As far as too few speculative fiction works appearing in literary circles? Define a literary circle! Are you speaking about the mainstream of academia? Then fine, that's probably true.

There is a whole community of scholars who publish on speculative fiction (since there are at least five Peer-reviewed scholarly journals focusing strictly on those genres), who teach Science Fiction, Fantasy, or Horror courses in academia, and still have a traditional background in a more "acceptable" area of expertise.

[PeterL]

No, no one else is annoyed by that.

[JBI]

Sort of. Originally the term was coined and embraced by actual Speculative Fiction/Science Fiction writers, the wikipedia entry here has a fairly decent and accurate history of the term (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculative_fiction). Academia, scholars, the amateur critics in fandom, and writers of genre are more likely to use the term than the publishers themselves. So I wouldn't define it as a marketing term exactly. Personally I see it more as a label of convenience that brings together fantasy, Sci-fi, horror (anything in opposition to realism) for critics and fans to discuss genre works.

This terms becomes problematic in the way I just used it as an overarching genre that is in opposition to realism when applied to horror for some of the reasons you hinted at. After all, horror might be about a psycho-deranged serial killer (something that can happen in real life) and have no fantastical elements like a ghost or a demon-clown.



Also, it's not rocket science to find decent genre work. Pretty much read the Classics. LeGuin, Asimov, Delaney, Ellison, Dick, Gibson, Wells, Butler, Herbert, etc. Read "Best of" lists put together by fans, critics, and writers (then compare to see what titles appear on multiple lists), flip through critical reviews, read more traditional reviews, see what people are writing and talking about in fandom.

I generally don't have to spend too much time wading through crap (at least how I would define crap. As they say your milage may vary) because I already know which writers and which books by them are worth checking out, plus if I want some newer writers I already have a list of people whose viewpoints I trust.

As far as too few speculative fiction works appearing in literary circles? Define a literary circle! Are you speaking about the mainstream of academia? Then fine, that's probably true.

There is a whole community of scholars who publish on speculative fiction (since there are at least five Peer-reviewed scholarly journals focusing strictly on those genres), who teach Science Fiction, Fantasy, or Horror courses in academia, and still have a traditional background in a more "acceptable" area of expertise.

Yes, but they are more likely to teach something like Le Guin over Terry Brooks, or Mervyn Peake over Terry Goodkind, or H. G. Wells over Tad Williams.

This from the U of T course description for the only English undergrad sci-fi course:

Brief Description of Course: This course will explore how works of science fiction respond to, participate in, and critique their times by speculating about the potential effects of science upon society. From Martian invasions to cyberpunk to other worlds to dystopias, and much more, the novels, short stories, and film we will study raise challenging and profound questions about the state of humanity –– past, present, and future.

Required Reading: Octavia Butler, Parable of the Sower (Grand Central, 2000); William Gibson, Neuromancer (Ace-Penguin, 1984); Dan Simmons, Ilium (HarperCollins, 2005); H.G. Wells, The Time Machine/The War of the Worlds (Ballantine-DelRey, 1968); Cory Doctorow and Holly Phillips, eds., Tesseracts Eleven (EDGE, 2007); Robert Silverberg, ed., The Science Fiction Hall of Fame, Volume 1 (Orb, 2003); Minority Report (film, 2002, dir. Steven Spielberg)

http://www.utoronto.ca/english/undergraduate/descriptions/win2008/237s5101.htm

As for the fantasy/horror class that was scheduled - it got canceled for one reason or another, probably the professor going on sabbatical or not receiving Tenure.

But still, there is the requirement of sifting no matter what you read. I simply describe the genre label as a marketing ploy since, like you do, many readers read outside their genre, so they simply try to get the best books possible, from all sides of the spectrum.

[Dara1409]

Someone lent me their copy of Rant by Chuck P. !



read it and shut up. i understand that palahnuik is a pop icon but this is by far his best work. it isnt even comparable to 'fight club', 'choke', or 'haunted'. in this book he's grown so much as an artist...as a writer, and it blew me away. take a chance on it. from someone who primariliy enjoys classic literature, i found it to not only be enoyable, but eye-opening.
plus its not like your friend gave you 'twilight' or some b/s like that.

[1n50mn14]

No, actually, I love it, because I'm not an elitist snob who can't appreciate the literature of others. I may not like it, or think it's good, *cough*Twilight/Da Vinci Code/any Stephen King book, etc*cough* but having that window of exposure is one of the most fantastic things in the world. Friends expose you to literature you may not ever read otherwise. I've been lent plenty of bad books, but the number of amazingly fantastic ones I've been lent far outnumber the bad. I also like reccomending books to others/lending.

I love having something to chat about with friends, as well, other than just innane gossip. Reading the same books always leads to a good chat/debate/argument.

[1n50mn14]

^__^ Also, Chuck Palahniuk. Yes, pop icon. Want to know why? Because his work is genuinely good and has ideas and a style of writing that are so fantastic that they appeal to a wide variety of people. Just because something is pop-y doesn't mean it's bad. Geeze.

[Emil Miller]

No, actually, I love it, because I'm not an elitist snob who can't appreciate the literature of others. I may not like it, or think it's good, *cough*Twilight/Da Vinci Code/any Stephen King book, etc*cough* but having that window of exposure is one of the most fantastic things in the world. Friends expose you to literature you may not ever read otherwise. I've been lent plenty of bad books, but the number of amazingly fantastic ones I've been lent far outnumber the bad. I also like reccomending books to others/lending.

I love having something to chat about with friends, as well, other than just innane gossip. Reading the same books always leads to a good chat/debate/argument.

That's fine as long as you know the difference between literature and Hype.

[Joreads]

^__^ Also, Chuck Palahniuk. Yes, pop icon. Want to know why? Because his work is genuinely good and has ideas and a style of writing that are so fantastic that they appeal to a wide variety of people. Just because something is pop-y doesn't mean it's bad. Geeze.

Could not agree more Becca

[Hank Stamper]

yes i would hardly label chuck palahniuk alongside the likes of dan brown etc

altho rant is not one of his better books

i also dont have this problem of being lent books, as none of my friends that live in book-lending distance read anything other than FHM, etc. bah!