Relaxing with pulp fiction.

[Emil Miller]

We are entitled to read what we like and that's exactly as it should be. However, when taking a break from the "classics", be it for students of literature or non academic readers, should we automatically gravitate to the latest best seller or seek out something more acceptable for our relaxation?
I have in front of me a letter in this week's TIME magazine from Mr. Cliff Sellars of Chico Calif., U.S., regarding Dan Brown's 'The Last Symbol', in which the correspondent says, inter alia, "a book does not have to be a literary masterpiece...Anything that will get people to turn off the TV or computer is good, and this book will."
So on this basis, should we be switching off LItNet forums and reading Dan Brown?

[jocky]

We are entitled to read what we like and that's exactly as it should be. However, when taking a break from the "classics", be it for students of literature or non academic readers, should we automatically gravitate to the latest best seller or seek out something more acceptable for our relaxation?
I have in front of me a letter in this week's TIME magazine from Mr. Cliff Sellars of Chico Calif., U.S., regarding Dan Brown's 'The Last Symbol', in which the correspondent says, inter alia, "a book does not have to be a literary masterpiece...Anything that will get people to turn off the TV or computer is good, and this book will."
So on this basis, should we be switching off LItNet forums and reading Dan Brown?

Once we have all read ' The Last Symbol ' will the last person to leave the forum switch the lights off, permanently? :)

[Eryk]

I always read for pleasure. Some books are in the canon and some aren't.

There is no moral obligation to read fiction or poetry. There is no merit in reading specific books and there is no fault in not reading them. If there is any virtue, it's independence of mind and the absence of obligation or shame in what one chooses to read.

[jocky]

I always read for pleasure. Some books are in the canon and some aren't.

There is no moral obligation to read fiction or poetry.

Of course, you are absolutely right, the Bible contains both elements and had not a small influence on history. :)

[dfloyd]

but after reading Brown's The Da Vinci Code, it would be hard for me to pick up another of his books. Brown exhibits mass appeal to the relatively unsophisticated reader. I don't like to not finish a book once I have started it so I finished Da Vinci, but I wouldn't want to waste time on this author again. There are a lot of other adventure novelists who are much better writers.

[LukeS.]

I for one have no qualms about setting aside a book that I don't like. In fact, if I have read a book, I can assure you I enjoyed it! If the author is doing a bad job I simply won't waste my time on their book anymore.

[Drkshadow03]

Given the title of this thread and the content of the first post, I want to remind everybody that popular fiction and so-called pulp fiction are not exactly the same thing, if by pulp fiction, we mean specifically genre fiction (science fiction, fantasy, mysteries, etc.)

The majority of genre writers don't make much money from their books. The Stephen Kings, J. K. Rowlings, and Dan Browns are the exception to the rule.

[JBI]

Given the title of this thread and the content of the first post, I want to remind everybody that popular fiction and so-called pulp fiction are not exactly the same thing, if by pulp fiction, we mean specifically genre fiction (science fiction, fantasy, mysteries, etc.)

The majority of genre writers don't make much money from their books. The Stephen Kings, J. K. Rowlings, and Dan Browns are the exception to the rule.

In a sense, though I think it's different between different countries. For instance, Canada doesn't have an independent fluff market, so most people who read seriously, if they need pulp read semi-literary novels, it would seem from my observations (both talking to people and reading sales lists) - decent novels mostly, but nothing to terribly difficult or strenuous - generally decent stories that have interesting things to say, but aren't inaccessible or very challenging - about the difficulty of something slightly more creative Jodi Piccoult.


Still, I rarely break from reading something - I read a tad bit of fantasy if I can find something that isn't too mediocre or drawn out, but that is more from a curiosity standpoint (I think I like the idea of how the genre is developing, and also its significantly rising presence in the Canadian fiction world). I wouldn't read Goodkind as pleasure reading, though I may read Kay, or some YA literature (the latter out of academic interest more so than for the plots).

Still, I find novels in general a distraction from Poetry, and I try to cut back on them as much as possible. I have come to the point where my mind on the first read automatically scans poems, and picks up lots of stuff - novels to me seem kind of boring, and tedious to read - I generally do most of my enjoyment reading in poetry anyway, where I do most of my reading. My serious reading is more in essays than anything else.

[Drkshadow03]

In a sense, though I think it's different between different countries. For instance, Canada doesn't have an independent fluff market, so most people who read seriously, if they need pulp read semi-literary novels, it would seem from my observations (both talking to people and reading sales lists) - decent novels mostly, but nothing to terribly difficult or strenuous - generally decent stories that have interesting things to say, but aren't inaccessible or very challenging - about the difficulty of something slightly more creative Jodi Piccoult.


Still, I rarely break from reading something - I read a tad bit of fantasy if I can find something that isn't too mediocre or drawn out, but that is more from a curiosity standpoint (I think I like the idea of how the genre is developing, and also its significantly rising presence in the Canadian fiction world). I wouldn't read Goodkind as pleasure reading, though I may read Kay, or some YA literature (the latter out of academic interest more so than for the plots).

Still, I find novels in general a distraction from Poetry, and I try to cut back on them as much as possible. I have come to the point where my mind on the first read automatically scans poems, and picks up lots of stuff - novels to me seem kind of boring, and tedious to read - I generally do most of my enjoyment reading in poetry anyway, where I do most of my reading. My serious reading is more in essays than anything else.

Actually, you hit on another point I meant to make, in that I see literature as functioning on a spectrum rather than merely a category judgement of good/bad. There is the likes of Shakespeare, Faulkner, and Hawthorne on one side (yes, I know I'm being very Anglo-American/British here) and the absolutely abysmal on the other side, usually unpublished early works by newbie writers on forums, but if we only count published works, then it would include the likes of Dan Brown, but in between I think there is whole world of decent literature out there that has interesting things to say and even decent writing.

Actually I've been trying to read more poetry lately partially because of your continual insistence on poetry around here over novels. I've been reading a lot of John Donne. I'm finding, though, that it is taking me longer to read the poems than it probably would take me to finish a novel. I only read a couple a day and write my notes for each poem; I am finding I have to re-read them a lot.

[Zee.]

i only read for enjoyment. or else it'd just be a chore

[JBI]

Actually, you hit on another point I meant to make, in that I see literature as functioning on a spectrum rather than merely a category judgement of good/bad. There is the likes of Shakespeare, Faulkner, and Hawthorne on one side (yes, I know I'm being very Anglo-American/British here) and the absolutely abysmal on the other side, usually unpublished early works by newbie writers on forums, but if we only count published works, then it would include the likes of Dan Brown, but in between I think there is whole world of decent literature out there that has interesting things to say and even decent writing.

Actually I've been trying to read more poetry lately partially because of your continual insistence on poetry around here over novels. I've been reading a lot of John Donne. I'm finding, though, that it is taking me longer to read the poems than it probably would take me to finish a novel. I only read a couple a day and write my notes for each poem; I am finding I have to re-read them a lot.

Poetry really takes a while to get I think - some people never get it, and always misinterpret - so they don't realize Blake's references to Milton in the Tyger, and his theological argument, or that Shakespeare in 18 is being hyperbolic in his closing lines.


Still, it eventually clicks, and one starts to notice very interesting things almost without effort - so, for instance, I was teaching some people in a Mandarin-English language exchange about Frost's Rode not Taken, and when reading it, I noticed that he keeps using anapests instead of iambs for dramatic effect - something I was never tuaght - and all of a sudden, the poem seemed to open a little bit more.

I think the big problem is just that people are looking for the "meaning" (though perhaps not you), and that is, though important, only the beginning - the goal is to understand a sort of set of conventions, and see how the poem unfolds itself and "how it means", which is kind of tricky to pick up unless you really have a background.


Still, Donne is probably the worst to start with, as he is kind of intensely cryptic in many places, and pun-heavy and metrically shifty.



Still, when you get to the point where you read prose as closely as you would poetry, by nature, you end up being unable to read some fiction - I mean, I can't read Dan Brown without red penning as I'm going and yelling "Crap, crap, crap" every time something poorly written passes my eyes. The same thing has started happening with Wikipedia articles as well - the poorly written ones just irritate me.

[mal4mac]

We are entitled to read what we like and that's exactly as it should be. However, when taking a break from the "classics", be it for students of literature or non academic readers, should we automatically gravitate to the latest best seller or seek out something more acceptable for our relaxation?
I have in front of me a letter in this week's TIME magazine from Mr. Cliff Sellars of Chico Calif., U.S., regarding Dan Brown's 'The Last Symbol', in which the correspondent says, inter alia, "a book does not have to be a literary masterpiece...Anything that will get people to turn off the TV or computer is good, and this book will."
So on this basis, should we be switching off LItNet forums and reading Dan Brown?

I've had bad experiences with Arthur C. Clarke, Michael Crichton, and Ian Rankin recently, it was nice to take a break from pulp fiction to read Shakespeare and Dickens again. I tend to use Dickens, and similar easy, but literate, authors as a break from Shakespeare and other 'difficult' authors. There is no nead to take a break from easy-to-read classics, that would be like taking a break from eating at good, simple cafes to eating mud in the car lot...


I always read for pleasure. Some books are in the canon and some aren't.

To quote John Carey in "What Good are the arts?" - "better stick to the canon".

I don't always follow this rule, I like to introduce some serendipity into my reading by tackling whatever 'looks good' on the 'new' shelf of my library now and again. Even then I usually choose works that have had 'good press'. Still, I am often disappointed with these non-canonical works. Surely its better to choose books that have passed the test of time? To read those that have been consistently recommended by many avid readers?

How do you know if a new author is likely to be any good if they are not in the canon? (Here I'm using a broad definition of the canon as representing works chose by 'gatekeepers' like Bloom, Carey, Fadiman and Wood. Preferably all of them!)


I for one have no qualms about setting aside a book that I don't like. In fact, if I have read a book, I can assure you I enjoyed it! If the author is doing a bad job I simply won't waste my time on their book anymore.

How do you know if the author has done a bad job? It might be that you are not up to reading him. I had a real struggle with the first few chapters of "Demons" recently, but persevered as I thought it might be my limitations that were the problem. So I persevered and it was well worth it, by the end of the book I was enjoying it (in a way!)

[Silas Thorne]

I snack the first two or three pages usually. If it tastes like cornflakes, it probably is. If I go, 'oh wow!' and get lost in Dionysian mystery wordwine, that's the stuff I'm looking for.

[mal4mac]

Given the title of this thread and the content of the first post, I want to remind everybody that popular fiction and so-called pulp fiction are not exactly the same thing, if by pulp fiction, we mean specifically genre fiction (science fiction, fantasy, mysteries, etc.)

The majority of genre writers don't make much money from their books. The Stephen Kings, J. K. Rowlings, and Dan Browns are the exception to the rule.

Try googling "define:pulp fiction" -the definition is very vague. I tend to take it as meaning "bad fiction bought by many in cheap paperbacks", as I mostly hear the term used when the negative connotation is assumed. But If I took that meaning in this thread then there'd be no argument (If it's bad don't read it! End of...) So I think, for the sake of this thread, we should take pulp fiction as being "any novels bought by many that are not in the canon".

I don't think pulp fiction has to fall easily into a specific genre - for instance, where does "A spot of bother" by Mark Haddon fit?* And, conversely, some good literature may fall fairly easy into a genre (e.g. Wells' science fiction novels.)

*Straight in the pulping machine without having been read?!


Poetry really takes a while to get I think - some people never get it, and always misinterpret - so they don't realize Blake's references to Milton in the Tyger, and his theological argument, or that Shakespeare in 18 is being hyperbolic in his closing lines.


Thanks for a new heads up on Tyger! Maybe the answer is to get the version with good notes? :-)

Then again, does it matter if you miss an allusion like this? When i first read it as a child I think I thought it was just about a tiger, but probably reacted with more raw emotion than at any time since. Later I thought it might be part of Blake's attack on Newtonian science and industrialism, with Newton as the Tyger. This added an intellectual frisson to my more muted emotional response.

But who knows? The poem might be referring mostly to one of Blake's visions, which we cannot share, so we're all at sea! Anyway, aren't we always going to be behind poets like this in *fully* interpreting the poem? How can you be sure *you* are not mis-interpreting the poem? I tend to think there are no mis-interpretations, if you enjoy the poem or find it fulfilling in some way, then that's al that can be expected. If you only mildly enjoy a poem that significant others say is a masterpiece then that might be cause to read more notes, or read it again slowly...

http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~keith/poems/tyger.html


Still, it eventually clicks, and one starts to notice very interesting things almost without effort - so, for instance, I was teaching some people in a Mandarin-English language exchange about Frost's Rode not Taken, and when reading it, I noticed that he keeps using anapests instead of iambs for dramatic effect - something I was never tuaght - and all of a sudden, the poem seemed to open a little bit more.

I think the big problem is just that people are looking for the "meaning" (though perhaps not you), and that is, though important, only the beginning - the goal is to understand a sort of set of conventions, and see how the poem unfolds itself and "how it means", which is kind of tricky to pick up unless you really have a background.


Still, Donne is probably the worst to start with, as he is kind of intensely cryptic in many places, and pun-heavy and metrically shifty.



Still, when you get to the point where you read prose as closely as you would poetry, by nature, you end up being unable to read some fiction - I mean, I can't read Dan Brown without red penning as I'm going and yelling "Crap, crap, crap" every time something poorly written passes my eyes. The same thing has started happening with Wikipedia articles as well - the poorly written ones just irritate me.[/QUOTE]

[JBI]

He has a whole stanza pretty much as a Milton allusion - it's necessary to the poem - what could "Stars throw down their spears" mean without Milton? Who knows - my grade 9 teacher didn't address it - but then again, she didn't realize the Biblical allusions in A Poison Tree either - it kind of takes away from the poem.

Some people think poetry is just "reading" and creating their own meaning - in a sense they are right, but lets be honest - those are the kind of people who read kids poetry and halmark cards and never mature into real readers. There is clearly a skill and a necessary amount of knowledge needed to read poetry, in almost all traditions.

This whole idea of "let the uneducated ignorant reading be as valid as the informed" is kind of silly, since the uneducated ignorant reading ends up just missing everything, and dismissing poetry sooner or later. Of course, people will misread, but when it comes to it, thinking Frost's Road Not Taken is a praise of Individuality is pathetically wrong, and doesn't do service to the poem, which is far stronger, and far less happy.


Of course, with some poems one needs to use a little reference - Pound, Eliot, Moore - these poets are dependent on scholarship - and still, scholarship should help and all - but one shouldn't only be using scholarship - As one of my profs recommended - read the scholarship, and then get away from it - it's OK to background, but when it becomes your reading and opinion, you'll run into trouble.

So in that sense, an edition of Shakespeare's Sonnets like Booth's is fantastic, but ultimately, the goal is to not need his notes.


I snack the first two or three pages usually. If it tastes like cornflakes, it probably is. If I go, 'oh wow!' and get lost in Dionysian mystery wordwine, that's the stuff I'm looking for.

But the question of popular versus scholarly is a very interesting one, especially when one considers geography. So, for instance, do you Jin Yong as "harmless fun", "culturally relevant", contemporary pulp fiction (though he's rather old now), or as "high literature".

I think he's a very interesting example, because a) he's probably more popular than J. K. Rowling, b) it would seem the literary establishment in China respects him as a legitimate author, and c) he must be accessible, except outside of China, where he is essentially untranslated. What do we make of it then? It's clearly "commercial literature", but at the same time, it is taken seriously. I think the line between "pulp fiction" and "high fiction" is essentially constructed out of certain cultures.

For instance, essentially all pulp fiction in Canada comes from the States, though perhaps is ghost written by some Canadians - who knows. The way it comes is in cheap, formulaic paperbacks, that fly off the shelves, and as quickly into the Used Bookstore shelves.

When I went to Italy last, and poked around the bookstores - I found mostly the same stuff - the bulk of the pulpish fiction were translated titles, mostly from the States - this was cross genre, from fantasy to historical romance.

There seems to be a full distinction too - for instance, books are shelved differently depending on their "literary merit", with the lowest of the pulp being in different categories, and ridiculous concepts like "magic realism" emerging to distinguish Marquez and Gunter Grass from Terry Brooks and Tracy Hickman.

You, from what I understand, are currently in Shanghai, mind describing perhaps how the bookstores there are designed, and how the divide between popular and "intelligent" is defined within China, and, if you can manage it, Chinese literature? I know it's a kind of loaded question, but it will be interesting to hear an answer.

[LukeS.]

As for the definition of "pulp," there actually is a pretty well agreed upon understanding of what "pulp" is. If we're going to be precise about the term, we need to recognise that it represents a genre that is no longer in production, although there has been a 'revival' of late. There is a wikipedia article on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulp_magazine

I don't think that "pulp" is the same thing as "popular;" in fact, classic pulp fiction was not mainstream at all.

[husker du]

As for the definition of "pulp," there actually is a pretty well agreed upon understanding of what "pulp" is. If we're going to be precise about the term, we need to recognise that it represents a genre that is no longer in production, although there has been a 'revival' of late. There is a wikipedia article on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulp_magazine

I don't think that "pulp" is the same thing as "popular;" in fact, classic pulp fiction was not mainstream at all.

Yeah, I think classifying a lot of the pop-trash out there today as "pulp" is giving it too much credit. When I feel worn down by tough reads and want something easy, I do go for pulp. I read A Stone for Danny Fisher by Harold Robbins a few months ago and it was great. That is pulp. Books written by no talent, no effort hacks who have publishing deals thanks to non-existent standards don't deserve the label.

[Eryk]

How do you know if a new author is likely to be any good if they are not in the canon? There is exactly one way to find out.

[mal4mac]

There is exactly one way to find out.

No there are several. Word of mouth, read the book, read a review... There are already too many books in the canon for anybody to finish, why read outside the canon?

[JBI]

No there are several. Word of mouth, read the book, read a review... There are already too many books in the canon for anybody to finish, why read outside the canon?

Sooner or later you may actually need to read something. For instance, you turn to your Bloom, whose authority is achieved how? Through textual review, by reviewers who in turn gain their authority how? By textual review?


In the scheme, sooner or later you'll need to make your own mind up. And, quite simply the whole concept of Canon is kind of meh, stick to Bloom's Canon, and ultimately you won't be reading anything.

The whole point is to pick something up, and explore it yourself - it's good to read a lot of good books, but devouring a canon is hardly as important as enjoying what you read, and learning how to make literary judgments for yourself.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Personally, I don't think that there is anything wrong in sticking close to the canon, there's more than enough joy to be found there, although it is important to learn to develop a critical taste of one's own independently.

[JBI]

Personally, I don't think that there is anything wrong in sticking close to the canon, there's more than enough joy to be found there, although it is important to learn to develop a critical taste of one's own independently.

You act as if the canon is stuck in time, and not changing.