I don't have faith in my tastes

[Mr.lucifer]

I don't trust myself to tell whether something is well written. I lead that up to critics,scholars,and people with experienced tastes. Even if I enjoy something,if the type of people I mentioned say its mediocre, I will regard it as mediocre. Even if I didn't enjoy a classic, I will regard it as supremely written regardless and that I was to inexperienced to get because it was too difficult for me.

An recent example would be that I enjoyed a song of fire and ice by George R.R. Martin, I recently discovered that it was regarded as mediocre. So I regared it as mediocre. It was only regarded well written by readers of fantasy.

I see myself as too young and inexperienced to form a respectable opinion or even rightfully enjoy something because I don't enough experience.

[antiprefix]

Your days of youthful inexperience will pass in time. Keep reading and forming your own opinion, no concrete and ultimate answers exists in the universe, and that's why literature is so bracing, because it heeds no correct answers. It drives on ambiguity.

[sixsmith]

It may well be that you are too young and/or inexperienced to form what you call a 'respectable' opinion. There is, in my view, a level of contextual understanding which one must possess in order to start drawing comparisons and making judgments (as it were) between and within literary works. To give but the most obvious example of my ignorance, I am a fan of poetry but haven't the logistical or the 'canonical' knowledge to explain why I like Yeats, say, or Neruda. Of course, it is not a bright line the crossing of which serves to immediately legitimise one's dinner party repartee. But the more widely and deeply one reads, the greater the reservoir from which one can draw in expressing and supporting one's opinions and interpretations.

And it's important to trust your own opinions. Not only does it enable you to gain more reward from what you read, but it also assists in identifying when others (critics and scholars especially) get it horribly wrong. If Marx left us with nothing else, his motto is to be cherished. De omnibus dubitandum: Everything must be doubted. Just this morning I opened a book by Harold Bloom (critic and reputed scholar) and read that Mason and Dixon is probably Pynchon's masterwork. Now, if you read Mason and Dixon and think it a great, squawking turkey of a book, boxed in by childish allegory and overstuffed with desperate attempts at facile humor, markedly inferior to both Gravity's Rainbow and The Crying of Lot 49, you'd be ill advised to discard that conclusion and hitch your wagon to Bloom's wrong-headed assessment. Be guided by others by all means, but don't let them think for you.

[spookymulder93]

You like what you like. Don't be ashamed of it.

I enjoy Iggy Pop A LOT more than I like Beethoven and I'd tell anybody.

[OrphanPip]

There's nothing wrong with liking George R.R. Martin, I enjoyed his novels also. They're not spectacular pieces of prose work, but they're very entertaining, and much better than most of the genre fiction out there haha.

You're allowed to enjoy writers for reasons other than their artistic merit :p.

[mal4mac]

And it's important to trust your own opinions. Not only does it enable you to gain more reward from what you read, but it also assists in identifying when others (critics and scholars especially) get it horribly wrong. If Marx left us with nothing else, his motto is to be cherished. De omnibus dubitandum: Everything must be doubted. Just this morning I opened a book by Harold Bloom (critic and reputed scholar) and read that Mason and Dixon is probably Pynchon's masterwork. Now, if you read Mason and Dixon and think it a great, squawking turkey of a book, boxed in by childish allegory and overstuffed with desperate attempts at facile humor, markedly inferior to both Gravity's Rainbow and The Crying of Lot 49, you'd be ill advised to discard that conclusion and hitch your wagon to Bloom's wrong-headed assessment. Be guided by others by all means, but don't let them think for you.

It's not only Bloom who likes it:

John Fowles, in the Spectator said, "As a fellow-novelist I could only envy it and the culture that permits the creation and success of such intricate masterpieces." T. Coraghessan Boyle of The New York Times Book Review wrote "This is old Pynchon, the true Pynchon, the best Pynchon of all, Mason & Dixon is a groundbreaking book, a book of heart and fire and genius, and there is nothing quite like it in our literature," New York Times critic Michiko Kakutani, "A novel that is as moving as it is cerebral, as poignant as it is daring... a book that testifies to Pynchon's remarkable powers of invention and his sheer power as a storyteller."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mason_%26_Dixon

[LitNetIsGreat]

I don't trust myself to tell whether something is well written. I lead that up to critics,scholars,and people with experienced tastes. Even if I enjoy something,if the type of people I mentioned say its mediocre, I will regard it as mediocre. Even if I didn't enjoy a classic, I will regard it as supremely written regardless and that I was to inexperienced to get because it was too difficult for me.

An recent example would be that I enjoyed a song of fire and ice by George R.R. Martin, I recently discovered that it was regarded as mediocre. So I regared it as mediocre. It was only regarded well written by readers of fantasy.

I see myself as too young and inexperienced to form a respectable opinion or even rightfully enjoy something because I don't enough experience.

Well that certainly makes a change from the 'I like "X", every other critical opinion is wrong, damn those ivory towered elitists, Shakespeare is boring' sort of thread - a refreshing change in many respects and a wiser one into the bargain!

Certainly I think a good move forward is to read what others with more experience say, but at the same time don't drop your personal instinct because that is vital too. Really though, it is just a case of getting reading experience under your belt, after you have read a fair amount it is not difficult to spot bad or mediocre prose. No worries. :smile5:

[spookymulder93]

I still don't understand how your opinion on something that can't be proved could be wrong.

[Mr.lucifer]

I still don't understand how your opinion on something that can't be proved could be wrong.

Because you can look at things objectively. The only flaw you'll only hear about the classics is that they amy be boring to some and that is the subjective flaw there is.

You can look at writers objectively. For example , if you analyze tolkien ,you'll see he's not a good writer.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I still don't understand how your opinion on something that can't be proved could be wrong.

It's not a case of being right or wrong, or of devaluing personal opinion. If someone likes something then there is no right or wrong, that's that. People are free to take pleasure in whatever they like and there is no argument there at all. However when people try to champion poor or mediocre works as something above its value then that is when I have issues. When people try to push something that might be poorly written as a literary masterpiece, and at the same time fly in the face of the overwhelming critical consensus, then I have a problem with that personally. Well, I just see that sort of thing as quite silly really; I see that as only just a step above crazy conspiracy theorists: Shakespeare was really a nun and all that sort of nonsense. By all means take pleasure in what you take pleasure in but I really wish people could just leave it at that instead of trying to take on the world with bad prose.

[Mr.lucifer]

It's not a case of being right or wrong, or of devaluing personal opinion. If someone likes something then there is no right or wrong, that's that. People are free to take pleasure in whatever they like and there is no argument there at all. However when people try to champion poor or mediocre works as something above its value then that is when I have issues. When people try to push something that might be poorly written as a literary masterpiece, and at the same time fly in the face of the overwhelming critical consensus, then I have a problem with that personally. Well, I just see that sort of thing as quite silly really; I see that as only just a step above crazy conspiracy theorists, Shakespeare was really a nun and all that sort of nonsense. By all means take pleasure in what you take pleasure in but I really wish people could just leave it at that instead of trying to take on the world with bad prose.

Who are some people you regard as mediocre writers, including people who aren't mediocre writers?

[Drkshadow03]

It's not a case of being right or wrong, or of devaluing personal opinion. If someone likes something then there is no right or wrong, that's that. People are free to take pleasure in whatever they like and there is no argument there at all. However when people try to champion poor or mediocre works as something above its value then that is when I have issues. When people try to push something that might be poorly written as a literary masterpiece, and at the same time fly in the face of the overwhelming critical consensus, then I have a problem with that personally. Well, I just see that sort of thing as quite silly really; I see that as only just a step above crazy conspiracy theorists: Shakespeare was really a nun and all that sort of nonsense. By all means take pleasure in what you take pleasure in but I really wish people could just leave it at that instead of trying to take on the world with bad prose.

What are you talking about? I'm really Shakespeare. I'm a time traveler who wrote the poets works.

Hmm, I wonder if I wrote a book claiming that if people would buy it.

[stlukesguild]

Am I the only one who read the OP as a weak attempt at sarcasm?

[Mr.lucifer]

Am I the only one who read the OP as a weak attempt at sarcasm?

I was being serious.

[LitNetIsGreat]

What are you talking about? I'm really Shakespeare. I'm a time traveler who wrote the poets works.

Hmm, I wonder if I wrote a book claiming that if people would buy it.

I think you are on to something here - I think this could be a killer seller. Go Drk!


Who are some people you regard as mediocre writers, including people who aren't mediocre writers?

The choices of mediocre and non-mediocre (good?) writers are truly endless - though if you were to walk into a book shop and pick up a book at random the chances are that you would hold a mediocre work in your hand, unless perhaps if you were standing in the (no doubt small) classics section. It is not that I am a cynic of contemporary work, there is a lot of good work out there I am sure, but the majority of newly published popular works that I ever flick through is mediocre at best. Even considering the book award nominees, I'm not overly convinced.

In terms of what I personally like in prose, well a few of the top of my head would be: Wilde, Hardy (particularly Tess and Jude), Hemingway, Maupassant, Balzac, R.L Stevenson, Orwell, The Brontes (Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre), Woolf (but only if you want to really work), Henry James, Austen, Eliot, Gaskell, Maugham, Wodehouse etc, etc though there are many, many more of course.

For me, I think it was in picking up and reading the opening few pages of Dorian Gray that I vowed I would never willingly read rubbish again - and I haven't.

[JBI]

Need to always on one hand trust your judgment, and on the other, both explore other opinions, and keep reevaluating. I, rather ashamedly I must admit, on a thread several years ago praised Byron above Keats and Shelley. Now I cringe a bit every time the thread resurfaces.

Reading is about exploring, but one needs to trust oneself; Harold Bloom and other critics are flawed too; one needs to just trust their instincts, and be guided, but at the same time, come to their own conclusions.

[stlukesguild]

And what's wrong with Byron? In another two years you might cringe about this post.:hand:

[Desolation]

You like what you like. Don't be ashamed of it.

I enjoy Iggy Pop A LOT more than I like Beethoven and I'd tell anybody.
:cheers2:
Well said. Who cares what's good, bad, or ugly? Just go for what appeals to your tastes. Sure, you should explore, experiment, and try things that wouldn't appear to appeal your tastes, but you shouldn't be ashamed of what you like and don't like.

It's also possible to appreciate someone's talent without enjoying it, by the way. For instance, I'm aware that Jimmy Page is a ****ing amazing guitar player, but I still hate Led Zeppelin.

[spookymulder93]

:cheers2:
Well said. Who cares what's good, bad, or ugly? Just go for what appeals to your tastes. Sure, you should explore, experiment, and try things that wouldn't appear to appeal your tastes, but you shouldn't be ashamed of what you like and don't like.

It's also possible to appreciate someone's talent without enjoying it, by the way. For instance, I'm aware that Jimmy Page is a ****ing amazing guitar player, but I still hate Led Zeppelin.

I haven't totally gotten into Zeppelin yet, but I guess it's like when they say The Beatles are the best group ever, even though in my opinion Pink Floyd is MILES better. I can still see why people would consider The Beatles to be the best.

[Jozanny]

spooky: I am not an expert on the classic rock era, but did grow up in it, and The Beatles may not be *the best,* but they were the most innovative sound to hit rock and roll since it found its roots in African American jazz/blues, and it is in this sense that they are historic, if not my favorite either, as in a past life I was a raving Elton John fanatic. But without the Beatles, you don't get that British sound, which hybrids what was already a hybrid in popular music. Compare the Beach Boys to something like Sgt Pepper and you will hear the difference--they are nearly separate species, and the Beach Boys were the top American band before the *British invasion*.

Sry for my meander, but this was my era, these days a bit old school, granted.

[OrphanPip]

The greatest rock band of the late 60s was Velvet Underground! Oh Lou Reed how I love you, but by 72 my love affair with Bowie begins.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhTJvOALAfk&feature=related

[Jozanny]

The greatest rock band of the late 60s was Velvet Underground! Oh Lou Reed how I love you, but by 72 my love affair with Bowie begins.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhTJvOALAfk&feature=related

Why doesn't this surprise me?:lol: I have always been more attracted to his physical androgyny more than his sound. I am all excited and cannot post why and this sucks, but in a few weeks I may have some happy news, that may seriously curtail my visits to the forum, but in a good Jozanny empowered and back on her game way!!!:auto:

[David Lurie]

I don't trust myself to tell whether something is well written. I lead that up to critics,scholars,and people with experienced tastes. Even if I enjoy something,if the type of people I mentioned say its mediocre, I will regard it as mediocre. Even if I didn't enjoy a classic, I will regard it as supremely written regardless and that I was to inexperienced to get because it was too difficult for me.

An recent example would be that I enjoyed a song of fire and ice by George R.R. Martin, I recently discovered that it was regarded as mediocre. So I regared it as mediocre. It was only regarded well written by readers of fantasy.

I see myself as too young and inexperienced to form a respectable opinion or even rightfully enjoy something because I don't enough experience.

It's almost unbelievable to read a post like this nowadays, the Opinionist Era.
When I was young I had similar sensations - even now some classics (one example: Proust) make me feel uneasy. However I think it's too bad to forbid yourself the enjoyment of stuff you like just because someone else regards it as mediocre, everyone of us has guilty pleasures, enjoyment doesn't always need to be rational too. I listen to classical music but most of my friends with a similar taste despise rock music that I like, they tell me things like: how can you appreciate a rock song once you have learnt to understand the subtleties of Bach? well, I don't know, I would never drink cheap wine but I like to sip cheap art, do I have to feel bad for this? no way!

[GoldenCarcajou]

Critics are human, you are human. So why trust those people instead of trusting yourself? There are nearly 7 billions people in this world, and there will be 7 billions different opinions on one book. What will be right and what will be wrong? It doesn't matter. As soon as you like a book, so be it. If you don't like it, put it aside and find another one. Critics can just go on and on about how great the piece of work is, but in the end, it might turn out to be nothing more than a bunch of paragraphs. Critics are just somebody who grand themselves the right to judge other people's works, and they are so blind with their abilities that they forget about F. Scott Fitzgerald's (in The Great Gatsby) famous quote: "Whenever you feel like criticizing anyone, just remember that all the people in this world haven't had the advantages that you've had".

I have read so many books for my English class, and I like most of them. However, there are books that are praised by my teacher as the greatest works ever, and I still don't like it. We all have our own mind and judgement (a little bit of instinct too), and those are the tools we should highly believe in, not the blatant words from the critics. :thumbsup:

[L.M. The Third]

I'd like to comment from a different perspective then has hitherto been voiced here. As some of you know, I've grown up in a very conservative Christian family. My parents' religious viewpoints influenced every aspect of our lives. However, since we seem to be discussing music and literature, I will happily confine my comments to my experience in these fields.

In my home, fiction (except for an exceedingly few select works) was frowned upon. Although I would most certainly admit that the condemnation of fiction was entirely too sweeping, I'm still grateful that I was warned away from popular fiction. I was taught that reading is not to be only for pleasure, but for edification, and that it is worse than a waste to read that which is not high quality. I certainly can't say that I've always followed such principles, but having them in the back of my mind has helped me in my perusal of literature.
Although there was a paucity of fiction in the home, there was an abundance of reading of well-written and intelligent works.
So I do not claim to be an especially discriminate reader. Nor do I imply that one should read only classics. I only say that thought should be put into our reading, and if we find it to be poor quality we would do well to lay it aside, for there is always an abundance of the high quality.

Again, literature is not a science, so although we should be informed of the opinions of others and how the work is viewed, we are not under obligation to like something merely because of its classic status.

In the area of music I was also taught that natural inclination is not an infallible guide. I mostly listen to classical, religious, or classical 'flavor', music. Not because I wish to be a musical snob, but because taste can be cultivated. It doesn't mean that I like or understand all classical music, or that I don't sometimes feel attracted to more popular music, but I choose to listen to that which I believe to be of a higher quality.
I don't want to argue the superiority of classical music. My point is that taste should be consulted, but not be the sole determining factor in our choice of art.
Well, especially in the area of music I'll probably get lots of disagreement, so I'd better end off for now.

[Desolation]

The greatest rock band of the late 60s was Velvet Underground! Oh Lou Reed how I love you, but by 72 my love affair with Bowie begins.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhTJvOALAfk&feature=related
Oh yes, a close second to the Rolling Stones for me.

Although the king of the 60's era is obviously Bobby Dylan, who laid the lyrical foundation from which Lou Reed, John Lennon, Mick Jagger, Syd Barrett, and Jimi Hendrix sprung. Without his enormous influence, the Beatles wouldn't have started writing serious songs, and they'd be opening for 60's nostalgia fests with Eric Burdon.

[MarkBastable]

The greatest rock band of the late 60s was Velvet Underground! Oh Lou Reed how I love you, but by 72 my love affair with Bowie begins.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhTJvOALAfk&feature=related

I usually get on with Orphan Pip, so I know I'm letting myself in for a world of grief here - but what the hell. It's better than what I ought to be doing.

John Cale, yes. A profoundly influential, if patchy, contributor - and one whose solo records have stayed with me for thirty years. Lou Reed - well - you got Transformer and Berlin (which was more Bob Ezrin's album than Lou's) and you probably know all there is to know about Lou.

The Velvets have always seemed to me more influential than listenable. Like the Doors, they were central to the musical development of many many artists who were much cleverer with those ideas. Bowie's VU tribute - Queen B*tch - was a smarter and more appealing song than anything the Velvets ever did. Shallower, certainly - but broader. I'm not saying that popular appeal is the criterion (I like Peter Hammill, for God's sake) - but I am saying that more people feel they ought to love the Velvets than actually play their records.

By which I do not mean you , Pip. I'm sure you do play their records. Seek professional help, I beg you.

[spookymulder93]

I'd like to know what you guys think about The Stooges. Iggy has got to be the most influential for the whole punk rock era. Raw Power is one of the best albums ever.

[Scheherazade]

we are not under obligation to like something merely because of its classic status.
but I choose to listen to that which I believe to be of a higher quality. These statements are contradictory, aren't they?
My point is that taste should be consulted, but not be the sole determining factor in our choice of art. I don't see why we shouldn't... If it does not please my tastes, I will not force myself to enjoy something because someone else considers them to be "superior".

There are books I enjoy reading and I turn to at times because they make me feel good... There are songs I listen to because they make me remember someone or something or put a smile on my face because of their sheer meaninglessness. So what?

You have never had a cold glass of coke or a greasy burger and thought "That felt goooood!"?

[Desolation]

I love the Stooges. One of the defining moments of my rock 'n roll life was when I was 16. I won a gist certificate to Tower Records at a Halloween contest in my school. I'd never heard them before, but I had heard a lot of good things about Raw Power, so I bought it. Me and my friends were walking down Sunset Blvd, and while they were talking and goofing around, I popped the CD into my walkman, and I couldn't believe what was coming through my ears. That primal energy in 'Search and Destroy' just blew my ****ing mind. I got to see them a couple of times, they're past their prime, but they can still kick any modern band's ***.

Among my proudest vinyl acquisitions is an original gatefold pressing of 'Fun House'. It sounds amazing. I'm not as big on Pop's solo stuff, though. 'Kill City' and 'Lust for Life' are good records, but that's about all.

[MarkBastable]

You have never had a cold glass of coke or a greasy burger and thought "That felt goooood!"?

Yeah.

This analogy figures large in a discussion of the merits of classic literature here (http://www.bibliobuffet.com/bibliopinions-columns-194/archive-index-bibliopinions/1127-is-this-the-line-for-faulkners-latest-101809) - a prototype for which article appeared as a LitNet post.

[dfloyd]

Larry,Moe, or Curly?

[Mr.lucifer]

What if I was impressed by a genre canon novel over a overall literary classic novel? I have to admit in being interested in genre canon books like sci-fi,horror ,and fantasy classics as well as overall classics.

[L.M. The Third]

These statements are contradictory, aren't they?I don't see why we shouldn't... If it does not please my tastes, I will not force myself to enjoy something because someone else considers them to be "superior".

I don't think they have to be contradictory. As a young person, I choose to read a lot of classic works, rather than sifting through piles of popular or easy reads, (doubtless with some fine material in the pile, but my immature tastes and judgments may receive more harm than good from imbibing so much material, in search of something truly high quality). It doesn't mean that I can't put down a classic and say, "I disagree with certain things here," or even say, "I don't like the story or the author's style". However, I will less likely be subjecting myself to badly written and badly thought-out works, then if I read strictly that which appeals to me, yet is untested. As I familiarize myself with them, I will learn to take pleasure in some authors and books which did not at first interest or entertain me.



There are books I enjoy reading and I turn to at times because they make me feel good...


Of course I read some books because they make me feel good or entertain me. Some of them are classics that I found highly absorbing for their sheer entertainment value, and discovered depths in them later. In citing the ideas with which I was brought up, I certainly don't mean I always follow or advocate them. However, again I'd say that when taste is developed we will generally find real pleasure in higher quality art, even if it was at first difficult.

And I would still hold out that although some of us (myself included) have a tendency to superficial reading, we should be careful not to foster it.


There are songs I listen to because they make me remember someone or something or put a smile on my face because of their sheer meaninglessness. So what?

You have never had a cold glass of coke or a greasy burger and thought "That felt goooood!"?

(Sorry for the double post. I'm a bit confused when 'butchering up' quotes.)

Silly songs... ah yes! Now I do contradict myself. I was lately singing my friend a song about "The Old Woman Who Swallowed a Fly", etc. Okay, I shall cease to talk on the music subject, since I am obviously a hypocrite with such a fondness for worthless music. (Including some ridiculous operatic pieces.)

And I've never eaten a non-vegetarian burger, or had a glass of coke! Are you shocked? :D
But I've been known to absolutely coo over green olives, or veggie chicken. Does that count? :D

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yeah.

This analogy figures large in a discussion of the merits of classic literature here (http://www.bibliobuffet.com/bibliopinions-columns-194/archive-index-bibliopinions/1127-is-this-the-line-for-faulkners-latest-101809) - a prototype for which article appeared as a LitNet post.

Good article Mark!

[OrphanPip]

By which I do not mean you , Pip. I'm sure you do play their records. Seek professional help, I beg you.

Maybe it is yet another sign of my mental instability, but I really do love the music. I think every single song on Velvet Underground and Nico is fantastic. Even if most people react to Venus in Furs as if it were nails on a chalk board.

[spookymulder93]

Maybe it is yet another sign of my mental instability, but I really do love the music. I think every single song on Velvet Underground and Nico is fantastic. Even if most people react to Venus in Furs as if it were nails on a chalk board.

The Velvet Underground and Nico is a great album. Venus in Furs is the best song on the album in my opinion. It's so sexy. It actually inspired me to read the novel, which was pretty good too.

Severin was a kinky dude, though I wouldn't mind a chick dressing in furs and dominating me just a little bit.

[Desolation]

Wanna hear about mental instability? I like White Light/White Heat much, much more than the third album, and going even further, I enjoy every single second of 'Sister Ray'.

That first record though, man, it's hard to top. And I agree, 'Venus in Furs' is the best song on the album.

[spookymulder93]

Wanna hear about mental instability? I like White Light/White Heat much, much more than the third album, and going even further, I enjoy every single second of 'Sister Ray'.

That first record though, man, it's hard to top. And I agree, 'Venus in Furs' is the best song on the album.

White Light/White Heat is another great album by them. How can anyone not love Lady Godiva?

[Jazz_]

Originally Posted by MarkBastable View Post
Yeah.

This analogy figures large in a discussion of the merits of classic literature here - a prototype for which article appeared as a LitNet post.

Good article Mark!

I completely agree - it's a great idea...

[Leland Gaunt]

An recent example would be that I enjoyed a song of fire and ice by George R.R. Martin, I recently discovered that it was regarded as mediocre. So I regared it as mediocre. It was only regarded well written by readers of fantasy.
Well as long as you still enjoy it. Admittedly it is hardly a "classic" I still think it has its merits, including very strong, human characters (Jaime Lannister=best fantasy character ever) and it's theme of power makes for an immensely entertaining read.

see myself as too young and inexperienced to form a respectable opinion or even rightfully enjoy something because I don't enough experience.
Have fun with the bolded part, man.

Am I the only one who read the OP as a weak attempt at sarcasm?
Howdy stluke, I did at first, you could imagine my excitement.:biggrin5:

when they say The Beatles are the best group ever, even though in my opinion Pink Floyd is MILES better.
:thumbsup:

[_Shannon_]

Personally, I think the antidote is just to read...balance your reading with things you "like" and things you know are important in the history of literature. Over time you will develop informed tastes. I dunno, it's kind of like good wine, beer or liquor or even food...over time you can really tell the difference between the good and the not so good---but it is not immediate. Therefore you must rely on another's tastes as you are trying to train your palette. However, you don't want to only drink stuff you don't find immediately pleasurable--and might just wanna kick back with a Miller and a hot dog from time to time.

I had a period a few years ago where I really suspected that I might be a book whore. I liked everything I picked up. And then I didn't. I read several books in a row that I agreed to read with some other people---and I realized...it wasn't that I have no ability to discern a good book from a bad one, but rather that I just pick good books. I don't like to waste my time reading garbage, but I also don't want to get hung up on my own ideas. My solution is to try to read lots of genres, and to alternate between the older and the newer, as well as to include lots of literary non-fiction in there. I go to people who I know understand my tastes for advice about what I ought to read if I ever find myself unsure (which happens rarely).

The kicker here, though, is not to fall into any pretentions--stay open minded about your tastes and allow the to evolve if they want to. Something you devour when you are 20, you might find very underwhelming when you are 30--because you have read that many more books, as well as had more life experience.

[JBI]

Well as long as you still enjoy it. Admittedly it is hardly a "classic" I still think it has its merits, including very strong, human characters (Jaime Lannister=best fantasy character ever) and it's theme of power makes for an immensely entertaining read.

Have fun with the bolded part, man.

Howdy stluke, I did at first, you could imagine my excitement.:biggrin5:

:thumbsup:

Perhaps one aught not to consider the criticism of the prose, but rather the content. I have stated my views elsewhere; the book contains things as comical that are sociopathic at best. It makes comedy out of what is called in my country sexually abusing a minor, and moralizes with a misogynist view point of the world. As a fantasy, as a vision of the author's own creation, the act of creating such a world, not to comment on its destructiveness, but to provide a "comedy" or "song" as if it is a saga worth telling to me strikes me as at least in some sense a glorification of this kind of behavior.

The book to me is kiddy-porn at best; disgusting, disturbing, and yes, also not so well written as to make us forget what is going on.

[Leland Gaunt]

the book contains things as comical that are sociopathic at best
I'm sure you think so.

It makes comedy out of what is called in my country sexually abusing a minor
I assume you are referring to either Sansa or Daenerys, but I certainly don't remember any attempts at humor. Maybe one of the abusers cracked a joke, and you took that as Mr. Martin getting his jollies off by writing about rape.

moralizes with a misogynist view point of the world.
Hardly. Arya, Catelyn, Daenerys, and Melisandre are all very strong women characters. Now, is misogyny present within the story?Certainly.

As a fantasy, as a vision of the author's own creation, the act of creating such a world, not to comment on its destructiveness, but to provide a "comedy" or "song" as if it is a saga worth telling to me strikes me as at least in some sense a glorification of this kind of behavior.
As a piece of fiction, it is a vision of the author's own creation. Why does it matter if it is part of the fantasy genre? It is modeled upon our own world (specifically Medieval times), which is destructive. It doesn't comment, it lets you draw your own conclusions.

a "comedy" or "song" as if it is a saga worth telling to me strikes me as at least in some sense a glorification of this kind of behavior.
Who is calling it a comedy? Yes, it is a story worth telling. It gives a variety of views on the story. Some reprehensible, some honorable, some inspiring etc...(although each pov is hardly so one-dimensional) If you have a problem with including the reprehensible, then you also have a problem with honesty.

The book to me is kiddy-porn at best; disgusting, disturbing, and yes, also not so well written as to make us forget what is going on.
My urge to laugh is great, I won't, but I will say that you have a very narrow view on the series.
Also, I won't ask you to provide evidence for your claims (comedic sexual abuse of a minor etc...), but if you discussed this somewhere else in this forum I assume you already provided your examples. Could you point me to that thread?

[Drkshadow03]

I'm sure you think so.

I assume you are referring to either Sansa or Daenerys, but I certainly don't remember any attempts at humor. Maybe one of the abusers cracked a joke, and you took that as Mr. Martin getting his jollies off by writing about rape.

Hardly. Arya, Catelyn, Daenerys, and Melisandre are all very strong women characters. Now, is misogyny present within the story?Certainly.

As a piece of fiction, it is a vision of the author's own creation. Why does it matter if it is part of the fantasy genre? It is modeled upon our own world (specifically Medieval times), which is destructive. It doesn't comment, it lets you draw your own conclusions.

Who is calling it a comedy? Yes, it is a story worth telling. It gives a variety of views on the story. Some reprehensible, some honorable, some inspiring etc...(although each pov is hardly so one-dimensional) If you have a problem with including the reprehensible, then you also have a problem with honesty.

My urge to laugh is great, I won't, but I will say that you have a very narrow view on the series.
Also, I won't ask you to provide evidence for your claims (comedic sexual abuse of a minor etc...), but if you discussed this somewhere else in this forum I assume you already provided your examples. Could you point me to that thread?

Yeah, apparently JBI read a different book than everyone else.

I see Martin's work as being extremely feminist in many ways. The point of most of his female characters is to show how they struggle in a misogynist world, which restricts their gender roles. The main female characters: Sansa, Arya, Daenerys, Brienne, Cersei attempt to find their places, and live their lives the way they want, and find some bit of power to wield in a male-dominated world.

Basically my reading is the complete opposite of JBI's and I find his reading extremely superficial.

[MarkBastable]

The point of most of his female characters is to show how they struggle in a misogynist world, which restricts their gender roles.


There's a wider point to be made here. If you're going to write an anti-racist book, you're probably going to have to put some pretty convincing racism in there. If you want to write a feminist book, the chances are you'll have to scatter some strongly misogynist stuff around the place. If your fiction argues against rape, that argument is likely to require the depiction of rape.

And that means that someone is going to accuse your book of racism, misogyny and glorifying rape.

Lolita attracts this kind of criticism all the time. But I don't think Nabokov should have written it differently in anticipation of that criticism.

[JBI]

The point of most of his female characters is to show how they struggle in a misogynist world, which restricts their gender roles.


There's a wider point to be made here. If you're going to write an anti-racist book, you're probably going to have to put some pretty convincing racism in there. If you want to write a feminist book, the chances are you'll have to scatter some strongly misogynist stuff around the place. If your fiction argues against rape, that argument is likely to require the depiction of rape.

And that means that someone is going to accuse your book of racism, misogyny and glorifying rape.

Lolita attracts this kind of criticism all the time. But I don't think Nabokov should have written it differently in anticipation of that criticism.

There is a difference. Martin himself has stated there is no morality in his text - no struggle of good and bad. Nabokov knows better than his readers that Humbert Humbert is a sick, demented rapist. Martin merely finds every possible opportunity to have some adolescent "prostitute" brutally deflowered in unflattering language.

Now, toward the female characters - perhaps that is right, but it is detail one must keep in mind. For instance, in the first novel, the character Arya, when punished, is beaten between the legs (something which has no real purpose in the narrative), or Catelyn Tulley, her mother, essentially makes her debut in the text as a vessel for her husbands semen (hardly a flattering scene) or just any other number of non-plot related sexual acts inflicted on minors to give a "flavor" to the story.

Simply put, the text is not realism, it is fantasy. Why would somebody construct a world more misogynist than the history it was based on? From my reading of the Middle Ages, women as a whole were far better treated than those in this book. Even my reading of antiquity seems to suggest a better treatment. In truth, the book seems to go out of its way to objectify, rape, and murder women.

Now, the appeal toward a theme of feminism is hard to justify, as this is fantasy; it is not commenting on our world, or using the world as a vehicle for a political agenda. IT is telling a story, glorying heroes (who also happen to be rapists) and giving a vivid description of what in film would be illegal. If one is going to make a claim against this, on moral grounds, I dare them to dig through the text and provide some sort of justification - somewhere where Martin apprehends such behavior, or makes any effort to reprehend his world, and the people who are within it.

Simply put, he invented a world where he can act out a rape fantasy, I don't wish to suggest those who post here are enthralled by such a base narrative, however, one must question what the aesthetic appeal of such a world is - it is a rape fantasy, simply put; a form of kiddie-porn.

[MarkBastable]

however, one must question what the aesthetic appeal of such a world is - it is a rape fantasy, simply put; a form of kiddie-porn.


That's your take on it. Other people have another take on it. Me, I have no take on that specific book, because I haven't read it.

But I agree that there's a difference to be noted. That's why I said I was addressing a wider point, and why I quoted DrkShadow's observation about feminist characters in a misogynist world. I was interested in the necessity for both to be addressed in a text that was trying to make a point about either - and I was saying that there will always be readers who mistake the intention and the context.

And that, I think, remains true in general whether you're right or DrkShadow's right about this specific work.

Still, I should have made it plainer that I wasn't intending to support DrkShadow's view against yours. Or vice versa, actually. I was going off at a general tangent. As I say, I haven't anything to go on concerning this book - but I will say that your view of it sounds much like my view of Pulp Fiction, and when I expressed that, I got much the same reaction as you're getting now.

[_Shannon_]

Oh my word...can't y'all duke it out via private message or a new thread?? This argument about the merits of a fantasy book is so wildly divergent from the OP.

[OrphanPip]

I think it's pretty on topic given it's the book mentioned in the first post.

Anyway, I don't think Song of Ice and Fire is Martin's best work, and I admit to some problems with the Daenerys seduction scene in particular. Realism isn't what Martin is trying to achieve with his world, he's attempting to create a dark, cynical, and morally ambiguous fantasy. Especially, in the later novels of the series which include more clearly fantastical elements. I don't think Martin is trying to create porn with his novels, but he approaches it sometimes, maybe unintentionally, by so consistently trying to push the immorality of his world down your throat.

[_Shannon_]

Well then by all means, continue....

It's not like the OP asked a follow up question in post #33 which has been completely ignored amidst the war over the exegesis of a novel offered as a mere example....

[Leland Gaunt]

What that he has more interest in sci-fi, fantasy, and horror than literary classics? I don't really see a problem, and it is certainly nothing to be ashamed about. By all means, read what interests you most. Though Shannon is right about balancing, and trying new things. I personally cycle reading material between "light" and "heavy". It sounds as if you already read both classics and things like George RR Martin,so you seem to be branching out and expanding your tastes already.
Sorry Shannon, I just need a few parting comments with JBI.

there is no morality in his text - no struggle of good and bad.
That's because he doesn't paint his world black and white. There are no "good guys" or "bad guys", and Mr. Martin is not trying to sell you his own morals.

her mother, essentially makes her debut in the text as a vessel for her husbands semen (hardly a flattering scene) or just any other number of non-plot related sexual acts inflicted on minors to give a "flavor" to the story.
Hmmmmm, I lent the book out to a friend, but my best guess is that you are either referring to how they came to be married or when they have sex. In both I really fail to see your point, one was political. You know for the family's benefit as opposed to the individual's. The other you are exaggerating to an unfortunate degree.

Simply put, the text is not realism, it is fantasy. Why would somebody construct a world more misogynist than the history it was based on? From my reading of the Middle Ages, women as a whole were far better treated than those in this book. Even my reading of antiquity seems to suggest a better treatment.
That's a funny term realism, I'd say no such thing exists. Any work of fictional literature will be influenced by the authors perception of the world and what is real. Sorry, but rape existed, misogyny existed, sociopaths existed, and the degree of instability and turmoil present in the series allows for these things. I'm not saying that those in Medieval times were naturally more prone to rape, but they certainly weren't less likely.

IT is telling a story, glorying heroes (who also happen to be rapists) and giving a vivid description of what in film would be illegal.
There are NO heroes, and even the characters that are more easily labeled as such (Jon, Eddard, and so on), are NOT rapists.You've never seen rape depicted in a film?

somewhere where Martin apprehends such behavior, or makes any effort to reprehend his world, and the people who are within it.
Martin is not a character in the book, but some of the characters in the book certainly do.

Simply put, he invented a world where he can act out a rape fantasy
Okay bucko, do tell which of the rapists is Martin. They seem to have a tendency to die within the book, so this leads me to believe that George is also suicidal; and jeezum crow, Melisandre certainly has strong religous convictions so he must also be a hardline, Muslim extremist. Crikey, Jon has trouble fitting in perhaps Mr. Martin must feel isolated from his peers. The king does drink an awful lot, maybe George is an alcoholic. Holy cow, Littlefinger is a conniving bastard, George must have a hankering for power not given to him by his birth. I wonder when we will see him on the ballots? All in all, Mr. Martin certainly seems to be a very complex individual.
I
see Martin's work as being extremely feminist in many ways. The point of most of his female characters is to show how they struggle in a misogynist world, which restricts their gender roles. The main female characters: Sansa, Arya, Daenerys, Brienne, Cersei attempt to find their places, and live their lives the way they want, and find some bit of power to wield in a male-dominated world.

Basically my reading is the complete opposite of JBI's and I find his reading extremely superficial.
That is an interesting thought, I will have to reread with this in mind. Thanks, man! Agreed.


Finally, I think Shannon is right JBI, please PM me or point me to a different thread where we can continue. If you wish.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Oh my word...can't y'all duke it out via private message or a new thread?? This argument about the merits of a fantasy book is so wildly divergent from the OP.


Well then by all means, continue....

It's not like the OP asked a follow up question in post #33 which has been completely ignored amidst the war over the exegesis of a novel offered as a mere example....

No offence like, but why don't you answer the OP then instead of attacking the other posters? I just think that would be more productive.

For my money the original poster has been given plenty of good advice and I'm sure that he wouldn't mind the natural flow of conversation as it stands.

[Mr.lucifer]

Yes please continue this debate through PM if you must. No more disucssing ASOFAI, It was just one example I used.

[kelby_lake]

Go with your tastes, unless you're hoping to be a literature student- even then, you should retain your own opinions as well as studying objectively.

[Drkshadow03]

What that he has more interest in sci-fi, fantasy, and horror than literary classics? I don't really see a problem, and it is certainly nothing to be ashamed about. By all means, read what interests you most. Though Shannon is right about balancing, and trying new things. I personally cycle reading material between "light" and "heavy". It sounds as if you already read both classics and things like George RR Martin,so you seem to be branching out and expanding your tastes already.
Sorry Shannon, I just need a few parting comments with JBI.

That's because he doesn't paint his world black and white. There are no "good guys" or "bad guys", and Mr. Martin is not trying to sell you his own morals.

Hmmmmm, I lent the book out to a friend, but my best guess is that you are either referring to how they came to be married or when they have sex. In both I really fail to see your point, one was political. You know for the family's benefit as opposed to the individual's. The other you are exaggerating to an unfortunate degree.

That's a funny term realism, I'd say no such thing exists. Any work of fictional literature will be influenced by the authors perception of the world and what is real. Sorry, but rape existed, misogyny existed, sociopaths existed, and the degree of instability and turmoil present in the series allows for these things. I'm not saying that those in Medieval times were naturally more prone to rape, but they certainly weren't less likely.

There are NO heroes, and even the characters that are more easily labeled as such (Jon, Eddard, and so on), are NOT rapists.You've never seen rape depicted in a film?

Martin is not a character in the book, but some of the characters in the book certainly do.

Okay bucko, do tell which of the rapists is Martin. They seem to have a tendency to die within the book, so this leads me to believe that George is also suicidal; and jeezum crow, Melisandre certainly has strong religous convictions so he must also be a hardline, Muslim extremist. Crikey, Jon has trouble fitting in perhaps Mr. Martin must feel isolated from his peers. The king does drink an awful lot, maybe George is an alcoholic. Holy cow, Littlefinger is a conniving bastard, George must have a hankering for power not given to him by his birth. I wonder when we will see him on the ballots? All in all, Mr. Martin certainly seems to be a very complex individual.
I
That is an interesting thought, I will have to reread with this in mind. Thanks, man! Agreed.


Finally, I think Shannon is right JBI, please PM me or point me to a different thread where we can continue. If you wish.

You made a lot of the same points I was going to make. His Arya example was downright whacky. I'm pretty sure the scene he's referring to is when the water dancer is training her to fight and whacks her legs to go back into the correct fighting stance. There is nothing remotely sexual at all about that. Unless he was thinking of a different scene.

When Martin writes "morally ambiguous" characters people seem to miss the point of what that actually means. That doesn't mean characters never do anything immoral and his books celebrate immoral behavior. It just means that there are no perfect heroes or even completely evil villains. The aesthetic goal of the work is to rethink the fantasy genre with its roots in Tolkien and Christianity (Chosen Hero who sacrifices himself to save the world from the Great Evil). When a character bashes the head of children we react the same to that character as if he were a real person who did so in any other novel. So Martin is in fact relying on our own moral sensibilities from the real world to characterize his characters a certain way.

I've never met anyone who enjoyed Martin's work because of the sex scenes. If anything I've met a lot of readers who enjoy Martin's work, despite the sometimes graphic sex scenes.

Getting back to the OP, this is why you need to be careful about relying too heavily on others opinions. Some critics simply don't GET a work because they haven't thought about it enough or they have superficial readings of it.

[BasDirks]

I don't trust myself to tell whether something is well written. I lead that up to critics,scholars,and people with experienced tastes. Even if I enjoy something,if the type of people I mentioned say its mediocre, I will regard it as mediocre. Even if I didn't enjoy a classic, I will regard it as supremely written regardless and that I was to inexperienced to get because it was too difficult for me.

It's a good attitude not to dismiss anything you can't yet enjoy. Some things take time to "be ready for". This phenomenon might sound stupid to one until it is experienced. On the other hand, if you enjoy something you should cherish it. It might be a passion that will later grow into (or merge with) more mature tastes, though it doesn't have to in order to be "valid".

For me, exploring "inaccessible" works tend to expand my horizon.

[_Shannon_]

What if I was impressed by a genre canon novel over a overall literary classic novel? I have to admit in being interested in genre canon books like sci-fi,horror ,and fantasy classics as well as overall classics.

My personal approach is to alternate. I feel like that helps me to be a well rounded reader. It also helps me not to burn out reading, and makes me able to read some bigger, longer, more labor intensive literary fiction.

I agree not to rely too heavily on critics. I just read a book hailed by all of the critics (well hailed after the hype-machine took over. The original reviews were not so good)--and I swear it was just so awful!

(And Neely, I did answer...back in post 42)

[mal4mac]

I agree not to rely too heavily on critics. I just read a book hailed by all of the critics (well hailed after the hype-machine took over. The original reviews were not so good)--and I swear it was just so awful!

Which book was that? I don't trust modern newspaper critics writing about modern novels. But I've found *serious* critics writing about classic novels to be much safer. They point to writers like Tolstoy, Dickens, Austen, Twain, Hardy... writers who have never let me down.

[JBI]

Which book was that? I don't trust modern newspaper critics writing about modern novels. But I've found *serious* critics writing about classic novels to be much safer. They point to writers like Tolstoy, Dickens, Austen, Twain, Hardy... writers who have never let me down.

Much safer in what sense? Older critics writing about classics aren't reviewing, they are reading. Reviewers have a rather mediocre place in the scheme of critical writing.

Truth be told, there is a politics in place too; no critic, for instance, would criticize something that would hurt the revenue of the publication; they don't run an ad for Dan Brown and a review bashing him in the same paper.

For older critics dealing with classics; they aren't reviewing, the books are already "classics" - what they are doing is what they should be doing; giving a reading. Some are better at that than others, but the value game is never the point.

All those paper reviewers are essentially worthless; they take the movie business, where one can give a rating out of 5, and try to apply that to books; it is detrimental, especially when most barely read the books they are reviewing.

[Mr.lucifer]

Much safer in what sense? Older critics writing about classics aren't reviewing, they are reading. Reviewers have a rather mediocre place in the scheme of critical writing.

Truth be told, there is a politics in place too; no critic, for instance, would criticize something that would hurt the revenue of the publication; they don't run an ad for Dan Brown and a review bashing him in the same paper.

For older critics dealing with classics; they aren't reviewing, the books are already "classics" - what they are doing is what they should be doing; giving a reading. Some are better at that than others, but the value game is never the point.

All those paper reviewers are essentially worthless; they take the movie business, where one can give a rating out of 5, and try to apply that to books; it is detrimental, especially when most barely read the books they are reviewing.
Where can I go to get a recommendation fo modern novels? I'm interested in modern novels as well as classics. I don't see compare modern novels to classic novels.

[ThousandthIsle]

Reviewers have a rather mediocre place in the scheme of critical writing.... All those paper reviewers are essentially worthless; they take the movie business, where one can give a rating out of 5, and try to apply that to books; it is detrimental, especially when most barely read the books they are reviewing.

Agreed. I wonder what credentials are generally required for book reviewers in newspapers/magazines--a self-proclaimed "interest in reading"? A 4-year degree, where a lit class or two was a graduation requirement? I have a hard time imagining that many of these people have any sort of substantial background in literature, and while it may seem "elitist" to expect that of a reviewer (who is reviewing for the general public, who presumably have little background knowlege in lit either and are only looking for "a good book" to read)--it's ludicrous to imagine what sort of "grades" might be doled out to great writers and not-so-great writers alike.

I think the public in general doesn't differentiate between critics and reviewers. In the film industry especially, there seems to be a huge resistance/negative attitude toward "critics"--which is understandable, when the people (incorrectly) perceived as "critics" are the ones who "grade" based almost strictly off their personal opinions, without having any significant knowledge of "film" as a foundation.

Critics, like Roger Ebert, Peter Cowie, or François Truffaut, can offer insight and education in their reviews; while ultimately you still may reject their opinion of the film itself, at least you can still walk away having learned something, or considered something new. They too write to offer a "reading," rather than write to justify a "grade" that was given.

I feel like these critics also write with the awareness that a person's viewing of a film can be fluid over time, just like the reading of the same book can change throughout a person's lifetime. Newspaper reviews, on the other hand, often give you the feeling that their rating is "the bottom line."

[Aragorn Elessar]

I don't listen to anything critics say myself. And just because you consider yourself "young and inexperienced" you should not distrust your own opinions! Everyone has his/her own opinion, and others should respect that in most instances. (I say "in most instances" simply because in some issues, people's opinions should not be respected and are not reasonable, thought-out opinions, and those can be argued against easily...but this is more the case in politics and philosophy than the simple joy of literature.)

[Drkshadow03]

Agreed. I wonder what credentials are generally required for book reviewers in newspapers/magazines--a self-proclaimed "interest in reading"? A 4-year degree, where a lit class or two was a graduation requirement? I have a hard time imagining that many of these people have any sort of substantial background in literature, and while it may seem "elitist" to expect that of a reviewer (who is reviewing for the general public, who presumably have little background knowlege in lit either and are only looking for "a good book" to read)--it's ludicrous to imagine what sort of "grades" might be doled out to great writers and not-so-great writers alike.

If you look into the educational backgrounds of most reviewers 9 times out of 10, they will either be published writers in the area they're reviewing or academics (who couldn't land or didn't want a traditional job in academia), or sometimes people with educational backgrounds in another area of art (film for example) who then get moved to reviewing books or books to film, etc.

[MarkBastable]

....no critic, for instance, would criticize something that would hurt the revenue of the publication; they don't run an ad for Dan Brown and a review bashing him in the same paper.

They do in the UK.

I recently read the most coruscating review of the new Sex And the City movie, two pages after a full page ad for it.

Same with books.

Perhaps we're just less polite than Canadians.



All those paper reviewers are essentially worthless; ....most barely read the books they are reviewing.

I'd like to know what supporting evidence you have for this.

[Scheherazade]

I'd like to know what supporting evidence you have for this.I get the suspicion that JBI might be moonlighting as a reviewer himself... As he has read few of the books he harshly criticizes.

:p

[_Shannon_]

Where can I go to get a recommendation fo modern novels? I'm interested in modern novels as well as classics. I don't see compare modern novels to classic novels.

When you write "modern novels" do you mean contemporary, as in written in the past couple of years?? Or do you mean since WWII??

[JBI]

If you look into the educational backgrounds of most reviewers 9 times out of 10, they will either be published writers in the area they're reviewing or academics (who couldn't land or didn't want a traditional job in academia), or sometimes people with educational backgrounds in another area of art (film for example) who then get moved to reviewing books or books to film, etc.

Hmm, I don't know. For academic periodicals that seems the case, but for mass periodicals - it seems most have credentials like, "name's debut novel will be published by x in y."

For periodicals, usually the reviewing is different, in that it isn't focusing on valuing things "read worthy," but more like trying to question their significance - it's rare you see unprofessional attitudes in calling something mediocre writing unless the text is trying to debase someone who has misrepresented or written fallacious criticism/history.


I get the suspicion that JBI might be moonlighting as a reviewer himself... As he has read few of the books he harshly criticizes.

:p

A lot comes from testimony with publishers working to gain recognition of lesser known works; the result was, for things that were not meant to be best-sellers, the reviewers found it easier to just criticize, despite admitting off the record that they had not read the text. IT was a problem when small presses and small academics were trying to bring exposure to Canadian literature, finding that the economics of publication was too much to overcome, and that reviewers were unanimously criticizing books because of their place of origin.


There was a specific periodical about a year ago in the Globe and Mail with a writer from Cormorant Books dictating such, detailing how difficult it was to get Earth and High Heaven any exposure on reprinting, despite it being a best-selling novel at its original release.

Professor Linda Hutcheon also ran a lecture series last year called something like "review: use and abuse" though as of now, I do not believe a followup written publication has been printed.

[Mr.lucifer]

When you write "modern novels" do you mean contemporary, as in written in the past couple of years?? Or do you mean since WWII??

Contemporary.

[_Shannon_]

Contemporary.

You could investigate the Discover New Writers selection at B&N http://www.barnesandnoble.com/awards/home.asp?PID=21573&cds2Pid=21583&linkid=1132592

Or you could look at award winners over the past few years--Pulitzer Prizes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulitzer_Prize_for_Fiction and National Book Awards http://www.nationalbook.org/nba2007.html

Hope that gives you a place to start :)

[Mr.lucifer]

Thank you, I do not think contemporary writers can match up to classics writers but I think that the good ones should be appreciated for who they are too.

[mal4mac]

What that he has more interest in sci-fi, fantasy, and horror than literary classics? I don't really see a problem, and it is certainly nothing to be ashamed about.

If I was less of a stoic I would be ashamed about the amount of sci-fi, fantasy, and horror I read in my yoof. Should you read what interests you most if your taste is corrupt? Or should you read better literature even if you don't much fancy it? Candy floss or wholemeal bread?

One needs to relax, and concentration is difficult when the blood sugar is low, so I agree that cycling between "light" and "heavy" is a good thing. But some great literature is light (Dickens, Stevenson, Austen, Wells...). Why not read that instead of dime store Sci Fi? If you become steeped in the classics you may find much of the Sci Fi that interested you in your yoof becomes unreadable, as I can avouch from a recent encounter with an Arthur C. Clarke "classic". After re-reading a few chapters of "City and the Stars" I did get close to feeling ashamed about my misspent yoof!


Where can I go to get a recommendation fo modern novels? I'm interested in modern novels as well as classics. I don't see compare modern novels to classic novels.

The average newspaper reviewer wouldn't dare compare any modern novel to a classic, the howls of derision from other reviewers would destroy his or her tiny career. I might chance a modern novel if most of the critics give it an A+. But I'm usually disappointed. So I usually stick to classics. There are enough classics to fill several lifetimes of reading. So why bother with modern novels?

[MarkBastable]

Thank you, I do not think contemporary writers can match up to classics writers but I think that the good ones should be appreciated for who they are too.

That's big of you. I'm sure the writers of contemporary fiction are even now twittering the hell out of each other spreading the welcome news.

[_Shannon_]

Thank you, I do not think contemporary writers can match up to classics writers but I think that the good ones should be appreciated for who they are too.

I dunno--I have read some truly, truly amazing contemporary fiction and literary non-fiction (Mr. Ives' Christmas and Home Town come flying to mind) I have also read some truly awful "classics" --books which I have hated with every fiber of my being.

At one point our "classic" writers were contemporary writers, too....

Again I think this is all about exposure, and just reading and reading and reading. If you pick lots of different things to read, you can develop truly informed tastes...tastes which will still be uniquely your own, but in which you can have confidence.

[Drkshadow03]

If I was less of a stoic I would be ashamed about the amount of sci-fi, fantasy, and horror I read in my yoof. Should you read what interests you most if your taste is corrupt? Or should you read better literature even if you don't much fancy it? Candy floss or wholemeal bread?

One needs to relax, and concentration is difficult when the blood sugar is low, so I agree that cycling between "light" and "heavy" is a good thing. But some great literature is light (Dickens, Stevenson, Austen, Wells...). Why not read that instead of dime store Sci Fi? If you become steeped in the classics you may find much of the Sci Fi that interested you in your yoof becomes unreadable, as I can avouch from a recent encounter with an Arthur C. Clarke "classic". After re-reading a few chapters of "City and the Stars" I did get close to feeling ashamed about my misspent yoof!



What is all this "You" 2nd person stuff?

Most of the avid Sci-fi/genre readers I know are extremely well-read in the classics. And they're still reading Sci-fi with great interest.

[Mr.lucifer]

I would actually like to make a fantasy story someday and hope to keep interest in fantasical fiction. I would like to have classics as an influence on characterization and storytelling. Who knows, there may be classics that don't click with me. I read brave new world, I thought brave new world was good but I didn't love it like I did 1984(i know 1984 is a classic, I ****ing loved it and animal farm). Poe didn't make as big as an impression as lovecraft did on me.

Then again, everything is overrated, including life itself.

[_Shannon_]

Then again, everything is overrated, including life itself.


:( (((hug))) Took me three decades to learn to love my life.

[Mr.lucifer]

I actually hoped to have open tastes. I apply sturgeon's law to a lot of things.

[David Lurie]

There are enough classics to fill several lifetimes of reading. So why bother with modern novels?

I know this song, I used to sing it myself in my teens, then as an adult I have changed my mind, this is the time I'm living in, so why ignore what's goin' on in it? I have read tons of classics but my life as a reader would have been much poorer without McCarthy, Marquez, Coetzee, Rushdie, Kristof, Rufin, Le Clezio, Ford, Updike, Helprin, Robinson, Ballard, Littell, Morrison, Jones, Carey, Ishiguro, Müller, Mo Yan, Yehoshua and many others.

[_Shannon_]

I actually hoped to have open tastes. I apply sturgeon's law to a lot of things.
Meh---there's a lot of writing which is, indeed, crud. But not if you pick good books to begin with. There are good books in all genres...and more importantly is the fact that there are books which are good to you in all genres. One can recognise the technical proficiency of a book or an author and still not enjoy the book....for me this is how I feel about Jane Austen. One can also really enjoy the story/characters/sound of a book, while also recognizing that technically it's somewhat lacking...for me this is how I feel about Charlotte Bronte.

One can also apply different sorts of criteria to different sorts of books. I certainly don't read Hammett with the same expectations as I do when I read Dickens--and yet I love them both!


I know this song, I used to sing it myself in my teens, then as an adult I have changed my mind, this is the time I'm living in, so why ignore what's goin' on in it? I have read tons of classics but my life as a reader would have been much poorer without McCarthy, Marquez, Coetzee, Rushdie, Kristof, Rufin, Le Clezio, Ford, Updike, Helprin, Robinson, Ballard, Littell, Morrison, Jones, Carey, Ishiguro, Müller, Mo Yan, Yehoshua and many others.

I agree! I think you miss so much if you are too dogmatic. Yes, it's "safe", and while understand the appeal of that, I'd much rather live taking risks. There is good and bad and mediocre both in the present and in the past. Our own life experience and reading experience is much fuller when we don't dismiss things outright.

[Mr.lucifer]

.I just bought a bunch of classics for 20 bucks. one of the best deals of my life.

[Drkshadow03]

I would actually like to make a fantasy story someday and hope to keep interest in fantasical fiction. I would like to have classics as an influence on characterization and storytelling. Who knows, there may be classics that don't click with me. I read brave new world, I thought brave new world was good but I didn't love it like I did 1984(i know 1984 is a classic, I ****ing loved it and animal farm). Poe didn't make as big as an impression as lovecraft did on me.

Then again, everything is overrated, including life itself.

Reading is important if you want to learn to write, but so is writing. Like I said in response to Mal4Mac's comments, most of the Speculative Fiction writers and editors I know are extremely well-read not only in genre works, but also the Classics.

[DonovanTalbot]

I think it is important to read the classics because there is a great deal more depth and meaning and relevence attached to them generally.

But I don't think escapist fiction is a utter complete tripe or garbage either but then again plenty of it on the local bookstore shelves qualifies. What they call the literary "ghetto". Escapism literature is what began my love of reading in the first place anyways.

You love horror and fantastical fiction, have you read any of these classics:

Dracula by Bram Stoker
The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde
Turn of the Screw by Henry James
The Island of Dr Moreau by H.G. Wells
The Invisible Man by H.G. Wells
Conjure Wife by Fritz Leiber
Invasion of the Body Snatchers by Jack Finney
Donovan's Brain by Curt Siodmak
Day of the Triffids by John Wyndham
I Am Legend by Richard Matheson
The Haunting of Hill House by Shirley Jackson
Harvest Home by Thomas Tryon
The Other by Thomas Tryon
Hell House by Richard Matheson
The House Next Door by Anne Rivers Siddons

or speaking of a more modern classic... American Psycho by Brett Easton Ellis.

These all qualify as classics and have genuine literary merit. The differences in literary tastes comparitively speaking can be unfair, it's like comparing a filet mignon with a Mickey Ds Big Mac.

[Mr.lucifer]

I think if escaptist fiction is complete tripe its not worth reading. If I'm going to escape into something, it has to be something worth escaping into. I really didn't say sci-fi,fantasy, and horror were my prefences, I'm just interested in thier canons as well as the classic canon.

[JBI]

I think if escaptist fiction is complete tripe its not worth reading. If I'm going to escape into something, it has to be something worth escaping into. I really didn't say sci-fi,fantasy, and horror were my prefences, I'm just interested in thier canons as well as the classic canon.

The whole notion of "escapist fiction" is problematic. To me, it just reads like, "mediocre fiction" with an attempted justification of mediocrity as having an "Escapist" quality. In all honesty, a great bulk of "Classic" or "literary" fiction is escapist in nature. Fiction in general is an escapist genre - it is a lie, therefore, it is an escape from reality.

To say that there isn't an escape value in Dickens, or even Joyce, compared to Harlequin Romance is to try and redefine escape. Truth be told, they both are very elaborate "escapes" Joyce being a lifelong escape.

What the term escapist means is simply "it is bad, but we love it, and it sells." Personally, I think that has nothing to do with "Escapism" but more to do with exposure. I guarantee you someone who closely reads fantasy, for instance, would have a hard time picking up a later volume of Piers Anthony's Xanth series (I believe they have 36 or something of them now). Does that mean it is because of escapism, or because people merely get bored as more interesting stuff becomes available.

The line between good and bad is not so clear cut as "popular vs. literary." Generally authors have certain strengths, even if they are as a whole mediocre authors. Through exposure, people eventually build an understanding of what is good in books, and what was once "great writing" slowly drifts to become boring prose, lacking engagement. As such, I have heard genre fans say things like, "Don't read so and so first, otherwise all these other authors will forever be boring to you."


I don't see the "escapist" quality as the problem; Gaskell, Austen, and a number of other great authors were "Escapist" writers. The novel itself is an "escapist genre" and was viewed as such until modernism determined it the major, serious literary form.

[Mr.lucifer]

Good, I'm all for pure entertainment and alll, but only as long as its actually good and not tripe. I do like pure entertainment. I'm even interested in checking out the warhammer40k novels.

[DonovanTalbot]

The whole notion of "escapist fiction" is problematic. To me, it just reads like, "mediocre fiction" with an attempted justification of mediocrity as having an "Escapist" quality. In all honesty, a great bulk of "Classic" or "literary" fiction is escapist in nature. Fiction in general is an escapist genre - it is a lie, therefore, it is an escape from reality.

To say that there isn't an escape value in Dickens, or even Joyce, compared to Harlequin Romance is to try and redefine escape. Truth be told, they both are very elaborate "escapes" Joyce being a lifelong escape.

What the term escapist means is simply "it is bad, but we love it, and it sells." Personally, I think that has nothing to do with "Escapism" but more to do with exposure. I guarantee you someone who closely reads fantasy, for instance, would have a hard time picking up a later volume of Piers Anthony's Xanth series (I believe they have 36 or something of them now). Does that mean it is because of escapism, or because people merely get bored as more interesting stuff becomes available.

The line between good and bad is not so clear cut as "popular vs. literary." Generally authors have certain strengths, even if they are as a whole mediocre authors. Through exposure, people eventually build an understanding of what is good in books, and what was once "great writing" slowly drifts to become boring prose, lacking engagement. As such, I have heard genre fans say things like, "Don't read so and so first, otherwise all these other authors will forever be boring to you."


I don't see the "escapist" quality as the problem; Gaskell, Austen, and a number of other great authors were "Escapist" writers. The novel itself is an "escapist genre" and was viewed as such until modernism determined it the major, serious literary form.

What I meant when I dubbed certain fiction as escapism is intrinsic, that it is pure escapism in all it's unadulterated meaning, the differences that divide Dostoevsky's Crime And Punishment or Tolstoy War And Peace to that of Dan Brown's The Davinci Code. The differences being night and day.

Literature with some value or merit, that contains valuable depth, insight, or relevence to be gained and embraced by it's readers.

[JBI]

What I meant when I dubbed certain fiction as escapism is intrinsic, that it is pure escapism in all it's unadulterated meaning, the differences that divide Dostoevsky's Crime And Punishment or Tolstoy War And Peace to that of Dan Brown's The Davinci Code. The differences being night and day.

Literature with some value or merit, that contains valuable depth, insight, or relevence to be gained and embraced by it's readers.

Prove it; that is an illogical assumption. To say that all good literature has "merit" and all bad literature is "like night" is missing to notice the subjectivity of such value calls. To someone who cannot pick up Dostoevsky, as you are just about to according to your post on the Pillars of the Earth Thread, Dan Brown is perhaps showing greater "depth, insight, or relevence [sic]". What you have done is made a claim to superiority of a thing, not justified it in being superiority. Simply put, I have a poem by Li Bai on my desk in Chinese; most people cannot read it, therefore to them Dan Brown has more value. If you are going to criticize the book, at least do so from an analytical perspective, rather than an outright declarative one. To say it has nothing in it ignores the fact that millions of people disagree, as he sells well; if you can comment on how he sells well, and see the appeal he has, then maybe you can have a fuller understanding of the scope of his value to his audience.


Don't get me wrong, I think Brown is a crap author, but to suggest there is something objectively better about another text is to try and make a false assertion. You cannot prove that Dan Brown speaks less than Tolstoy, who, though interesting, has not been without his detractors, not to mention his own "moral objections" to the writings of William Shakespeare.


People aught to just trust their tastes, and challenge them with reading things that don't conform to their tastes. To try and objectively reason how to read "the best possible" off a list is just silly.

[Mr.lucifer]

So in theory, if I liked dan brown(I haven't read his stuff btw), I shall still trust my tastes for him even though he is regarded as being very mediocre on this forum?

[_Shannon_]

So in theory, if I liked dan brown(I haven't read his stuff btw), I shall still trust my tastes for him even though he is regarded as being very mediocre on this forum?

I would say that you should hold off having any sort of attachment to your opinion until you've read a lot more. Sure--if you feel as though there is value in Dan Brown for you--that's great. I still assert , though, that the way you really form your tastes, etc. is by reading and reading and reading. Read lots of books of all different styles and genres. Form opinions, but be open to being wrong.

[JBI]

I would say that you should hold off having any sort of attachment to your opinion until you've read a lot more. Sure--if you feel as though there is value in Dan Brown for you--that's great. I still assert , though, that the way you really form your tastes, etc. is by reading and reading and reading. Read lots of books of all different styles and genres. Form opinions, but be open to being wrong.

You assume people who read Dan Brown are uneducated; I think they just can't see the merit in good books, which means, from their perspective, Dan Brown is a good book. If they get enjoyment out of that, I wish them the best.

To study though, I have a problem, but most people don't study literature. It is good that people expand, but to not trust one's own tastes is dangerous. One needs to have confidence at least in their own intelligence. If one cannot trust themselves, how can they trust their own readings of these "good books" anyway?

[mal4mac]

I know this song, I used to sing it myself in my teens, then as an adult I have changed my mind, this is the time I'm living in, so why ignore what's goin' on in it? I have read tons of classics but my life as a reader would have been much poorer without McCarthy, Marquez, Coetzee, Rushdie, Kristof, Rufin, Le Clezio, Ford, Updike, Helprin, Robinson, Ballard, Littell, Morrison, Jones, Carey, Ishiguro, Müller, Mo Yan, Yehoshua and many others.

How can you know if your life would have been poorer if you had read none of these authors and more classics? You say you read lots of classics, so how do these authors compare to classics? Are you saying that people's 'lives as readers' was poorer in 1950 than now, simply because a handful of writers (with dubious reputations) had not been published?

I do read modern authors, two of my recent favourites are McCarthy and Coetzee. But they don't compare with Tolstoy or Hardy. My life was poorer when I was reading McCarthy and Coetzee (Still good! But poorer...), compared to my experience of reading Tolstoy and Hardy. So why should I read more by these authors, if I haven't read all Tolstoy and Hardy and other highly rated classics?

Your "this is the time I'm living in" argument has some force, which is why I bother to read some modern works. It's also useful to read second rate work, it makes first rate work look even better. But my ratio must, now, be ten classics to one modern, and usually holding my nose when reading the modern...

Coetzee's "Youth" had an impact on me, because the account of his youth was so close to mine, and Tolstoy didn't write about the computing industry. So maybe looking for "modern themes" and "closeness to one's own life" would have some mileage in choosing modern books. (But who knows if even Coetzee will be read a hundred years from now?)

[mal4mac]

I agree! I think you miss so much if you are too dogmatic. Yes, it's "safe", and while understand the appeal of that, I'd much rather live taking risks. There is good and bad and mediocre both in the present and in the past. Our own life experience and reading experience is much fuller when we don't dismiss things outright.

David:"Let's go to Rome on holiday."

Mary: "Pah! That's too safe & obvious. Let's just open the atlas at random and go wherever... There we are! Slough! Let's go to Slough...".

I agree on taking some risk, but I think you need to get the ratio right! Maybe five planned destination choices to one throw of the dice? Five European capitals to one randomly chosen hole in the ground?

I'm actually chancing another DeLillo (library new shelf!) at the moment, so that proves I take quite big risks :)

[JBI]

How can you know if your life would have been poorer if you had read none of these authors and more classics? You say you read lots of classics, so how do these authors compare to classics? Are you saying that people's 'lives as readers' was poorer in 1950 than now, simply because a handful of writers (with dubious reputations) had not been published?

I do read modern authors, two of my recent favourites are McCarthy and Coetzee. But they don't compare with Tolstoy or Hardy. My life was poorer when I was reading McCarthy and Coetzee (Still good! But poorer...), compared to my experience of reading Tolstoy and Hardy. So why should I read more by these authors, if I haven't read all Tolstoy and Hardy and other highly rated classics?

Your "this is the time I'm living in" argument has some force, which is why I bother to read some modern works. It's also useful to read second rate work, it makes first rate work look even better. But my ratio must, now, be ten classics to one modern, and usually holding my nose when reading the modern...

Coetzee's "Youth" had an impact on me, because the account of his youth was so close to mine, and Tolstoy didn't write about the computing industry. So maybe looking for "modern themes" and "closeness to one's own life" would have some mileage in choosing modern books. (But who knows if even Coetzee will be read a hundred years from now?)

In contrast, why would I read Tom Jones when I could read 100 Years of Solitude?

The real problem is the shift away from experimental aesthetic fiction (that is, experimenting with aesthetics) toward rather mundane prose, experimenting with nonsense - all of which taking the place of other genres in the public eye. Does that mean good writers who have a feel for interesting things aren't writing?No.

There was just as much praised garbage in the 19th century as there is today; the problem with reading contemporary works is sifting through them, not that they are inherently worse. I could name 5 writers living now to rival Tolstoy and Hardy.

[stlukesguild]

I could name 5 writers living now to rival Tolstoy and Hardy.

OK... I'll play along: name them writers! :D

[David Lurie]

How can you know if your life would have been poorer if you had read none of these authors and more classics? You say you read lots of classics, so how do these authors compare to classics?

I read classics even now, I am reading Hermann Broch's trilogy "Sleepwalkers" - very good novels, highly interesting for themes and style so I think they deserve their status and I am happy I have read them but I haven't found them so good to induce me to further exploration of Broch. Why should I compare Broch to contemporary writers? It seems more logical to me to compare him to German writers of his time, I'd say Canetti or Musil, otherwise it's like comparing trains to chocolate. A writer has something to tell in (about) his own time - this is where his value resides - when he manages to say something to posterity so becoming a classic then it's an added value.


Are you saying that people's 'lives as readers' was poorer in 1950 than now, simply because a handful of writers (with dubious reputations) had not been published?

Are you saying that people's 'lives as readers' was poorer in 1850 than now simply because your beloved Hardy and Tolstoy had not written a single line yet?



Your "this is the time I'm living in" argument has some force, which is why I bother to read some modern works.

Coetzee's "Youth" had an impact on me, because the account of his youth was so close to mine, and Tolstoy didn't write about the computing industry. So maybe looking for "modern themes" and "closeness to one's own life" would have some mileage in choosing modern books.

This is my point indeed.


(But who knows if even Coetzee will be read a hundred years from now?)

Who cares?

[The Comedian]

The real problem is the shift away from experimental aesthetic fiction (that is, experimenting with aesthetics) toward rather mundane prose, experimenting with nonsense - .

If you have the time, could you explain the difference between "experimenting with aesthetics" and "experimenting with nonsense"? I know that you think the first is good, while the other is not good. But, honestly, I'm not sure I know the difference.

[JBI]

I could name 5 writers living now to rival Tolstoy and Hardy.

OK... I'll play along: name them writers! :D

Gabriel Garcia Marquez - like him or hate him, he is a giant in his own right, and his ability to rival those authors I think is justified.

Derek Walcott - The West-Indian poet/playwright/scholar is a dominant force in poetry, recreating English to fit his aesthetic vision.

Anne Carson - say what you will, but I think her fiction and verse read better than either of the two, despite both being excellent (Well, Tolstoy is hit and miss quite often). The Canadian scholar-poet I think rivals them.

Alice Munro - I will leave her to your judgment; I put her this high, and think highly of her, as do most people - as a short story writer primarily, she is harder to compare, but I believe she has proven herself capable enough to rival even War and Peace, and is perhaps one of the strongest authors writing in the genre ever.

Umberto Eco - though his fiction cannot perhaps rival these authors alone, I think his opus as a whole can, and would stand by that.


Could name a few more later, feel free to nitpick; These are rivals, mind you, and I don't wish to go into a debate of "which book can rival War and Peace" - if we went back 20 years, I could probably name a lot more with greater ease, and there are a few I would consider putting on this list also, such as Roth, Yu Hua, Adunis, Morrison, Heaney, Hill, and a few others, to name just a selection from memory.

[Mr.lucifer]

Foucault's Pendulum sounds really interesting. It seems like something that would satisfy my tastes.

[JBI]

If you have the time, could you explain the difference between "experimenting with aesthetics" and "experimenting with nonsense"? I know that you think the first is good, while the other is not good. But, honestly, I'm not sure I know the difference.

If you look at post-war fiction in English for example, especially American prose, as British prose seems to stagger a bit, you get really two kinds of authors (from my perspective).

Those who treat experimentation as a gimmick - essentially post-modernism as a rather tedious game, which involves them writing works that are one part incomprehensible, one part boring, and making it in to rather mediocre anthologies, such as the Norton Post-Modern, which really is terrible to read at times. This extends to poetry, where there is quite a bit of what Coleridge would call "fancy" in that they try to extend verse to include rather mundane rants and rather unflattering, unoriginal passages of nonsense.

Then you get others who experiment with form for the sake of conveying things - so, for instance, Magical Realism evolves out of Post-Modernism. Also, Canadian ironic metafiction evolves out of this, (which has its share of crap, too, as do all movements) and gives a movement for writers like Atwood, Munro, Carson, and Sakamoto (who is essentially unknown outside of Canada, and gets small press time as she is still up and coming).

Someone like Hunter S. Thompson strikes me as pure tripe - but he gets enough press time. Similarly, Naipaul to me is a mediocre author, and Rushdie slowly has been heading in that direction, and there are about a dozen others in England such as Ian McEwan, Zadie Smith, Carol Ann Duffy, and many more, who really are more gimmick than anything else.

[_Shannon_]

You assume people who read Dan Brown are uneducated; I think they just can't see the merit in good books, which means, from their perspective, Dan Brown is a good book. If they get enjoyment out of that, I wish them the best.

To study though, I have a problem, but most people don't study literature. It is good that people expand, but to not trust one's own tastes is dangerous. One needs to have confidence at least in their own intelligence. If one cannot trust themselves, how can they trust their own readings of these "good books" anyway?

No--I was assuming that I was talking to the OP who has put forth that he hasn't read Dan Brown, nor has a ton of reading under his belt, and doesn't trust his tastes.

With all things--we might like something just fine, until we are exposed to something better---or we might decide that the "better" is not better for us. Both are fine.

I dunno--I was actually trying to help the OP out. I wasn't trying to assert my own tastes--rather facilitating the OP to, over time, develop his own. I think with all things it's a good thing to be open to developing and to changing one's opinion about something. I don't know who I'll be 10 years from now or what my life experience will be or what my reading experience will be--so I think it prudent to form an opinion, but to be open to that opinion not being the same and unchanging for my entire life.

[Drkshadow03]

I read classics even now, I am reading Hermann Broch's trilogy "Sleepwalkers" - very good novels, highly interesting for themes and style so I think they deserve their status and I am happy I have read them but I haven't found them so good to induce me to further exploration of Broch. Why should I compare Broch to contemporary writers? It seems more logical to me to compare him to German writers of his time, I'd say Canetti or Musil, otherwise it's like comparing trains to chocolate. A writer has something to tell in (about) his own time - this is where his value resides - when he manages to say something to posterity so becoming a classic then it's an added value.



Are you saying that people's 'lives as readers' was poorer in 1850 than now simply because your beloved Hardy and Tolstoy had not written a single line yet?



This is my point indeed.



Who cares?

The irony is I didn't see too many authors with dubious reputations on your list of modern writers. Many of those authors feature prominently on academic course syllabi across the country. In fact, I would almost suggest your list is conservative and safe in its own way.

I just find it funny that Mal4Mac is objecting to a list that is in fact full of relatively safe and conservative names that have pretty strong acceptance in the literary community rather than a list full of generally obscure and unknown writers.

[_Shannon_]

David:"Let's go to Rome on holiday."

Mary: "Pah! That's too safe & obvious. Let's just open the atlas at random and go wherever... There we are! Slough! Let's go to Slough...".

I agree on taking some risk, but I think you need to get the ratio right! Maybe five planned destination choices to one throw of the dice? Five European capitals to one randomly chosen hole in the ground?

I'm actually chancing another DeLillo (library new shelf!) at the moment, so that proves I take quite big risks :)

"I only go on holiday to capital cities."

"Well, I am offering you a paid holiday to the cabin in the woods."

"I only go on holiday to capital cities."

By that dogmatism you can miss out on a lot of great experiences. It is no different for reading. We don't need to randomly pick things, but we can be open to opportunities of reading things which we might not normally read.

I just think any sort of "I don't read modern fiction" or "I don't read dead white males" proclamations are well...just silly.

And sure--maybe the cabin turns out to suck, but it sure will make you appreciate Rome next holiday.

[DonovanTalbot]

So in theory, if I liked dan brown(I haven't read his stuff btw), I shall still trust my tastes for him even though he is regarded as being very mediocre on this forum?

I read one of his novels, it was a quick guilty pleasure styled reading I would rather not ever revisit. Pure fluff but a very easy and quick read.

Going abit offtopic here but I found these three articles amusing and I think you will too.

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000844.html

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001628.html

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002325.html

I don't think people are capable of waxing real hard serious deep discussions about Dan Brown and his body of literature. He certainly won't be remembered a 100 years from now. He stirred up abit of attention and created something trendy tho far from being anything original.

[Mr.lucifer]

From what i've heard about dan brown, is that he's snark bait even among those who aren't literary buffs, but most people just consider him to be entertaining and thats about it. I did hear if you don't take him seriously ,he can be entertaining.

[DonovanTalbot]

From what i've heard about dan brown, is that he's snark bait even among those who aren't literary buffs, but most people just consider him to be entertaining and thats about it. I did hear if you don't take him seriously ,he can be entertaining.

I think you are too kind, Dan Brown is a bad writer and the whole pseudo-history conspiracy thriller genre is too novel and quickly tiresome imo. Personally I never want to touch a Brown novel again. But yes, it was very quick and very easy read requiring very little thought from the reader (suspend your brain at the door).

EDIT: I mean Brown quickly loses steam due to the fact his books are too undemanding and lack a interesting challenge to the readers intellectually.