Printable View
Red,Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-Headed
It's smaller than 'White Noise' or 'Libra' both in size and scope: a localised meditation on grief and death. In truth, I wouldn't recommend to anyone not already possessing an affinity for De Lillo's work. But if you are a fan it's work checking out.
OK, thanks for the info.Quote:
Originally Posted by sixsmith
We have taste after all then!Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
I suppose you won't be interested in thisQuote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Jane Austen collected songs all her life but many of them have only just come to light, in manuscripts inherited by one of her descendants. Jazz singer Gwyneth Herbert performs Austen's favourite songs, with new piano and clarinet accompaniment by David Owen Norris. At Austen's house in Chawton, Hampshire, scholars and biographers discuss how they cast a new light on one of our best-loved writers.
on Radio 4 then.
Don't get me wrong, I can admire her 18th century moralist borrowing of Fielding's dramatic presentation of action through dialogue scenes, her irony & emphasis on manners, her comedic conflicts between illusion & reality & her economy of writing. I just find her very very hard work. Maybe it's a bloke thing. :eek:
I'm pretty sure most Americans still think that the UK is like an Austen novel. I was only saying to my good friend Mr Sherlock Holmes the other day that it has never failed to amaze me that the Americans don't seem to realise that the British invented the electronic computer, radio, television, railways, the jet engine, the industrial revolution etc etc, plus we even live with the evils of 'socialised medicine' (what would Jane think?).
I think this Welsh bloke had a lot to do with that ('evil' socialised medicine). I used to live near Cardiff & I have seen his statue. I admire Nye, I am a bit ambivalent about Austen. She was right about Birmingham though (Emma).
Not really. I feel roughly about Jazz the way I do about Jane Austen: It's a bunch of people playing music that sounds like they're dropping their instruments on the floor with a commitment to clear expression so oblique you have to crawl up inside of them to figure out what their song's really about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-Headed
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
I think we have very similar tastes, or should I say distastes!
Jazz fans look at me like I'm mad :eek: when I tell them that it just sounds like an unholy racket to me. De gustibus... right?
I listened to the program, there was no jazz on it (thank god) & it was about as interesting as reading an Austen novel. :as-sleep:
Oh yeah, well, we invented the Salad Shooter®.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-Headed
Brilliant post Red. You know, over here we’re all pretty-much convinced that we invented democracy. Neither the Glorious Revolution nor the Scottish Enlightenment had anything to do with the creation our Declaration of Independence or our Constitution.
I’ve always had a warm spot in my heart for Jane Austen. My Mom (rest her soul) wrote her Master’s thesis on Austen when I was a toddler. And according to Mom, I pestered her relentlessly as she tried to write. Ain’t I a stinker?
I'm with you guys on Jazz. Well everything thing that came after Dixieland Jazz anyway. I've got a friend who calls it, "Wrong-note music."
Sounds brilliant! I think salads should be shot at regular intervals! The French are convinced the English exist purely on a diet of roast beef & mustard. Hence why they refer to us as 'Roast Beefs'. It's not true though, sometimes we have horse radish instead of mustard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sancho
I think some Greek fellas would probably disagree with you. Plato actually disliked democracy, still what did he know, wasn't he Mickey Mouse's dog?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sancho
Maybe she'll grow on me. I still say she was right about Birmingham (I am definitely going to get some stick from Brummies for this!)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sancho
I have quite a few adjectives for jazz as well...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sancho
True, there is no disputing taste; but that is because taste is wrapped up in a person's concept of self-identity. One can refute facts, premises, or conclusions with a cool head, but delegitimizing one's sense of taste could be construed as an ad hominem attack. Which is not to suggest that it cannot be done, but must rather be done tactfully and by degrees. The careful analysis of aesthetics is one way that generations of humans have sought to work around this problem, by testing and rooting out incorrect assumptions wherever they may be. The ultimate goal of such an exercise inevitably results in a greater understanding of a text, and one's reaction to the text.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-Headed
The value judgements "good" and "bad" are for most intents and purposes non-falsifiable. We give our reasons for believing a book so, and the more concrete they are, the more testable our assumptions become. For instance, I disliked reading Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice because I found it degrading to men. Austen reduced their worth to how much money they had, and made them the subjects of conquest by status climbing women.
Ironic or not, turn the genders around and "fortune" into whatever physical feature you desire, and the statement becomes pretty sexist.Quote:
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.
P.S. Sorry about the rather dry explanation of things you no doubt already know. I've just spent the last hour pondering "What exactly is taste and why can't I dispute it?"
Bah!Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-Headed
Plato-Pluto, Democracy-Republic, primogeniture-equality, what’s all the hub-bub?
Anyway, we’d better get back on topic before Jermac comes back in here and gets all riled up.
Tom Brown's School Days - a boring pile of sh##t! (And one which had to be studied.)
Anything by J. S. Foer.
Anything by Stephen King, (with the exception of 'On Writing' & Danse Macabre).
Anything by Dennis Wheatley.
Novelisations.
xxxxxx
That's an excellent assessment of Austen, I must say I agree. Of course, women had little other means of social advancement in the early 19th century & 'marrying money' was one of their only viable options. However, I still like your analysis.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
I think I hear jackboots....:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sancho
xxxxx
Add the freaking Life Accoring to Garp to that list.
I'm not sure there's a lot to be learned from experiments like this one. In fact, this really says nothing about editor's tastes. A single editor might have specifically mentioned that they realized it was Jane Austen's work, but that doesn't necessarily mean the others failed to notice since all we have is form rejections. Whether those editors did or did not know it was Austen's work is merely speculative.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Basically, I don't think it tells us anything other than it's very hard to get work accepted out of a slush pile where you're one manuscript out of thousands being read by lowly clerks, and most editors are so overworked that they often don't take the time to give personal rejections.
The problem, too, is I've seen too many people quote the Jane Austen experiment as an excuse for their genius not being recognized. "See, those editors won't publish me because they don't recognize how talent I am and only publish hacks." Meanwhile, nine times out of ten the wannabe writer saying this and quoting this experiment isn't getting published because they lack talent.
Using published works to prove editors have poor taste is a rather silly experiment. After all, some editor at some point published those works.
xxxxx