Hey, Winterson got mentioned :D ... though... well, still better to have been mentioned than not at all ;) (thanks :))Quote:
Originally Posted by Scher
Though I agree... reading the classics all 2006 is soooo gonna get... boring and dull.
Printable View
Hey, Winterson got mentioned :D ... though... well, still better to have been mentioned than not at all ;) (thanks :))Quote:
Originally Posted by Scher
Though I agree... reading the classics all 2006 is soooo gonna get... boring and dull.
classics, smashics... lol, I have to/ had to read alot of this stuff in school for lit classes. :sick:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay
I think we need some fresh air, maybe vonnegut :D
Who nominate Tolstoy anwayz? http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/105.gif
I understand the need for classics, but some modern authors would be nice... Like Maguire and McEwan...
This is shaping up to be a longer year.
Well, I think that is time for me to name my favorites, before the poll close.
somehow I get this distinct feeling I will be skipping alot of months next year
Yeah, I'm a giant Fyodor fan, but I really want to read Carter and Pratchett. Hang in there Pratchett!
I don't think I like this way of doing things.
Everyone is talking about this Prachett person, never read them before. So, win or lose, someone has to tell me a book to read because now I am curious.
Come on people, please vote for Maguire or McEwan... at this rate I will either have all ready read the books or will have to buy a whole bunch of new ones.
Kiwi Shelf, just search on Amazon and pick one of the Discworld books. Not the first or the second, though, I have the strong belief they're not as great as the subsequent ones.
I do hope Pratchett will be one of the authors to read next year. Otherwise, I fear I may get too bored with all these classics :D
Mean!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay
Dostoevsky is one of the greatest authors of all time!
Anybody up for L.M. Montgommery or Lois Lowry?......
What's wrong with Dostoevksy? He offered penetrating psychological insights into the dark side of life. His books may be filled with borderline insanity, epileptics and freakish characters, but that's what Tsarist Russia was like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay
It saddens me that most authors winning are DEAD!
How about more living, not overdone, living authors....
Death and the passage of time separate the chaff from the wheat among writers. Only the good ones are remembered and read a century later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi Shelf
America hasn't produced a great novelist in at least 50 years. Today's best-selling authors are all second rate.
I wonder if in 50 years' time, people will think that today's authors were great and that the authors of their times are all second rate.
Only if pigs learn how to fly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
What do you mean??? Pigs in the US don't fly already??? :confused:
I know what you are saying, to a degree.... Just don't think a year of classics, is, well boring and overdone? I mean, all people care about are the classics, and I know why and everything. I just like to read authors that... are... well... living and not overdone. lol I guess I thought book clubs were supposed to be about new experiences... There isn't an author winning that I haven't heard of, if not read... Am I making sense?Quote:
Originally Posted by starrwriter
Very funny, Scher. Now how about your photo?Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
PLEASE
Well, I'm a newbie here, and very happy to have voted on my favorites. I voted for Tolstoy, Winterson and... well, Dostoyevsky. I hope I don't incur Jay's and Papayahed's vengeful desires... ;)
I really do love 'Notes from the underground', among others.
I do, too. It's the most fascinating book by a Russian author I ever read. Modern intellect as a paralyzing disease! D. H. Lawrence had the same idea, but he offered a cure: the healing power of sexual love.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedra
What/who do you think makes the difference between the wheat and the chaff? Time? Well, when all the people of earth would suddenly die, then we sincerely doubt that Time in it's great power would separate wheat from chaff.Quote:
Originally Posted by starrwriter
It is the readers that separate the wheat from chaff not some abstract force - so it is up to all of us to decide whether a book is good or not, not just throw it away and name it bad because the author hasn't jumped under a bus yet.
For example, we consider Pratchett, Pelevin and Eco good writers, despite the fact that they are still alive.
Not always. Some writers who are considered great today were barely read during their lifetime. The average reader doesn't know what is great writing until he is told by critics, teachers, historians, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taliesin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedra
Well, it looks like Jay and I will have to take on a lot voters.....You're new so we can probably save you til the end.... :nod: :lol:
Thanks, Papayahed. I really appreciate it. :cool:
Yeah, it seems that we'll be reading Dostoyevsky at some point next year. Yay!
(Ooops...)
And who's to say it doesn't work? ;) My paralysis, however, seems to be in its terminal stage, I believe. Not that I suffer from too much intellect...Quote:
Originally Posted by starrwriter
I was carelessly browsing some books when I found 'Notes'. It grabbed my attention with the opening lines:
"I am a sick man... I am a spiteful man. I am an unattractive man. I belive my liver is diseased. However, I know nothing at all about my disease, and do not know for certain what ails me. I don't consult a doctor for it, and never have, though I have a respect for medicine and doctors. Besides, I am extremely superstitious, sufficiently so to respect medicine, anyway (I am well-educated enough not to be superstitious, but I am superstitious). No, I refuse to consult a doctor from spite."
I was hooked. :cool:
We agree on that point that there have been such writers, but, nevertheless, those teachers, critics and historians are humans too, not some omnipresent force like Time (we have proof and that is that Scheherazade is a teacher - and a certain person too - or at least, when she is Time, she's in a very good disguise) Why cannot we be the critics and teachers? Why can't we use our own heads for deciding what is good and what is not?Quote:
Originally Posted by starrwriter
I used to ask that a lot myself. But now, I kind of made peace with the idea that although we live in a post-modern society (what is it, by the way? some say that it's too recent for a definition; others say it's ended already. That's a little too post modern, even for me), when it comes to crowds (masses) 'formadores de opinião' (don't know the right term in English) will always be needed. I believe that's because cultural elements are treated like market assets, and people have to have the economy going. :brickwallQuote:
Originally Posted by Taliesin
There is personal taste in reading and then there is great literature. The two are not always the same. It depends on the intelligence and sophistication level of the reader.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taliesin
But who decides whats great literature? People with certificates to say there opinions better than anyone elses? :brow:Quote:
Originally Posted by starrwriter
Ithink there is the catagory Literture worthy of being studied and then there is everything else and none are less or more great than the rest its just some are better suited for being puffed up.
Yes. Those certificates and degrees represent a great deal of experience in reading fiction, analyzing it and judging what is great and what is not. The average reader doesn't have a clue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
Do you really belive that, or is that sarcasm ( sorry am hopless at these things)?
Because if you mean it it woulkd mean no one can write great literature who hasnt a degree.
I didn't say that. I can think of some great writers who never got a degree. But they were intelligent and discriminating readers who taught themselves the essentials of great literature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
I'm not arguing against reading certain books for fun. I enjoy Raymond Chandler novels, but I don't try to convince myself they are great literature. They are entertaining and there's nothing wrong with that as long as you don't confuse entertainment with serious writing.
British author Graham Greene divided his novels into two categories: literature and entertainments. He was wise enough to know the difference.
ah right I see ok I understand that "worthy books" and fun books
but both are literature just not the same type
:D
Voting Winterson saved your bum this time ;)... for a few months until it's time to read him :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Phaedra
Welcome :wave:
Literature: creative writing of recognized artistic value.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
Entertainment: a diversion that holds the attention, an amusement.
Literature is art. Entertainment isn't.
But is Literature entertainment?
And if it is, is it not literature?
Is a Picasso painting "entertainment"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
I think literature is more than simple entertainment. It's food for the intellect. It's wit instead of slapstick humor. It's philosophical and psychological drama rather than melodrama. It's insightful and revealing of human nature. In other words, it's art (as I said.)