Printable View
I see what you mean, but I think it's a very different kind of enjoyment. I take pleasure in reading both Shakespeare and Dante (Haven't read the other two yet, unfortunately) because they do engage my mind, but I also enjoy fluff for its ability to mindlessly distract me. It's a different kind of enjoyment that is just necessary (at least for me) sometimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I see what you mean, but I think it's a very different kind of enjoyment. I take pleasure in reading both Shakespeare and Dante (Haven't read the other two yet, unfortunately) because they do engage my mind, but I also enjoy fluff for its ability to mindlessly distract me. It's a different kind of enjoyment that is just necessary (at least for me) sometimes.
The thing is... I find that there is enough art... books, paintings, music... that is not overly difficult... that is entertaining and magical and light... yet still never bores me or speaks down to me. There is Italo Calvino, and Mozart, and Puccini, and Monet, and Bonnard, and Paul Verlaine, and Checkoff, and Lewiss Carroll, and Heinrich Heine, etc... etc... so many that I cannot ever bother myself with pure fluff.
I don't mind fluff, as long as it admits it is.
I find myself agreeing both with you and stlukes.Quote:
Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*
Ultimately I'm somewhat of an elitist. I will choose Proust and Shakespeare over Stephen King or Stephanie Meyer in the long run, but occasional distractions are necessary.
Being somewhat of a film buff, I prefer watching classic films like Citizen Kane, 2001: A space odyssey over 300, or Spider-man 3, but occasional exersions into the cliche, weak, popular art is easier on the mind. Occasionally, I enjoy watching plots that are poor, acting peformances that are empty, and direction that is sloppy. This is more psychological than aesthetic.
With literature, I'm slightly different. I have not read a "crap" novel in perhaps about 5 years - I've soley dedicated myself to reading classics and well-recieved literature. This is because the reading of a novel usually takes much longer than watching a movie, and I simply don't have the time to waste reading some penny-dreadful. If I had fantastic mental capabilities and could read a book a day, this might be different, but as it stands, my time is valuable.
When I read literature, granted it is also for the story, but I generally enjoy it for the sense of understanding it gives me about other people.
When I read "fluff" I don't care for the characters, I just want to shut my head off and simply follow a story.
But honestly, thank god everyone is very different and that not everyone enjoys fluff - because it means there's more for me :)
Stephen King isn't crap though.
He shouldn't be listed next to Stephanie Meyer.
Also, I have a taste for horror.
And I find that it's satisfied by more modern day authors who aren't literary greats.
I'm not saying that horror these days is all fluffy stupidity. Most of the horror I read is intelligent and well thought out. Far from fluff.
Kelby that is a great idea I love to hear your idea's - don't always agree:D but love to hear them. In actualy fact you made me look at things a little differently when you pointed out a few points and that is always a great thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
Niamh do you think that we can open up another thread prehaps with a warning (might not be the right word) to discuss the imprinting and the baby for example -we were not sure JBI, Charm and myself is some of the topics may be out of bounds. Kelby has some great points to offer also.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niamh
Thanks
Jo
Welcome to the fun zone pull up a chair and be prepared to be entertained :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by MattG
PS what are your thoughts on the novels by the way - no need to be scared we will play nice - maybe;)
In the long run, I too, will choose to read Shakespeare over Stephenie Meyer. No question, if I had to pick one over the other. No question at all. As you say, it's an occasional distraction. I read the four of them quickly, and now have the reading of them out of my system. That doesn't mean that some other time when I require some fluff again I won't reread them, but for now I'm done. Back to what I was reading before. part of it also comes from what I study at school. As much as I love studying science, I find it really doesn't allow much in the way of creative thinking. With a heavy curriculum that's really destroying my imagination, I need something completely absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by mayneverhave
That's funny, though, because when it comes to film I'm the opposite. I cannot stand to sit through a bad film.
Oh yeah, we're just a riot.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreads
Yeah, I'm surprised the book was, like, accepted because of that lol.
edit: imprinting, I mean.
OK guys I have checked with one of the lovely mods here and we have permission to discuss the baby, the imprinting and anything relating to the books. Lets be careful to keep it about the books I would hate for any of us to get in trouble and end up :bawling:.
haha excellentQuote:
Originally Posted by Joreads
I wish she hadn't had the baby. Straight up. It ruined my happy picture.
Good then! Well, apparently the point is that they're brainwashing teens with pro-life propaganda. Is that it? Sure looks like it anyway.
The birth of the baby didn't worry me so much as the imprinting of the babies did.Quote:
Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*
Why did the baby bother you? Actually it is kind of a Hollywood ending isn't it everyone gets what they want.
Because she and Edward were supposed to have a perfect obsessive teenage romance forever. And now they have responsibilities which ruins the perfection. Obviously, I like this story because of completely impossible it is in real life to have such a romance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreads
The imprinting didn't bother me, really. There is no sexual desire while the child is that young. It's merely a caring uncle type thing.
Unlike a good number of the critics, I actually did read the first book. It was OK, the characters were a little young for me to really connect with both in literal age and in insight, but I don't have anything against it. I certainly wasn't compelled enough to go get the second book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreads
I think it's funny that Raymond Chandler, for example, wrote pulp & 'trash' before his work was considered literature. I'd wager that a lot of folks who find themselves shelved in the 'classics of literature' section would be surprised that their work is featured there were they alive to see it. Ask Harper Lee if you don't believe me. :D
I still think Raymond Chandler wrote pulp and trash, and I don't know many who consider him to be that great a literary mind, perhaps merely a significant developer of a genre that for the most part is pulp and trash.Quote:
Originally Posted by MattG