Printable View
I can hear the jackboots now...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sancho
I think it may be considered un-English not to drink tea. Although I believe most of my fellow countrymen drink the aforementioned chemical warfare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sancho
Ah yes, clearly national pride is at stake in the coffee-or-tea decision. Oh crap, I live in Atlanta, so I’d better make it a coffee-tea-or-Coca-Cola decision.
I’ll worry about that tomorrow. Tonight it’s champagne, and the decision is: whether to go down to midtown and watch the peach drop, or to stay in and watch The Three Stooges marathon on AMC.
Woob-woob-woob-nyuk-nyuk-nyuk…I think I’m leaning towards the Stooges. I watched the Stooges down in Quito, Ecuador last year (Los Tres Idiotos) and, I’ve gotta tell ya, those guys are just as funny in Spanish as they are in English.
I though Dan Browns books were well thought out and incredibly well planned. I just finished The Lost Symbol, it was one of the best books I've ever read, he managed to make it fun but at the same time, everything was layed out in a way that it wasn't so easy it was boring but it was also a challenge at times for even an avid reader like myself to follow.
xxxxx
Ermm... OK, sorry. I read the first 20 or 30 pages of the Da Vinci Code & thought it was God-awfully terrible. Does that count?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermac
Oh alright, but I think a list like this ought to be divided into genres. I mean, fans of The Hardy Boys mysteries would probably find Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason unreadable and vice versa.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermac
I don't think this thread needs to be divided into genres. It goes without saying that Kant's work is not badly written, but neither is The Hardy Boys books. I read every one of the Hardy Boys books and not one of them is badly written.
Well, that begs the question: What is good writing? Is it writing that follows grammatical rules? Perhaps it’s writing that follows the rules of logic. Maybe it’s writing that incorporates realistic dialog (Dan Brown gets a C-minus here). Is it writing that tackles a difficult or interesting or perplexing subject?
And who gets to decide? Maybe it’s the critics or the reading public or professors of literature or Strunk and White or Kate Turbian.
I don’t know but I think different kinds of writing may be akin to different kinds of intelligence: there’s diplomatic intelligence, mechanical intelligence, emotional intelligence, and more. There are people who can conceptualize abstract ideas and people who can not but I don’t that necessarily means one is smart and the other is not; they just have different types of intelligence. My family doctor could no more rebuild my car’s transmission than my mechanic could diagnose a difficult disease, but they’re both smart guys.
By the way, just in case there’s any question about my intelligence, I went with the Stooges marathon last night.
This may seem like a dumb question, but how can we concur on anyone's choices, if we don't read them first? That may be the appeal to some readers, to read and be able to pull apart the language. Now that I'm thinking about it, maybe English grammar teachers will enjoy a badly written story, to give them material for lesson plans.
Of course, that now brings up the question...Who ARE the literary gods that dictate good writing and bad writing? Isn't that what editors do? Someone reading a first draft of a story must think it's worth publishing, or why bother killing trees.
Who ARE the literary gods that dictate good writing and bad writing? Isn't that what editors do? Someone reading a first draft of a story must think it's worth publishing...
Editors are far from being arbiters of good and bad writing. There are endless examples of rejection letters from editors to the greatest of writers and there's that recent experiment in which one of Jane Austen's novels (with title and names changed) was hawked around to editors who all rejected the book and only one of which actually recognized what the book was. Editors merely decide whether they think they can make money on a given work.
teh bible
De gustibus non est disputandum!
A/ I will bet good money that was in America.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
B/ I don't blame them.
You would have thought that if they can't even recognise a Jane Austen novel, that they shouldn't be in the industry. Of course, not having read a Austen novel doesn't mean that they're incapable of recognising a publishable book when they read one, but surely if they're in the publishing/book field they would have come across one of the most popular authors of the 19th century.
Great Britain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-Headed
Neither do I. I hate Jane Austen with a passion her novels do not possess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-Headed
J.E. Luebering raised an excellent point in his article about the incident:
http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2007...sten-rejected/Quote:
Should we be outraged that Austen suffered the indignity of rejection?
No. What these rejections show is that readers today don’t share the literary tastes of readers of the 1810s.
A similar hoax was perpetrated in Australia. The Australian newspaper sent the third chapter of Patrick White's 'The Eye of the Storm' (under the pseudonym Wraith Picket :rolleyes: ) to several publishers and agents. The novel was largely responsible for White receiving the 1973 Nobel. Anyhow, no one wanted a bar of it and The Australian's literary editor spent a good deal of time and print bemoaning the deplorable state of Australian publishing. The fact is, however, that White is a difficult writer, a slow burning modernist whose psychological narratives can test even the most seasoned reader. It would simply be a poor business decision for publishers in a commercial market to take him on in the 21st century.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
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
to WLZ a few posts above, 13 yrs after the fact, tom brown's schooldays is one of my all-time favorite books! but skip the first chapter, its terrible!
I don't remember if I posted here before. would be interesting to see how my lists compare if I did.
its presumptuous to say "nobody should read" but I can least say "vastly overrated books that suck that I wouldn't recommend to anyone."
1. moby dick
2. catcher in the rye
3. zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance
4. the accidental tourist
5. and in the meantime until I think of something else, mayyyyyyybe war and peace