Printable View
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