lonesome dove

[joseph90ie]

.....

[country doctor]

mcmurtry is a legend in texas and he has indeed written other worthy works. his star will only shine brighter in the future imo. as for lonesome dove, i just can't see this book not being a very popular read in a hundred years. the definition of a classic for sure. but as to my original point, this just might be the 'great american novel' in the eyes of the readers when we all are dust. of course, that's just me and that's just speculation, but i don't see how this book isn't going to spark the imagination of those readers in an america that has long passed on. (but those characters...oh how relevant they will seem to the readers. human nature being what it is.)

[amb]

The analogy fits , and one could choose just about any author that has withstood the test of time to utilise for such an analogy. And quite frankly Don Quixote was remembered *first* based upon the strengths of the story and the individual characters within said story.

Yes, but its 'firstness' is why it is so significant. The same story would not be remembered by many as the greatest ever written if it hadn't been written at the time it was. We may be making the same point here: its status as the first, or one of the first, to abandon the romantic ideas of heroes and knights that Cervantes mocks so severely in favour of truly human characters and portrayal of ordinary people is what makes it so great.

And both terms are subject to individual interpretation of the reader. As I pointed out with Melville , I don't personally consider his work to be great literature , that said I take no issue with those who do consider it to be such.

This is true, but admitting it takes the fun out of arguing.

And most authors aren't considered to have produced "great literature" until long ,long after they've passed on. There was a time that Steinbeck wasn't considered to have produced great literature , likewise Hemingway , Faulkner and a whole host of others.

I'm not sure I understand your point here. Can we not still debate its greatness now? Does the fact that some of the critics of Faulkner's time did not consider Faulkner's work 'great' make their opinion any less valid?

There are those who likewise label King as producing "trash horror fiction" , but ( and once again) there will come a time when he's remembered with the same reverence as Lovecraft and August Derleth.

It seems that you're saying that the amount of time passed determines a book's (or author's) greatness. If none thinks that King is great now, why would one years from now? His books will not change. They will still be the same "trash horror fiction" they supposedly are today.

[country doctor]

question: do you think you can write the definitive 'great american novel' based on history and not on genuine experience, i.e. 'lonesome dove'?
gatsby, and fitzgerald...huck finn and twain...but mcmurtry is writing about his great grandfather's time. too much on imagination, not enough on genuine experience? oder, es macht nichts?

[Bluenote]

Yes, but its 'firstness' is why it is so significant. The same story would not be remembered by many as the greatest ever written if it hadn't been written at the time it was. We may be making the same point here: its status as the first, or one of the first, to abandon the romantic ideas of heroes and knights that Cervantes mocks so severely in favour of truly human characters and portrayal of ordinary people is what makes it so great.



This is true, but admitting it takes the fun out of arguing.




I'm not sure I understand your point here. Can we not still debate its greatness now? Does the fact that some of the critics of Faulkner's time did not consider Faulkner's work 'great' make their opinion any less valid?



It seems that you're saying that the amount of time passed determines a book's (or author's) greatness. If none thinks that King is great now, why would one years from now? His books will not change. They will still be the same "trash horror fiction" they supposedly are today.

Firstness may well be a rather nebulous construct , that paragraph begs the question of whether Don Quixote would have been remembered had it not been a compelling and mind catching story?


And I don't come to a literary forum to " argue" , debate maybe , but if it descends into " arguement" I'll just call it a day and move on.


Sure we can debate the "greatness" factor , that's in and of itself a given.And of course the various opinions carry validity , but opinions are often a personal construct. For instance I thoroughly detest Melville , that doesn't even remotely make Billy Bud or Moby Dick any less valid in any way whatsoever.

The simplistic point I was making is that sometimes it takes the passage of time for a given book , piece of music , painting , sculpture and myriad other things in life to become "great".


As regards King , where did I say " nobody considers him great at this time"? I don't believe I made that statement did I? I stated that *some* consider him " trash horror fiction" , I don't. And the point is that acceptance of certain tomes changes over time , examples of books that weren't initially well received and gained momentum over the years are quite fairly easy to find.

Of course the books won't change , however folks perception of them may change as individuals themselves experience change and/or growth.

And King has evolved from a "pulp writer" ( simplistic yes) to being revered as the producer of some of the better stories within the horror genre.Personally I've always liked the majority of his stuff and I stand by my view that he'll eventually be remembered with the same reverence as Lovecraft , Derleth and other " giants" of the genre.



B.

[Bluenote]

question: do you think you can write the definitive 'great american novel' based on history and not on genuine experience, i.e. 'lonesome dove'?
gatsby, and fitzgerald...huck finn and twain...but mcmurtry is writing about his great grandfather's time. too much on imagination, not enough on genuine experience? oder, es macht nichts?

I don't personally think it takes *direct* experience to write a great book , if it did there'd be a lot less great books published.


But then as I've stated , I'm not certain that the "great american novel" can be defined and restricted to a singular example. That apellation would be subject to the personal opinion of the reader , and opinions inevitably will vary widely.



B.

[amb]

Firstness may well be a rather nebulous construct , that paragraph begs the question of whether Don Quixote would have been remembered had it not been a compelling and mind catching story?

It probably would not have been. I've acknowledged the fact that it is a 'compelling and mind catching story.'

And I don't come to a literary forum to " argue" , debate maybe , but if it descends into " arguement" I'll just call it a day and move on.

I was merely joking....

As regards King , where did I say " nobody considers him great at this time"? I don't believe I made that statement did I?

No, and I never said that you did. I said that in order to make the point that one's personal opinion of a book's greatness should not be determined by time. Books aren't bottles of wine. Your opinion can change, certainly, but that does not mean that the book is not here now, in the state that it will always be in, ready for discussion.

Which is what we're discussing, is it not? The Lonesome Dove. We are discussing whether or not any of us thinks it is 'great,' no? I cannot offer my opinion of thirty years in the future; the one I have now will have to suffice, and at this moment, I do not think that The Lonesome Dove is a work of great literature.

And King has evolved from a "pulp writer" ( simplistic yes) to being revered as the producer of some of the better stories within the horror genre.Personally I've always liked the majority of his stuff and I stand by my view that he'll eventually be remembered with the same reverence as Lovecraft , Derleth and other " giants" of the genre.

I think he is the giant of the genre. It's the genre itself that really doesn't garner much respect in the literature world.

[Bluenote]

No, and I never said that you did. I said that in order to make the point that one's personal opinion of a book's greatness should not be determined by time. Books aren't bottles of wine. Your opinion can change, certainly, but that does not mean that the book is not here now, in the state that it will always be in, ready for discussion.

Which is what we're discussing, is it not? The Lonesome Dove. We are discussing whether or not any of us thinks it is 'great,' no? I cannot offer my opinion of thirty years in the future; the one I have now will have to suffice, and at this moment, I do not think that The Lonesome Dove is a work of great literature.






I think he is the giant of the genre. It's the genre itself that really doesn't garner much respect in the literature world.

Public opinion is based upon collective personal opinion , and both have the potential to change over time. Demonstrable examples within the context of literature abound. The fact that the book is in the "here and now" is of course a given , once written , words cannot be "unwritten".


And personal opinion ( your's OR mine) is just that "personal" as I have pointed out , it's merely a small part of the collective , and collectives by their very nature have varying degrees of opinion. my "personal" opinion as regards " Lonesome Dove" varies from yours , I think that's a great piece of literature and that it's acceptance factor as such will grow over time.


As regards King , and the corollary acceptance of the Horror genre , you'll find that it's changing for the positive , this is of course being driven by increasing public acceptance of the genre as a whole based upon the popularity of certain authors within the genre , to the point of advanced prep courses and university level courses oriented towards the genre.

I'm sure you can hearken back to the time when authors such as Steinbeck weren't accepted as " Classic" writers based upon the loose criteria of chronology of publication?

And frankly all this speaks to the changes in opinion and other factors that humanity itself goes through , does it not?

At any rate , as I said , my opinion of Lonesome Dove varies from yours , I find it a great read , well researched , richly evocative and emotive , filled with highly memorable characters and events and indeed a great piece of literature.

Now of course my opinion is colored by the fact that I'm a native Texan ( though I no longer reside in the state) and intimately familar with the history and territories within the book. But then ( stating the obvious...sorry) individual opinion is rather subject to the given individuals experience ,likes and dislikes.

And while you state that " personal opinion" shouldn't change over time , it often does.

Allow me to utilise as an example Orwell's " Animal Farm" , if one reads it first without any knowledge of the societal constructs and history behind it then it's at first just an entertaining animal yarn , once the individual has gained knowledge of said societal constructs , political systems and history it becomes much , much more.

B.

[country doctor]

duvall recently said that his role in 'lonesome dove' was the one he was most proud of...mcmurtry would be proud...

[dfloyd]

but I haven't got around to it yet. I'm certain it's an enjoyable read, but when a book becomes a classic, then it's joining this elite group of books is not nebulous or ambiguous. It never goes out of print and is taught in universities. Perhaps Lonesome Dove will join the pantheon of classics, but I doubt it. There are many writers of the west which were great writers: Zane Grey for an older writer and Cormack McCarthy for a newer one. But of all the western writers, only one comes to mind as creating a classic novel: Owen Wister with The Virginian. It is extremely difficult for a writer in this genre to appeal to and be selected by academicians.

[country doctor]

the doc just picked up 'the streets of laredo' the sequal to 'lonesome dove' for fifty cents at a library book sale this morning and is excited to get at it later this summer...gonna put it on the 'next one to read' list...

good time to bring this thread back to the front page...though the reviews say that it isn't as good as 'lonesome dove' (very tough task...), it aint gonna be chopped liver either...a good follow-up...

and mcmurtry is a great story teller...

another story as large as the great state of texas is the doc's guess...everything's bigger in texas, though...

ROAR!

[Flatrater]

the doc just picked up 'the streets of laredo' the sequal to 'lonesome dove' for fifty cents at a library book sale this morning and is excited to get at it later this summer...gonna put it on the 'next one to read' list...
ROAR!

So Doc..... what was your take on the follow up? Was it worth that half dollar?

[dfloyd]

It must stay in print and it must be taught in American literature classes so a new generation of lit professors are exposed to the work. Those who read Owen Wister's The Virginian and Mitchell's Gone with the Wind, felt these two would become classics. Now no one reads Wister's novel and, to my knowledge, GWTW is not taught in lit classes. While Lonesome Dove may be a good book, I don't think it will ever attain the status of "a classic". It just doen't have the universal appeal of The Great Gatsby and The Sun also Rises.
The whole world doesn't live in Texas.

[Rores28]

The whole world doesn't live in Texas.

Don't tell someone from Texas that.

[country doctor]

So Doc..... what was your take on the follow up? Was it worth that half dollar?

well flatrater it would have been a bargain at twice the price! over the top plot, over the top action and over the top characters, it's what mcmurtry reached for when he wrote the follow up to his great novel...of course, this one was always going to be handicapped by the death of gus in the first book...those characters don't just grow on trees, you know?

but gus is mentioned many a time in the book and mcmurtry is able to do a solid job of bringing some closure w/ some of his other characters in this one...

the doc doesn't know if he was reaching for some great allegory on the history of texas vis-a-vis mexico or just writing a tall as texas story, but he was able to make the book an interesting and enjoyable read...