I read half of CRIME AND PUNISHMENT and had to dump it. The title seemed ironic by the end.
What do you get out of books like this? I read them and I do not get what emotion they are trying to conjure. They just seem obsessed with the mundane aspects of life. I get the impression that books like this are all about the author using the fiction medium to get across their philosophies on life.
Wouldn't it be quicker to write a monograph?
How do you know the end, if you only read HALF the book my friend?
Also, clarify, if you will, what you exactly mean by the statement "books like this"....
Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty
~Albert Einstein
By end I mean the end of my interaction with the book.
Books like this? Genreless. All the books in this list. No real intention apparent in them. How does one know what THE DUBLINERS will be about from the cover or even the blurb? I read it and I still don't see the point in it or what it was trying to convey. They're about people but there's no slant. No specific perspective. They are about nothing really, or so it seems to me. I once read a Hemmingway story in which he simply goes downstairs and picks up a cat. Actually I did like that one. But it was all style and no plot. It just seems like classical authors are trying to get by on style and weak plots. CRIME AND PUNISHMENT was intelligently written but that's it. He murders a woman. That should shock. It didn't. Now is that because it wasn't meant to shock? or did the author simply not have the skill to shock us?
It is the same with art. Classical art is boring. Some guy in a costume sitting in a chair. But well painted. Why not paint well AND paint something interesting? Why not write well and write something that has a point? an emotional impact?
LIke I say, it is about getting a philosophy over. Distribute a pamphlet instead.
And I am not saying I want vampire teens and Harry Potter. I've read works of supernatural fiction that would blow your socks off. I've posted links to them and nothing...You are missing out on the best of literature because clever people say you should read this or that book. When really they are just posing. 'Here I am carrying a book by Proust. I'm smart now.'
And if proof is needed I am right it is this thread. You are the only one to comment. Why? People on here see my name and think 'he's not a reader of Proust like me. I'll not bother.'
Snobbery.
Last edited by fudgetusk; 04-03-2018 at 09:32 AM.
Fudgetusk,
Reading preferences are a very personal matter. They usually also relate to your reading education whether self acquired or not.
I, for example, are indifferent to the Harry Potter books, which many people like. I also am no personal fan of Proust, though I recognize his great qualities as a writer.
Of course it is your right not to like classic books or other works of art. But if you condemn then all in a heap you are missing much in my opinion. Classic art and literature go far beyond personal expression. They represent in form and content the Weltanschaung of a certain group of a certain time and a certain place. At their best they represent a whole civilization.
So instead of just condemning them I would take a closer look at it and see where your identification lies. The stories of Edgard Allan Poe and Clockwork Orange might be more your cup of tea than Dostoevsky and Hemingway. And if you want vampires there is Dracula and his modern siblings.
"I seemed to have sensed also from an early age that some of my experiences as a reader would change me more as a person than would many an event in the world where I sat and read. "
Gerald Murnane, Tamarisk Row
fudgetusk
Do not project your feelings on other people. Just because you think classics are boring does not mean that others find them boring. It also does not mean that people are only pretending to like them to appear smart. This is just your assumption.
I am not an enthusiast of Dostoevsky, but I do like reading classics, which are books from basically different space and time. I find it interesting how the people in the past perceived reality and it take pleasure from reading books where thoughts/descriptions/etc. are nicely put into words.
You don’t like these books and don’t find anything interesting in them fair enough. Your right. But why are you so irritated by the fact that there are people who like them? Why do you care?
And by the way, you are not obliged to like each and every author that is considered great, for example: as I said I am not an enthusiast of Dostoevsky, who muses too much about god for my taste, a topic in which I have lost interest a long time ago.
Last edited by Aylinn; 04-03-2018 at 05:02 PM.
I just want to know what you get out of it and I don't think you've answered that. What emotions do they stir up? Or don't they? If not, why read them? And I've read Dracula and Poe and Clockwork Orange and Joyce and Robert Graves(christ he's boring) and Conrad's HEART OF DARKNESS. Huysman. Gogol. Will Self.
I think it is possible to hypnotise yourself with a book's standing. "If I enjoy this book then that makes me smart!" I don't think it works on me. And nor do I think I am simply too stupid to enjoy them. To be honest classical works seem too obvious. Their metaphors primitive. Dickens reads like a kid's writer.
Having preconceived notions of a book can spoil it. Maybe that is the snobbery part. "Harry Potter? Genre fiction? My English Lit teacher would frown on that!" Mindset concreted.
I've seen high brow people actually say that worthy fiction needs to be boring. Liking something boring is a sign you are of the elite it seems. Because you see more than the hoi polloi.
Well I can stare at a crack in the wall and eventually see the entire world. Oh, the subtexts,layers and metaphors of that crack!
I find classical works that are solely about people in the mundane world like soap operas. Do they really say anything more than Eastenders does? I would rather read a book that goes beyond the mundane. Reading the mundane is no better than reading romance fiction because you don't have a love of your own or are not satisfied with the one you have. I find that depressing. Books seem to be a substitute for having an interesting life. If you are going to do that then go for something far reaching. Feel emotions that few have. The works of Lovecraft, Thomas Ligotti, Ramsey Campbell, Algernon Blackwood do that for me. All horror writers but the emotions they create are beyond fear. They are more like awe. And what is better than that?
What I'm saying is that what you are and what you like is due to suggestion early in life. I'm willing to bet that you all have good jobs. Good education(programming) I think 'classical' fiction is a furtherance of that programming. They are didactic. And I don't think they teach you anything that an interesting life could teach you.
I prefer to read things that life could not teach me.
Last edited by fudgetusk; 04-05-2018 at 08:13 AM.
I notice you do not talk about the plots of these novels. I find them the scarcest commodity. Nice poetic descriptions but no real story.Originally Posted by Aylinn
I am curious to know what kind of books you DO like!
"I seemed to have sensed also from an early age that some of my experiences as a reader would change me more as a person than would many an event in the world where I sat and read. "
Gerald Murnane, Tamarisk Row
Because I don’t care about plot. I read them, because I want interesting characters/themes/ideas etc. For example I like Joseph Conrad’s books, because he creates interesting, flawed characters.I notice you do not talk about the plots of these novels. I find them the scarcest commodity. Nice poetic descriptions but no real story.
Besides, it seems foolish to me read books like Crime and Punishment and expect action when the book is well-known for being psychological, which implies that it will focus heavily on characters and their thinking.
It is like eating a soup and expecting that it will deliver the same kind of sensation as ice creams.
All sorts of emotions.What emotions do they stir up?
No, they do not need to be boring. However, if someone wants action/plot twists/thrills and so on, but reads classical stuff that is heavy on psychology/philosophy/social commentary etc. I can see from where their problem is coming.I've seen high brow people actually say that worthy fiction needs to be boring.
If these soap operas and genre fiction actually did a competent job at characters, but often it is not the case. I often find these stories populated by cardboard characters, self-inserts and wish-fulfilments rather than well-rounded characters.I find classical works that are solely about people in the mundane world like soap operas.
This again is nothing more than assumption and overgeneralization. While some may be reading it because they want to appear smart, it is not the case for everyone.What I'm saying is that what you are and what you like is due to suggestion early in life. I'm willing to bet that you all have good jobs. Good education(programming) I think 'classical' fiction is a furtherance of that programming. They are didactic. And I don't think they teach you anything that an interesting life could teach you.
As for me, compulsory reading and more often than not dry lessons about classics during my education left me with distaste for classics rather than anything else.
Now I read these books, because I take pleasure in reading them, I think I have laid out my reasoning quite well.
As for programming people to like something, I think advertisement seems to do a much better job at convincing people that they should read the latest best-seller or even at convincing people that the book is what it is not.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
