The OP:Originally Posted by BadassBookworm
Let's try to keep this thread on topic.
Those who are interested in discussing Harry Potter books can do so in other threads which are dedicated to this purpose solely.
The OP:Let's try to keep this thread on topic.
Those who are interested in discussing Harry Potter books can do so in other threads which are dedicated to this purpose solely.
~
"It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
~
I haven't read Light in August, but I know that other Faulkner novels, while difficult, are some of the most rewarding books you'll ever read. They really pay off in the end, all that hard work you put into it. And lots of Faulkner's books are so completely different from each other, I wouldn't write him off just because you found one of his books boring. If you get too tired of reading Light in August, just put it down. No sense wasting your life with something that bores you.
I'd recommend The Sound and the Fury and Absalom, Absalom! though, before writing off Faulkner completely.
Give me a break. You sound about as warm as a gravestone, or Schopenhauer...
Personal insult... always a good strategy when you wish... or need... to avoid thinking. Cold as a gravestone or Schopenhauer? I guess I just haven't read enough hot-blooded Danielle Steele novels.
As if anyone considers Harry Potter novels or Survivor in the same vein as Faulkner.
In case you didn't notice that is just what this discussion devolved into following some declarations that unlike Faulkner Harry Potter wasn't "boring", unlike A.S. Byatt, they represented a real understanding of how imagination works, and unlike the "snooty critics" (who most probably would include a lot of Lit Forum readers) who know the value of nothing, they have engaged millions of minds world 'round (the size of the audience being equated with the artistic worth of the work).
Getting back on topic, I personally love Faulkner. He did absolutely nothing for me when I first read him in high school (years ago), but now I would have no problem placing him among my two or three favorites among American writers, and As I Lay Dying as perhaps my single favorite American novel... at least of the 20th century. In spite of my love for Faulkner and his critical reputation I would never suggest (except perhaps tongue-in-cheek) that you MUST love Faulkner and if you don't something must be wrong with you. Some artists and some works of art just do not speak to us. Sometimes we just may not be ready for them. Sometimes we may never be ready for them. Artists create for an audience that they imagine is not too unlike themselves. For some artists this audience is larger than others. Even those who make a serious attempt cannot honestly like everything that has real artistic merit. Personally, while I acknowledge James Joyce's historical influence and I certainly liked Ulysses... even loved many parts of it... he is not one of my personal favorites. I'd rather read Kafka, Proust, Rilke, Yeats, Calvino, Borges... or Faulkner. As for Harry Potter... I seriously have no interest, but would not set out to dismiss all those who do enjoy the books. My wife absolutely loves them. Perhaps a better method of arguing for the value of such work would be not to suggest that the popularity of the work should be immediately equated with artistic merit or to dismiss writers such as Faulkner and Byatt with the wave of the hand as "boring" and all those who admire such literature as "snooty" or "cold as a gravestone", but rather to suggest just what it is that one finds of such great worth to these books... but that would be another post altogether. Faulkner.... Faulkner... gotta stick to the thread.
Last edited by stlukesguild; 09-23-2007 at 11:55 AM.
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
Okay, I apologize for the personal insult.I haven't read any Danielle Steele novels either so I shouldn't judge her writing as garbage, even if I do. I just felt that no one was saying that Harry Potter was considered art, only that it was more engaging than Faulkner.
"Don't matter who they are, anybody sets foot in this house, they are company and don't let me catch you remarking on their ways like you were so high and mighty."
hey, why you insist on hating my Jonathan Livingston Seagull, St?! c'mon, it's not such a bad book, admit it! Seagull keeps the reader awake, unlike Joyce's Ulysses! and Proust is a snore.
i think you're a closet Monkees fan, admit it.
Luke, just an armchair observation: you don't strike me as a guy to be married to a Harry Potter-reader type. is it possible that you are a closet pop-lit reader too?!?!?!!!Give me a break. You sound about as warm as a gravestone, or Schopenhauer...
Personal insult... always a good strategy when you wish... or need... to avoid thinking. Cold as a gravestone or Schopenhauer? I guess I just haven't read enough hot-blooded Danielle Steele novels.
As if anyone considers Harry Potter novels or Survivor in the same vein as Faulkner.
In case you didn't notice that is just what this discussion devolved into following some declarations that unlike Faulkner Harry Potter wasn't "boring", unlike A.S. Byatt, they represented a real understanding of how imagination works, and unlike the "snooty critics" (who most probably would include a lot of Lit Forum readers) who know the value of nothing, they have engaged millions of minds world 'round (the size of the audience being equated with the artistic worth of the work).
Getting back on topic, I personally love Faulkner. He did absolutely nothing for me when I first read him in high school (years ago), but now I would have no problem placing him among my two or three favorites among American writers, and As I Lay Dying as perhaps my single favorite American novel... at least of the 20th century. In spite of my love for Faulkner and his critical reputation I would never suggest (except perhaps tongue-in-cheek) that you MUST love Faulkner and if you don't something must be wrong with you. Some artists and some works of art just do not speak to us. Sometimes we just may not be ready for them. Sometimes we may never be ready for them. Artists create for an audience that they imagine is not too unlike themselves. For some artists this audience is larger than others. Even those who make a serious attempt cannot honestly like everything that has real artistic merit. Personally, while I acknowledge James Joyce's historical influence and I certainly liked Ulysses... even loved many parts of it... he is not one of my personal favorites. I'd rather read Kafka, Proust, Rilke, Yeats, Calvino, Borges... or Faulkner. As for Harry Potter... I seriously have no interest, but would not set out to dismiss all those who do enjoy the books. My wife absolutely loves them. Perhaps a better method of arguing for the value of such work would be not to suggest that the popularity of the work should be immediately equated with artistic merit or to dismiss writers such as Faulkner and Byatt with the wave of the hand as "boring" and all those who admire such literature as "snooty" or "cold as a gravestone", but rather to suggest just what it is that one finds of such great worth to these books... but that would be another post altogether. Faulkner.... Faulkner... gotta stick to the thread.
"He was nauseous with regret when he saw her face again, and when, as of yore, he pleaded and begged at her knees for the joy of her being. She understood Neal; she stroked his hair; she knew he was mad."
---Jack Kerouac, On The Road: The Original Scroll
Hey now, what's with all the Harry Potter bashing? Obviously Harry Potter isn't some great literary work of art, and I would never claim it to be. I personally love both Faulkner and Rowling, but I read them for different reasons. If I've just gotten home from a 12 hour day racking my brains at work and trying to absorb the dribble lectures from my professors, I'm not ashamed to say that Harry Potter would be a very suitable read before bed. It's damn well entertaining and my brain can relax and enjoy some easy reading.
Faulkner on the other hand has a completely different purpose. When I really feel like diving into a book and have the energy to give my mind a nice workout, I'm going to read Faulkner and enjoy doing it.
These two books shouldn't even be compared. They're on two different playing fields.
hey, why you insist on hating my Jonathan Livingston Seagull, St?! c'mon, it's not such a bad book, admit it! Seagull keeps the reader awake, unlike Joyce's Ulysses! and Proust is a snore.
i think you're a closet Monkees fan, admit it.
Wow! Proust - a snore?!?!?! This is one of the most interesting authors I have ever read, his works are wonderful and I can only strongly disagree with you. It's just fascinating how with a simple story an author can say so much things: for the life, the human nature and character, his works are always surprising, at least for me.
Currently reading:
The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay by Michael Chabon
that's why humans created red wine to take the edge off. go now, begone Harry Potter. enjoy a glass of Pinot Noir, a truly holistic experience.
Wow! Proust - a snore?!?!?! This is one of the most interesting authors I have ever read, his works are wonderful and I can only strongly disagree with you. It's just fascinating how with a simple story an author can say so much things: for the life, the human nature and character, his works are always surprising, at least for me.
yeah i read Swann's Way, which is absolutely awful. it's not the ad nauseum description so much as the simple fact that Proust's life was hopelessly uneventful. he ought to have spent less time standing around observing his snobby relatives' mindless self-indulgence and more time living.
as far as faulkner goes, he's another one, a good cure for insomnia.
"reverse snobbery." hey is that anything like reverse discrimination?
"elitists" --- i could never figure this one out. people throw this term around a lot on here. can anyone help me, what does this term mean exactly?
"He was nauseous with regret when he saw her face again, and when, as of yore, he pleaded and begged at her knees for the joy of her being. She understood Neal; she stroked his hair; she knew he was mad."
---Jack Kerouac, On The Road: The Original Scroll
hey, why you insist on hating my Jonathan Livingston Seagull, St?! c'mon, it's not such a bad book, admit it! Seagull keeps the reader awake, unlike Joyce's Ulysses! and Proust is a snore.
I can understand someone not liking Ulysses... but Proust?! Such sensuality... slow... lush... completely enveloping... it's almost erotic rather in the manner of Wagner's Tristan und Isolde.
i think you're a closet Monkees fan, admit it.
No... but I am quite in the open with my love of Johnny Cash and Bluegrass (the Louvin Brothers, the Stanley Brothers, Hazel Dickens and Alice Gerrard, Bill Monroe... yee haw!
Luke, just an armchair observation: you don't strike me as a guy to be married to a Harry Potter-reader type. is it possible that you are a closet pop-lit reader too?!?!?!!!
Unfortunately I forgot to give her the pre-nuptial cultural litmus test. She puts up with living in a library and endless trips to Borders and I put up with the in-laws and Harry Potter. Now Danielle Steele or Jonathan Livingston Seagull on the other hand... that's grounds for divorce.
that's why humans created red wine to take the edge off. go now, begone Harry Potter. enjoy a glass of Pinot Noir, a truly holistic experience.
Ackk! We agree once more! But then again I'm actually more of a beer man. Give me a Young's Double Chocolate, a Samuel Smith (not Sam Adams!) Imperial Stout or a Ayinger Celebrator Doppelbock and put Kind of Blue on the CD player and I'm a happy camper.
it's not the ad nauseum description so much as the simple fact that Proust's life was hopelessly uneventful. he ought to have spent less time standing around observing his snobby relatives' mindless self-indulgence and more time living.
I never bought the notion of the need for the artist to have lived some fantastically eventful life to create something of real artistic merit. Many of the greatest artists have led lives without the least apparent drama. Perhaps there is something even more magical to being able to create something of artistic beauty and brilliance from the mundane experiences of everyday life (a bit like Blake's "heaven in a wildflower?"). Of course if excitement is the food for art I should be an artistic genius teaching in a big inner city urban school district. First day of school and we already had a knife incident. OK... its not a loaded 12-gauge... but we did have that last year.
it's not the ad nauseum description so much as the simple fact that Proust's life was hopelessly uneventful. he ought to have spent less time standing around observing his snobby relatives' mindless self-indulgence and more time living.
I was always fascinated with the dichotomy of the painter Vermeer's life and his art. He must have lived the most chaotic and noisy existence... never a moment's rest. He lived with 12 daughters, a wife and his wealthy, nagging mother-in-law. He ran an inn or a bed-and-breakfast which would have demanded he be constantly looking after the needs of his guests... which included the drinks from his home brewery. On top of this his acted as an art-dealer/adviser and oversaw his mother-in-law's various rental properties. In spite of all this... Vermeer's art is among the most silent... calm... uneventful... and classically beautiful in all of art history.
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
that's a good point. my issue with proust is not his prose - which is excellent - but with his characters who lack that "something" to draw in the reader, or me. i'm not sure what it is. the only half-interesting character is Swann, but even he becomes a bore. i do appreciate how proust is able to tease out the psychological subleties and impressionistic play of time.
i don't know how you conjure the energy and patience to work in the inner city, that's a tough gig, Luke. i should know, i've worked in one. you have to eat, i suppose.a real 'welcome-to-the-hood' moment for me.
thankfully no knives or guns. i should be an artistic genius too after that one. hardly.
hey i'm a big Miles Davis fan! - Kind of Blue is a favorite along with Coltrane's My Favorite Things. that with a...ahem...bass ale, i'm set.
Last edited by jon1jt; 09-24-2007 at 01:03 AM. Reason: add
"He was nauseous with regret when he saw her face again, and when, as of yore, he pleaded and begged at her knees for the joy of her being. She understood Neal; she stroked his hair; she knew he was mad."
---Jack Kerouac, On The Road: The Original Scroll
Maybe Faulkner just isn't your type. But I think Light in August is one of those books you have to work hard to get into, with worthwhile results. Sort of like Captain Corelli's Mandolin, if you've ever tried reading that - although I wouldn't put Louid deBernieres (or however you spell his damn name) up there with Faulkner. You might reach a point where you suddenly have a revelation: wow, this is actually brilliant.
I had that the first time I read Catch-22, for example. I hated that book until 2/3 of the way through, when suddenly I realised what all the fuss was about.
There is nothing wrong with you badass. Just because you didnt like faulkner, doesnt mean you are intellectually vapid. Not all writers appeal to every reader, and doesnt makes you less intellectual literarilly because you dont like a writer that someone else does. We are all different, and like different things and nobody should judge or be judged for what they like.
I didnt like Wuthering heights and got bored stiff half way through that, but thats only because it didnt appeal to me. And admittingly anounce i dont like it, because i dont see the point in saying i liked something cause everyone else does. It just takes away you individual opinion.
"Come away O human child!To the waters of the wild, With a faery hand in hand, For the worlds more full of weeping than you can understand."
W.B.Yeats
"If it looks like a Dwarf and smells like a Dwarf, then it's probably a Dwarf (or a latrine wearing dungarees)"
Artemins Fowl and the Lost Colony by Eoin Colfer
my poems-please comment Forum Rules
i love william faulkner
the interesting part of him is point of view. this is especially true in "absalom, absalom" and "sound and the fury"
"light in august" is a study of racism. eventhough the story only takes place over a few days, it covers multiple generations of different peoples dealing with racism. it all centers around the character christmas who is thought to be mulato. be cognizant of the use of color to delineate levels of racism. the one real bad character is interestingly named brown.
this is faulkner. the storyline is only the means to analyze elements of life.
if you are really interested in getting into faulkner, don't be afraid to get a reference book on his novels. there are also interesting websites that give family trees of his significant families in his fictional mississippi county.
he is not light reading, but well worth the effort.
i will tell you that this is one of the easier faulkner novels. A,A and Fury are two of his best and most complex.
remember the best things are those you have to work for!
Last edited by tscherff; 09-28-2007 at 11:37 AM.
Nothing wrong with not liking Faulkner.
He's actually the only author that has engaged me emotionally, but I feel no sort of failure not connecting with those other authors.
Miles Davis/Thelonious Monk Live at the NewPort 1958-1963 (feat. John Coltrane). What an album!hey i'm a big Miles Davis fan! - Kind of Blue is a favorite along with Coltrane's My Favorite Things. that with a...ahem...bass ale, i'm set.
"Do you mind if I reel in this fish?" - Dale Harris
"For sale: baby shoes, never worn." - Ernest Hemingway
Blog
Kind of Blue is GREAT!!hey i'm a big Miles Davis fan! - Kind of Blue is a favorite along with Coltrane's My Favorite Things. that with a...ahem...bass ale, i'm set.
LET THERE BE LIGHT
"Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena
My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
