Can't go wrong with Orwell.
There is something wrong with my imagination. - Page 2
Blogs > Azera |
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
Can't go wrong with Orwell. | ||
EternaLLegacy
United States410 Posts
| ||
Fishgle
United States2174 Posts
On March 18 2012 05:32 EternaLLegacy wrote: Hemmingway sucks. [EternaLLegacy's favorite author] sucks. >< | ||
Mothra
United States1448 Posts
On March 18 2012 00:30 Scarecrow wrote: I never said there wouldnt be great writers in this decade or any other. Of course we'll have 21st century classics, I just believe that writers these days aren't necessarily better than they were 10 or 50 years ago. We're just getting worse at reading them. Your doctor analogy is pretty misleading. After all writing is more art than science. A 15th century physician is grossly incompetent in contrast to a modern day one whereas Shakespeare is still read by many. It's hardly fair to compare some moron with leeches to the likes of Austen. Sure there are new techniques and styles developed in the same way as other art forms but they do not make modern artists better than their predecessors. Just different. All of the classics continue to be relevant because they reflect parts of human nature. We understand ourselves and our past better after reading them, regardless of when they were written. You think Hemingway's irrelevant to modern readers? War is always relevant, as is love, fear, courage etc. What about Salinger's Catcher in the Rye? It captured the feelings of adolescence and still rings true over 50 years later. Great writers remain relevant. Contemporary writers just fade into obscurity unless there are fundamental truths in what they create. To be honest I started off reading through the classics just because I thought I should and to be able to say I had. Now as I get older I realise the value in them. It's not pretence. I believe most of the literary canon has great value/relevance and it's not just random chance that they're still around. My advice to Azera would be: stick at it but try some other ones. You can always come back to AFTAs and other ones you don't warm to later in life. Hemmingway's 'The Old Man and the Sea' is a short, easy read and probably more accessible than his longer works. If you haven't already try some Oscar Wilde, he's more readable than most. I agree with this. Warble your argument that the primary value of a classic is how it educates or provokes thought on a current issue seems pretty wrong. They're classics because they explore issues that are timeless. Also I think a distinguishing mark of the classics is they contain characters who are multifaceted and realistic, whereas mainstream fiction (like mainstream music and movies) relies more on formula, or some novelty which becomes tiresome after a few months. In mainstream fiction the characters are usually forgettable and subordinate to formulaic plot. I also agree with the people that don't like Hemmingway... Choose another author OP. :D | ||
Chef
10810 Posts
On March 17 2012 14:16 Roe wrote: Unfortunately I haven't read anything by Ernest Hemingway but I'm reading James Joyce's Ulyses and it's pretty hard to get into. In fact I've always had the same problem you have, ever since the days I first explored Diagon Alley or watched as the Hobbits were almost eaten by trolls. I guess one of the only things that's helped me is to read more, and to keep reading consistently. How long has it been since you've read a book? Another point to remember is that quite often the introductory chapters of a novel can be pretty hard to grasp compared to the middle and end (The Hobbit is probably notorious for this). I think it's silly to compare something intellectual like Hemingway's work with something very literal and straight forward like Tolkien. There's a certain skill set you need to develop to be able to read and understand good work. I know that sounds backwards, you're not aloud to blame the audience blah blah blah, but there's a reason these works are considered great even tho they're not as accessible, and a reason why Lord of the Rings is only considered great in terms of prolific popularity, rather than intellectually. You read each for very different reasons and should (even if you aren't) be looking for very different things. Complaining about his writing style in terms of pure mechanics is a little absurd tho. In any case, it takes a certain willingness to understand literature to get a lot out of the truly great authors. And once you do, your cliche mega popular fantasy series like Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings look very childish. But of course, that's because they were written for children In an anti-culture of people who think any kind of artistic thought is snobbish, and any kind of innovation as weird and distasteful, we are curses with television programs that dull the senses and lull audiences into mindless mediocrity. I disagree with lots of what Warble has said. The books that have survived time have often done so because they are far reaching, they are still relevant to us today. They are often even still more progressive than what is written today. There will be great authors from our time, but it'll be hard to find them in the best sellers section Best sellers are best sellers because they appeal to our sensibilities. They will likely not be progressive in the slightest, but in fact reinforce values. It's no secret that much of what is eventually considered worthy of study and the title of literature is work that in its time did not have much popularity. We're not reading the Harry Potter of yesteryear when we read Woolf. If you want help understanding what you're reading, you can look for some academic criticism. If you have trouble just reading it... Well remember that these books were written for educated adults, not children. Much of literature that gets studied was originally only shared among educated friend's of the author. It simply expects more, and is not meant to merely entertain. You are meant to make connections and analyse the exact choice of words, the exact flow. It is not merely descriptive, but the writing itself, the style itself is meant to convey something. It's a meaning which can be felt just be reading it in a way that something very standard and normalised cannot. tl;dr: You get out of it what you put into it. If that sounds like too much work, watch American television and you'll never have to think at all ^^;; | ||
EternaLLegacy
United States410 Posts
On March 18 2012 06:23 Chef wrote: I think it's silly to compare something intellectual like Hemingway's work with something very literal and straight forward like Tolkien. There's a certain skill set you need to develop to be able to read and understand good work. I know that sounds backwards, you're not aloud to blame the audience blah blah blah, but there's a reason these works are considered great even tho they're not as accessible, and a reason why Lord of the Rings is only considered great in terms of prolific popularity, rather than intellectually. You read each for very different reasons and should (even if you aren't) be looking for very different things. Complaining about his writing style in terms of pure mechanics is a little absurd tho. In any case, it takes a certain willingness to understand literature to get a lot out of the truly great authors. And once you do, your cliche mega popular fantasy series like Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings look very childish. But of course, that's because they were written for children In an anti-culture of people who think any kind of artistic thought is snobbish, and any kind of innovation as weird and distasteful, we are curses with television programs that dull the senses and lull audiences into mindless mediocrity. I disagree with lots of what Warble has said. The books that have survived time have often done so because they are far reaching, they are still relevant to us today. They are often even still more progressive than what is written today. There will be great authors from our time, but it'll be hard to find them in the best sellers section Best sellers are best sellers because they appeal to our sensibilities. They will likely not be progressive in the slightest, but in fact reinforce values. It's no secret that much of what is eventually considered worthy of study and the title of literature is work that in its time did not have much popularity. We're not reading the Harry Potter of yesteryear when we read Woolf. If you want help understanding what you're reading, you can look for some academic criticism. If you have trouble just reading it... Well remember that these books were written for educated adults, not children. Much of literature that gets studied was originally only shared among educated friend's of the author. It simply expects more, and is not meant to merely entertain. You are meant to make connections and analyse the exact choice of words, the exact flow. It is not merely descriptive, but the writing itself, the style itself is meant to convey something. It's a meaning which can be felt just be reading it in a way that something very standard and normalised cannot. tl;dr: You get out of it what you put into it. If that sounds like too much work, watch American television and you'll never have to think at all ^^;; LOTR is actually an allegory for anarchy. It's way more intellectual than people realize. If you didn't know Tolkien was an anarchist, you'd probably never see it from that angle though (I know I didn't). | ||
Warble
137 Posts
Those of you who love Hemingway, Joyce, Woolf are reading for different reasons to most people. People need to learn to walk before they can learn to run, and shoving people into such heavy niche stuff before they even learn what is so fun about reading will just turn people off. How many children grow up turned off by the idea of reading because they have Shakespeare forced upon them in school? I believe that calling mainstream readers weak or childish shows that there remains a lot of pretentiousness in the literary world. It's reminiscent of Brood War elitism vs SC2. Fans of the literary genre who bash mainstream simply have different tastes to other people, but somehow feel entitled to hold their tastes as superior, and that's why they're considered pretentious. I think that the Harry Potter books were only above average in how well they were written - they're not the height of literature - but they succeed where Hemingway and Joyce fail: they taught millions of people to enjoy reading. And that's important. And it's a significant accomplishment. If literary authors are so good, why can't they write books that capture so many people's imaginations? Everybody who likes Joyce already likes reading. But not everybody who likes reading likes Joyce. Just because it's hard to read doesn't make it good. If you pick up a book by a modern author that's hard to read, you would just conclude that he's unskilled and put his book down. I simply recommend extending this same courtesy to classics. I think people assume classics are good just because many people talk about them. They assume that because a book is well-known it must be good. I think many fans of the classics underestimate the role of censorship and controversy. Most classics are classics because they pushed the hot buttons at the time. The Grapes of Wrath was banned. Ulysses was banned. The Catcher in the Rye was banned. Virginia Woolf was a feminist writer in the 19th century. Oscar Wilde was a gay writer in the 19th century (and banned). Etcetera. Despite the bans, Grapes was very widely read during its time. I don't know if it became a bestseller in its time, but it became influential enough to affect White House policy during the Depression. So what does this all mean? The controversies make those books important - for their time. They are historically significant so academics continue to study them. Modern readers face a new problem: they have more books to read than they will ever be able to read. So my recommendation is simply to help them get the most out of their reading time. Time spent reading a poorly written book is time not spent reading a well written book. Time spent reading a book that caused controversy in the past is time spent not reading a book that's relevant to today's hot topics - and being well-informed on contemporary issues is part of being a good citizen in today's world. From these principles, we get the hierarchy for important books to read, in order:
Most readers will die before they get through all the well written and topical books. Mothra, remember that when you talk about a classic, you're talking about the best writers from the past. So you need to compare them to the best writers of today. And the best writers of today understand the importance of characters - so they hardly let their characters become subordinate to the plot. In general, you will find genre fiction focuses less on characters and more on formulae than mainstream. Also remember that in 50 years, some of the writers published this decade will be held in the same esteem as Hemingway etc. But chances are, these writers will be more readable because they will have knowledge of styles and techniques that have been refined over time that Hemingway and co didn't have. You also have to consider that if you read Hemingway, you're supporting Hemingway's estate. If you read a modern Hemingway, you're supporting a living person who is writing literature that will be considered classics 50 years from now. I think the idea that some books are hard to read because they express more complex ideas is rubbish. Besides the entire issue with pretention, we can break it down: What is the author's aim in writing the book? It's to convey an idea, yes? How do we measure how well they have written it? It can't be simply that they put the idea down on paper - any teenager with a blog or twitter account can put ideas down in words. So we need to go a bit deeper and ask a new question first: Is the idea they're conveying important? To Kill a Mockingbird dealt with issues of racism when America was experiencing issues with racism. The Grapes of Wrath dealt with the plights of people in the Great Depression when America was going through the Depression. All very important ideas to convey at the time and, as I said earlier, Grapes actually influenced White House policy by its portrayal of these people's suffering. So these are important ideas. Would anybody bother writing about an unimportant idea? More importantly, why would anyone want to read about an unimportant idea? There's a reason crime novels all involve murders. Any lesser crime is not important enough to read about. So let's say the writer believes their idea is important. Why is the author writing the book? When you have an important idea, you want to get other people to understand the idea and act on it, don't you? Be less racist, help the displaced in the Depression. So how do we measure how well a book is written? With this in mind, we have a simple test for good writing: it is able to convey its ideas meaningfully and convincingly. Now, someone mentioned above that classics are classics because they deal with timeless ideas, but let's take this one step further. Let's say we have 10 writers with the same idea and they each write a book on it. How do we determine who wrote it best? It would be the author who got the most people reading and understanding his ideas, wouldn't it? Remember, these are important ideas, so we want to disseminate them to as many people as possible. You can already see where readability comes into this. If one of those authors is hard to read and expects their reader to do a lot of the work, many readers will struggle and give up. They will blame the readers for their weak minds and lack of attention span. To me, this is no different to the teenager on twitter wondering why his tweets on world peace haven't gotten people linking arms and singing Kumbaya. Why? Because if you want to put your ideas out there, it's your responsibility to find the best way to do it. There are millions of teenagers on twitter with millions of ideas and nobody has the responsibility to give each one deep consideration. So we have writers writing about important ideas and writing well, with books that are easy to read and place no undue burden upon the reader. Why wouldn't you read those first? So whenever I see a book defended by, "It just requires more dedication from the reader," I wonder how important its ideas really are. Because it's clearly not important enough for the writer to bother learning how to write better and to convey their ideas more fluidly. If someone writes with the intention that their writing can only be read by those who put a lot of effort into reading it, then the writing itself is more important to them than the ideas they want to convey. 200 years ago readers didn't have much choice when it came to writers. Now they do, and the competition means that it's easy to find authors who write timeless ideas and who write them well. Here's a brief summary of reasons to avoid anything that's hard to read:
| ||
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
edit: A brief response to the wall of text above. All texts are in dialogue with those that precede them. You cannot understand contemporary literature without understanding its place in the meta-text of literary discourse and the history of ideas in general. This of course does not mean that we should fetishize the classics. | ||
Fishgle
United States2174 Posts
On March 18 2012 10:13 sam!zdat wrote: The best Hemingway book is The Sun Also Rises. Way better than Farewall to Arms, which is just about this dude drinking vermouth mostly, and vermouth's kinda gross. edit: A brief response to the wall of text above. All texts are in dialogue with those that precede them. You cannot understand contemporary literature without understanding its place in the meta-text of literary discourse and the history of ideas in general. This of course does not mean that we should fetishize the classics. My bro. Just finished re-reading Sun Also Rises. That book makes me so pissed off and cynical about everything. It's fuckin great. | ||
Mothra
United States1448 Posts
On March 18 2012 09:39 Warble wrote: Again, it all comes down to why Azera wants to read. Those of you who love Hemingway, Joyce, Woolf are reading for different reasons to most people. People need to learn to walk before they can learn to run, and shoving people into such heavy niche stuff before they even learn what is so fun about reading will just turn people off. How many children grow up turned off by the idea of reading because they have Shakespeare forced upon them in school? It seems to me that more people choose not to read now than in the past. Yet there's far more "fun and easy to read" stuff available now and less emphasis on reading the classics for school. Perhaps it's not "Shakespeare was forced upon them" that kills enjoyment of reading, but rather too much quick and easy entertainment that requires no effort competes for kids attention. I think that the Harry Potter books were only above average in how well they were written - they're not the height of literature - but they succeed where Hemingway and Joyce fail: they taught millions of people to enjoy reading. And that's important. And it's a significant accomplishment. If literary authors are so good, why can't they write books that capture so many people's imaginations? Everybody who likes Joyce already likes reading. But not everybody who likes reading likes Joyce. It is absurd to say mature and complicated works fail because they don't teach new readers to enjoy reading. It's like saying calculus is a non achievement because it doesn't teach kids basic arithmetic. The last two statements mean nothing too... not everybody who likes reading likes any given author, that doesn't signify anything. Just because it's hard to read doesn't make it good. If you pick up a book by a modern author that's hard to read, you would just conclude that he's unskilled and put his book down. I simply recommend extending this same courtesy to classics. I think people assume classics are good just because many people talk about them. They assume that because a book is well-known it must be good. I think many fans of the classics underestimate the role of censorship and controversy. Most classics are classics because they pushed the hot buttons at the time. The Grapes of Wrath was banned. Ulysses was banned. The Catcher in the Rye was banned. Virginia Woolf was a feminist writer in the 19th century. Oscar Wilde was a gay writer in the 19th century (and banned). Etcetera. Despite the bans, Grapes was very widely read during its time. I don't know if it became a bestseller in its time, but it became influential enough to affect White House policy during the Depression. So what does this all mean? The controversies make those books important - for their time. They are historically significant so academics continue to study them. No one has said that a book is good because it is hard to read. But some books are hard to read because they grapple with very difficult ideas. It is worthwhile to delve into such ideas that are not easily resolved/comprehended. It is not requisite to cause controversy for a book to become a classic, nor do they endure merely because they caused controversy. I'm surprised that you'd come to that conclusion if you've read a lot of classic literature. Modern readers face a new problem: they have more books to read than they will ever be able to read. So my recommendation is simply to help them get the most out of their reading time. Time spent reading a poorly written book is time not spent reading a well written book. Time spent reading a book that caused controversy in the past is time spent not reading a book that's relevant to today's hot topics - and being well-informed on contemporary issues is part of being a good citizen in today's world. From these principles, we get the hierarchy for important books to read, in order:
Most readers will die before they get through all the well written and topical books. I agree that there's too many books now for anyone to be able to read. Yet I draw the opposite conclusion than you: if readers want to find well written books out of the sea of choices before them, they are better served by starting with ones that have stood the test of time. Your advice to go for the best sellers list may fulfill your topical criteria (an obsession it seems like), but does it really signify superior writing? Something like Twilight comes to mind (it is topical AND controversial, automatically worthwhile right?) Mothra, remember that when you talk about a classic, you're talking about the best writers from the past. So you need to compare them to the best writers of today. And the best writers of today understand the importance of characters - so they hardly let their characters become subordinate to the plot. In general, you will find genre fiction focuses less on characters and more on formulae than mainstream. Also remember that in 50 years, some of the writers published this decade will be held in the same esteem as Hemingway etc. But chances are, these writers will be more readable because they will have knowledge of styles and techniques that have been refined over time that Hemingway and co didn't have. You also have to consider that if you read Hemingway, you're supporting Hemingway's estate. If you read a modern Hemingway, you're supporting a living person who is writing literature that will be considered classics 50 years from now. If the main goals of reading literature are to be informed on current issues and monetarily support living persons, then everyone should just read newspapers and not bother with books. I think the idea that some books are hard to read because they express more complex ideas is rubbish. Besides the entire issue with pretention, we can break it down: What is the author's aim in writing the book? It's to convey an idea, yes? How do we measure how well they have written it? It can't be simply that they put the idea down on paper - any teenager with a blog or twitter account can put ideas down in words. So we need to go a bit deeper and ask a new question first: Is the idea they're conveying important? To Kill a Mockingbird dealt with issues of racism when America was experiencing issues with racism. The Grapes of Wrath dealt with the plights of people in the Great Depression when America was going through the Depression. All very important ideas to convey at the time and, as I said earlier, Grapes actually influenced White House policy by its portrayal of these people's suffering. So these are important ideas. Would anybody bother writing about an unimportant idea? More importantly, why would anyone want to read about an unimportant idea? There's a reason crime novels all involve murders. Any lesser crime is not important enough to read about. So let's say the writer believes their idea is important. Why is the author writing the book? When you have an important idea, you want to get other people to understand the idea and act on it, don't you? Be less racist, help the displaced in the Depression. I think you're failing to distinguish literature as art and literature for propaganda purposes. Literature does not have to make people act or think in the way you want them to. It may simply be a stimulus to think. And I hardly think it's accurate to say a good author sits down and goes "herp I have this idea I need to convey" and then spends months or years crafting a story to convey their idea (instead of just writing an essay). They may be motivated by aesthetics, by emotion, by the need to make money... who knows what else. So how do we measure how well a book is written? With this in mind, we have a simple test for good writing: it is able to convey its ideas meaningfully and convincingly. Now, someone mentioned above that classics are classics because they deal with timeless ideas, but let's take this one step further. Let's say we have 10 writers with the same idea and they each write a book on it. How do we determine who wrote it best? It would be the author who got the most people reading and understanding his ideas, wouldn't it? Remember, these are important ideas, so we want to disseminate them to as many people as possible. You can already see where readability comes into this. If one of those authors is hard to read and expects their reader to do a lot of the work, many readers will struggle and give up. They will blame the readers for their weak minds and lack of attention span. To me, this is no different to the teenager on twitter wondering why his tweets on world peace haven't gotten people linking arms and singing Kumbaya. Why? Because if you want to put your ideas out there, it's your responsibility to find the best way to do it. There are millions of teenagers on twitter with millions of ideas and nobody has the responsibility to give each one deep consideration. So we have writers writing about important ideas and writing well, with books that are easy to read and place no undue burden upon the reader. Why wouldn't you read those first? So whenever I see a book defended by, "It just requires more dedication from the reader," I wonder how important its ideas really are. Because it's clearly not important enough for the writer to bother learning how to write better and to convey their ideas more fluidly. If someone writes with the intention that their writing can only be read by those who put a lot of effort into reading it, then the writing itself is more important to them than the ideas they want to convey. 200 years ago readers didn't have much choice when it came to writers. Now they do, and the competition means that it's easy to find authors who write timeless ideas and who write them well. Again fiction is not about an author teaching ideas to their student reader. The timeless ideas deal with the human condition and are already understood by pretty much everyone just by virtue of being human. So the measure of skill is to take those feelings and experiences common to all and turn them into to something well crafted and aesthetically pleasing. Here's a brief summary of reasons to avoid anything that's hard to read:
I agree with the last four points, and yet none of them are good reasons why someone should avoid everything that takes effort to read. Your first two points make sense for textbooks, not fiction. | ||
Scarecrow
Korea (South)9172 Posts
On March 18 2012 09:39 Warble wrote: If literary authors are so good, why can't they write books that capture so many people's imaginations? For the same reason reality television and Twilight are so popular. People like watching/reading trash that doesn't challenge them in the slightest. On March 18 2012 09:39 Warble wrote: So what does this all mean? The controversies make those books important - for their time. They are historically significant so academics continue to study them. What is the author's aim in writing the book? It's to convey an idea, yes? All these rhetorical questions are so misleading. The Magna Carta, Herodotus' 'The Histories' etc are reserved for academic studies. The Illiad/Oddysey is still read by a far wider audience because they're more than just topical, they're art. Classics are still read and valued by people unaware of the controversy surround them. It's far more than being controversial, many got banned because they changed how people think. They still have that same power today. The author's aim in writing books is more than just conveying an idea... It might be to evoke feelings in the reader, entertain them, teach them, recreate a place/person/feeling, imagining a new world etc. | ||
Scarecrow
Korea (South)9172 Posts
| ||
Warble
137 Posts
The intention behind my advice to Azera is that I believe reading is a worthwhile pursuit, but many people in the literary world lose touch with the public and recommend books that will only turn new readers off reading. It's the reason behind the recent transition to using more contemporary works in classrooms, but it's too little too late after you've forced years of Shakespeare and 19th century writers on teenagers. I think you can tell by now that contemporary disinterest in literature is an important issue to me, and I believe the focus on classics is toxic. It turns people off reading, and it makes people feel unnecessarily bad about themselves when often the faults lie with the book. I hope that the way supporters of the classics talk down on people who don't read much makes it clear to prospective readers just how out of touch their advice will be. You might end up enjoying the classics, and that's fine. Everyone has different tastes. But if you're not enjoying it, it's fine to put it down and move onto something you're more likely to enjoy. You won't believe how much most people find they enjoy books once they have been given permission to enjoy something that's not a classic. | ||
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
A good model for the way such narrative conflicts (dialectics) function is the Greimas square: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotic_square | ||
Scarecrow
Korea (South)9172 Posts
On March 18 2012 15:26 Warble wrote: "There is no justification for a book that is difficult to read" Another one of your blanket assertions. Why don't we just burn the bible and basically anything of worth produced before the last couple of decades along with it? Why don't we stick to stuff that doesn't challenge us? Who needs hard books and cultural perspective when we've got a plethora of capable modern writers writing about modern shit? There are stepping stone books of course and they're great. Harry Potter is great for getting people into reading but if all we had were Harry Potter novels the world would be a pretty depressing place (no Joyce). I agree that schools used to push classics too hard, but if they didn't at all kids might just stay in their comfort zone for the rest of their lives. I believe everyone should be exposed to a few of the classics just so if they ever want to read them later in life, they are somewhat capable of getting into them. So I'm gathering your argument is basically classics should be left to the academics and that the masterpieces of the last few centuries should be relegated behind anything topical and well-written. I strongly disagree. I'd much prefer people were open-minded and tried to read as much and as widely as possible. | ||
Warble
137 Posts
On March 18 2012 16:48 Scarecrow wrote: Your arguments get shredded by Mothra and you write if off as nitpicking. We're nitpicking cause your arguments are so full of holes, false assumptions and generalisation. Shredded. That's very strong language. I wonder if reading classic literature ever brought you this far out of your comfort zone. I would counter your accusation that my arguments are full of holes, false assumptions and generalisation, except you didn't actually provide any specifics. When you don't provide specifics, that means you're generalising, doesn't it? But I will happily provide some specifics of my own:
Here is a brief summary of my position, mostly just statements since I have already explained them in detail above:
I will now address some of your claims. Why don't we just burn the bible and basically anything of worth produced before the last couple of decades along with it? We shouldn't. Just because the classics are not the best use of the majority of people's times doesn't mean that they're worthless. And they're still valuable to some people - everyone has different tastes. Lovers of the classics just need to be less arrogant and pretentious. Why don't we stick to stuff that doesn't challenge us? As I have explained above, the classics by nature don't challenge us as much. They challenge us in terms of readability, but I have already explained my stance there. On the more important things, like pushing our mental boundaries, I have already explained how the classics aren't great because ideas that were outrageous 50 years ago are commonplace now. After all, The Grapes of Wrath was banned and burned when it was first published. Can you imagine anyone doing that to Grapes today? Who needs hard books and cultural perspective when we've got a plethora of capable modern writers writing about modern shit? Cultural perspective is important, and modern writers provide that. You would agree that The Grapes of Wrath provided cultural perspective, right? Yet if we were living in 1939 when it was first published, Steinbeck would have been a modern writer providing us with this cultural perspective. 2012 is no different to 1939 in this regard: we have plenty of writers stepping up to the challenge. And if when you say hard you mean hard to read, then you know my stance on that. If by hard you mean pushing our cultural boundaries, then read my reply to the previous bolded statement. There are stepping stone books of course and they're great. Harry Potter is great for getting people into reading but if all we had were Harry Potter novels the world would be a pretty depressing place (no Joyce). Agreed, variety is good. I'm indifferent about Joyce. I agree that schools used to push classics too hard, but if they didn't at all kids might just stay in their comfort zone for the rest of their lives. Schools still do. There's a thread in the General forums about a teacher who got in trouble for setting Ender's Game as their reading. Although schools are moving towards contemporary books in general, they're still dinosaurs when it comes to getting children interested in reading. Pushing contemporary literary fiction is just as bad as pushing classics. The problem with pushing children out of their reading comfort zone is that the comfort zone needs to be established first. Schools are turning children off reading. I believe everyone should be exposed to a few of the classics just so if they ever want to read them later in life, they are somewhat capable of getting into them. As above. So I'm gathering your argument is basically classics should be left to the academics and that the masterpieces of the last few centuries should be relegated behind anything topical and well-written. Relegated is a harsh word. Most people are lucky to read 1 book a year. You want that book to be a classic? See my points about benefits and prioritising. I strongly disagree. I'd much prefer people were open-minded and tried to read as much and as widely as possible. You're putting the cart before the horse. If someone reads 200 books a year, then yes, they can benefit from trying out some classics. But most people are lucky to read 1 book a year. So the first obstacle is getting them to enjoy reading. And pushing people into classics is a bad way to do that. Yet many people in the literary world keep pushing them. Like they did to the OP. | ||
Azera
3800 Posts
Are there similar books on similar topics such as "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother"? I really enjoyed that book as it covers issues that are close to me. Also, please stop the arguing. I find arguing about such a subjective matter in this blog to be off-topic and ridiculous. Respect the views of each other and shut the fuck up. | ||
Warble
137 Posts
I just read the first page of Infinite Jest on the Amazon preview and I would have put this book down - but my circumstances are vastly different to yours. + Show Spoiler + The author struck me as being inexperienced at writing fiction. His style reads like a journalist's. Perhaps it's intentional, but it's not the sort of thing I'm into. Your tastes may be different. A lot of it depends on why you want to read. One thing you might want to do is try out a few different styles to see what keeps your interest. Here are some generic suggestions: If you haven't read Harry Potter then you should start with the first book in the series. There's a good chance you'll like it and if you enjoy it, then you'll know what it's like when you're reading a book you enjoy. It's okay if you want to put the book down and move onto a different one too. Of Mice and Men is a book bet if you want to give classic literature another try. It's short and a good way to get an idea of what Steinbeck is like. His style is quite prosaic, so you'll learn if that's the sort of thing you like or not. Myself, I find that I only ever read his dialogue. I find Steinbeck's prose slow but his dialogue incredible. Your mileage may vary. If you like Steinbeck, you can have a go at his other works. If you're in school, you might want to try Ender's Game, Artemis Fowl or Sunwing. I found them to be well written, and they seem to be popular amongst teenage boys, particularly Ender's Game. Check out the thread in the General forums about the controversy surrounding Ender's Game. I'd be interested in hearing what you think of The Colour of Magic by Terry Pratchett. Send me a PM with your thoughts after you've read it. Pratchett's works tend to cater more to people who are well read and familiar with tropes. If you want something more adult, pick up something by Stephen King. Try one of his later works, like Duma Key. I've heard good things about The Stand too, but it's one of his earlier works. King's prose in his later works is very efficient. I've been following the Obernewtyn series, but the quality of the series has been declining. It's up to you if you want to read the first book and potentially end up hooked on this series. Who knows, you might disagree with me and like the way she handles the later part of the series. I found some of Carmody's earlier works okay, like Scatterlings and The Gathering. I studied To Kill a Mockingbird in school and didn't mind it at all, so you might find that you enjoy it. However, I'd already read a lot by then, and my peers' opinions were quite mixed. You can try giving Asimov a try. He's an older writer whose style is the polar opposite of Steinbeck's: Asimov is very straightforward. But I like it. You can pick up Foundation or one of his short story collections. Someone above recommended Orwell, another classic author. If you decide to try him out, I think Animal Farm is easier to read than 1984. I think you'll get more out of it if you know it's an allegory on Russia. He lived around the same time as Steinbeck I think. If you want to try fantasy, the Song of Fire and Ice series is pretty popular at the moment. I didn't like his writing style - too Tolkienesque for my taste - but many people like the Tolkien style and you might too. If you like military stuff, I've heard good things about Weapons of Choice. I've read the first book in the series and don't think I will continue reading the series, but again, you might have different tastes. There's an alternative to reading classics that you might want to consider. The Wishbone series of books (there will be dog on the cover, I think it's a terrier of some sort) has many old classics (i.e. pre-20th century) rewritten in modern prose for children. They were pretty faithful to the original plots, keeping all the messy bits. I've heard good things from teenagers about Tomorrow, When the War Began. The teenage stuff doesn't appeal much to me, so I won't say anymore about it. I'm going to stop there, otherwise I'll go on forever. Once you have an idea of the sort of thing you enjoy, the easiest thing to do is, next time you're in the library, to pick up those books you're wondering about and read the first page. You can usually tell from there whether or not you want to read further. If it's a style you're unfamiliar with, you can always borrow it and see if you like it. | ||
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
For exemple most of Romain Gary's or Celine's words ring way more than any marc levy's books. Most of modern author are just trash that have nothing to tell because they never lived anything else than their confortable little heart stories. But that's just my two cent and I'm only talking about novel, not sci-fi or fantasy which is a complete different writting world to me. | ||
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On March 18 2012 19:19 Warble wrote: I just read the first page of Infinite Jest on the Amazon preview and I would have put this book down - but my circumstances are vastly different to yours. I think you've just totally delegitimized your aesthetic theory. The first page of infinite jest and you put it down. Good grief. The author struck me as being inexperienced at writing fiction. His style reads like a journalist's. Perhaps it's intentional, but it's not the sort of thing I'm into. Your tastes may be different. Wallace is one of the great prose stylists of our age. You just read the first page. Where's that facepalm smiley when you need it. edit: Can I just beg everybody here... PLEASE DO NOT JUDGE BOOKS BY THE FIRST DAMN PAGE Look guys, reading books takes practice. You have to put serious thought into things to get everything you can out of them, especially the further removed they are from your own cultural moment. Azera: here are some books with high literary merit which are fairly accessible. You seem to be high school aged or thereabouts so I'm leaving out things you have to be older and sadder to appreciate. Dick, Philip K., Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Heinlein, Robert The Moon is a Harsh Mistress Murakami, Haruki The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle Adams, Douglas Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Asimov, Isaac The Gods Themselves Bester, Alfred The Stars My Destination Danielewski, Mark Z House of Leaves Gibson, William Neuromancer LeGuin, Ursula The Left Hand of Darkness Mieville, China Perdido Street Station Pynchon, Thomas The Crying of Lot 49 Stephenson, Neal Snow Crash glhf | ||
| ||