|
Earwicker posted:I thought White Teeth was great up until the end, at which point it seemed like she'd written herself into a corner and didn't really know what to do. I have not read subsequent works but I've heard good things about NW. Changing my mind is an excellent essay collection.
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
Falstaff Infection posted:In order to qualify as a conscientious objector in the U.S., you have to object to war in general, not just a specific war. No, you have to say that you object to war in general. You don't have to actually even object to anything at all, you just have to claim to object and be decent enough at explaining that claim. I really don't see how that status, particularly during a war like Vietnam when there was a draft, has any bearing on fantasy novels written by the objector decades later.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Falstaff Infection posted:In order to qualify as a conscientious objector in the U.S., you have to object to war in general, not just a specific war. They probably make sure to check that you object to all wars and not just the current one by getting you to write a short story and if it seems like you don't like war from that, then you can sit it out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:No, you have to say that you object to war in general. You don't have to actually even object to anything at all, you just have to claim to object and be decent enough at explaining that claim. I really don't see how that status, particularly during a war like Vietnam when there was a draft, has any bearing on fantasy novels written by the objector decades later. Agree to disagree, I guess. There's actually a pretty hard-hitting anti-war speech in book four that I'm pretty sure is GRRM directly addressing the reader. Anyhow, re:White Teeth's unsatisfying ending, I feel like another author who does that a lot is Michael Chabon. He's awesome, but his books always end kinda limply.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
The only way to settle this is to ship the ASoIaF series back in time to GRRM's draft officer and see if he thinks GRRM really objects to all wars after he reads it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:The only way to settle this is to ship the ASoIaF series back in time to GRRM's draft officer and see if he thinks GRRM really objects to all wars after he reads it. Well there's another way. We could restart the War of the Roses but on a smaller scale using the towns of Lancaster and York, Pennsylvania and see how GRRM reacts
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
CestMoi posted:They probably make sure to check that you object to all wars and not just the current one by getting you to write a short story and if it seems like you don't like war from that, then you can sit it out. That's actually almost literally true. You have to basically write essays about your beliefs, how you acquired them, and illustrate how deeply held those beliefs are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
While I'm fairly sure that doesn't belong here, given the discussion I'm curious: anyone else feel that those fantasy books are the worst things GRRM wrote? I love his short stories but ASoIaF bores me to no end. I think a lot of it has to do with the way he portrays pseudo-medieval thinking; there's about two characters in the entire thing that read like they're using their brains. I read the whole thing upon insistence of my friends who claimed it's a cornerstone of modern fantasy and the entire duration I was wondering when will it start getting good. I guess the charm happens when you somehow manage to care about the characters but I never managed to do that. The fact there's pretty much no substance to it apart from being a medieval soap opera that's vaguely critical of the society it describes doesn't help either. edit: I know this doesn't belong here but I'm kinda afraid of entering the dedicated thread. edit2: Okay, real literature. How do you folks feel about Eco's novels? I realize they're at least partly experiments with meanings (and meanings thereof) but while I love Foucault's Pendulum and can't bring myself to enjoy the others half as much. Name of the Rose is a pretty great way to put Semiotics 101 but Island of the Day Before and Secret Flame of Queen Loanna read pretty much like drivel to me. anilEhilated fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Can we not talk about grr martin in the real lit thread. Take it to the thread that made the rapefanfic instead please.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
I reread Mo Yan's Life and Death Are Wearing Me Out in Chinese. I still feel that its a good book but definently not something I would recommend reading twice (unless you are doing something like I was and working on a language) as there is almost nothing that has a deep meaning that you would not pick up the first time kinda like The Master and Margarita. I do think it reads better in Chinese much like how most translations are.
Stravinsky fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Falstaff Infection posted:Not to be a dick, but do you ever post anything remotely substantive? Please do not insult my friend the French llama
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Maybe someone should write an anti-rape novel to expose how rape is bad. That would be loving deep.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Stravinsky posted:I reread Mo Yan's Life and Death Are Wearing Me Out in Chinese. I still feel that its a good book but definently not something I would recommend reading twice (unless you are doing something like I was and working on a language) as there is almost nothing that has a deep meaning that you would not pick up the first time kinda like The Master and Margarita. I do think it reads better in Chinese much like how most translations are. Mo Yan is so great. I have to queue up another of his books before the end of the year, probably Big Breasts & Wide Hips, or Chicago Public Library has the Kindle version of Shifu: You'll Do Anything for a Laugh available.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Falstaff Infection posted:It's not a novel, but Ursula K. LeGuin's short story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" is a fantastic allegorical examination of the limits of utilitarianism. Wait, what? No, it's not. I get that it's a metaphor, but I think the allegory fails because the situation is so completely ludicrous and nonsensical. If you want to argue against a philosophy, you need to take it at least seriously enough to consider why it has adherents. If she was making a point about how a lot of the assumptions underlying utilitarianism are self-justifying in their supposed rationality, she failed at that and she failed at showing the real allure of it as a philosophy. Omelas is sort of a fundamentally anti-empirical, anti-materialist, bad faith reading of both utilitarianism and I would argue human nature. In a situation like one presented in the novel, it's actually very easy for humans to do the right thing, the problem is that in real life, even when situations are as clear cut in moral terms, there's an actual benefit or logic or psychological appeal on some level to the "evil" choice. The situation in the story would actually only serve one purpose: to allow "the ones who turn away from Omelas" to set themselves up as being superior to Omelas. To be honest, I've always found that story to be smug as hell, and just not very good. If story about utilitarianism sets the reader up as identifying with the people who are horrified at the excesses of their society and aligns their sympathies with the people in that society who reject and fight against it, that's actually a very lovely novel because most people aren't like that. Justification and tribalism are huge parts of human nature. Frankly, a lot of LeGuin's stuff comes across that way to me; she's terrific at writing alien cultures but when dealing with normal human behavior and society she honestly comes across as a giant  It's still enjoyable and a lot of what she's created doesn't rely at all on any kind of psychological realism or verisimilitude, but moral critiques of society are not a place where that failing is excusable.Falstaff Infection posted:Anyway, I'm sorry for starting this derail. We really shouldn't be talkign about GRRM in the "grown-up books" thread. What do people think of Zadie Smith? I really love her essays, but I've always had a hard time getting through her novels. Something about how she deals with female sexuality in On Beauty made me really, really uncomfortable. The daughter in particular just came across as a total straw man or stereotype, and the portrayal seemed almost, idk, vicious? I haven't tried anything of hers since. If there was a point there or another layer of nuance to the character, I didn't pick up on it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
HELLO LADIES posted:Frankly, a lot of LeGuin's stuff comes across that way to me; she's terrific at writing alien cultures but when dealing with normal human behavior and society she honestly comes across as a giant Her recent speech on the state of the publishing industry was loving right on point and honestly floored me (and made me feel rather guilty since I was complicit in what she is attacking). And it certainly was about normal human behavior and society not alien cultures.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
HELLO LADIES posted:Wait, what? No, it's not. I get that it's a metaphor, but I think the allegory fails because the situation is so completely ludicrous and nonsensical. If you want to argue against a philosophy, you need to take it at least seriously enough to consider why it has adherents. If she was making a point about how a lot of the assumptions underlying utilitarianism are self-justifying in their supposed rationality, she failed at that and she failed at showing the real allure of it as a philosophy. Omelas is sort of a fundamentally anti-empirical, anti-materialist, bad faith reading of both utilitarianism and I would argue human nature. In a situation like one presented in the novel, it's actually very easy for humans to do the right thing, the problem is that in real life, even when situations are as clear cut in moral terms, there's an actual benefit or logic or psychological appeal on some level to the "evil" choice. The situation in the story would actually only serve one purpose: to allow "the ones who turn away from Omelas" to set themselves up as being superior to Omelas. To be honest, I've always found that story to be smug as hell, and just not very good. If story about utilitarianism sets the reader up as identifying with the people who are horrified at the excesses of their society and aligns their sympathies with the people in that society who reject and fight against it, that's actually a very lovely novel because most people aren't like that. Justification and tribalism are huge parts of human nature. Frankly, a lot of LeGuin's stuff comes across that way to me; she's terrific at writing alien cultures but when dealing with normal human behavior and society she honestly comes across as a giant I think the story has more nuance and shades of gray than you're giving it credit for. Note that nobody "fights against" Omelas. Nobody tries to rescue the child, or overthrow the society. That would be immoral, since it would destroy the happiness of thousands for the benefit of one. So all they can do to salve their consciences is "walk away," which, as you said, doesn't really do anything except allow them to feel morally superior. So we're left with an open question of what the right thing to do is, and whether there's any value in essentially empty, but correct, moral gestures. Ultimately, I don't think that choosing to stay within Omelas is particularly evil-- it's a trade-off that might be worth making. I mean, everybody who lives in a developed country is choosing not to walk away from Omelas, and I don't think they're all evil. It's a story about how frustrating significant moral decisions can be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:Her recent speech on the state of the publishing industry was loving right on point and honestly floored me (and made me feel rather guilty since I was complicit in what she is attacking). And it certainly was about normal human behavior and society not alien cultures. Do you have a link? I haven't seen it. I'm not suggestion she actually has the 'sperg, or anything, just that in her actual novels and stories, she's not very good at conveying the psychology behind human behavior, or the societal pressures behind that behavior, at all. If anything, it seems like her writing consciously elides that stuff. Which is fine, not everything needs to be about that, it's just a really big failing in Omelas. Falstaff Infection posted:I think the story has more nuance and shades of gray than you're giving it credit for. Note that nobody "fights against" Omelas. Nobody tries to rescue the child, or overthrow the society. That would be immoral, since it would destroy the happiness of thousands for the benefit of one. So all they can do to salve their consciences is "walk away," which, as you said, doesn't really do anything except allow them to feel morally superior. So we're left with an open question of what the right thing to do is, and whether there's any value in essentially empty, but correct, moral gestures. Ultimately, I don't think that choosing to stay within Omelas is particularly evil-- it's a trade-off that might be worth making. I mean, everybody who lives in the United States is choosing not to walk away from Omelas, and I don't think they're all evil. It's a story about how frustrating significant moral decisions can be. Or "fighting against" it would expose the lovely weakness of the metaphor she's set up: some guy says "hey, why exactly do we have to torture this retarded child? No, really, why? I'm open to an explanation, but let's examine this carefully and see if we can't at least do some harm reduction", but then that pops the bubble of the entire situation. The problem with taking it purely as a metaphor is that she's explicitly setting them up as a society of empirical rationalists. It just feels like she's showing the "what" of utilitarianism, and not the how or why. HELLO LADIES fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Dec 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
HELLO LADIES posted:Do you have a link? I haven't seen it. I'm not suggestion she actually has the 'sperg, or anything, just that in her actual novels and stories, she's not very good at conveying the psychology behind human behavior, or the societal pressures behind that behavior, at all. If anything, it seems like her writing consciously elides that stuff. Which is fine, not everything needs to be about that, it's just a really big failing in Omelas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Et9Nf-rsALk
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
HELLO LADIES posted:Do you have a link? I haven't seen it. I'm not suggestion she actually has the 'sperg, or anything, just that in her actual novels and stories, she's not very good at conveying the psychology behind human behavior, or the societal pressures behind that behavior, at all. If anything, it seems like her writing consciously elides that stuff. Which is fine, not everything needs to be about that, it's just a really big failing in Omelas. Also, there may not be much room for psychological realism in allegory. Once you start giving the characters too much individuality, they lose their potency as symbols.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Falstaff Infection posted:Also, there may not be much room for psychological realism in allegory. Once you start giving the characters too much individuality, they lose their potency as symbols. I don't think she needs to give the characters any kind of individuality, it's the underlying moral situation itself. Put it another way, I think she's created a vision of most of humanity, inadvertently or not, that's so cartoonishly grimdark it's actually worse than reality. Even if you're taking it purely as a philosophical critique with no intent towards rhetorical value at all, it fails by the same cause but for a different reason: any actual adherent to utilitarianism is just going to reject the situation as the straw man it is, especially since utilitarianism is as much a fantasy of providence within scientism as it is a form of rationalization. Not explicitly, obviously, but I've never seen the one without the other, and historically there's quite a connection as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
HELLO LADIES posted:I don't think she needs to give the characters any kind of individuality, it's the underlying moral situation itself. Put it another way, I think she's created a vision of most of humanity, inadvertently or not, that's so cartoonishly grimdark it's actually worse than reality. Even if you're taking it purely as a philosophical critique with no intent towards rhetorical value at all, it fails by the same cause but for a different reason: any actual adherent to utilitarianism is just going to reject the situation as the straw man it is, especially since utilitarianism is as much a fantasy of providence within scientism as it is a form of rationalization. Not explicitly, obviously, but I've never seen the one without the other, and historically there's quite a connection as well. See, I don't think it's grimdark at all. Omelas is a *genuine* paradise that happens to be built on misery. Second, in my opinion it's not that far away from reality. The high standard of living in the United States, for example, is made possible in large part by cheap consumer goods produced under horrific conditions, often by children. That's kinda like the setup in Omelas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
Actually, I think real people are even worse than the people of Omelas, 'cause at least the Omelans admit that their privilege rests upon someone else's suffering.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
I have two different requests for recommendations that you cool folks might be able to help with: Back story, I've been trying to read the classics but find myself bored with 80% of the BIG IMPORTANT writers (particulary DH Lawrence, anything Bronte, Dickens when he goes beyond about 400 pages, Henry James, and particularly the supposedly fun adventurey stuff like Mark Twain, Cervantes and whatnot). Basically the only stuff I've read, classic-wise (i.e. pre-1900) that I've enjoyed has been Sophocles, Gustave Flaubert, Dostoevsky, Emile Zola, Shakespeare, and stuff like that, which I guess just feels "weightier" and more engaging for whatever reason. I think I just have no interest in books about class issues or examinations of poverty written by obviously upper class people. I've read other classics obviously, but I don't really want to poo poo out a big list. I want something with some sense of humor about itself, or at least a hint of irony, and thematic elements that aren't just some tired romance between a poor lady and a suave rich dude or whatever. Basically give me either some soul-crushing dark stuff like Madame Bovary/Therese Raquin or some hilariously biting satire like Lysistrata or The Age of Innocence. My second request is for some contemporary writers (preferably the last 5-10 years) that are experimental (or at least fun), engaging and have at least some humor (or soul-crushing bleakness) to their books that could stand up to writers like: Philip Roth Martin Amis Vladimir Nabokov Ali Smith (the most recent writer to really engage me) Stanley Elkin David Foster Wallace Gary Lutz I don't want: Self-consciously quirky stuff (Dave Eggers, Zadie Smith, Marisha Pessl) Stuff that can't decide between plot and prose and ends up going off the rails in a completely idiotic way (see: The Goldfinch by Donna Tartt or A Tale for the Time Being by Ruth Ozeki) Intentionally obtuse, overly complex Ulysses wannabes (Will Self's Umbrella, I love his earlier stuff though) Cormac McCarthy - we all know he loving exists, stop it. Sorry for the novel, I just don't know where to go next and I'm almost out of Philip Roth to read! I figured the cool guy lit thread was the true place to ask this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
jonnykungfu posted:I have two different requests for recommendations that you cool folks might be able to help with: You mentioned Zola already but if you haven't read it, I strongly recommend Germinal. It's one of my favorite books of that period, a great destructive spiral of a novel. There is some humor in it, but mostly it is quite dark. Class issues are central to the novel, but it does not revolve around upper class people at all (though there are occasional scenes with some), it focuses on a community of impoverished coal miners in their attempts to organize and become labor conscious, and the competing ideological influences at work on them during this time. quote:My second request is for some contemporary writers (preferably the last 5-10 years) that are experimental (or at least fun), engaging and have at least some humor (or soul-crushing bleakness) to their books that could stand up to writers like: Check out The Son by Philip Meyer. It's a western, taking place in the same region that many of McCarthy's books do (along the Rio Grande) but he is a very different style of writer. Funnier, but still very poignant and often quite brutal, and with a much larger scope of history. It's a multigenerational story of a powerful ranching/oil family, founded by a crazy rear end in a top hat who had lived among the Comanche as a captive during his teen years and later fought with the Texas Rangers in the Civil War. Starting in the 1840's and running up till 2012 or so. The prose itself is not really experimental, though it is good, he has a great ear for dialogue, and the story is a great example of a contemporary American tragedy of history, racism, and greed. Earwicker fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Dec 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
jonnykungfu posted:My second request is for some contemporary writers (preferably the last 5-10 years) that are experimental (or at least fun), engaging and have at least some humor (or soul-crushing bleakness) to their books that could stand up to writers like: Marilynne Robinson? I didn't even know who she was until this year, but someone whose tastes I like recommended Gilead and now it's one of my favorite novels. No annoying, dated pop culture stuff or affected complexity, just an old pastor reminiscing about his life in a series of letters to his toddler son.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:You mentioned Zola already but if you haven't read it, I strongly recommend Germinal. It's one of my favorite books of that period, a great destructive spiral of a novel. There is some humor in it, but mostly it is quite dark. Class issues are central to the novel, but it does not revolve around upper class people at all (though there are occasional scenes with some), it focuses on a community of impoverished coal miners in their attempts to organize and become labor conscious, and the competing ideological influences at work on them during this time. I actually have a copy of Germinal sitting around and I just haven't gotten around to starting it for some stupid reason. I'll have to remedy that soon (though I just started Laura Warholic so I'll be at it for a while unless I hate it and give up). I've heard lots of good things about The Son but have just worried that it might be too light (probably based solely on it being popular. I'm one of those assholes.) There's nothing I hate more that spending the time to read through 600+ pages and feeling empty about the experience because you didn't take anything away from it other than a fun story. Not that I have anything against a fun story, I just like them to be short so I don't feel like I've wasted my time. You're recommendation makes it sound better than I would expect, and I've also heard him compared to Steinbeck, so I'll give it a shot. I've read Gilead. I liked it a lot, but didn't love it (though I think a second reading might give me a greater appreciation). It reminded me of a religious Wallace Stegner in a lot of ways, and, being an atheist, was surprised by how engaging and sometimes powerful it was. I've heard her newest is very good as well, but I worry that her books might be samey. Then again, I love Philip Roth and he wrote the same book over and over. Thanks for the recommendations! Keep them coming if you have more!
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
They're a little older than 10 years by now, but W.G. Sebald's books were all written or published in the 90s or very early 2000s, and they're my favorite novels, especially The Emigrants and Austerlitz. I don't know if you need a 'plot' to your books like Aging New York Novelist Has Affair or w/e, since they're all mostly devoid of plot in the traditional sense. His prose is the exact opposite of what you'd think of when you think of contemporary literature (he said that he was inspired by 18th century German prose poets and his writing is extremely formal and elegant). I could go on and on about how much I like him, but I'm sure he has enough evangelists. The funniest book I can think of is by an author who doesn't really seem to get mentioned that much, Masters of Atlantis by Charles Portis. I'd recommend John Darnielle's Wolf In White Van to anyone (maybe not depressed teenagers, though). I don't really keep up with contemporary literature or new releases but I like his band so I picked it up while traveling. I was a little apprehensive because it would be disappointing if he released a mediocre first novel. To my extreme delight it was very, very good, and I don't really know many other books that deal so honestly or convincingly with the certain kind of loneliness and isolation it's about. I don't know if it's as good as Philip Roth because I haven't read any Philip Roth. tatankatonk fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Dec 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
jonnykungfu posted:I've heard lots of good things about The Son but have just worried that it might be too light (probably based solely on it being popular. I'm one of those assholes.) There's nothing I hate more that spending the time to read through 600+ pages and feeling empty about the experience because you didn't take anything away from it other than a fun story. Not that I have anything against a fun story, I just like them to be short so I don't feel like I've wasted my time. You're recommendation makes it sound better than I would expect, and I've also heard him compared to Steinbeck, so I'll give it a shot. Yeah there's definitely a lot more to it than just a fun story, I wouldn't call it light at all. There are elements of adventure and action of course but it's still a deep historical investigation of Texan, American, and Mexican history, and reflection on family and race relations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
tatankatonk posted:The funniest book I can think of is by an author who doesn't really seem to get mentioned that much, Masters of Atlantis by Charles Portis. Portis is awesome. I've read all of his novels and they are all hilarious and very well written. Personally my favorite is Gringos, but really all of them should be read (and they are short, they only take a day or two each)
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
Vote spamming aside, I noticed the readers' side lists several novels by Robert Heinlein. I know he's clearly in the genre camp but is there a reason he seems held in such high regard? I've never read any of his books, but from what I've heard about his writing he sounds like kind of a crackpot. HELLO LADIES posted:scientism Is there a word to describe someone who is an adherent of scientism? Obviously it wouldn't be 'scientist'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
jonnykungfu posted:
Oblomov by Ivan Goncharov? It is commonly considered to be a satire on Russian aristocracy and a general kind of Russian attitude to fate and life. It's also got bleak in spades, because it's basically about a guy who just stays in bed. Sebadoh Gigante posted:Is there a word to describe someone who is an adherent of scientism? Obviously it wouldn't be 'scientist'. Dorkins?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
tatankatonk posted:They're a little older than 10 years by now, but W.G. Sebald's books were all written or published in the 90s or very early 2000s, and they're my favorite novels, especially The Emigrants and Austerlitz. I don't know if you need a 'plot' to your books like Aging New York Novelist Has Affair or w/e, since they're all mostly devoid of plot in the traditional sense. His prose is the exact opposite of what you'd think of when you think of contemporary literature (he said that he was inspired by 18th century German prose poets and his writing is extremely formal and elegant). I could go on and on about how much I like him, but I'm sure he has enough evangelists. I read Austerlitz about 10 years ago, and I think I was way too young for it at the time. I've been meaning to go back to Sebald (in fact I bought The Emigrants relatively recently but haven't cracked it open yet). I've heard him being placed alongside Bruno Schulz and Proust, so it's probably worth giving him a second chance. I haven't read any Portis. I'll definitely check it out. I've been wary of Darnielle's book just because I naturally assume a writer from another medium trying to write a novel isn't going to be great, but you're recommendation sells me on it. In return, here's some Philip Roth recommendations. You really should give him a chance. He's my favorite writer of all time, and highly regarded for good reason, though he catches a lot of flack from people assuming he always is writing about himself, rather than, you know, writing fictional characters. Also, he's known as a dude who always writes about his dick solely because of Portnoy's Complaint, his fourth novel out of something like 40 novels. Anyway, he's great, and isn't just New York Jewish guy writing about his sex life. He basically has three modes that he switches between: Comedy - His best being Portnoy's Complaint, which I warn you is EXTREMELY sexually explicit, so if you're squeamish about that, skip it. But it's absolutely hilarious and probably his easiest starting point. Otherwise, go for The Great American Novel, which a lot of people hate for some reason. It's an extremely over-the-top satire about baseball, communism, and aging, and one of the most fun, stupid books ever written. Elegant drama - Mostly his earlier stuff like Goodbye, Columbus or Letting Go, and his last novel, Nemesis. This is my least favorite of his stuff, but some people hold it up as his best. He was clearly influenced by Henry James, and it's all very charming, but it doesn't really say much that I find relevant in my opinion. "Old man outraged about life" mode - This is my favorite Roth stuff, and where most of his critical acclaim comes from. American Pastoral is THE BEST book ever written about the American Dream. The less I say about it the better, but it's just stunning. Everyman is the most powerful exploration of old age and death I've ever read. Probably the most terrifying and sad work of art I've ever experienced. These two books might be my two favorite books ever written (though Everyman gets poo poo on by a lot of people for having a brief explicit sex scene, which I can agree seems jarring at first, but is actually quite important to the narrative).
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:Yeah there's definitely a lot more to it than just a fun story, I wouldn't call it light at all. There are elements of adventure and action of course but it's still a deep historical investigation of Texan, American, and Mexican history, and reflection on family and race relations. I'm definitely going to read this very soon. Sebadoh Gigante posted:Vote spamming aside, I noticed the readers' side lists several novels by Robert Heinlein. I know he's clearly in the genre camp but is there a reason he seems held in such high regard? I've never read any of his books, but from what I've heard about his writing he sounds like kind of a crackpot. Heinlein is seriously one of the most dated, crap writers I've read. I can get down on some sci-fi once in a while, but I've never understood why Heinlein is so regarded. J_RBG posted:Oblomov by Ivan Goncharov? It is commonly considered to be a satire on Russian aristocracy and a general kind of Russian attitude to fate and life. It's also got bleak in spades, because it's basically about a guy who just stays in bed. Sounds like exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
jonnykungfu posted:Heinlein is seriously one of the most dated, crap writers I've read. I can get down on some sci-fi once in a while, but I've never understood why Heinlein is so regarded. He's very influential especially in American Science Fiction
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
jonnykungfu posted:My second request is for some contemporary writers (preferably the last 5-10 years) that are experimental (or at least fun), engaging and have at least some humor (or soul-crushing bleakness) to their books that could stand up to writers like: Skippy Dies by Irish writer Paul Murray is (somewhat) experimental, but more importantly it balances humor and total gut-churning tragedy quite impressively. It deals with the betrayal of the young and weak by the old and strong, using the backdrop of a boarding school in "Celtic tiger" era Ireland. Of course, David Cameron was spotted reading it recently, which kind of sullies it in my eyes. There's a character in the book who is basically an avatar of new-economy Tory soullessness, and I almost have to wonder whether Cameron saw at least a little bit of himself in those scenes. Also check out The Sense of an Ending by Julian Barnes. Very interesting structurally, and full of that soul-crushing bleakness you dig. But it's a very English bleakness-- everyone's life is terrible and they've let everything they want pass them by, but they don't make a big fuss about it. Falstaff Infection fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Dec 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:He's very influential especially in American Science Fiction Be that as it may, I agree with everyone who's said he's insufferable. Starship Troopers is fascist propaganda that somehow manages to be *boring*, while Stranger in a Strange Land feels like a transparently cynical attempt to cash in on the flower-child era.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
jonnykungfu posted:Heinlein is seriously one of the most dated, crap writers I've read. I can get down on some sci-fi once in a while, but I've never understood why Heinlein is so regarded. The positive spin on Heinlein is that he was a technically competent pulp sf writer (harder and rarer than it sounds) who broke a lot of ground at the time. He was the first major American SF author to have non-caucasian protagonists (Starship Troopers), one of the first to write sexually liberated female characters, and among the first to use popular, pulp SF to explore controversial political ideas. He had a really big influence on the 1960's hippie and free-love movements (this is documented -- Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters all read Stranger in a Strange Land) and was a huge part of why libertarian ideas became so prevalent in 20th century SF. That said he was also more than half crazy especially in the latter half of his career. Falstaff Infection posted:Be that as it may, I agree with everyone who's said he's insufferable. Starship Troopers is fascist propaganda that somehow manages to be *boring*, while Stranger in a Strange Land feels like a transparently cynical attempt to cash in on the flower-child era. Check your publication dates -- Stranger pre-dates the flower child era and is arguably responsible in part for engendering it. If you read Tom Wolfe's Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test he talks in there about Heinlein's and specifically Stranger's influence on the early hippie movement. All that said there are still a lot of horrible things about Heinlein! At root, he's a children's book author who decided to write things that would challenge the conventional assumptions of the average precocious male American twelve year old, but he's still fundamentally an author of children's books. I'm not even really intentionally knocking him when I say that, his first twelve or so published novels were all written explicitly for the 12 year old boy demographic, and all his later work is still fundamentally aimed at that same audience. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Dec 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
jonnykungfu posted:My second request is for some contemporary writers (preferably the last 5-10 years) that are experimental (or at least fun), engaging and have at least some humor (or soul-crushing bleakness) to their books Michael Chabon? I'm not sure how people feel about his works but he's one of my favorite authors. Haruki Murakami is also pretty good and experimental. I'd recommend Kavalier and Clay and The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
I now see that Stranger in a Strange Land was first published in 1961, so I guess I should give it a little bit of credit for prefiguring/predicting/influencing certain cultural trends. I still found it to be complete treacle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
Heinlein is also responsible for every time some annoying nerd says "grok".
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 05:41
|
|