|
ulvir posted:just take it one book at a time Very much agreed. I usually just go with the flow, and I will readily assume meanings of words I don't know. Usually you can tell if it's good or bad, at least. Maybe later I look them up, but I don't pause. I do think about what I am reading, but no "wiki breaks". One thing I really dislike in genre fiction is when they put dramatis personae and vocabularies and all kinds of extraneous worldbuilding poo poo in the front or back matter. I guess Tolkien or Herbert are to blame for that, but tbh if it isn't necessary to explain the character, their motivations or feelings, or the plot, it shouldn't be there. It could be in the book itself, but it's not. It's a weird "see, I did the homework!" look, to me. For some reason there are also often dramatis personae in translations of foreign works, probably cause foreign names are harder to remember. I guess they're fine in that case, but I try to stay in the zone instead of referring back to check whose uncle was being an rear end in a top hat.
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:08 |
|
|
I was really enjoying Borges until he switched to second gear and I tried to keep up for a bit, looking things up in other books, but then I just made like Atlas and read through without understanding almost anything. e: And I'm still not sure if he was just making it all up as he went Carthag Tuek posted:One thing I really dislike in genre fiction is when they put dramatis personae and vocabularies and all kinds of extraneous worldbuilding poo poo in the front or back matter. It's for speed-runners.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 00:57
|
|
|
ulvir posted:the bible is an underrated read, regardless of whether or not you’re a believer While I was out walking the dog and getting the soup going I had a think about what books I would recommend for "Essential Bible Reading", and even the worst of the law, genealogies, prophets, and letters by the interminable Paul, there are still gems to be had that have been sublimated into the cultural consciousness of the West. Of course, I'm a sucker for the histories. My list: The Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus the major ones here) Joshua Judges Ruth The Samuels, Kings, and Chronicles (as I said, I'm a sucker for the histories) Daniel (this is tremendous) Esther Ezekiel (a real acid trip) Isaiah (often cited as back story for the new testament) Job (perhaps one of the oldest stories historically) Jonah (the whale guy) The poetry (Psalms and Song of Solomon) The Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, but start with Mark and go back to Matthew) Acts Revelations (another acid trip) Bilirubin fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Jan 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 01:43
|
|
|
Bilirubin posted:While I was out walking the dog and getting the soup going I had a think about what books I would recommend for "Essential Bible Reading", and even the worst of the law, genealogies, prophets, and letters by the interminable Paul, there are still gems to be had that have been sublimated into the cultural consciousness of the West. Of course, I'm a sucker for the histories. The poetry is essential imo, just cos of the huge influence ... you need some psalms
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 01:47
|
|
|
Jrbg posted:The poetry is essential imo, just cos of the huge influence ... you need some psalms poo poo I forgot Psalms and Song of Solomon. I totally meant to include them. Must reads!
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 02:35
|
|
|
Where the hell is Ecclesiastes
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 02:39
|
|
|
Also, "Revelations" is not a book of the Bible. I will never understand why people keep calling it that. It's one revelation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 02:40
|
|
|
The problem with the bible is that it's very long. I read it once and by the time I finished it it's not like I remembered much of the middle bits. Also not a problem just now but I'm not reading this on the loving bus: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 02:48
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:Where the hell is Ecclesiastes And Job. A travesty to leave these out in a Pandemic year. Ecclesiastes is likely the most resonant with today's Western readers. Imp Paul gets a bad rap. If you understand you're reading a terrorist zealot's work who switched sides halfway through, and went from violence to pacifism, it's bonkers to read his stuff. Not a guy to get a beer with, but def the guy to lead a movement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 02:52
|
|
|
ThePopeOfFun posted:And Job. Job is there But its my original point, its hard to draw firm lines when there is so much in there, even loving Amos, and I HATE that guy
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 17:40
|
|
|
Bilirubin posted:loving Amos, and I HATE that guy What the gently caress??!!!!!11111222elvatolvakatinkorva
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 18:21
|
|
|
.
whatevz fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Apr 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 19:52
|
|
|
.
whatevz fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Apr 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 19:54
|
|
|
Bilirubin posted:Job is there See, OP? I don't even have basic reading comprehension and I still like books! Lower your expectations! Join mediocrity!
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 20:37
|
|
|
pleasecallmechrist posted:Late as always but as far as the "getting it" conversation, I think if you can attempt talk about a book beyond plot summary then you're on your way. Forget knowing a text the way scholars do but if you want to get anything then you have to look back and think a little bit. Same as stepping out of a movie with friends and you start talking about it and you have thoughts and new poo poo comes to you. "Getting a text" doesn't come much from just reading. So read a text thoughtfully, by that I mean with an eye and mind open for things like craft and what others mentioned, and then think about it afterwards. I don't know why but I really preferred that to L'etranger. Not because it's timely because I'm not a loving ghoul. Maybe because it was more "social" instead of "individual"? But then the latter is also obviously about the many "against" the one. IDK.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 22:23
|
|
|
Idiotic question, but what really seperates genre fiction and "real literature". Especially in regards to a guy like Eco. Is it just a question of being of higher quality?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 04:12
|
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:Idiotic question, but what really seperates genre fiction and "real literature". It's some Anglophone bullshit, OP.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 04:33
|
|
|
.
whatevz fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Apr 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 05:17
|
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:Idiotic question, but what really seperates genre fiction and "real literature". Especially in regards to a guy like Eco. Is it just a question of being of higher quality? It's not idiotic. Genre wants to be entertaining first. Lots of tropes. Magic arbitraily grants someone power. The point is to reveal the mystery, kill the big bad, rout the xenos. Lit wants to do...other things. Sometimes wires cross. Maybe answer "what is it like to ____." Think Marvel Universe vs. i dunno Moonlight. Dude in Moonlight doesn't have magic or superpowers so he has to solve his problems the human way. And the point of the movie isn't to get to the end of the movie. Edit: Also, lit cares about how language itself works and tries different stuff with it. ThePopeOfFun fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Jan 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 05:36
|
|
|
pleasecallmechrist posted:I've only read The Stranger and The Fall so I am looking forward to something more pluralistic. have fun/keep us updated. who else is on your list? i have some can xue i have been meaning to get to, but if you're starting with the four classics then i guess there's no rush to add more to your pile
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 06:04
|
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:Idiotic question, but what really seperates genre fiction and "real literature". Especially in regards to a guy like Eco. Is it just a question of being of higher quality? I'd say it's pretty hard to understand until you've read it, honestly. But once you go lit, you can't quit
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 06:19
|
|
|
ThePopeOfFun posted:It's not idiotic. Genre wants to be entertaining first. Lots of tropes. Magic arbitraily grants someone power. The point is to reveal the mystery, kill the big bad, rout the xenos. This is spot-on, imo. like, the point of a Warhammer book is to be fantasy or science fiction, and everything else derives from this early decision. Neuromancer is a genre fic novel that imagines what a noir pulp (the genre with all of it's tropes) would look like in a digitized world. a fiction book might contain elements of a genre + and it's tropes, but the genre isn't the starting point. Hard Boiled Wonderland asks the question "what kind of duality is present in the inner-life of a slightly bitter bachelor salaryman", and draws from the noir and cyberpunk genres to explore it. e. and, imo, genre novels aren't necessarily bad! I love Neuromancer, and enjoy the imaginative and inventive descriptions of the world that it creates. the characters are flat, because Gibson didn't set out to ask important questions of these characters, but that's ok! it's just....sometimes you need more substance then just pretty mindpaintings. Famethrowa fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Jan 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 06:24
|
|
|
This conversation comes up a lot because of the thread title but I was thinking about this recently. Nuancing this, there technically isn't a strong category distinction between genre and 'literary fiction', which is a marketing gimmick for publishers, but there is a noticeable gulf in quality between books that think of language as a simple or transparent conveyor of meaning and books that see language as a manipulable object in its own right. The former category thinks in terms of worldbuilding––you can simply convey an entire world and an entire complex of facts and ideas in simple language, it's all just a matter of efficiency and clarity. This notion often appeals to 'genre' authors but 'literary' authors are guilty of it too. But good books never treat language as a simple thing, and the latter category does 'worldbuilding' through style. Style is more than just conveying your meaning, it's an event on the page, literature as an aesthetic experience is itself reckoned with. But if you're writing a star wars novelization you're not even going to be given the job if you're concerned with this latter notion of language. There are good books that deal with the fantastical and the speculative, obviously there are, just as there are good ones that hew closely to a kind of realism, but no good fiction book prioritises linguistic efficiency above aesthetic experience: good writing wastes your time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 12:57
|
|
|
I would be interested in a Chinese lit thread! I've got a Can Xue collection on the to-be-read pile, and I should really read a more complete and modern translation of Journey to the West than Whaley's Monkey (which was still a good read, just very abridged and insanely dated).
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 13:34
|
|
|
Jrbg posted:This conversation comes up a lot because of the thread title but I was thinking about this recently. Nuancing this, there technically isn't a strong category distinction between genre and 'literary fiction', which is a marketing gimmick for publishers, but there is a noticeable gulf in quality between books that think of language as a simple or transparent conveyor of meaning and books that see language as a manipulable object in its own right. The former category thinks in terms of worldbuilding––you can simply convey an entire world and an entire complex of facts and ideas in simple language, it's all just a matter of efficiency and clarity. This notion often appeals to 'genre' authors but 'literary' authors are guilty of it too. But good books never treat language as a simple thing, and the latter category does 'worldbuilding' through style. Style is more than just conveying your meaning, it's an event on the page, literature as an aesthetic experience is itself reckoned with. But if you're writing a star wars novelization you're not even going to be given the job if you're concerned with this latter notion of language. There are good books that deal with the fantastical and the speculative, obviously there are, just as there are good ones that hew closely to a kind of realism, but no good fiction book prioritises linguistic efficiency above aesthetic experience: good writing wastes your time. i mostly agree with this though i think the notion of 'efficiency' is misplaced: good rear end literature acknowledges that the aesthetic experience is in fact the point of the book, so you are not being less efficient by going for that. ulyssess isnt wasting your time by going into minute detail as to the events of bloom's day and his reactions to them rather than just laying them out as a list, the list isnt the point. literature is the acknowledgement of this: that the ideas conveyed and the way they are conveyed, the form and content, are identical, and to experiment with one is to experiment with the other.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 16:25
|
|
|
Jrbg posted:This conversation comes up a lot because of the thread title but I was thinking about this recently. Nuancing this, there technically isn't a strong category distinction between genre and 'literary fiction', which is a marketing gimmick for publishers, but there is a noticeable gulf in quality between books that think of language as a simple or transparent conveyor of meaning and books that see language as a manipulable object in its own right. The former category thinks in terms of worldbuilding––you can simply convey an entire world and an entire complex of facts and ideas in simple language, it's all just a matter of efficiency and clarity. This notion often appeals to 'genre' authors but 'literary' authors are guilty of it too. But good books never treat language as a simple thing, and the latter category does 'worldbuilding' through style. Style is more than just conveying your meaning, it's an event on the page, literature as an aesthetic experience is itself reckoned with. But if you're writing a star wars novelization you're not even going to be given the job if you're concerned with this latter notion of language. There are good books that deal with the fantastical and the speculative, obviously there are, just as there are good ones that hew closely to a kind of realism, but no good fiction book prioritises linguistic efficiency above aesthetic experience: good writing wastes your time. Not sure I agree with "no good fiction prioritises linguistic efficiency above aesthetic experience". Writers like Hemingway and Borges clearly do care about linguistic efficiency. It'd be really difficult to make ficciones' text even more linguistic efficient. Do they prioritise it above the "aesthetic experience"? Debatable, perhaps not. But you give me the impression that you think that a writer that spends a lot of effort on linguistic efficiency cannot write great literature, which I would disagree with. Walh Hara fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Jan 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 16:50
|
|
|
linguistic efficiency can be part of the aesthetic experience. you could argue that the writers you mention employ the former as a means to the latter, but do not strive for efficiency for the sake of it. that said, i agree with cestmoi that efficiency as a term is misplaced here, because it doesn't serve as an adequate antithesis to aestheticism
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 17:10
|
|
|
The text is everything, and there's no meaning separate of form, but I think you still need to acknowledge that there's a lot of literary authors for whom "conveying meaning" is the foremost thing, and whose style is purposefully pared down to a "normal" unflourished level
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 17:20
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:The text is everything, and there's no meaning separate of form, but I think you still need to acknowledge that there's a lot of literary authors for whom "conveying meaning" is the foremost thing, and whose style is purposefully pared down to a "normal" unflourished level if you take a classic example of this like hemingway, it's obvious that there's a specific symbolic meaning to be found, like "hills of white elephants" is about an unwanted pregnancy, but if this is the only meaning to be had then (to me anyway) that feels somehow unsatisfactory, i think theres an aesthetic experience to be had from the story that can sidestep or at least doesn't rely on this symbolic meaning, and which makes the story more pleasurable to read which is my main criterion for everything i guess this is kind of obvious though for most readers but those who arent experienced readers tend to feel like they are missing some important meaning like this and arent getting the story, while i think understanding should be a function of enjoyment, if you are enjoying a book you are getting something out of it and whether that's something that can be clearly articulated or not doesn't matter Shibawanko fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Jan 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 17:47
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:if you take a classic example of this like hemingway, it's obvious that there's a specific symbolic meaning to be found, like "hills of white elephants" is about an unwanted pregnancy, but if this is the only meaning to be had then (to me anyway) that feels somehow unsatisfactory, i think theres an aesthetic experience to be had from the story that can sidestep or at least doesn't rely on this symbolic meaning, and which makes the story more pleasurable to read which is my main criterion for everything Yes, but whether a book contains symbolism or not is quite independent of whether the writing style is "efficient" or not. And a book can still be great literature without the author aiming for some hidden symbolism. Speaking of Hemingway, a quote: "No good book has ever been written that has in it symbols arrived at beforehand and stuck in .... I tried to make a real old man, a real boy, a real sea and a real fish and real sharks. But if I made them good and true enough they would mean many things."
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 18:01
|
|
|
death of the author is stupid, books AND authors are here to stay
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 18:03
|
|
|
Even Hemingway's writing isn't a perfectly smooth ride, by which I mean you snag on it, it pulls you up short. There is no such thing as enjoyment without challenge. Any moment you have enjoyed in a book is because it tugs at something in your brain you don't/didn't fully understand, otherwise you're not reading, you're just agreeing with yourself. I used efficiency here to mean the dubious aesthetic aims of 'readability' and 'directness', which I associate more with economic imperatives (hence efficiency)––and yeah I suppose it's not a direct antithesis to 'aesthetics' in general but I'm saying art is not a good way of 'getting a message across' because fundamentally your relationship to a work of literature as a reader is one of evolving mystery. e; or perhaps I should say 'should be' When I say wastes your time, I don't necessarily mean florid writing or long sentences, both of which incidentally are very unfairly maligned in today's literary culture––I'm just referring to the aimlessness of literary enjoyment, which itself represents a time investment. People should Barthes' Pleasure of the Text Walh Hara posted:Speaking of Hemingway, a quote: Case in point, this is grammatically simple but the enjoyment of it comes from the bits you snag on (what does good and true mean? he's using true epistemologically but perhaps also in the sense of an arrow flying true, which again isn't directness, it leads to an indeterminacy of meaning) Jrbg fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Jan 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 18:51
|
|
|
You can of course pick any sentence apart, but not every sentence was crafted with multiple criss-crossing reference points, and sometimes writing "It was raining." is just the simplest way to convey that it was raining
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 19:10
|
|
|
Jrbg posted:Even Hemingway's writing isn't a perfectly smooth ride, by which I mean you snag on it, it pulls you up short. There is no such thing as enjoyment without challenge. Any moment you have enjoyed in a book is because it tugs at something in your brain you don't/didn't fully understand, otherwise you're not reading, you're just agreeing with yourself. I used efficiency here to mean the dubious aesthetic aims of 'readability' and 'directness', which I associate more with economic imperatives (hence efficiency)––and yeah I suppose it's not a direct antithesis to 'aesthetics' in general but I'm saying art is not a good way of 'getting a message across' because fundamentally your relationship to a work of literature as a reader is one of evolving mystery. If your statement is "all good literature contains some challenge to read and understand completely. Books that take no effort to read are not good literature" then I agree. If your statement is "all good literature contains prose that is difficult to read or indirect. Books whose prose is written to be as readable and direct as possible are not good literature" then I disagree. Example: ficciones. Very readable and direct prose, still great literature.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 19:38
|
|
|
Jrbg posted:Even Hemingway's writing isn't a perfectly smooth ride, by which I mean you snag on it, it pulls you up short. There is no such thing as enjoyment without challenge. Any moment you have enjoyed in a book is because it tugs at something in your brain you don't/didn't fully understand, otherwise you're not reading, you're just agreeing with yourself. right yeah but sometimes it's exactly the tendency to intellectualize the reading experience that works to remove challenge, because it circumvents an aesthetic or sensual-aesthetic experience of a text, which can be more difficult to cultivate than just "knowing what it means", in general terms of course
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 19:42
|
|
|
one of the huge differences is just the whole outlook on what is being created. (a majority of) genre writers write to entertain, and so must be sure that what they are writing will appeal to the most amount of people, and be understood by the most amount of people. This leads to treating the reader like an idiot to make sure everyone 'gets it' that wonderful feeling of being trusted to understand things and put the pieces together myself without being handheld every step of the way is why i've had zero interest in going back to genre after reading literature
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 19:48
|
|
|
I think there's been a lot of beating around the bush. The basic distinction here is between care and indifference toward what the way things are said says.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 19:51
|
|
|
hold up i haven’t finished cleaning up the confetti and rolling up my “techne” and “poiesis” banners from the last time we had this discussion
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 21:13
|
|
|
The literature/genre fiction is a tortured 'real' art vs. 'product' split since it’s largely based on intent in the context of the free market and the temptation to mark off the good/bad divide in this way, but there’s tons of bad ‘literature’ that prioritizes aesthetic value first and foremost - just look at contemporary American fiction and its utter lack of moral courage. Lil Mama Im Sorry posted:death of the author is stupid, books AND authors are here to stay Death of the Author isn’t trying to pretend that there’s no writer so that, for example, one can't draw themes across their bibliography, but is a rejection of the all-consuming privation of capitalist ideology that results in the worship of the Author-God figure by reformulating the writer/text/reader relationship entirely. The goal is to push back against the notion that the author (Whether personally, or as a biographical figure) has the final say about what their work means in order to open up the possibility of reading as a revolutionary act.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:08 |
|
|
i would also like to use this joke as an opportunity to say i know what death of the author is
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 22:00
|
|