|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:I like genre fiction but it'd be nice to have one or two threads that aren't about it at all times. I think its a bit silly to try to separate "proper" literature from genre fiction. Any kind of fiction belongs to some genre, so really the people who do this are just trying to exclude genres they happen to dislike. To me what makes something literature is passing the test of time, in the sense that generations of people who weren't even alive at the time of writing still find the work compelling. Much of the literature of future generations will consist of what we might call genre fiction today. Look back in time and you will find lots of novels involving the supernatural, or science fiction that we consider to be classics of literature today. Excluding science-fiction and fantasy from the category of literature just because they involve situations more removed from reality compared to regular fiction seems very arbitrary. You are not taking into account the quality of the writing or the impact on the reader, which to me are the true measure of a book's worth. Is Vonnegut's Mother Night a better book than Slaughterhouse 5 just because there were no aliens in it? (not knocking Mother Night at all, its pretty great) Is Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita less compelling because it has a talking cat and Satan as characters? If the determination of being true literature is the degree to which a fictional scenario resembles reality, then should I be looking down my nose at those reading any kind of fiction because I happen to spend more of my time reading actual history? Mr.48 fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Jul 12, 2014 |
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Jun 1, 2024 21:22 |
|
|
Mr. Squishy posted:Generations as yet unborn will revere Halo novelizations as high art. Probably not, but neither will they revere 99.9% of the other garbage out there not involving pew-pew lasers or elves.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
mango gay touchies posted:ASoIaF is definitely the current hotness around town but will people be talking about it the way they talk about Hemingway or Twain or Faulkner? I highly doubt it. Thats exactly my point, we revere those authors whose works still hold meaning to us generations after their publication. This is what makes them classics of literature, not their genre.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
CestMoi posted:If you are writing expressly with the purpose of "wouldn't it be sick if rthere were dinosaurs in Chicago" then you work is less likely to endure the ages than someone who is writing to cpnvey a brutal image of the human condition IMO I'm pretty sure that Butcher doesnt have any aspiration higher than making a buck with his books, just like the vast majority of the authors guilty of filling shelves with forgettable pulp.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
Furious Lobster posted:Nothing wrong with trying to make a living, after all Dickens padded his works across the board, while also describing the human condition. Sure, you can be writing well and trying to make money off of it, or you can just crank out huge quantities of low-effort pulp. All depends on the authors personality I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Stravinsky posted:Stop talking about grr martin in this thread or I will commit murder suicide. Yo Stravinsky, I’m really sad for you, Imma let you finish committing suicide but George R R Martin had one of the best novels of all time.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:I would like to dispel the "at least they're reading something" excuse that gets tossed around. In general the people posting on this site aren't like underprivileged kids who have reading levels well below the national average or something. In fact I would be willing to bet that 90% of the people on this forum are nerds (not using that as an insult since I'm one too) and consider themselves smarter than most of their peers. Holding them to such a low standard is insulting and also kind of laughable. Raskolnikov isn't just talking about complexity in the sense of the overall length or vocabulary. He is talking about the complexity of the story and ideas that a book contains. Its totally true that many people first get comfortable with the idea of reading a long-form piece of writing, or get into pop-philosophy crammed in to a lovely fantasy book, and then develop their tastes for more refined writing. I really dont know why you're digging in your heels on this, did J.K. Rowling murder your parents or something? CestMoi posted:There are no good books that are easy to read. Thats ridiculous. Some ideas may be difficult to convey in a written format by their very nature, but the onus is always on the author to make the reader's task as easy as possible. Mr.48 fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Aug 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:Lol. No I actually really dig the Harry Potter series. I genuinely don't get this snobbish attitude that most of this thread reeks of. Who cares if people read silly pulp for their own enjoyment? Are you that insecure about your own intelligence and taste in book? Its like the people who get off on these literary circle-jerks are the closeted republicans of the written word.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:I genuinely don't understand why you have such poor reading comprehension. I didn't say anything even remotely approaching what you're accusing me of here, and in fact said I was fine with it (edit: "it" being people who read pulp/genre, since like I said I am one of those people)! My major point of contention with your posts is that you were arguing that reading simpler things doesnt help people develop better tastes later on. And that by extension, people who read those things will never read anything better unless they are forced to by external factors. This is not only clearly untrue, but is insulting to those readers by parading the superiority of your own tastes. In other words, snobbery. ^^^^^ See the post above for a perfect example.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Bundt Cake posted:So you've excused yourself from improving your ability to enjoy literature by saying that people who try and encourage others to do so are snobs. First of all, encouraging people is one thing, telling people that they're reading poo poo and need to grow up is entirely different. Someone struggling with math won't be helped by calling him stupid or slow. I dont have a problem with the message that people should try to expand their reading horizons, but rather the snooty way with which some people try to deliver it. Second, I have a problem with the assumption that people who read pulp are somehow inferior as readers. For example, my current phase of work involves reading up to a dozen or more technical and academic papers a day. Because of that, when I finally get home and want to read something to relax I like silly books about space-pirates. When my work-related reading is not as taxing, I usually read more high-brow stuff in my free time like history or philosophy. Given the large amount of posters in this forum who are students or work in academic/technical fields I would wager that my situation is not at all uncommon. Guy A. Person posted:I wasn't arguing that reading simpler things doesn't help people develop better tastes, I fully agree with that logic. I was arguing first of all that the "at least they are reading something" argument suggests they are incapable/unwilling of reading at a higher level; it sets a very low standard. Secondly, I also find it highly suspect that the overwhelming majority of people on this site are at that level; I don't buy that at all. I have no problem with anyone who is at that level, or even people reading genre/pulp just in general. I think you've misunderstood what posters like Raskolnikov and myself are saying in regard to this point. We are not saying "at least they're reading something" like we're pitying someone with a disability. Rather, we are saying that since they're at least reading something they have an opportunity to develop their taste further. By contrast, if they aren't reading anything at all, they may simply think that reading isn't for them. Likewise, if you throw them into the deep end too early, they may decide that they just aren't smart enough to appreciate it and never come back. Good literature is highly rewarding to read, but we should be more inviting to those who haven't gotten there yet, instead of deriding their current reading habits.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:Yeah I am going to go out on a limb here and say that maybe I misunderstood you because you never made those points and instead spent a lot of time calling me a snob. The snob thing was aimed more generally at all the posters acting high and mighty in here because they dont read about spacemen and goblins. My apologies if I've ascribed that to you unjustly.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
ulvir posted:that line of thought boggles my mind, it's like these dweebs have got it into their heads that good literature can't be entertaining or fun to read Of course it can. But it can also be mentally taxing, which after a full day of mentally taxing work is not the ideal way to relax. Also, way to be a douchebag about it. Srice posted:Not gonna pick on you here (or anyone in particular), but I just wanna make an observation that I hear the line about only reading pulp and genre due to having a busy workload so often that it feels like a second cousin to the nerd line about liking all music genres "except rap and country". Have you considered that you might be hearing it a lot because it could be true for many people? Mr.48 fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
Tenacious J posted:Help me stop being a book-manchild. I have a strong desire to read the classics or, at least, books written by the masters. However, every time I pick one up and start in on it one of two things happen and I am unable to keep going. I would love some insight about my disability. If you're looking for good original writing by a master but with an easy to picture narrative, give Kurt Vonnegut a shot. Start with Mother Night to get acquainted with his style, and then move on to his less conventional stuff like Slaughterhouse-Five. Vonnegut is easily my favorite American writer of the 20th century and I really think you would enjoy his work.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
So I'm giving Remarque a second chance with Three Comrades after giving up on Arch of Triumph last year, and I still cant get into his writing. Do his characters ever do anything other than drink?
Mr.48 fucked around with this message at 13:09 on Mar 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 13:07
|
|
|
CestMoi posted:I am David Foster Wallace. Username checks out.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 11:05
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Anyone take a look at A Doubter's Almanac yet? It keeps getting amazing reviews but I find myself unable to imagine enjoying a book about loving mathematicians. I would prefer to read a book about actual mathematics, or the biography of a real mathematician.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Jun 1, 2024 21:22 |
|
|
true.spoon posted:Let me use this opportunity to recommend Winfried Scharlauer's Who Is Alexander Grothendieck? Part 1: Anarchy, the first in a three part biography about one of the greatest contemporary mathematician who also had an interesting life and personality to say the least. It focuses on his parents and how his upbringing relates to Grothendieck's life and work. The third part is about his turn to spirituality and has not yet been translated to English, the second part which focuses on his mathematical work has not been released as of now. Although Scharlauer is a mathematician himself, I found his writing pretty ok and he can talk about anything math related with a certain authority. Thanks for the recommendation, I'll check it out!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 22:40
|
|