|
I've read Mansfield Park, Small Gods was better. And a Hundred years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez was the most depressing book ever. A baby got eaten by ants.
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 10:37 |
|
|
Is this a hipster literature column? Seems to boil down to "these books which I've never read are popular and so must be terrible, I only enjoy books which no one else has heard of". I can picture him wearing a fedora while writing this drivel.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:Which books? Some are a lot better than others. Mort and A Hat Full Of Sky. I'm not saying they were objectively bad, but similarly to Jones I just felt my life's too short to read any more of them, and there were much better books that I could be reading instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Pork Pie Hat posted:I notice that notorious stopped clock Jonathan Jones has published one of his rare correct opinions columns (though I'm sure the majority of the thread will disagree): If only life were also too short to spend writing mediocre articles.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Julio Cruz posted:Is this a hipster literature column? Seems to boil down to "these books which I've never read are popular and so must be terrible, I only enjoy books which no one else has heard of". You're absolutely right, literally no one else has heard of Mansfield Park or Love In The Time Of Cholera. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
quote:I don’t mean to pick on this particular author, except that the huge fuss attending and following his death this year is part of a very disturbing cultural phenomenon. In the age of social media and ebooks, our concept of literary greatness is being blurred beyond recognition. A middlebrow cult of the popular is holding literature to ransom. Thus, if you judge by the emotional outpourings over their deaths, the greatest writers of recent times were Pratchett and Ray Bradbury. There was far less of an internet splurge when Gabriel García Márquez died in 2014 and Günter Grass this spring. Yet they were true titans of the novel. Their books, like all great books, can change your life, your beliefs, your perceptions. Everyone reads trash sometimes, but why are we now pretending, as a culture, that it is the same thing as literature? The two are utterly different. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Guys you really need to stop finding meaning or enjoyment in things, you're not finding meaning or enjoyment correctly. Really though Jane Austen is like the most English author in the universe, she writes lots of books about sitting around making awkward conversation over tea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Lol maybe google agrees with Jonathan Jones: 'Novelist', 'Novelist', 'Author'
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
namesake posted:Lol maybe google agrees with Jonathan Jones: 'Novelist', 'Novelist', 'Author' Are Pratchett's books long enough to be called novels? One of the things I liked about them was that they aren't very long.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:Which books? Some are a lot better than others. Hard to disagree with this but I like Eric a lot
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Are Pratchett's books long enough to be called novels? One of the things I liked about them was that they aren't very long. No one on the internet seems to have counted, so obviously the series didn't attract the right sort of literary nerd. Clearly not a novel.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
They're not amazing literature, no, but his characters are memorable and funny, which is going to matter more to people who don't get literature (ie most people). I know good and bad writing when I see it, but when i pick up a book there are frequently many factors which are more important than "is this Good Art?", like whether it contains the kind of experience I want to have right now. Pratchett was good at consistently writing experiences that were popular with a lot of people, whilst also being much better and more wholesome than the dreck shat out by the likes of Dan Brown. This article is essentially the same as complaining about people praising Hollywood actors and directors for relatively staid blockbusters. Pork Pie Hat posted:Mort and A Hat Full Of Sky. I'm not saying they were objectively bad, but similarly to Jones I just felt my life's too short to read any more of them, and there were much better books that I could be reading instead. Hat Full of Sky is literally a kids book, and Mort as I recall is pretty weak, being a fairly standard coming of age deal, for all that it lampshades this it never really subverts it very well. Try
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
You say the Tiffany books are kids books but they are also considerably darker in places than anything in the main series. I have trouble telling them apart honestly. I'd probably rate them as among the best. For children's books they have a pleasant realistic grimness to them in places and deal with rather adult ideas. Very characteristic of Pratchett all round really. Mort is a bit of a flat one I think but good if you like Death. Reaper Man does a similar plot better though I think. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Aug 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Hat Full of Sky is also the second part in a trilogy so I think you're missing out on quite a bit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Why would anyone bother to spend weeks reading even a great book when you can sit down and get through a great film in less than three hours? Clearly, life is too short for books 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:They're not amazing literature, no, but his characters are memorable and funny, which is going to matter more to people who don't get literature (ie most people). I know good and bad writing when I see it, but when i pick up a book there are frequently many factors which are more important than "is this Good Art?", like whether it contains the kind of experience I want to have right now. Pratchett was good at consistently writing experiences that were popular with a lot of people, whilst also being much better and more wholesome than the dreck shat out by the likes of Dan Brown. Come on now, no one was comparing Pratchett to Dan Brown, not even Jonathan Jones. His complaint was with celebrating mediocrity not celebrating doggerel. As for the ones I have read, all I can say is I've read better Children's books that A Hat Full of Sky, and better mediocre books than Mort. Having read both, I figured I'd spend my time on better books. Again, I didn't think either of them was bad, just not worth any more of my time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Can someone link me the tony blair article about how brave miliband was or whatever for changing the leadership voting rules?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:They're not amazing literature, no, but his characters are memorable and funny, which is going to matter more to people who don't get literature (ie most people). I don't think that is entirely fair; one of the key factors in how successful and influential a work of art may be depends on its accessibility, of which memorable and charismatic characters play a large part in achieving. I'd go so far as to say disregard for a work of art's accessibility is a significant setback among intellectuals who don't "get" art. As an aside, the witches in Discworld were interesting in that, despite being powerful, they had a strict code of not actually using their power, so that they could pretend to be all-powerful to the surrounding populace and act as deterrence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You say the Tiffany books are kids books but they are also considerably darker in places than anything in the main series. I have trouble telling them apart honestly. I'd probably rate them as among the best. For children's books they have a pleasant realistic grimness to them in places and deal with rather adult ideas. Very characteristic of Pratchett all round really. This is a weird rule of thumb with Pratchett - his kids' books are typically more serious (and often grimmer) than his adult books.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
I'm shocked any Guardian opinion piece writer has time to read any books considering how long they spend gazing lovingly up their own ring pieces.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:As an aside, the witches in Discworld were interesting in that, despite being powerful, they had a strict code of not actually using their power, so that they could pretend to be all-powerful to the surrounding populace and act as deterrence. That was the wizards, the witches had the power, used it when they had to but basically (like the wizards) knew that such power corrupts and so relied on actual medicine or psychological manipulation as a preference. Edit: Hmm well the wizards used magic as well but mostly to show off to other wizards or conduct odd experiments at magic-CERN.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Jose posted:Can someone link me the tony blair article about how brave miliband was or whatever for changing the leadership voting rules? Was it this one about the Labour/union link?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Pork Pie Hat posted:Come on now, no one was comparing Pratchett to Dan Brown, not even Jonathan Jones. His complaint was with celebrating mediocrity not celebrating doggerel. His argument and yours could be 'why do people listen to Rock&Roll instead of Classical? You've tried some of the books and didn't enjoy them, which at least distinguishes you. How sad it must be to decide what you read based on the opinions and consensus of other people rather than what you enjoy or actually love.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Pork Pie Hat posted:Come on now, no one was comparing Pratchett to Dan Brown, not even Jonathan Jones. His complaint was with celebrating mediocrity not celebrating doggerel. Those are two of the weaker books of a 40-part series. There are a lot of valid criticisms of Pratchett's writing (his habit of turning all his characters into superheroes is what turned me off him) but when he's good, he's really good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Pork Pie Hat posted:Was it this one about the Labour/union link? Thats the one, thanks
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Pratchett is overrated.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Praseodymi posted:Why would anyone bother to spend weeks reading even a great book when you can sit down and get through a great film in less than three hours? Clearly, life is too short for books The only books it's taken me Weeks to read have been Twilight and Atlas Shrugged, because they where so awful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
I just think it's bizarre of the Guardian dude to try and build a grander point around society's "celebration of the mediocre" the week that someone is in the news. If JK Rowling died, then people were talking about her the week her posthumous book came out, would that be "celebrating the mediocre"? How about Stephen Spielberg? A lot of people made a big deal when Robin Williams died but I don't think he's the funniest guy ever or anything, half the films he was in are pretty bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Renfield posted:The only books it's taken me Weeks to read have been Twilight and Atlas Shrugged, because they where so awful. Why did you keep going? Sounds like a sunk cost fallacy...
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Pratchett is overrated. I don't think any is actually claiming he is a literary genius, just that you should at least read his stuff before saying that
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Pork Pie Hat posted:Come on now, no one was comparing Pratchett to Dan Brown, not even Jonathan Jones. His complaint was with celebrating mediocrity not celebrating doggerel. I guess it depends on why you read. Or how you define 'better'. A Hundred Years of Solitude might be better than Small Gods or Guards Guards but it doesn't mean I enjoy it more or necessarily want to spend my spare time being horribly depressed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
 Andy Burnham makes a pitch for Labour's leftwing votequote:“I know you feel like we we’ve been dancing to the tune of the Tories for too long. And I feel that frustration too. It’s no wonder people think we’re all the same when they can’t see the difference between us and the Tories on key issues like education and social security.” Burnham would oppose four Tory measures unequivocally! Take that Corbyn!
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
I would personally argue that Discworld as a series has some strong messages which run through the whole series, and are reinforced when the series is read in completion. They're things like "if you can act you should" and "small goods are important because if everyone did them things would be a lot better" and "uncommon benevolence is quite easy actually if you try". I can't help but feel someone who reads Discworld and criticised it for not having anything to say, is arguing instead that what it says is not superficially transgressive enough. It doesn't set out to destroy your conception of reality, but what it does quite effectively, I think, is show in many small ways, constantly, that things we might take for granted are actually quite important. And in taking them for granted, we lose them. I argued once that I didn't get why Machiavelli's The Prince was considered transgressive at the time, when in actuality it's simply rather realistic, and was told in response that hitherto, a lot of political literature was stories about greek heroies expressing classical virtues, and people wondered why that didn't make for virtuous rulers. I would say that Pratchett has written possibly the most effective and exceptional example of a virtuous allegory that I've read. Not because it's exceptionally virtuous, but because it's everyday virtuous. When you read it, it's difficult not to feel like there's a point being made which you already know, but didn't really get beforehand. He doesn't say much new, but he says old things in a way that gets past your automatic dismissal of them as being trite, so that you realise that they aren't that trite, because they aren't as common in practice as you think. To put on my literature wank hat, Pratchett is adept at shattering the gestalt illusion of positivity which permeates social consciousness, but does so in a way which reinforces the need to foster that positivity with action. He is a reconstructionist author, deconstructing a lie while helping the reader to reconstruct it from base, worthy, principles. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to find some newspaper who will pay me to write this crap.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Burnham would oppose four Tory measures unequivocally! Take that Corbyn! That does definitely put him in second place overall for not-Toryism though!
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Total Meatlove posted:His argument and yours could be 'why do people listen to Rock&Roll instead of Classical? You've tried some of the books and didn't enjoy them, which at least distinguishes you. How sad it must be to decide what you read based on the opinions and consensus of other people rather than what you enjoy or actually love. Well, sure, the arguments are similar, but it's probably better to call Jones a dick for what he did say rather than what he could have said. Crashbee posted:Those are two of the weaker books of a 40-part series. There are a lot of valid criticisms of Pratchett's writing (his habit of turning all his characters into superheroes is what turned me off him) but when he's good, he's really good. I'll accept that they may be on the weaker end of a 40-part series, but based on those I don't particularly feel the need to read the remaining 38 to find a few that may be better. If there was a general consensus to a best one or two then I will happily see the error of my ways and give those a try. I'm honestly really glad that people like Pratchett, reading is always better than not reading, and reading (what are, to me, based on my limited survey) mediocre books is always better than reading Dan Brown.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Pork Pie Hat posted:Come on now, no one was comparing Pratchett to Dan Brown, not even Jonathan Jones. His complaint was with celebrating mediocrity not celebrating doggerel.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Pratchett is overrated. Also Firefly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
That chest with legs thing was well funny
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 10:37 |
|
|
I don't like the way Dan Brown writes but the historical content he puts in his books is exceptionally thought provoking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 21:30
|
|