Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Tom Clancy anyone?
Options
-
09-05-2001 3:33pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
Airport novels are a last resort for me- but even if I have to sink that low- I would avoid Jeffrey Archer and Tom Clancy like the proverbial plague.</font>
snobby *******
If you stay clear of the Op Centre series and anything written about a game (Rainbow six, SSN) he's usually a good read. Not exactly intellectual stuff but usally a good page turner. His non-fiction book about armoured warfare is supposed to be excellent (out of date now though) and his latest (I think) The Bear and the Dragon is good, and pretty typical of all his stuff.
0 -
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Blitzkrieger:
snobby *******
If you stay clear of the Op Centre series and anything written about a game (Rainbow six, SSN) he's usually a good read. Not exactly intellectual stuff but usally a good page turner. </font>
Tsk tsk my bratty child- curb that wagging foul-mouthed tongue of yours (literally).
That's precisely my point Blitz- page-turners usually focus so much on plot development- they do so at the expense of character development- unless a character is developed over hundreds of short stories.
Just because something is a page-turner doesn't make it a good work of fiction. Archie comics are great page-turners- but hardly focused writing. The characters, their motivations, desires, needs and emotions are what make a good work of fiction. In any case- if I had to shoot for an airport novelist- I'd rather pick Ludlum, Forsyth and especially John Grisham. Chances are you will have seen a Grisham book-turned film- but the books are far better than the films tbh.
His characters are two-dimensional, singleminded are objective-oriented. He uses characters as a means to an end, rather than the end itself. Another bone I have to pick with him is telling instead of showing us what characters think and how that defines their behavior.
All that is fine if you enjoy shallow, light entertainment for a 7-hour flight to NYC...but not if a truly great author is what you're after. Bullit shows remarkably good taste by shunning Jeffrey Archer (the lying, cheating substandard of literature cum politics that he is...
In any case- if you enjoy airport novels then fine- just think though. The time spent could be used to read literature classics, of our time and of bygone years. There's an opportunity cost to reading airport novels- they do not broaden one's view of people's behavior under loaded circumstances.
Bob he Unlucky Octopus
=Alea Jacta Est=0 -
Advertisement
-
Good points but I don't agree that the time spent reading an 'airport novel' is lost. I think it's just intellectual snobbery, which I tend to fall victim to all the time too
Why do we always place something with 'intelectual' value above something that is simply enjoyable? I'm not saying both can't be enjoyed, but I disagree that time spent not learning something is time wasted.
Plus, at the other end of the scale, something like Hard Times which has loads of character development but nothing actually happens, is in my opionion bloody awful
Also - there's a pretty fine line between saying what your character is feeling instead of showing it. If Heathcliff put's his hand through a window it's pretty clear he's angry 0 -
-
-
Shank- reading literature doesn't serve the sole purpose of entertainment. You want pure entertainment? Go to a film, switch on the TV, watch a scrolling humorous advert- that's pure entertainment. Literature is about broadening your experience- most writers would go with that- so I don't see where you're coming from. And being rude doesn't help your argument- just makes you sound like a sexually frustrated child(which you very well might be).
We have enough action thrillers, techno-modern-military thrillers in the last year alone- more than you can shake a stick at- so I don't see the need for anyone to read airport novels for entertainment. Jeff Meisen, probably the most respected literature critic on the Western Seaboard is abosolutely write when he calls airport novels "picturebook writing". It has its place- just like po(o)p music, fashion culture, 80s action films and BBC Light Entertainment- I just don't enjoy their shallow nature.
Oh Blitz...the reason we place something with intellectual value above pure entertainment is simple- our society (thankfully) still values good creative writers that have stood the test of time. It does not (by Clancy and Ludlum's own admission) take much skill to create an airport novel. They are so formulaic one might as well pick up a military manual, the 39 steps by John Buchan(still the template for any thriller), a medical dictionary, and an alarmist magazine from the medical and legal disciplines. Airport novel kit ready, simply interface plot with the 39 steps, add jargon and you're on your way....
But seriously folks- has our society really become too impatient to read such classics as Crime and Punishment, Heart of Darkness or For Whom the Bell Tolls? I think it smacks of arrogant modernism to rate these shadows of character interaction and alarmist plot trends anywhere close to classical literature. Let's just see how well Clancy and Ludlum stand the test of time shall we?
As I said, cheap entertainment has its place- but not at the top of the critic's list. Whatever your misgivings about critical review- it provides a medium for discussion, and after (very little) discussion, most people are convinced that cheap entertainment cannot supplant art. Why do you think that theater is still regarded as the highest acting artform? Why do so many Hollywood stars hunker after stage-time(and so rarely make the final casting list)?
I stand by all my original points- there are exceptions obviously- Day of the Jackal from Forsyth, Red Storm Rising from Clancy, and the Bourne Identity from Ludlum- but these good novels are exceptions rather than the rule. John Buchan, Agatha Christie and James Prozhnow all write far better thrillers anyway
In any case- it isn't intellectual snobbery to acknowledge that Blazing Saddles is a better comedy than Road-trip or that the Beatles are a better music group than Steps- why should it be ANY different for literature?
Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Et tu Brute?=
PS- Kaiser you're probably right actually- he does have a fair few novels that reek of airport disenfectant, my mistake
0 -
-
Let's get one thing straight shank- I didn't call you anything- I merely said you sounded like "X"...re-read your original post again, note the amount of foul language and tell me if I'm wrong...calling me a snob? You don't know how wrong you are...
It isn't snobbery- if you had the patience to read my post, I explain it clearly at the end. It isn't snobbery to say that a poxy plastic chair isn't as well-constructed as a hand-made varnished chair carved out of balsalmic wood...it's just the facts, Jack...
The same goes for critique- no theater critic would even stand a Broadway musical in the same room as Death of A Salesman for example...the same goes for literature critics. And why shank? They have patience, and the time to be discerning. Most young people today (yourself by your remarks obviously included)haven't the patience to sit through the descriptive style of F Scott Fitzgerald, the social bleakscapes of Dickens, or the mind-bending character torture of Kafka...I'd be surprised if you had the patience to read half this post- patience is a virtue shank
No, you'd prefer a fast-food thriller- a novel constructed from a template as much as Danielle Steele's books(you know, the ones with the irritating suggestive covers...) or a Jerry Bruckenheimer film- you've read one- you've read 'em all for the most part...
I don't condemn or villify you for it...I blame the society that fosters a lack of patience, and the arrogant modernism that "new is always better". Well skank, if airport novels float your boat then fine- manufactured plot-lovers are nothing new- they infest our society- but wait! There is hope...
Some of these fast-food novel-readers eventually grow up...they switch their fast entertainment to the old classics of the genre- H Rider Haggard and Conan Doyle. Well before Jurassic Park was written, Conan Doyle wrote the far more though-provoking The Lost World- scientifically up-to-date for its time.
Now comes the carchase you wanted
{WATCH BULLIT- No better carchase in a film exists- no matter what those Ronin fans say...)
My point is a simple one- there is *nothing* in airport novels that cannot be found elsewhere in literature, and is often better-written. I'll reiterate...if you want cheap entertainment- go watch a film! If you like reading thrillers, read the classics first- you'll never go back to an airport novel again.
Grow up shank- littering your posts with insults doesn't increase anyone's opinion of you- they just make you sound (perhaps if I emphasize the distinction he'll get it this time /me hopes)childish and uninformed. I don't object to people reading trash- but I do take umbridge when they compare it to fine art. Is Road-trip better than Blazing Saddles? Is Red Storm Rising better than War&Peace? Is The Bourne Identity better than Metamorphosis? No, no, (and thrice) no...
It's NOT snobbery- one is better-constructed than the other. It is that simple- name me the last airport novel that won a literature award of any description...I'd be most interested to hear if there was one. Read them...and enjoy them in good health- but don't spout BS on boards...I'd trade all airport novels in gladly for a single page of Lord of the Rings.
Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Vade Retro=
PS- the reason Waterstone's is empty is that they overprice their books- go to B&N or an antique bookstore, the two nearest me are always packed. Another possible explanation is that discerning readers fled Waterstones, sensing the foul stench of an airport novel-reader who values quick-fix thrills over subtle character interaction, descriptive panache and individual style- I think it distinctly likely for some reason
[This message has been edited by Bob the Unlucky Octopus (edited 15-05-2001).]0 -
Man yr making it really hard for me not to use "foul language" lol. Sorry but yr posts just reek of what I was on about earlier they are oozing of a know-all, I'm better, elitist attitute whether yr aware of this or not I don't know.
BTW an insult is still an insult even if it is a thinly veiled one.
I've read all Doyle's Holmes story's loved them - I've read all Michael Connelly loved them too, both authors provided great reads imo, yet if you had yr way I would not read Connelly because he is a so called airport novelist. LOTR incredible book reading it to my kids atm ( kinda puts paid to yr earlier observations re sexually frustraed child).
The main difference between you and me seems to be that I'm pretty much open to a lot of types of books bar maybe Austen/Dickens type stuff(both of which I read at least one book and hated) where you seem to need yr book choices to be recognised clasics. I don't know but that seems a little close minded to me.
Notice my restraint with regards to foul language, btw when I read yr post I get this mental image of the baby from family guy, thats not an insult btw, well maybe it is I dunno, you decide 0 -
-
-
*sigh*
I never said people shouldn't read airport novels...read my last post. People's choices are their own- I mean some people consider Archie comics to be a cracking good read...it's not about what people like and dislike- that's up to the individual. I merely point out a blatant and obvious fact- that airport novels, while entertaining and slick, gripping and even scintillating at times, on average is a shallow work of fiction. There's just no getting around that any way you slice it. People enjoy shallow works- you only need to look at the current fanactical followings that boy-bands have acquired to see what a little shallow light entertainment can do to the masses.
I don't care if people make an individual choice- but to proclaim that choice as the best above recognized works of fiction? Scroll up near the top of this post shank- you'll notice that I *shock horror* recommend two airport novels. Just because something is shallow and developed to appeal to a level of infantile simplicity doesn't mean it's not enjoyable when you want a few quick kicks.
A great deal of patience and focus is required when reading literature classics. Having children of your own, perhaps most of your patience is exhausted on them- I certainly can empathize with the feeling. But that doesn't mean that airport novels are superior works of literature, or even on the same level as great works that have stood the test of time. Whether or not you or I find either genre interesting is irrelevant- it is patently obvious that one genre is written with superior quality than the other.
That doesn't mean to say you can't enjoy both...I like a good Bordeaux Red, or perhaps a Chateaux Chartreuse along with dinner...but if I'm going out with my friends to a bar, I'm not going to order wine- I'll order a big fat bottle of Grolsch or some other beer. It's obvious that the wine is alcohol of superior quality, but beer fits a particular niche and location for me.
The same's true of literature- classics are like the fine old wines of the Old World, and airport novels are a pint at your local...more people enjoy a pint even though the wine is carefully suited to taste and aged with exquisite care. Tortuous analogy it may be...but it serves.
If I'm hopping on to a 5 hour flight to a work destination, I'm not going to bring along War&Peace...that requires almost as much focus as the work I'll be doing. No, I'd stop along and pick up Grisham's latest offering and wallow in mediocrity for the duration of the flight- it's a nice vapid thriller of a read that I don't need to pay too much attention to- I usually pitch the book after landing. If I'm seriously sitting down for a book though- there'd be no point in me picking up Grisham or Clancy- I'd finish it in a day- that's how fast the plot would move. But that's just you and me- a question of taste. From an objective standpoint(which I've been arguing from all along if you read the precise wording of my posts) it is impossible to judge them on equal footing- the critics certainly don't. And wouldn't you say the critics know a tad more than you or I about what makes a good work of fiction?
On a side note- yes, the car-chase scenes in Ronin were exciting, adrenaline packed, etc...but in Bullit, Steve McQueen actually does all the driving HIMSELF. The camera shots aren't cut every 5 seconds as they are in Ronin- and you can see distance shots which clearly show McQueen speeding along at breakneck speed through the streets of San Francisco. You could say "well what's the difference?" but for some reason...it just seems more thrilling to me that he's risking his own neck rather than the studio paying off a stunt-driver. Call me cynical but that's how I feel...
Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Alea Jacta Est=
PS- Restraining your use of foul language is good shank- surely you have to do it in front of your kids all the time...if they're old enough to find the internet and look through your history folder, finding what you post...it's hardly a smashing paternal example is it? And I don't find being compared to that baby insulting- it's a compliment of the highest order! That baby rocks my souuuuuuuuul!
0 -
Advertisement
-
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
But seriously folks- has our society really become too impatient to read such classics as Crime and Punishment, Heart of Darkness or For Whom the Bell Tolls? </font>
yes (trademark glib Blitzie comment )<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
our society (thankfully) still values good creative writers that have stood the test of time</font>
Let's go even further down the food chain. Maybe the most consistent best selling author in the world right now is Stephen King. If you hate Clancy you'll loathe King. His work will stand the test of time, if only as a footnote. How many King novels have been thrown into a god-awful time capsule for future generations? Like it or not, he has an influence (however small) on our culture and will be remembered for it. So standing the test of time alone does not mean something is a classic.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
it's just the facts</font>
(taken slightly out of context) It's not facts - it's your opinion. Tbh comparing Dickens to Clancy is like comparing chalk to cheese. The two are so different there's little value in comparing them. I'm just saying that both have value (even if you don't value them equally) and neither is a waste of time.
I'm currently reading "The Red Badge of Courage" and trying to compare that to Dickens would be a waste of time too.
And if you want to go by critics, some 'airport novels' do get good reviews. With the sheer volume of books out there it's insane to dismiss thousands as 'a waste of time'. Take Roddy Doyle for instance. I've read all his books, but by reading "The Snapper" or "The Van" you wouldn't think him capable of writing something like "A Star Called Henry".
Also, to cast a more favorable light on Clancy - I'm also reading "Carrier Arsenal" by Keith Douglas (or something) and that is a truly awful 'Airport novel'. It's so bad and full of errors. The guy can't have done any research at all. He asserts that 90% of the earth's surface is covered in water.
0 -
A couple of points...
Well blitz, if our society is too impatient to read these classics...then why do antique bookstores stay in business? And why is there a Victorian author's festival in practically every major city in Europe EVERY year? Governments won't ring-fence taxpayers' money for a national project like this unless it's what the taxpaying voters want.
Erm...who said I had to hate Stephen King as well as Tom Clancy? As a matter of fact I love some of King's books- Kujo especially was a real eyeopener for me in college. There's a huge gulf in class between the two authors. Every critic worth listening to describes Tom Clancy as incapable of good descriptive writing.
The hallmark of a good descriptive writer Blitz, is that subtle suggestions are planted in the mind of the reader, to be confirmed or denied later in the book- this is called "foreshadowing". With Clancy- no such luck- the plots are blatantly predictable- the character's motivations are clear from the second you lay eyes on them, and the rest of the book is littered (CRAWLING) with 21st-century stereotypes.
Stephen King on the other hand, thrives on suggestion, mystery, character faux-pas and setting a subtle mood. Stephen King revived what could easily have been called a dead genre when he started writing...I wouldn't compare him to Clancy. As I said- Clancy, Forsyth and Grisham are just poor reincarnations of Buchan, Rider Haggard, Conan Doyle and Christie. Stephen King breaks new ground- the other writers mentioned- simply retread it with a simple variation on an old theme.
Stephen King has enjoyed huge critical success back home- but the other authors mentioned haven't- and rightly so. Ironically, Clancy and Grisham's books make fantastic screenplays for films- they're so undescriptive, it allows the director free license to express his/her artistic vision. I mean- it's every director's dream to express themselves in a film that has no chance of losing at the box office because of a cultish literature following! It's because of a lack of subtle descriptive detail that so many of these books have been made into films.
And I wouldn't call Roddy Doyle an airport novelist- he writes in drama and light entertainment fiction, just as Nick Hornby does. Airport novels are a distinctive type of modern thriller, not family drama, football drama or light entertainment.
And Blitz- you say slightly out of context- that's waaay out of context. I used a metaphor to describe a comparison between two sets of paradigms...and you pick out a single statement and challenge me on it. How can I organize argumentation when you attack me from an irrelevant angle?
As it happens Blitz- it's not just my opinion...it's the opinion of the VAST majority of literary experts. And what do we call a scientific theory that has the weight of the scientific community's support behind it? Scientific...FACT. So you see Blitz, in the absence of established dissenting critical opinion- I'm not an isolated voice when discussing the critical quality of airport novels. As I said- find me an airport novel that has won a critical acclamation at an established event, and I'll rethink my remarks. Until then- let's stick to the established facts- however entertaining some of them may be- airport novels are unoriginal and filled with blatant paradigms. The best novels punch a subtle message- I have never seen an airport novel carry it off successfully- or receive wide critical acclaim for literary achievement.
The unoriginality of the themes surrounding airport novel these days confirms my sad observation about the demise of the modern thriller. Three different authors, three different books: "Day of the Jackal", "Shall We Tell the President?" and "Executive Orders". Three different books- but with almost exactly the same central theme. Down to the ending of those plot-lines. Assuming Jeffrey Archer, Frederick Forsyth and Tom Clancy didn't sit down in a room and brainstorm the ideas for these 3 books together- it's fair to say that the topic selection has gone down the tubes.
Trying to pick my way through these books and find an intelligent piece of writing is like squeezing blood out of a stone. It makes me yearn for "The 39 Steps", "The Spy that Came in from the Cold", "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes", "The Guns of Navarone", and many more. Those books raise new questions, thoughts, concerns and doubts about human nature than any other thrillers I've read. For the record, they're all incredible page-turners and cracking good reads. They're considered classics by the critics not because they're old- but because no author since that period has been able to capture human emotions behind a character in a thriller effectively.
Unfortunate, but there you have it- just the facts, blitz
Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Veni Vidi Vici=0 -
-
-
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
- the plots are blatantly predictable-</font>
That's every book nowadays (practically). As soon as the characters are introduced you know exactly what's going to happen. After the first few chapters of Pet Semetary, you couldn't have guessed what would happen? And talk about two dimensional characters - King is the King of two dimensional characters. From the husband who just can't live without his wife to the dweeb who butt-****s satan's bride in The Stand.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
you say slightly out of context- that's waaay out of context. </font>
Not really - you're trying to convince us your opinion is fact. In context it wasn't what you said but it's the gist of your argument.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
it's the opinion of the VAST majority of literary experts.</font>
That has to be the worst argument ever. I've seen it before too. Way back in 'social studies' a.k.a. relgion class in school the teacher came up with the brilliant argument that there must be a god, because there are millions of catholics and they can't all be wrong.
Of course they can all be wrong.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
And I wouldn't call Roddy Doyle an airport novelist- </font>
The crux of the argument seems to be that if you think an author is good, they're not an airport novelist but all crap authors are.
Using my psychic powers I predict that you will say 'that's not what I said', and literally it's not. But from where I'm sitting it is.0 -
-
-
I am sorry I didn't get in here sooner. This is the best thread I have seen in ages and I will post at length tomorrow, after my final exam this evening.
By the by- like my new Signature Bob. I mock you from afar.
Excelsior
=Consto Suffragium Cussu Famina=0 -
Baz- just because I state a valid opinion doesn't give you the right to flame or get personal. For the record- I usually ignore anyone who makes personal attacks- they're usually not worth the trouble.
You obviously didn't bother to read my post Baz...strange that I actually took the trouble to read your long post...
I clearly stated that what people enjoy is their own affair. At the same time they can't go around bl33ting that what they enjoy is a far superior piece of literature than established novels. What they enjoy is a subjective question- what comprises established and classical literature is an objective judgement THEY CAN'T MAKE. Since they enjoy a particular kind of book, it's impossible for them to judge its objective worth. That is left to the critics- and more important...the COLLECTIVE weight of critical opinion.
From your remark about critics- you probably don't even know what critics do, or why they are important to the arts. Critique of a piece of art in whatever form, allows its strengths and weaknesses to be presented to the public from a critical view, hence the term "critic". Critics don't read a novel with the intention of destroying the author's reputation, a policy you clearly seem to regard as their natural instinct.
I'll say it again in case you didn't catch that the first time Baz- what people enjoy is subjective- for objective criticism we look to the weight of critical opinion. The analogy in the latter half of your post is as facetious as your view of critics- a broken and specious metaphor. I may enjoy fast food, but I let the experts define what constitutes gourmet food. Just because I enjoy fast-food doesn't mean I have the subjective right to redefine the nomenclature of the subject!
So is it with literature. What people enjoy is their own affair...but what experts regard as crafted art in book form...we'd better leave that to the experts, hadn't we Baz? After all...it's *their* job to remark with critique upon a novel...not yours or mine.
If you're going to post...at least take the trouble to read what you're replying to...that way our arguments won't be like two ships passing in the night. Thanks.
Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Errare Humanum Est=
PS- I'm not sure if that Latin quotation of yours was gramatically correct Excel(although my school latin is shaky at best)..."Support for the right of voting...*something* *something*"- don't remember either of the last two words' meanings...perhaps you could enlighten us?
Here's another voting one- appropriate with a general election coming up in the UK:
=Conductos et Sicarios Suffragium Ferre et Eam Legem Putare=0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement