Tom Clancy anyone?

Baz_

Well like I said it was late that night and I just wanted to get to bed but I didn't agree with bobs opinions, I'm going to reread this here thread now and try to form a better compilation of word I will try and pit as an arguement, I have no doubt though that bob will beat me, but then again, it's no fun if you don't try.

Baz_

Now to start with please accept my sincerest apologies for the other night. Bob I didn't mean what I said as an attack, I certainly didn't think you would take it so seriously. Also my analogy was more to do with peoples tastes, and peoples different levels of "experience" with "literature" for want of better words (remember the comic book guy, well he is actually real), rather than a critics job of saying whats hot and whats not, and I must say that my opinion of critics is formulated by tv (movies more appropriately), and rags like the herald, so I am obviously going to have some issues with critics. However I still don't like critcs because I like to formulate my own opinion of a book before hearing what anyone, and I mean anyone, else thinks about it. Again apologies for the other night I was tired, and it was rushed, and yes I know that's no excuse.

As to the new guy, A very hearty welcome to you, and I do apologise for forcing you to make your first post. Welcome again.

Now bob, I don't read the literature boards much so I'm not sure if you do it in every thread but the man asked for recommendations, not a complete rundown of why Tom Clancy should not be regarded as a top class writer. Again I'm not sure if thats normal around here but I didn't like that for a start. However with the discussion that followed I must assume it is, and again apologise (last time I promise).

And okay after reading just your second post I realise just how wrong (and lazy) I was. However, I still wish to campaign for the man who wants a short uninvolving read sometimes, and I'm sure you won't disagree with what I have to say here. In short, read what you like and if you can read some classic.

Okay with all that said I can continue, just read it all. I think bob that you listen far too much to what critics have to say, just the impression I get, I could of course be wrong. As for Blitzys comparison of the religion teacher and the established critical mass, well it just goes to far to the other extreme, in other words your teacher is ignorant, but the critics view is based on experience and learning.

So there you go hope that ironed out a few things.

Excelsior

This has been a really interesting thread.
Here is my couple of euros. I wrote about the idea that some books are somehow more valid than others. Whenever we say that it always seems to be followed by, "I mean, it isn't bad but.."
I think that this classification perpetuated by snobs and critics (often the same people) is detrimental to great literature and simple entertainment alike. We should critique books on their flaws and congratulate them on their merits. We should not however set up a two tiered hierarchy of valid reading and invalid reading.
Here is my essay, skip if you please :
Aristotle tends to begin his works with what is referred to as an Isagoge. They are examples which illuminate the subject he will discuss, without actually discussing it. Mill's inductionary techniques did the same; they intend to make a situation clear, as opposed to proving it.
Let me begin with some isagoges.
1. I have heard on many occasions in my life, many people, including myself, say, "I really loved that book," (be it Jurassic Park or Sphere, the BFG or even Lord of the Rings) and then add, "I mean, it isn't real literature but..."

2. I recall the story CS Lewis once told of his prize student who proposed a literary theory to him. Lewis "found myself unable to accept [it].... I enquired whether her theory would cover The Tale of Peter Rabbit." The student would at first not accept the comparison at all in a "serious literary discussion" as Peter Rabbit wasn’t a real book. Eventually she deemed that book not bad, but "trivial,” and therefore exempt.

3. Then there was the Head of a great college who was heard to praise the novels of Anthony Hope by saying, "They are the best 'bad' books I have ever read."

Our society sees a distinction between 2 kinds of books, one that is truly honourable, the lifeblood of our culture, and one that is merely tolerable. Yet, don't for a minute dare to misunderstand what we feel here! One is not bad per sé, but is merely commercial, or trashy, or popular or cheap. They are clearly a very different breed to the serious, the weighty, the artistic, the visionary class of books. We may, in an act of intellectual arrogance even describe the two camps as Lowbrow and Highbrow.
But look back at my Isagoges. In all three examples, the lower crasser class are so very different, so inherently altered from the "standard" that they have a kind of good and a kind of bad all to themselves. This, we see, is why they are not bad, don't you know? Instead, they are good for that kind of thing. Or they are ok if you are into that stuff.
If this common distinction were true, and not just the creation of an intellectual elite, then the lower books actually could never be less than the perceived higher books. And one could not make such assumptions either. As Chesterton once wrote, you can't be overtaken by a man unless you are both running in the same direction. The two different kinds of books aren't even in the same race, or so it seems.
But the distinction is used to allow us excuses to despise certain authors, certain genres, and even certain types of readers.
In recent years there is the added bonus that the elite can look ironically upon an example of lowbrow film and say, "Lets go see that... it will be so kitsch." They have deftly removed all actual examples of judgement, of badness, and thus believe they can both have their cake and eat it.
So what makes this distinction?
A lot of people might agree that the lower books are trivial and light, while the upper books are serious and momentous. In that case, my parish leaflet given out every Sunday is literature. It certainly deals with weighty issues. And the Importance of Being Earnest is a cheap populist book, as it is frivolous and it certainly has not changed my life. No, this distinction can not be upheld, since "how many of the most perfect things are trifles!"
Among many of the people who read Clancy and deem it to be good, but no Ivanhoe or no Don de Lillo book, a concept of some missing style, some misplaced elegance in the writing is what has flawed the book. When those guys go to college and in first Arts read Tolstoy and more great literature, though it is struggle to keep turning those pages, and though they can't keep track of the characters and their funny names, they will commend the style of the writing. They don't get the jokes, They are untouched by the tragedy, disinterested by the romance. So they exalt that which they can understand and feel the least; the excellence of something called style.
Now I don't have the time to discuss what style is, but it not a matter that concerns the author at his plot's conception. It is not something that can classify a book into Good Book or merely Book. It is inherent within the writing. You can not write without style. You can't write a book that is good if you like that kind of stuff, but that doesn't have a style. Style is constitutional to writing.
So we are pulled down to a technical and subjective judgement to decide what is literature based on some specialist subject called style. Surely this won't do? We must have a better reason than this.
I would say that St Paul’s writing lacked style. But he is definitely in the classic literature group. Flaws in style exist in great literature as well as pulp fiction.
Another way we sometimes classify a book as lightweight is by levels of popularity. We see this is an culture in fact. Pop music is discarded, even though some examples of pop songs will live on for hundreds of years hence. Spielberg movies are derided for their commercial success but there is no doubt that his effect on our culture is greater than all but a few of modern men.
Popular art is meant to be “simple entertainment” while the real stuff achieves a pure, chaste, almost spiritual satisfaction. While I have no doubt that real art with a capital A certainly does affect us on such fundamental levels, I suspect that too often we discard worthy and current works because of their success.
This is probably the best reasoning yet found for the two-tiered perspective we have adopted for writing because it most fully explains the way that popular fiction can be different and inferior without being bad. Popular fiction, the lowbrow writing is meant only to pass the reader’s time. The popular comedy creates a fleeting guffaw and the popular tragedy draws on our sentimentality to generate a tear. They all have their low and legitimate places.
This construction of thought, this classification allows me and my friends the opportunity to revel in bad 70s sitcoms or thrashy novels without ever sacrificing my superiority over the reader of Clancy novels. I get to indulge in the same things as him, but I am still a more intelligent man because I have battled through John Stuart Mills’ work on the nature of Government. If you are lucky enough to be a pseudo-intellectual this is a good situation and you should develop it be fostering the mystique of the Great Books. But any real examination of it sees it collapsing.
Dickens and Scott are both found in the Great Books category. As is Hardy. (A perfect example of a Good Writer who in actual fact sucks and blows at the same time) But these were authors who were incredibly popular in their own day too. They were the popular entertainment. The best-sellers. What do these pseudo-intellectuals say to Shakespeare and Mallory? What of Ovid, who was scribbled on the walls of Pompeii by a young fan, a young reader indulging himself in the entertainment of the day? Moving out into other arts, what of Mozart or Picasso? Guernica was the most visited painting in the world in his lifetime. What of Radiohead today? Popular indeed, but no doubt they will be remembered as masters in the future.
It is not fair to say either that these are rare freakish exceptions. The highbrows may argue that if a body as large as that of lowbrow entertainment were not to occasionally produce gems, something would be wrong. But it occurs so often that we cannot continue to make distinctions. The stuff of art that survives is the popular, entertaining, commercially viable work of any era. That is no mistake.
Beware how you scorn the best sellers of today; they may be classics of the intelligentsia 300 years hence. And how foolish will you look? Books become more difficult as they are removed from their context, as they grow older. But they become more widely known as they survive too. Most importantly people get to re-read them. And that is where the transition from mere Book to Good Book takes place.
When people go back and find layers they did not recognise the first time. They may be the layers of the depth of the author’s genius, or they may be layers gifted by the rich wisdom of a new age. But the Crichton and the Clancy you deride today no doubt has the makings of the classic for tomorrow. And the Arundhiti Roy or Michael Ondaatje novels we love may be cast aside. That is the way of art. That is the way of literature. Lets hope Margaret Atwood goes that way!
The necessary thing to do when faced with this fact is to recognise that all books have value. But some have imbibed a touch of eternity. Some can teach us things no man ever could. And those books rightly should be revered and should be studied. But it is at the expense of both great literature and simple enjoyment that we classify two different types of book; neither to be compared to the other. One high and one low. Often the most important thing about books is the reading. It is where the skill lies. To read the Great Books with the simple intention of having said, “I read it” is a waste of time. To read, re-read and re-read once more with relish and vigour, with enthusiasm and an open and active mind is the real achievement. From that point we can find some good in all and appreciate all the good in the Great.

---

Excelsior
=Consto Suffragium Cussu Famina=

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Excelsior- I read your post thoroughly- and yet I still get the impression that you are trying to make the best of a bad position. The argument that popular writers of a certain time achieve classic status is often used as a shield by HarperCollins against critical damnation- and almost always without success. The reason is, that these greats of literature have not achieved such status by virtue of such popularity. It is worth noting that the reasons that authors of the "socio-critic" novels (such as Dickens or Hardy) were so popular is that their novels were a damning indictment of the societies they lived in- and people could identify with that. Modern airport-novel writers often produce a fantasy of ludicrous proportions, aided by that unwitting tool, science fiction- or that other indispensable gubbin- conspiracy theory.

Dickens' Victorian bleak-scapes were not borne out of some fevered imagining- they actually existed. This struck a resonance with people- the same was true of Thomas Hardy. His portrayal of callous human relationships (as well as those done by the Bronte sisters) were indicative of the huge social difficulties of the time. Even Oscar Wilde, whom most critics lambast as vapid, deserves more recognition than airport-novel writers. His comedies are an incisive attack on high society in all its pompous glory.

These authors may have been popular at the time- but there the comparison ends Excel. In terms of character development, plot, messages broadcast by the writer, and depth of vision all these popular writers of their age far outstrip the writers of today's popular fiction. The only legitimate argument I heard in response, is from my brother, arguing that these airport thrillers cannot be compared to classics because the genre of a thriller essentially omits key character development issues in favor of a fast-moving involving plot.

However, as I have stated before in this thread- classic thrillers are yet to be surpassed in the modern era. When reading, and then re-reading Jurassic Park, I had no doubt in my mind that the key protagonists would survive- such certainty I undoubtedly could not claim when weighing the possibility of Richard Hannay's success in the 39 Steps. Compare if you will, The Lost World by Conan Doyle, and then The Lost World by Crichton. The books are comparable in every way possible- they describe EXACTLY the same situation. The Lost World rocketed to the top of the best-sellers list in both eras- yet the quality of writing in Conan Doyle's version is better, and it is certainly more of a page-turner.

I'm not going to get into issues of style, and rightly not- it's a subjective question, often abused by elitist critics. But it is irrefutable that popularity is a moot issue when I evaluate a piece of literature, or when a good critic does the same. Critics often review a book long before it is sold to the public- thus a sense of objective literary worth is retained. A book is always going to be valued on the strength of its message- and quite frankly, airport novels don't send a convincing, moving or original message any more. They are formulaic, unoriginal and tired attempts to emulate the greatness of Conan Doyle, Rider Haggard, Buchan and Chaterneau.

It irks me that people would rather read a manufactured thriller than bother to stroll over to the classics section and pick up an old page-turner. Lewis, Caroll and Hope may have been blasted by the critics of their day- but it is unquestionable that they carved their own niche in literary class within their own lifetimes. This certainly cannot be claimed of the vast majority of airport novellists.

As I said before- I enjoy several airport novels- and I don't demean other peoples' enjoyment of them. But enjoying something and grading it objectively against established classical work are two entirely different things. Most of the critics who blasted the popular writers you describe Excel- would never in a million years go on record as admitting that they liked the writer's work. I freely admit enjoyment of airport novels- but it is unavoidably evident that when I re-read airport novels (as I do with all books, a single reading is no basis for judgement) I find far less depth in them than if I were to reread Great Expectations. It could be that I am more discerning(or less discerning depending which way you look at it) when it comes to evaluating literature- but having spoken to several lit. critics at book-signings, I have had it explained to me numerous times the universal critical criteria for evaluation. And to me- they make sense- how else do we objectively value art? I can't think of a better way than they have devised- and it would appear no one else has either.

As for the day that modern writers like Roy, Ondaatje and Gordimer are cast aside in favor of Clancy and Crichton- I could do worse than quote H.G. Wells addressing an irate critic: "I would dearly love to visit that planet someday dear boy, for it certainly would not be our own beloved Earth!"

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Caveat Emptor=

PS- I still can't think of the meaning of your Latin quote Excel- refer to my original post above- I understand all but the last two words- but I don't recall Cussu or Famina as being old Latin from my old Latin classes at school...and I'm too lazy to look them up- perhaps you could enlighten us all?

Excelsior

It is barely latin at all I fear. I used babel fish to translate roughly the sentence:
No to Women's Suffrage.
Because that was just about the most ridiculous maxim I could come up with.

I certainly have no qualms with what you have just written Bob. Particuarly in your appreciation of the fact that one must re-read to truly evaluate.
But my difficulty doesn't lie with demeaning bad airport novels, or thrashing thrashy books. In fact, that is what I want to happen.
The reality however is that these books are never even compared on the same level playing fields as the greats. An average critic couldn't take his head out of the latest pompous Atwood novel to see if Crichton has happened to produce something spectacular. And that is detrimental to both forms of writing. To *******ize Mills, if airport fiction is no threat to great literature then it doesn't hurt to great literature to give it a listen. And if it does pose a threat at all, then we have a moral (well, debatable, but give me space ) and critical responsibility to pay attention.
While airport novels are cast off into an abyss of "different, lowly" books then we inevtiably will lose great works and will lose the scarbous fun of lambasting the awful ones.
If we compare all books on the same terms (as you have suggested in your last post) then the popular novels that should be stored in Class A Literature will not be discarded. And the books that are poor can be demonstrated as such.

And by the way, props to 39 Steps. I read that books at Christmas, and it is my favourite type of book. Concise, with nothing that is superflous, lean. Just superb. And the Orson Welles film is pretty good too.

---

Excelsior
=Consto Suffragium Cussu Famina=

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Ah Excel...you've stuck that babel fish a bit too far into your auditory canal I fear...either that or whoever spoke that phrase to you is a bit rusty on latin grammar The phrase literally means "Agreement on Suffrage Deny a woman". Close enough though- I will consider myself mocked from afar

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">An average critic couldn't take his head out of the latest pompous Atwood novel to see if Crichton has happened to produce something spectacular. </font>

I would agree with that- an average critic wouldn't be able to compare them on equal terms. The few good critics however...that's a different story. My hatred for Margaret Atwood's style aside- I'm forced to admit that an objective comparison book by book reveals that Atwood writes with greater depth and poise- her characters, although largely uninteresting to me are three-dimensional. I might enjoy reading Crichton more- but I'm reluctantly forced to admit that Atwood writes a higher standard of literature. Now that's an individual choice- those who enjoy fast-food entertainment and two-dimensional characters might well choose Crichton- and why not? It's their choice how they spend their euros- not the critics. However, it helps to acknowledge the weight of critical opinion before we make the decision to vote with our euro. It is our critical duty (not our moral duty- that's really pushing it Excel m8 ) to lend notice to the weight of critical opinion. When you bástardized Mills there, I think what he was getting at was the importance to lend relevance to new ideas, no matter how ludicrous at first they might seem.

It's not a question of whether one type of fiction is a threat to another or not- that should never be in doubt. The point is to focus the weight of popular opinion in such a way that it reaches a point of objective sense. If airport novels are more popular- then we must ask ourselves why. Instead of dismissing critics- why not turn the tables, read both books/genres and critically evaluate what they say? It would certainly be a refreshing change in outlook.

Of course airport novels will never be regarded with the same weight by critics as classical literature- by the admission of the authors- the books are entertainment designed to sell- rather than high art. If the author of the work doesn't even take his artform seriously, then why should the critics bother to do so? In theory they should- but they are after all, human.

If you liked the 39 steps Excel- then you'd like "The Spy that Came in From the Cold" too- also very compactly written. As is The Lost World (by Conan Doyle, not Crichton). And wasn't the film directed by Alfred Hitch****?(I could be wrong...)

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Et tu Brute?=

Cloud

Sorry Bob you'll have to reset your avatar in the profile section.

[This message has been edited by Cloud (edited 08-06-2001).]

LoLth

wow! an actual debate. Nice to see it got saved from aspestos suits and molotovs.

Anyway,

I don't have time to write a long reply (not like bob's.. there's got to be a prize for these ).

but briefly:
Criticising authors: It's like criticising films. The original King Kong was a fantastic film... for it's time. By todays standards the special effects can't hold a candle to Jurassic Park. hmmm, perhaps that's gone a bit wrong. Basically, a book or piece of music or any form of art/expression should only really be compared to it's comtemporaries. The classics were written in a completely different world, different economic and social issues, different political aspect, different cultural knowledge.

Personally I would find it very difficult to say that Dickens is BETTER than Lumley, or that Homer is BETTER than Bronte (Emily). they are all good authors.

Homer, Vrgil, et al. literally spent weeks perfecting ONE LINE of their tale!
Dickens wrote stories based in and about the world that surrounded HIM.
Lumley and King write stories about fantasy (read: imaginary) worlds far removed from our own reality. Probably because we have explored so much of what's around us that we need these "impossibles" to keep things interesting.

A book should be entertaining. OK, maybe not just pure entertainment (my pwn personal opinion) but if a writer writes a story that is intended to be picked up, enjoyed and forgotten about, and the story he produces does exactly that... then he is, for all intents and purposes a good author.

If a book is educational, and you read it but because of the way it is written you end up learning nothing, then that is a bad author.

Dickensian novels were written to be enjoyable and as a social critique. HTe characters of Dickens' world are usually archetypical of memebrs of social classes of his era. His novels were excellent *for their time*. Don't get me wrong, they are still very good but they are not as relevant now as they were. Do we really need to learn the social divide between two classes that are no longer as prominent or as different as they were?

Clancy, Forsyth etc. they provide novels that give a flight of fancy. An alternative world. They don't really teach you something nor do they try to. Unless you consider the names of guns and military titles as valuable knowledge... the thing is , that's not the point of the book. They are there to entertain you, and if they succeed in doing that, then the author has done a good job.

As for King, King used to be , in my opinion, absolutely fantastic. Cujo, Salems Lot, The Dark Half were all great. The regulators and Desperation were a good set as well. The green mile was excellent. But recently he seems to be flagging, Bag of Bones, Delores Clairbone, the girl who loved Tom Green etc. seem tame and half hearted in comparison to his others.

An example of an author who writes to entertain and does a bloody good job of it would be Gemmell.

PS. Virgil and Homer, wrote to entertain first and foremost. They are classics. Why can't entertainment authors nowdays become classics in the future? To rule them out completely is not really being an impartial critic.

pps. have to say, I really don't like Clancy or Forsyth.

I've gone and wandered off the point again, haven't I?...

Shinji

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I might enjoy reading Crichton more- but I'm reluctantly forced to admit that Atwood writes a higher standard of literature.</font>

Crap.

Atwood writes purple prose. That doesn't make her great, it makes her into someone capable of astounding amounts of pointless verbiage.

Crichton is a better author than her simply because he creates more sympathetic (if simpler) characters, involves the reader more, and manages the feat of presenting the cutting edge of scientific thought to readers on an understandable level but without dumbing it down.

You can wibble about "literature" all you like, but ultimately Atwood is NOT a good example to take...

I read at least a book a week. I'm a writer by profession, so on some level it's important for me to do so; reading lots keeps your own text fresh. I've read all the "classics", and a vast number of "airport novels" as you so disparagingly describe them... And I come across good ideas and genuinely good writing in both of the above.

In a world where the majority of people don't read anything more wordy than the Sun, do we really need nitpicking between those people who actually DO read books?

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Atwood writes purple prose. That doesn't make her great, it makes her into someone capable of astounding amounts of pointless verbiage.</font>

Exactly why I hate her- but we're getting to the crux of the argument here- which is- what is the true role of literature- to entertain and involve the reader- or serve as an artform? Entertainment needs only to sell- and to involve the person buying the book sufficiently to convince them to part with their cash. Literature as art exists for its own sake- to hold the mirror up to human nature and try and make sense of it in an artistic fashion. Which paradigm is better? That is a subjective question- and one I leave to the individual to judge- note I pointed out my extreme distaste for Atwood's pompous style in my post Rob *ahem*.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">You can wibble about "literature" all you like, but ultimately Atwood is NOT a good example to take...</font>

Again- no argument- see above.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Crichton is a better author than her simply because he creates more sympathetic (if simpler) characters</font>

In some of his books he develops character interest well- but in the majority of them their interactions are simplistic, predictable and trashy- not too different from Hollywood blockbuster characters. That would be more than excusable if his plots weren't also as thin and predictable. If that floats your boat- fine- but again- it's down to whether you read a novel for entertainment over artistic value- a subjective question as I have stated.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">involves the reader more</font>

Indisputable- and the main reason I enjoy some of his (and other airport novelists') work from time to time. That isn't to say I would rate these novels on an artistic level- there is little craft involved in spinning variations on the same theme through several different novels. It may sell very well- but so does the Sun- hardly artistic writing to say the least.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">manages the feat of presenting the cutting edge of scientific thought to readers on an understandable level but without dumbing it down</font>

I could honestly acquire the same stimulus by reading the Scientific American- and be guaranteed a spread of scientific views without the liberal daubing of artistic license that Crichton uses in his books. Both Outbreak and Jurassic Park come close to the truth in terms of scientific validity- yet misses it completely. Having studied genetics and virology- even a first-year student in these subjects could tell you that the dramatic and alarmist views presented in those two novels defies any scientific corroboration. I won't go into gruesome detail- but an example- the scale on which the Ebola virus apparently affects a large area couldn't be further from the truth epidemiologically speaking- the virus has such poor staying power that most such outbreaks burn themselves out simply because the virus cannot find any more valid hosts to infect before their vivo hosts die- it's that simple- and conveniently overlooked.

But it's entertaining- and alarmism on any level sells- if that's all people look for in writing- then it's their choice- and their loss imho. Just as snobbish critics who entirely ignore some of the clever plot themes in airport novels are depriving themselves of quality entertainment- their loss too.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I've read all the "classics", and a vast number of "airport novels" as you so disparagingly describe them</font>

I never meant to disparage them- if you read up the thread- I stated my enjoyment of airport novels very early on. It's all down how one interprets my remarks (or misinterprets them which is easy to do, a fact for which I apologize). It would be very easy for me to say that the quotation marks you use when describing classics in your last post could be misconstrued as a disparagement of classic literature. I certainly won't jump to that conclusion though.

I never have and will never disparage an entire genre of fiction- particularly not one that I dip into more than occasionally. I refer to them as airport novels because that is their primary raison d'etre- and where they are sold/bought/read the most. If you don't believe me- try popping into an airport bookstall and acquiring a copy of Doestoyevsky's Crime and Punishment or Kafka's Metamorphosis. I would be surprised indeed if one could find those as easily as the standard airport novel.

Just to make this clear: I have nothing against airport novels- apart from the fact that far more people trade their artistic reading in for that than the other way around. The childishly simplistic characters and congruous plots- make these books ideal for transformation onto the big screen- a not uncommon occurence amongst airport novels.

I never meant to start a snobs versus yobs debate- I merely argue that people should value the strength of critical opinion as well as their own opinions. Is that so much to ask?

I don't believe it can be called nitpicking so long as valid points are raised- and several have been(though probably not by me, admittedly). To address your point about good writing being found in both genres- that is indisputable- but in my experience, there is generally more fulfilling(and entertaining) reading in the classics than there ever will be in the manufactured thriller.

And I maintain that modern writers of thrills&spills literature have done practically nothing to advance the genre. Give me Buchan, Rider Haggard, Conan Doyle and Dumas any day- their individual styles may not appeal to all, but it is indisputable that they are unique styles.

Airport novels tend to play on the same themes- the same sort of single-minded one-dimensional characters, the same plotline- even the same jacket design on the book cover. Entertaining yes- artistic on merit- no.

It's all down to individual taste- my own opinion is perhaps born of the fact that most people today would rather throw themselves into an average thriller than pick up a good one written decades ago- readers will rather read a soppy romcom film adaptable script than even bother with Wuthering Heights.

I may be in a tiny minority here- but shouldn't we let entertainment remain entertainment? As long as we pointificate about the faults of an average writer and espouse these as virtues- we shouldn't be surprised to see good literature being ignored. Impatience, laziness and the need for a quick thrill-ride outside a theme park is what lead to the preconception that airport novels make fine pieces of literature.

Much of all this is subjective- but critical opinion evaluates each work on its merits- not the biggest-name authors.

Arghhhh...need some sleep Rob m8- we will discuss this at length tomorrow

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Vadae Retro=

Da Bounca

jesus christ occy.

longest 1 yet?

bonkey

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
Give me Buchan, Rider Haggard, Conan Doyle and Dumas any day- their individual styles may not appeal to all, but it is indisputable that they are unique styles.</font>

Actually, it is far from indisputable.

Arthur Conan Doyle based his most famous character (Holmes), his writing style (in my opinion), and his subject matter (mysteries) significantly on the works of a single author - Wilkie Collins - who is considered to have pioneered that particular literary art form.

I am also willing to lay good odds that there were several authors in the same time period as Doyle who had similar styles to him, only whoe were not as successful (and probably not as good).

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, therefore, is arguably the most successful person to have popularised that genre...but that does not make his stlye unique.

This is something we need to be very careful of - we tend to hold the past masters in high esteem for pioneering styles, for being unique, when often all they did was popularise them more successfully than anyone else.

Personally, I think that ACD, Dickens, and many others wrote what were the equivalent of airport novels in their own time. They just happen to have been amongst the very few authors who have stood the test of time.

Here's a quick thought....find all the fictional authors from the same period as Dickens whos works are generally considered to have been classics, and who are still read today. There arent very many...but there were so many authors around in that time. Where did they all go?

Time has a way of filtering out things. We say that modern airport novels cannot compare to Dickens, or Doyle, or whoever. But here, you're comparing the masses with the elite - unfair.

Penultimately....
I am not saying that old = good. What I am saying is that new <> bad. Almost every author mentioned in the thread so far has written for commercial success. Art or business, it doesnt matter. Dickens wrote stuff in weeklies, and even dailies. This does not lessen the work, but we shouldnt bemoan the "commercialisation" of writing.

As for comparing fiction against "serious" subject matter.....I'm not even gonna waste my time on that one. Its apples and oranges.

And now, I shall sit back, sip a coffee, and wait to be pasted into the ground for knowing nothing about literature

jc