Off Topic, General banter...

lordgoat

bluewolf wrote: »

:pac:


:eek:
I hadn't heard of Weeks! Are they new books? I might have to get them!!
I have read lots of Feist, of course. I liked the trilogy with Janny Wurts a lot. The other books turned more into detailed battle documentaries than anything else, and so I gave up.
Have you read any kate elliott, katharine kerr, robin hobb...?
I know, all female, and my usual tendency is to avoid female fantasy writers after reading the likes of trudi canavan and... that irish female fantasy writer whose name escapes me now. But I recommend those three anyway!


Downstairs in clock house is where I'm off to, give me a wave

got stuck in the roost it was good to start but turned awful when someone cock started singing really annoying songs (imo)

Alison Tight Tumor wrote: »

Because it's feckin magical.

Magical it surely is.

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

Unless you have my hatred for Tolkien; I love the LOTR films but the book frankly bores the arse off me.

+1, over rated in the extreme, imo. I do love the hobbit though.

Eliot Rosewater

When I "classed" Harry Potter alongside Twilight I didn't mean to be dismissive. During the summer I went to the 10 past midnight showing of the last film the night it was released! It's kind of like Game Of Thrones: I've temptations to dismiss it, but there were times when I stayed up 'til 1am reading it!

I just don't think that if you are being snobbish that you can really look favourably on the Potter books. From a literary perspective they are not that good. The plots are interesting, mainly in the first few books, and the world is nice, but that's the most of what there is to them, in my opinion.

Piece of evidence part the first (and last): Harold Bloom's famous article in the WSJ: 1xn.org/softspeakers/PDFs/bloom.pdf

How to read "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone"? Why, very quickly, to begin with, perhaps also to make an end. Why read it? Presumably, if you cannot be persuaded to read anything better, Rowling will have to do.

Kinski

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

And I'm not trying to suggest that Harry Potter = literary zenith or anything, I'm just curious as to whether the Harry Potter series might be more acclaimed as actual works of literature in fifty years time, rather than just regarded as a cultural phenomenon? When does a great children's writer become a great writer in general?

We can't know. Plenty of writers whose work was popular and respected in times past have since fallen out of favour and been largely forgotten. And some have gone in and out of fashion over the years. Despite her immense popularity, Rowling could easily be forgotten a hundred years from now.

lordgoat wrote: »

got stuck in the roost it was good to start but turned awful when someone cock started singing really annoying songs (imo)

Someone in The Roost had a singing cock? Man, wish I'd been there for that...does he do weddings?:pac:

lordgoat

Kinski wrote: »

Someone in The Roost had a singing cock? Man, wish I'd been there for that...does he do weddings?:pac:

I'm pretty sure singing-cock-man would do any musical function you paid him for. He has a large selection of hats too.

Denerick

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I just don't think that if you are being snobbish that you can really look favourably on the Potter books. From a literary perspective they are not that good. The plots are interesting, mainly in the first few books, and the world is nice, but that's the most of what there is to them, in my opinion.

What is literature anyway? Time seems to be the ultimate arbiter of literary and pulp fiction; Was Dickens a mere climax-manufacturor (A hack, essentially) with a soft spot for the poor, or one of the greats of the English novel? Will Rowling be as highly regarded in a hundred years? Many of the great novels of the 19th century were dismissed at the time for being timewasters and silly concoctions whose only purpose seemed to be to provide entertainment for idle aristocratic ladies...

Eliot Rosewater

Oh yeah, I agree on that. I've gone beyond judging different books in an offhand way now: if I don't like something I'll try to give reasons, or I'll withdraw my comments. I think, actually, that offhand literary snobbery is kind of a sign of insecurity. If you really like what you read, and can explain your pleasure, then you don't generally feel the need to put down other books.

In my post above I was trying to express it from the perspective of the kind of person who writes the article I referred to, in which literary standards are those typical ones that come to mind when literary snobbery is mentioned.

Hermy

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

If you really like what you read, and can explain your pleasure, then you don't generally feel the need to put down other books.

What if you can't explain your pleasure?

Eliot Rosewater

Then it means you don't necessarily "don't generally feel the need to put down other books."

Okay, mathematician stuff aside, agreed, yeah.

Toby Take a Bow

Denerick wrote: »

Was Dickens a mere climax-manufacturor (A hack, essentially) with a soft spot for the poor, or one of the greats of the English novel?

I remember reading something about how Dickens (or Jane Austen - sorry for the vagueness) went through periods of being critically appraised. I know Maugham was considered a little above a hack writer in his day, but would now more than likely be considered 'literary'.

Hermy

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Then it means you don't necessarily "don't generally feel the need to put down other books."

Seriously though Eliot, what if you can't tell the world about a great read. Take Banville and Updike, two of my favourite authors and two very fine writers. I love what they do but nonetheless at times I would struggle to explain what exactly it is about what they write and the way that they write it that I like so much. What informs your ability to comment on what you like and dislike in literature?

Eliot Rosewater

Hermy wrote: »

Seriously though Eliot, what if you can't tell the world about a great read. Take Banville and Updike, two of my favourite authors and two very fine writers. I love what they do but nonetheless at times I would struggle to explain what exactly it is about what they write and the way that they write it that I like so much. What informs your ability to comment on what you like and dislike in literature?

I think you've taken me up wrong. I was arguing that casual literary snobbery could possibly be a result of people not really liking what they read, or not really liking the process of reading even if they claim to. If you're confident enough in your tastes - as you are, even if you can't describe it - then you don't feel the need to put down other works in an offhand way, I think?

Hermy

I may well have Eliot but my intention in quoting you was merely to pose a question regarding how one might go about appraising the various merits or otherwise of a book.
If a book has obvious qualities like humour or tension that's easy enough to comment on but in the case of someone like John Updike the qualities can be altogether more subtle and to be honest, more often than not I'm at a loss for words to describe just what it is the author is doing that makes his work such a joy to read. So I'd welcome yours and others comments regarding this.

coffee_cake

Hermy wrote: »

Seriously though Eliot, what if you can't tell the world about a great read. Take Banville and Updike, two of my favourite authors and two very fine writers. I love what they do but nonetheless at times I would struggle to explain what exactly it is about what they write and the way that they write it that I like so much. What informs your ability to comment on what you like and dislike in literature?

Read more books until you can express yourself?

It's difficult sometimes off the bat but maybe if you sit down and think about it you might get there. Read more book reviews...??

Hermy

Just wondering do any of ye make a point of reading an authors books in the chronological order in which they were published or do you just read them as they come available on the shelves?

Hermy

bluewolf wrote: »

Read more book reviews...??

You know, I don't spend much time reading book reviews.
I can usually express myself - it just takes an age for me to get to the point.

emeraldstar

Hermy wrote: »

Just wondering do any of ye make a point of reading an authors books in the chronological order in which they were published or do you just read them as they come available on the shelves?

No, never. If I come across a book I want to read, I'll read it. I don't stop and go, "Hang on, there's a book by this same author that I haven't read, which was published five years before the one that I now have here in my hand and do want to read... so I'd better not read this one until I've tracked down and read the other."

I'd consider that a bit silly really.

Hermy

emeraldstar wrote: »

I'd consider that a bit silly really.

Really.:(
In the case of say, John McGahern and Jack Kerouac there's a definite chronological thread linking the authors various works which would lend itself to my suggestion but even in the case of those who's novels don't follow this pattern is there not still some merit in reading an authors works in order so as to get a picture of the authors development as a writer.

kerash

emeraldstar wrote: »

No, never. If I come across a book I want to read, I'll read it. I don't stop and go, "Hang on, there's a book by this same author that I haven't read, which was published five years before the one that I now have here in my hand and do want to read... so I'd better not read this one until I've tracked down and read the other."

I'd consider that a bit silly really.

Occasionally it is something I would consider when I'm choosing an authors book because most importantly I wonder if there might be a recurring storyline or character. Or I might want to see how their writing style has evolved over the years.
I don't think that's silly!

kerash

old gregg wrote: »

out of interest folks, do you like quiet when reading or are you happy to have the radio/cd playing? I've never got the hang of listening to music and reading at the same time. Once the music starts I get distracted. This may also explain my inability to enjoy an audio book. Just curious.

I listen to music and read while travelling, especially on trains, it blocks out the various background noise and helps focus on just the reading. I find I can tune in and out of the book/music easily.

raah!

I think it would be very useful to read in chronological order for the likes of Dostoyevsky, or wherever you seek to better understand the works of a person by understanding their developement. You could get a better feeling for when he comes up with a certain idea and the situation in which he came up with it, and you'd be more easily able to recognise the more subtle influence this idea or idea producing circumstance will have on his later books.

For example, in his last major book, the brother's karamzov, all of his character types and major ideas from all his previous books are brought together in one. Having read his earlier works would most definitely make reading and understanding this one fully much easier.
On this topic I am thinking of buying this http://www.amazon.com/Dostoevsky-Writer-Time-Joseph-Frank/dp/0691128197/ref=pd_ys_ir_all_37 critically acclaimed biography of dostoyevsky. They're really raving about how good it is they are

emeraldstar

Hermy wrote: »

Really.:(
In the case of say, John McGahern and Jack Kerouac there's a definite chronological thread linking the authors various works which would lend itself to my suggestion but even in the case of those who's novels don't follow this pattern is there not still some merit in reading an authors works in order so as to get a picture of the authors development as a writer.

Sure there is - if what you are particularly interested in at the time is the author's development as a writer. But if you just want to read a particular novel then this doesn't necessarily come into play.

emeraldstar

kerash wrote: »

Occasionally it is something I would consider when I'm choosing an authors book because most importantly I wonder if there might be a recurring storyline or character. Or I might want to see how their writing style has evolved over the years.
I don't think that's silly!

In this case, where novels constitute a series with a continuing storyline/group of characters then of course I'd rather read them in chronological order. I was talking about stand-alone novels in my earlier post - if there's no continuation from any of the author's previous novels in terms of plot or character then reading them in chronological order of publication is just not important to me.

You could also say that the order of publication is not necessarily always the order in which they were written.

kerash

If an author is new to me and I'm interested in reading more of their stuff I would be inclined to try to read the others in chronological order rather than random choice or latest publication.

Hermy

I don't always make my choices in this manner but I certainly don't think it's silly and it's been an interesting exercise so far.

emeraldstar

I should clarify; I don't think reading an author's works chronologically is silly at all. It is an interesting way indeed of studying an author's development. What I meant was that to put off reading a book that I wanted to read, only because I hadn't read a completely unrelated novel by the same author that just happened to have been written/published earlier, would be silly.

KnifeWRENCH

Hermy wrote: »

Just wondering do any of ye make a point of reading an authors books in the chronological order in which they were published or do you just read them as they come available on the shelves?

Nah, not unless they're a series of books (like the Hitchhiker's Guide series or the Harry Potter series etc.)

I had never really read multiple books by the same author until I discovered Salman Rushdie. I first read Satanic Verses (1988), then Midnight's Children (1981) and am now on The Moor's Last Sigh (1995). Next one I'll move onto will be The Enchantress of Florence (2008) simply because it's the only other one my local library has. So I'm seemingly going in a fierce topsy-turvy order.

When the books are all independent and not part of a series, I don't see any great advantage for me in reading them chronologically. Obviously it'd be a good idea if you wanted to do some critical study of the writer and observe the changes and progress in their work.......but I couldn't be arsed doing that, I just wanna read some nice stories! :pac:

Toby Take a Bow

Never even thought of reading an author chronologically (except if it's a series, or a recurring character type thing), although oddly if a musician or band interest me, I'll often go for their first album. It may have something to do with the amount of time you put in to a book, so the immediate attraction of the particular book you're about to read may be more important than chronology.

Grievous

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

In the UCC Express, the fortnightly student rag, there was an article about reading books. It was some slight alteration of the usual statement of we-who-read-books-are-superior: the author criticised modern computer culture before proposing books as the solution to our woes, and saying pretty clearly that those who read are better than those who don't. Oh, and there was the mandatory dig at Twilight, which isn't a real book, seemingly.

But get this - the author of the article has, in the past few years, read the sum total of one book, Alice in Wonderland, and they weren't even finished it by the sounds of it. What is up with that? I recall reading another article in the Express in which the same opinion - that book-readers are better than the rest - written by a person who, similarly, admitted to reading a very small number of books.

Maybe it's understandable that someone put 30 classics behind them and starts being snooty, but elevating yourself 'cause you're halfway through Alice In Wonderland? Jeez...

To cap it, the author of the recent article finished by saying she was looking forward to reading loads of real books ... like Harry Potter. I find it very difficult to reconcile literary snobbery with Harry Potter ... perhaps I'm just a pleb. Perhaps I need to get off my computer.

This made me laugh.

lordgoat

Oh sunday morning with an extra hour sleep... why am i awake at 8am...

Toby Take a Bow

lordgoat wrote: »

Oh sunday morning with an extra hour sleep... why am i awake at 8am...

Just realised the clocks went back. This is very annoying.