Literature, because you can't have opera

Blackaby · Post by **Blackaby** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:59 pm

phactorri wrote:we need a CG book club!

Yes, I don't bitch nearly enough as it is.

*signs up*

ManyWorlds · Post by **ManyWorlds** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 5:23 pm

blackaby wrote:
phactorri wrote:we need a CG book club!
Yes, I don't bitch nearly enough as it is. *signs up*

More self-imposed deadlines I can fail to meet! Whoo! *signs up*

Yeahduff · Post by **Yeahduff** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:59 pm

mcDuffies wrote:In any case, I'd expect a great writer to be above the delusions of the times he lived in as well. Writer should be able to see a bit further than the average joe.

Mm.... to an extent. If you look at Shakespeare, yeah, he was a racist, and his plays (Othello, Merchant of Venice) reflect that. But everyone was racist in Elizabethan England. What makes Shakespeare's brand of racism palatable is the fact that he at least invests the "other" characters with personalities. Neither Shylock nor Othello are one dimensional stereotypes, so you can get passed all the racial slurs and the negative portrayals. Kipling, on the other hand, never bothered.

Black Kitty · Post by **Black Kitty** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 11:13 pm

yeahduff wrote:Mm.... to an extent. If you look at Shakespeare, yeah, he was a racist, and his plays (Othello, Merchant of Venice) reflect that. But everyone was racist in Elizabethan England. What makes Shakespeare's brand of racism palatable is the fact that he at least invests the "other" characters with personalities. Neither Shylock nor Othello are one dimensional stereotypes, so you can get passed all the racial slurs and the negative portrayals. Kipling, on the other hand, never bothered.

We are indeed the product of our times.

What's interesting about Shylock is his speech in Act 3. ("If you prick us, do we not bleed?") There's a bit of an acknowledgement that the anti-semitism in Elizabethan times is unjust. That is, if you believe that it reflects Shakespeare himself.

I think it's also worth keeping in mind that Shakespeare was writing to make a living. So the plays he writes need to sell.

JexKerome · Post by **JexKerome** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 5:54 am

phactorri wrote:we need a CG book club!

What happened to the KS Bird Watchers Club, anyway?

Mr.Bob · Post by **Mr.Bob** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 6:16 am

As far as I am concerned there is only one club in CG! I'm president and none of you are allowed to join.

Toxic · Post by **Toxic** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 6:51 am

We had a book club, it was run by Christwriter. I suspect it was phase one of her Oprah-esque global takeover scheme.

JexKerome wrote:
phactorri wrote:we need a CG book club!
What happened to the KS Bird Watchers Club, anyway?

It's still in existence!

*Stares eerily at Sparrow*

Chaos Cricket · Post by **Chaos Cricket** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 4:41 pm

I should probably make some sort of defense for the writers I lauded in my last post here, but literature (much like religion, politics, and sex) is just a subject based upon opinion. What one reader loves, another despises.

For instance, McDuffies finds Pratchett and Douglas Adams too dry and...well, English for his tastes. Oddly enough, that's exactly what I rather like about their senses of humor: there's that tongue-in-cheek, deadpan tone that makes me giggle. I guess it's the Anglophile in me.

Which really explains my love for Gaiman's work, too, now that I think about it. That, and I love the way he weaves mythology and folklore and contemporary issues and ideas into his work.

I've also got an affection for classics. I went through a phase in late junior high when all I read was Charles Dickens. I took an entire class on Russian Literature (I'm still not sure whether that was a good idea or not).

My taste in literature is clearly above reproach. It's simply that good.*

* - this statement may not actually reflect reality, but it's author really wishes it did.

Blackaby · Post by **Blackaby** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 5:36 pm

Guh. Just after bitching about a certain author here I run into his proof reader & became good mates. Another famous author I can add to my one-degree of separation list. :|

Phact0rri · Post by **Phact0rri** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:46 pm

Mr.Bob wrote:As far as I am concerned there is only one club in CG! I'm president and none of you are allowed to join.

*uses club to hit President Bob over the head*

Blackaby · Post by **Blackaby** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:16 pm

I finished I Am Charlotte Simmons. I thought it was okay. It was only this morning, when I was in the train to work, that I realised that this one scene - the most haunting and creepy of them all - was a perfect and horrible take on the Narcissus myth, and that the book wasn't okay, it was freaking brilliant. Guh. And that has just 'bout blown my brain.

JexKerome · Post by **JexKerome** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 1:15 am

Mr.Bob wrote:As far as I am concerned there is only one club in CG! I'm president and none of you are allowed to join.

Bah. To misquote Groucho Marx: I'd hate to be part of any club that would have me as a member.

So, like, there.

*runs away crying*

Chaos Cricket · Post by **Chaos Cricket** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 6:06 pm

I was part of a club once...

Oh, who am I kidding! I was the only one who ever showed up, and everyone just pointed and laughed and it's scarred me for life! *sob*

McDuffies · Post by **McDuffies** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 6:27 pm

blackaby wrote: I think they need X-ray vision too, and super sonic hearing. Maybe he was seeing further, just in the wrong direction?

Well, I see it this way: Imagine a mountain; Writer (or artist, generally) stands a bit higher than me, thus sees a bit further than I do. I read a book to hear something new. If he has nothing to write about that I don't already see, is there a point in reading it?

Mm.... to an extent. If you look at Shakespeare, yeah, he was a racist, and his plays (Othello, Merchant of Venice) reflect that. But everyone was racist in Elizabethan England. What makes Shakespeare's brand of racism palatable is the fact that he at least invests the "other" characters with personalities. Neither Shylock nor Othello are one dimensional stereotypes, so you can get passed all the racial slurs and the negative portrayals. Kipling, on the other hand, never bothered.

Well, I tend to say, writer can't disrespect his character more than by not giving him a character.
Yeah, those aren't only examples, "Arabian nights" for one will give a rather unfavorable portrayal of woman... I could never read more than a few stories for that reason, still I am not as irritated as by Kipling. There is something about him that makes it perticulary irritating case. Perhaps it's the fact that he was a member of the nation doing an occupation over another nation and his attitudes can be seen as no more than attempt to justify that occupation. Perhaps the fact that a good part of Kipling's work is revolving around these issues, while with Sheakspeare it's just occasional. I guess I can stretch it to that I expect a writer to be above his time in issues that are central part of his work. Take Lawrence or Flaubert whose central themes were sexuality and morality. When I try to remember a writer whose central themes were those, but who dealt with them in more conservative, closed-minded manner, I can't think of any. I can think of writers with conservative viewpoint, yes - but to them, these issues were just a part of surrounding, not central themes. All in all, in "Othello", character is the central theme, his skin colour is a part of scene, perhaps misguided element of characterisation. But when Kipling spends 40 pages story explaining how English are far superior to indians, even through mouth of animals, you know that there isn't much more to that story than trying to prove that English are superior to Indians.

Yeah, writer is a product of his times, but then, future is also a product of those times, there is a certain correlation there.

For instance, McDuffies finds Pratchett and Douglas Adams too dry and...well, English for his tastes. Oddly enough, that's exactly what I rather like about their senses of humor: there's that tongue-in-cheek, deadpan tone that makes me giggle. I guess it's the Anglophile in me.

I never said that they are too English for my taste, I love English culture, their sence of humor is very familiar to me, and then there is their special kind of eccentricity. When I consider Adams too dry, I am talking about writing style that is too straight-forward, well, to say it harshly, ugly, it's written in a style of stock market report, not a work of literature. I found a lot of SF writers having the same problem (Clark most of all) and most of them weren't English. But I can't say the same for Pratchet, what I don't like about his style is that he's going to the other extreme; It's as if he's trying too hard to prove that he's serious writer, he goes trigger-hippy with comparations, metaphores, romantically pretty stuff. That's not my objection to him, it's that I expected a hillarious S&S parody, and I found a mild comedy. It wasn't very hillarious, and it was far from a parody: a very standard S&S with humorous tones scattered over it. I heard that his first "Discworld" books were closer to what he's known for, I got to read later ones before I gave up on him.
Things I dislike about Pratchett and Adams are very different; I enjoyed reading Adams for the most, I think those books are a real fun. I just don't think that he's a great writer, classic, genius, or whatever attribute fans are trying to attach to him. He's a great laugh, he's fun, and that's it. Pratchett is probably good in the same way, only he didn't bush my buttons. But I don't think he's as great as army of fans would like us to believe either. They are simply losing in comparation with public images of them.

Mo · Post by Mo » Thu Nov 24, 2005 6:37 pm

mcDuffies wrote:he didn't bush my buttons

Blackaby · Post by **Blackaby** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 6:39 pm

mcDuffies wrote:
blackaby wrote: I think they need X-ray vision too, and super sonic hearing. Maybe he was seeing further, just in the wrong direction?
Well, I see it this way: Imagine a mountain; Writer (or artist, generally) stands a bit higher than me, thus sees a bit further than I do. I read a book to hear something new. If he has nothing to write about that I don't already see, is there a point in reading it?

It sounded from above posts that you hadn't read much like that before, otherwise it wouldn't have gotten a strong emotional response from you. I think different perspectives are interesting, especially in classic literature.

Personally I don't read Rudyard Kipling because he bores the poop out of me.

I found a lot of SF writers having the same problem (Clark most of all)

I don't understand people who say Philip K Dick couldn't write. He has mad skillz.

Blackaby · Post by **Blackaby** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 6:39 pm

mcDuffies wrote:
blackaby wrote: I think they need X-ray vision too, and super sonic hearing. Maybe he was seeing further, just in the wrong direction?
Well, I see it this way: Imagine a mountain; Writer (or artist, generally) stands a bit higher than me, thus sees a bit further than I do. I read a book to hear something new. If he has nothing to write about that I don't already see, is there a point in reading it?

It sounded from above posts that you hadn't read much like that before, otherwise it wouldn't have gotten a strong emotional response from you. I think different perspectives are interesting, especially in classic literature.

Personally I don't read Rudyard Kipling because he bores the poop out of me.

I found a lot of SF writers having the same problem (Clark most of all)

I don't understand people who say Philip K Dick couldn't write. He has mad skillz.

McDuffies · Post by **McDuffies** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 6:51 pm

I consider Dick ok, I used to like him very much but his later books dissapointed me greatly. I think his style fits what he's trying to do, and if a bit skimpy at times, it's not jarring like Farmer's style, for instance.

Blackaby · Post by **Blackaby** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 6:59 pm

mcDuffies wrote:I consider Dick ok, I used to like him very much but his later books dissapointed me greatly. I think his style fits what he's trying to do, and if a bit skimpy at times, it's not jarring like Farmer's style, for instance.

He did write a few that were terrible... just very plain and crud. A lot o fhis short stories I didn't like because they just seemed well boring. But the good writing he did was just brainblowing, especially Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and Through A Scanner Darkly (that was the title?). I quite liked the one where the guy's job is doing a newspaper puzzle too, althugh it went weird at the end. Liked his writing in the Man in the High castle too...

Chaos Cricket · Post by **Chaos Cricket** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 7:14 pm

Man in the High Castle is a personal favorite of mine. The way he actually managed to shape his own cadence and rhythm depending on which group/area he was writing about was genius. And the historian in me always finds the idea of alternate histories intriguing.