Cecelia Ahern - hack, PS, I hate you, you suck

Acacia · 29-01-2009 12:15am

CDfm wrote: »

I can appreciate Cecilia Aherns writting for what it is.

So can I. I can appreciate it as a piece of enjoyable, easy-to-read chick-lit. That's not snobbery. That's just what it is.

CDfm wrote: »

But the Bronte sisters are maudlin,morose sentimental ,depressing drivel -they are to the teaching of English in schools what Peig Sayers was to Irish.

The Bronte sisters' work is only 'maudlin, morose, sentimental, depressing drivel' in your opinion. For many other people, their works are some of the best in English literature.

Just because you don't particularly like them, it does not mean they aren't brilliant writers, or that they shouldn't be read in schools. They have remained popular for years for a reason.

There are many literary 'greats' whose I work I don't particularly enjoy, but I can still see why their work is respected and admired, and would hate to see it replaced in schools by an airport novel for the sake of accessibility.

CDfm wrote: »

My criticism is on two points. Our teaching of English in schools is very narrow and safe. Orwells Animal Farm works because it entertains and challenges. I would rate it above Dickens.

I don't see how the teaching of English in schools can be both 'narrow and safe' and yet also too focused on difficult literature.

To say 'Animal Farm' 'entertains and challenges' is not in fact actually saying very much about it, at all. How does it entertain and challenge? In what way is it higher rating than Dickens?

CDfm wrote: »

In schools- the teaching of English is top heavy in literature. I would say it takes a lot more skill to write in a tabloid style to get a point accross in descending order of importance for editing then is popularily believed.

Of course, it's top heavy in literature. What should it be top-heavy in? Newspapers and magazines?

I fail to see how it 'takes more skill' to write in a tabloid style than a literary style. The task of the tabloid writer is to convey the information in short, satisfying, snappy way. To write in a literary style requires being able to reflect real life situations with eloquence. You can't compare 'Great Expectations' with a tabloid story about Kerry Katona's latest diet, for example.

The 'jobs', if you will, of the tabloid and literary writer are completely different, imo.

CDfm wrote: »

I suspect that to unlearn the writting skills learned in school and adapting the chicklit style that she did took a lot of work.

Why would Aherne want to 'unlearn the writing skills' she learned in school? Surely, she would have learned to analyze and criticize texts, and this would be useful in her own writing, even if it is 'chick-lit'.

CDfm wrote: »

I am not saying it will endure as literature but it is readable.

'Ok' magazine is readable. The label on the back of a ketchup bottle is readable. Plenty of things are 'readable'- it doesn't mean they should be taught in schools.

The point of studying these difficult texts in schools is to develop critical and analytical skills, and also to understand what makes great writers 'great'. To understand why they have endured as literature.

What would students gain from studying 'P.S. I Love You'? Sure, they might have an easier time reading it than 'Pride and Prejudice' but that's not the point. Just like the point of learning algebra is not to have an easy time doing maths, but to challenge the student and let them develop mentally.

CDfm · 29-01-2009 12:51am

Acacia wrote: »

The Bronte sisters' work is only 'maudlin, morose, sentimental, depressing drivel' in your opinion. For many other people, their works are some of the best in English literature.

There are many literary 'greats' whose I work I don't particularly enjoy, but I can still see why their work is respected and admired, and would hate to see it replaced in schools by an airport novel for the sake of accessibility.

To say 'Animal Farm' 'entertains and challenges' is not in fact actually saying very much about it, at all. How does it entertain and challenge? In what way is it higher rating than Dickens?

Of course, it's top heavy in literature. What should it be top-heavy in? Newspapers and magazines?

You can't compare 'Great Expectations' with a tabloid story about Kerry Katona's latest diet, for example.

Why would Aherne want to 'unlearn the writing skills' she learned in school? Surely, she would have learned to analyze and criticize texts, and this would be useful in her own writing, even if it is 'chick-lit'.

Thats where we differ. The Brontes was chicklit of a different era.Dickens stories were serialised in periodicals and dont fit in the way or format they are analysed. Technically great but period pieces. If they werent studied at school I suspect very few of us would be aware of them.

Nice juxtaposition Great Expectations with Kerry Katonas latest diet.

My point is that its counterproductive to teach analytical skills in literature to people who are too imature to grasp the holistic nature of the political and social context of the literature they are reading.Thats not a put down but where is the fun;did Lady Macbeth really have a spot and why was Polonius stabbed in the arse?

Cecelia Ahernes work outranks the Brontes. Probably because it is real life experiences. The Brontes and boredom sit side by side - you can feel the cold damp countryside life in every line and it goes on and on and on.You are almost pleased that they died young as it stopped them writting more.

Orwell trumps Dickens as he entertains as well as tackles a difficult issue in an energetic and inventive way. Education wants its literature sanitised and bores down the subject. Is the sanitised Malones edition of Shakespeare still studied in schools?

By all means study the stuff but dont pretend it fosters a love of literature or teaches someone to write in a modern,technical or business style. It doesnt and it cant.

Permabear · 29-01-2009 1:06am

This post has been deleted.

CDfm · 29-01-2009 1:16am

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I am pleased you like them and Donegal is probably a great setting to read them in. I was using death methaphorically. IF they had gone to the pub with Bramwell life would be more enjoyable for lots of people.

Is it true that the widower of the last one lived comfortably in Ireland on the royalties?

Acacia · 29-01-2009 1:29am

CDfm wrote: »

Thats where we differ. The Brontes was chicklit of a different era.Dickens stories were serialised in periodicals and dont fit in the way or format they are analysed. Technically great but period pieces. If they werent studied at school I suspect very few of us would be aware of them.

That's a rather big assumption. Dickens work was greatly admired in his day- as in, many people enjoyed his work without it being studied in school. I don't really see the point in this line of argument- surely the Brontes and Dickens are studied on schools because they are 'technically great'. The fact that they are 'period pieces' or from a different era does not mean they are any less great. And assuming nobody would be familiar with them if they weren't read in schools doesn't make them any less great either.

CDfm wrote: »

My point is that its counterproductive to teach analytical skills in literature to people who are too imature to grasp the holistic nature of the political and social context of the literature they are reading.Thats not a put down but where is the fun;did Lady Macbeth really have a spot and why was Polonius stabbed in the arse?

Why do you assume teenagers can't grasp the context of the political and social context of literature? They're young adults, not children, and are perfectly capable of understanding the context of Shakespeare's plays.

How is it counter-productive to teach analytical skills in relation to such literature?

Shakespeare can be 'fun' to teach, once you get out of the mind set of 'this language is too difficult/ I can't relate to the characters, etc'. It's precisely this thinking that leads to people suggesting that students read more 'accessible' texts. But, you see, how can Shakespeare ever become more accessible or enjoyable if people are too ready to toss it aside as 'too hard'?

CDfm wrote: »

Cecelia Ahernes work outranks the Brontes. Probably because it is real life experiences. The Brontes and boredom sit side by side - you can feel the cold damp countryside life in every line and it goes on and on and on.You are almost pleased that they died young as it stopped them writting more.

In your opinion. That doesn't make it true.

Perhaps they are regarded as geniuses because you can ''feel the cold, damp countryside life in every line''? Perhaps their talent lies in evoking the atmosphere and surroundings of the characters so superbly?

And is the sole reason for Aherne's work being better than the Brontes because it is based on 'real life'? Well, Lowood school in 'Jane Eyre' for example, was based on Charlotte's own experiences in a boarding school. Though ''it's based on real life' is not really a valid criticism of literature, in fairness. Are there any actual reasons why Aherne's work is better, in your opinion?

CDfm wrote: »

Orwell trumps Dickens as he entertains as well as tackles a difficult issue in an energetic and inventive way. Education wants its literature sanitised and bores down the subject. Is the sanitised Malones edition of Shakespeare still studied in schools?

I'm not familiar with Malone's edition, but the plays I studied in school left all the gory details in.

Why do you think educations bores and sanitizes literature? By challenging students with difficult texts , I believe it does the opposite. Education cannot bore and sanitize literature unless the literature itself is boring and sanitized. What is the problem then, that students have to deal with difficult texts or that these texts are 'dumbed down'?

Your description of Orwell still doesn't really explain how he is better than Dickens. I could say Dickens tackles a difficult issue ( say, of orphanages in 'Oliver Twist') in an energetic and inventive way. That's not really an adequate comparison of the two texts though, just offering an opinion on them.

CDfm wrote: »

by all means study the stuff but dont pretend it fosters a love of literature or teaches someone to write in a modern,technical or business style. It doesnt and it cant.

What a bizarre statement. I'm not 'pretending' anything. I do know for many people studying such literature does foster a love of reading and writing. You say ''it doesn't and it can't'' as if it as a statement of fact, rather than opinion. Just because reading Shakespeare didn't do anything for you, it doesn't mean many other people have not developed a love of literature or writing because of it.

Why does writing have to be in a modern , technical or business style to be valid ? (though I think reading such literature can help a writer develop their own individual style, whatever that may be.)

29-01-2009 1:38am

CDfm wrote: »

In fact the storyline is not that original but the book is not plagurised. I heard an American author on Newstalk 106 who had written a book with a similar plot and which was published before Aherns book and she didnt speak at all negatively of it. PS I love you was also the title of an early Beatles song.

The plot is also used in a Korean film that came out long before "PS".

CDfm wrote: »

Thats where we differ. The Brontes was chicklit of a different era.

Chicklit doesn't mean "books by women", it means trashy romances with generic characters and clichéd, contrived plots. The Brontes' work are a little deeper than that I should hope.

My point is that its counterproductive to teach analytical skills in literature to people who are too imature to grasp the holistic nature of the political and social context of the literature they are reading.Thats not a put down but where is the fun;did Lady Macbeth really have a spot and why was Polonius stabbed in the arse?

So we should always pander to the bottom 50% rather than the top 5%? The thickos won't listen whatever book you read, so you may as well only bother with the best students.

Orwell trumps Dickens as he entertains as well as tackles a difficult issue in an energetic and inventive way. Education wants its literature sanitised and bores down the subject. Is the sanitised Malones edition of Shakespeare still studied in schools?

You know it isn't, the bowdlerised versions disappeared decades ago.

CDfm · 29-01-2009 11:37am

994 wrote: »

The plot is also used in a Korean film that came out long before "PS".

Chicklit doesn't mean "books by women", it means trashy romances with generic characters and clichéd, contrived plots. The Brontes' work are a little deeper than that I should hope.

So we should always pander to the bottom 50% rather than the top 5%? The thickos won't listen whatever book you read, so you may as well only bother with the best students.

You know it isn't, the bowdlerised versions disappeared decades ago.

Wow- chicklit is in the eye of the beholder. The Brontes books are filled with over descriptive narrative that is symptomatic of the Victorian era- but it is not truly representative of it. And it aint racy.

100% less 5% is 95%. So 95% get excluded. So you are conceding that rather then having universal appeal the Brontes appeal to only 5% of students. The others may have a "working knowledge" but only 5% develope the critical skills to appreciate it. Dont you think thats sad and the model needs review if thats the case.

In the 40s,50s and 60s many kids left school at 12 or so - the secondary system was geared towards University ,the Arts and Teaching etc. It now has a wider remit. That people arent interested or are bored doesnt make them thickos.

turgon · 29-01-2009 12:38pm

CDfm wrote: »

In the 40s,50s and 60s many kids left school at 12 or so - the secondary system was geared towards University ,the Arts and Teaching etc. It now has a wider remit. That people arent interested or are bored doesnt make them thickos.

Do you remember that scene in Dead Poets Society where Robin Williams is praising English as a subject? He makes as good point: in Maths and Business etc you learn information with a view to getting a job to enable you live life. In English learn to appreciate literature so as to enjoy life. Well it was put much more eloquently than that.

CDfm · 29-01-2009 1:15pm

turgon wrote: »

Do you remember that scene in Dead Poets Society where Robin Williams is praising English as a subject? He makes as good point: in Maths and Business etc you learn information with a view to getting a job to enable you live life. In English learn to appreciate literature so as to enjoy life. Well it was put much more eloquently than that.

Cant remember much of the movie- but well - what if poetry and literature isnt your bag.
Say its greyhounds or football. Whats wrong with reading an inspirational football book that describes the thrills and spills?

Not everyone wants to be analytical or appreciates the search for a deeper and profound truth.So does that mean that people who are less deep and introspective have to change. Maybe I dont want to understand deeper motivations or the colour of the leaves dont move me. Macbeth's head on a spike or Fleance's rotting corpse will do me fine.

Acacia · 29-01-2009 1:52pm

CDfm wrote: »

Wow- chicklit is in the eye of the beholder. The Brontes books are filled with over descriptive narrative that is symptomatic of the Victorian era- but it is not truly representative of it. And it aint racy.

Chick-lit is not 'in the eye of the beholder'. Amanda Brunker is chick-lit. Cecelia Aherne is chick-lit. Why? Because they fit into the description that 994 posted above basically.

Wouldn't the fact that the Bronte's books aren't 'racy' mean that they are not chick-lit?

I hope you're not basing your opinion that they are chick-lit writers on the fact that they are women. After all, the sisters wrote under male pseudonyms back when they were first published- would they really have been considered chick-lit if their books were supposedly written by men?

Could you also give an example of the Bronte's over-descriptive narrative? I can't say I've noticed it in their books, tbh.

CDfm wrote: »

100% less 5% is 95%. So 95% get excluded. So you are conceding that rather then having universal appeal the Brontes appeal to only 5% of students. The others may have a "working knowledge" but only 5% develope the critical skills to appreciate it. Dont you think thats sad and the model needs review if thats the case.

I don't know what you're basing that 5% statistic on. I also don't know what you mean by a 'working knowledge'.

Just because you don't like the Brontes it doesn't mean they don't hold universal appeal- among students, or the wider population.

CDfm wrote: »

In the 40s,50s and 60s many kids left school at 12 or so - the secondary system was geared towards University ,the Arts and Teaching etc. It now has a wider remit. That people arent interested or are bored doesnt make them thickos.

Of course not, but it doesn't mean that the course should be 'dumbed down' at the disadvantage of students who aren't disinterested or bored.

For example, I wasn't particularly brilliant at chemistry. It shouldn't mean however that the chemistry class should have sat drawing pictures of molecules all day just because I found chemical equations difficult,and thought the subject was dry and boring. That wouldn't be fair on the more interested students.

Acacia · 29-01-2009 2:01pm

CDfm wrote: »

Cant remember much of the movie- but well - what if poetry and literature isnt your bag.
Say its greyhounds or football. Whats wrong with reading an inspirational football book that describes the thrills and spills?

Not everyone wants to be analytical or appreciates the search for a deeper and profound truth.So does that mean that people who are less deep and introspective have to change. Maybe I dont want to understand deeper motivations or the colour of the leaves dont move me. Macbeth's head on a spike or Fleance's rotting corpse will do me fine.

So now we've moved from ''let's take Shakespeare off the English courses in schools'' to ''oh well, what if you don't like reading literature anyway?''

As has been pointed out before, the point of difficult literature is to challenge and develop critical skills.

There is nothing wrong with reading a book about football- who said there was?

The problem is replacing Shakespeare, Dickens and the Brontes with books on football because some students find literature boring.

The point of English classes (and school in general) is not to pander to students with 'easy' stuff, whether that be maths, English, or any other subject. The point of education is to challenge yourself and develop mentally.

You could for example, talk in baby language to a child for its entire childhood because it's too hard or too much effort to bother teaching him/her proper grammar. But the child will not develop and grow.

It's fine if you're not interested in literature like Shakespeare. It's fine if certain students find it boring and don't want to study it. It doesn't mean it should be taken off the course because it's too hard for some students to grasp. Nobody is forcing them 'to change' themselves just by asking them to read 'Macbeth' or 'Wuthering heights' instead of 'P.S. I Love You.'

Elmo · 29-01-2009 2:23pm

I suppose Cecelia Ahern's novels bring up disscussions of talent, quality and education.

Eoin · 29-01-2009 2:33pm

I think there's a halfway point in a lot of cases though. Death of a Salesman and Lord of the Flies (that is leaving cert, right?) are very accessible but not just fluff. Shakespeare wasn't too bad either once I got past the language barrier.

As much as I enjoy reading I absolutely detested A Portrait of the artist as a young man. I've bought a couple of the books I read in school and enjoyed them, but I will never forget what a pain that book was, and how little I got out of it.

Permabear · 29-01-2009 2:51pm

This post has been deleted.

Eoin · 29-01-2009 2:53pm

Surely that's more of a reason to pick books that are more accessible. And as I've said a couple of times, there are good books that are more easier to read.

Karlusss · 29-01-2009 7:05pm

Let's clarify something, too. Even if, against all reason, you consider Wuthering Heights to be 'the chick lit of its day'...

Comparing it to Cecelia Ahern like-for-like is assuming that Cecelia Ahern, of all the authors working in the chick lit genre right now, is one of the very best, that her treatments are universal and that it's well written enough to appeal to people who no longer speak or think in the same patterns...

You're essentially saying that, in fifty years time when you look back at the literature of the 00s, Cecelia Ahern will be one of the thinks you hold and consider exemplary.

The idea of that makes me cry.

CDfm · 29-01-2009 7:12pm

Karlusss wrote: »

Let's clarify something, too. Even if, against all reason, you consider Wuthering Heights to be 'the chick lit of its day'...

Comparing it to Cecelia Ahern like-for-like is assuming that Cecelia Ahern, of all the authors working in the chick lit genre right now, is one of the very best, that her treatments are universal and that it's well written enough to appeal to people who no longer speak or think in the same patterns...

You're essentially saying that, in fifty years time when you look back at the literature of the 00s, Cecelia Ahern will be one of the thinks you hold and consider exemplary.

The idea of that makes me cry.

Wuthering Heights - a hero nobody likes and hates ,babies born, mellodramatic kitchen sink stuff and hanging dogs. Pass the sick bag.

How depressing if the Brontes are the best the 19th Century have to offer.

Mary Shelley where are you when we need ya.

Permabear · 29-01-2009 7:15pm

This post has been deleted.

CDfm · 29-01-2009 7:48pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I am serious and I think threads like this are very useful because they discuss how we look at things.For the literati Wuthering Heights is a classic and art. Yet the "Borstal Boy" is a lesson in a simple style as is PS I love you.

People who become English teachers do so because they are fans and cant see why others cant share their enthusiasm for language and hate these books they love.Convincing themselves and others that the rest of us are thickos and philistines.

Not everyone is inspired by the same stuff - beacause Wuthering Heights is dark and dreary I dont like it. Its nothing to do with the descriptive narrative style -its a headwrecking story and mush.

Very much like Dirty Den in Eastenders Heathcliff shows up without explanation...................to seek revenge and wreak havoc............................

Permabear · 29-01-2009 8:37pm

This post has been deleted.

CDfm · 29-01-2009 8:49pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Donegalfella -thats your gig and what you like.That sounds like English teacher heaven.

By canonical literature and aesthetics does that mean not being able to write a job application or fill out a bank application form,dole forms or read a menu in a resteraunt or order parts for a Massey Ferguson tractor on-line or place your own bets in the bookies and read the form.

Maybe there is a bit more to English but with 25% of the country functionally illiterate -ahem?

Permabear · 29-01-2009 9:01pm

This post has been deleted.

Valmont · 29-01-2009 9:04pm

If I don't like an author or style of writing (e.g. Harry Potter), I just don't read it and I certainly don't register on boards.ie to post a rant. You just sound like an insecure snob, why don't you drag yourself through Finnegan's Wake again to make yourself feel better?

Thomas_S_Hunterson · 29-01-2009 9:07pm

CDfm wrote: »

Donegalfella -thats your gig and what you like.That sounds like English teacher heaven.

By canonical literature and aesthetics does that mean not being able to write a job application or fill out a bank application form,dole forms or read a menu in a resteraunt or order parts for a Massey Ferguson tractor on-line or place your own bets in the bookies and read the form.

Maybe there is a bit more to English but with 25% of the country functionally illiterate -ahem?

Literacy is taught before secondary level, and often before primary level by parents.

At secondary level, students should have developed sufficient literacy to be able to deal with literature and the English language in an academic way. If not, then there is always remedial classes.

There is no way basic literacy should be taught in a second level English class. The vast majority of students would be bored out of their skull. It would be like teaching them how to eat a pizza.

Valmont · 29-01-2009 9:15pm

CDfm wrote: »

By all means study the stuff but dont pretend it fosters a love of literature or teaches someone to write in a modern,technical or business style. It doesnt and it cant.

May I say that my 6th year leaving cert course was what got me interested in reading what I thought were 'boring old books' and reading the odd bit of poetry and actually learning to appreciate Shakespeare. I have since read MacBeth because I enjoyed Hamlet so much.

The analytical and technical skills I learned also held me in very good stead when I started college and I definitely felt thankful to have a great English teacher who helped me to develop my interests and abilities.

Perhaps I'm not as informed as you are as to the intricacies of the English language, but anyone can see you're just spouting nonsense for the most part.

Blush_01 · 29-01-2009 10:02pm

I have nothing against Cecelia Aherne, fair play to her for making a very good career for herself at such a young age. If anything, I'm probably a bit jealous of her - I certainly don't have the ability to write a novel, be it good, bad or indifferent, and what she writes is read by a huge number of people. In addition, her plots seem quite original.

Unfortunately, I read 12 pages of PS I Love You and my eyes burned. That's my snobbery coming out, so I didn't finish it. My sister, by comparison, loves her and thinks she's borderline deity. I also thought the movie of the book, which I was forced to sit through, was ridiculous, but that was because of a combination of idiotic "Oirish" accents and poor acting.

I have nothing against chick-lit. I like quite a lot of Irish chick-lit writers. My only problem with Cecelia Aherne's novels is that they're poorly written.

Permabear · 29-01-2009 10:52pm

This post has been deleted.

29-01-2009 11:14pm

CDfm wrote: »

People who become English teachers do so because they are fans and cant see why others cant share their enthusiasm for language and hate these books they love.Convincing themselves and others that the rest of us are thickos and philistines.

No-one would expect the most complex physics or mathematics to be comprehensible to the layman; why should literature be different? The "thickos and philistines" in the class won't read A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man; but they probably wouldn't be bothered reading PS I Love You either. Why should classes be tailored to those who don't want to try?

Blush_01 · 30-01-2009 12:35am

[Rant] I've always liked reading and secondary school fostered that to a degree (although my own pigheadedness had a large part to play in that). I was allowed to be a little more vocal than others in my preferences, especially where comparative literature was concerned, and I chose to disregard two of the texts prescribed by my teachers so I had the scope to cover what actually interested me. That's because I actually cared about what I was reading.

The majority of the others in my class merely studied what they were told to, learned off the quotes they were told to know and regurgitated their notes in the exams. The leaving cert doesn't encourage any individuality or independent thought, so what's studied outside the required texts, or within the confines of comparative literature where three of 25 texts are chosen, had better be both easily compared/contrasted and be something that will capture the imagination of the majority.

English at university level is different - the time restrictions mean you make your own choices. Things like PS I Love You are often frowned upon, even within their class or genre, because there are so many other texts with much more critical acclaim and far superior content available. I can't blame my peers for that.

Take the writing of Patricia Scanlon or Sheila O'Flanagan and compare it to Cecelia Aherne and you get a much clearer picture of the divide between old chick-lit and new chick-lit, the age groups who are interested in the books etc. Teenagers can relate to what Cecelia Aherne has to say, if only because it's coming from someone who has recently been a teenager. Patricia Scanlon and Sheila O'Flanagan belong to an older generation and write to their tastes. In the middle you have people like Marisa Mackle and Sophie Kinsella. It's economics covered in pink fluff, flowers and chocolate, and the authors are entrepreneurs rather than the new literati.

Nobody suggests that Sebastian Barry and Cecelia Aherne are on the same level, though they both might write in what their readership consider to be a very simple and readable manner and have interesting plotlines. [/rant]

CDfm · 30-01-2009 1:16am

994 wrote: »

No-one would expect the most complex physics or mathematics to be comprehensible to the layman; why should literature be different? The "thickos and philistines" in the class won't read A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man; but they probably wouldn't be bothered reading PS I Love You either. Why should classes be tailored to those who don't want to try?

I have a choice -lots of people dont - but the system should facilitate and give the ordinary guy the skills to read and enjoy what he wants if only for entertainment.

Maybe I cant understand one end of a car engine from another or Know my ELCBs from my trip switches but the guys who do those jobs need functional literacy.

IF I find the content of a book on a bit of the flaky side or depressing - I wont fake liking it for kudos.

Cecelia Ahern - hack, PS, I hate you, you suck

Comments