Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Tom Clancy anyone?
-
09-05-2001 2:33pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
Airport novels are a last resort for me- but even if I have to sink that low- I would avoid Jeffrey Archer and Tom Clancy like the proverbial plague.</font>
snobby *******
If you stay clear of the Op Centre series and anything written about a game (Rainbow six, SSN) he's usually a good read. Not exactly intellectual stuff but usally a good page turner. His non-fiction book about armoured warfare is supposed to be excellent (out of date now though) and his latest (I think) The Bear and the Dragon is good, and pretty typical of all his stuff.
0 -
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Blitzkrieger:
snobby *******
If you stay clear of the Op Centre series and anything written about a game (Rainbow six, SSN) he's usually a good read. Not exactly intellectual stuff but usally a good page turner. </font>
Tsk tsk my bratty child- curb that wagging foul-mouthed tongue of yours (literally).
That's precisely my point Blitz- page-turners usually focus so much on plot development- they do so at the expense of character development- unless a character is developed over hundreds of short stories.
Just because something is a page-turner doesn't make it a good work of fiction. Archie comics are great page-turners- but hardly focused writing. The characters, their motivations, desires, needs and emotions are what make a good work of fiction. In any case- if I had to shoot for an airport novelist- I'd rather pick Ludlum, Forsyth and especially John Grisham. Chances are you will have seen a Grisham book-turned film- but the books are far better than the films tbh.
His characters are two-dimensional, singleminded are objective-oriented. He uses characters as a means to an end, rather than the end itself. Another bone I have to pick with him is telling instead of showing us what characters think and how that defines their behavior.
All that is fine if you enjoy shallow, light entertainment for a 7-hour flight to NYC...but not if a truly great author is what you're after. Bullit shows remarkably good taste by shunning Jeffrey Archer (the lying, cheating substandard of literature cum politics that he is...
In any case- if you enjoy airport novels then fine- just think though. The time spent could be used to read literature classics, of our time and of bygone years. There's an opportunity cost to reading airport novels- they do not broaden one's view of people's behavior under loaded circumstances.
Bob he Unlucky Octopus
=Alea Jacta Est=0 -
Advertisement
-
Good points but I don't agree that the time spent reading an 'airport novel' is lost. I think it's just intellectual snobbery, which I tend to fall victim to all the time too
Why do we always place something with 'intelectual' value above something that is simply enjoyable? I'm not saying both can't be enjoyed, but I disagree that time spent not learning something is time wasted.
Plus, at the other end of the scale, something like Hard Times which has loads of character development but nothing actually happens, is in my opionion bloody awful
Also - there's a pretty fine line between saying what your character is feeling instead of showing it. If Heathcliff put's his hand through a window it's pretty clear he's angry 0 -
-
-
Shank- reading literature doesn't serve the sole purpose of entertainment. You want pure entertainment? Go to a film, switch on the TV, watch a scrolling humorous advert- that's pure entertainment. Literature is about broadening your experience- most writers would go with that- so I don't see where you're coming from. And being rude doesn't help your argument- just makes you sound like a sexually frustrated child(which you very well might be).
We have enough action thrillers, techno-modern-military thrillers in the last year alone- more than you can shake a stick at- so I don't see the need for anyone to read airport novels for entertainment. Jeff Meisen, probably the most respected literature critic on the Western Seaboard is abosolutely write when he calls airport novels "picturebook writing". It has its place- just like po(o)p music, fashion culture, 80s action films and BBC Light Entertainment- I just don't enjoy their shallow nature.
Oh Blitz...the reason we place something with intellectual value above pure entertainment is simple- our society (thankfully) still values good creative writers that have stood the test of time. It does not (by Clancy and Ludlum's own admission) take much skill to create an airport novel. They are so formulaic one might as well pick up a military manual, the 39 steps by John Buchan(still the template for any thriller), a medical dictionary, and an alarmist magazine from the medical and legal disciplines. Airport novel kit ready, simply interface plot with the 39 steps, add jargon and you're on your way....
But seriously folks- has our society really become too impatient to read such classics as Crime and Punishment, Heart of Darkness or For Whom the Bell Tolls? I think it smacks of arrogant modernism to rate these shadows of character interaction and alarmist plot trends anywhere close to classical literature. Let's just see how well Clancy and Ludlum stand the test of time shall we?
As I said, cheap entertainment has its place- but not at the top of the critic's list. Whatever your misgivings about critical review- it provides a medium for discussion, and after (very little) discussion, most people are convinced that cheap entertainment cannot supplant art. Why do you think that theater is still regarded as the highest acting artform? Why do so many Hollywood stars hunker after stage-time(and so rarely make the final casting list)?
I stand by all my original points- there are exceptions obviously- Day of the Jackal from Forsyth, Red Storm Rising from Clancy, and the Bourne Identity from Ludlum- but these good novels are exceptions rather than the rule. John Buchan, Agatha Christie and James Prozhnow all write far better thrillers anyway
In any case- it isn't intellectual snobbery to acknowledge that Blazing Saddles is a better comedy than Road-trip or that the Beatles are a better music group than Steps- why should it be ANY different for literature?
Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Et tu Brute?=
PS- Kaiser you're probably right actually- he does have a fair few novels that reek of airport disenfectant, my mistake
0 -
-
Let's get one thing straight shank- I didn't call you anything- I merely said you sounded like "X"...re-read your original post again, note the amount of foul language and tell me if I'm wrong...calling me a snob? You don't know how wrong you are...
It isn't snobbery- if you had the patience to read my post, I explain it clearly at the end. It isn't snobbery to say that a poxy plastic chair isn't as well-constructed as a hand-made varnished chair carved out of balsalmic wood...it's just the facts, Jack...
The same goes for critique- no theater critic would even stand a Broadway musical in the same room as Death of A Salesman for example...the same goes for literature critics. And why shank? They have patience, and the time to be discerning. Most young people today (yourself by your remarks obviously included)haven't the patience to sit through the descriptive style of F Scott Fitzgerald, the social bleakscapes of Dickens, or the mind-bending character torture of Kafka...I'd be surprised if you had the patience to read half this post- patience is a virtue shank
No, you'd prefer a fast-food thriller- a novel constructed from a template as much as Danielle Steele's books(you know, the ones with the irritating suggestive covers...) or a Jerry Bruckenheimer film- you've read one- you've read 'em all for the most part...
I don't condemn or villify you for it...I blame the society that fosters a lack of patience, and the arrogant modernism that "new is always better". Well skank, if airport novels float your boat then fine- manufactured plot-lovers are nothing new- they infest our society- but wait! There is hope...
Some of these fast-food novel-readers eventually grow up...they switch their fast entertainment to the old classics of the genre- H Rider Haggard and Conan Doyle. Well before Jurassic Park was written, Conan Doyle wrote the far more though-provoking The Lost World- scientifically up-to-date for its time.
Now comes the carchase you wanted
{WATCH BULLIT- No better carchase in a film exists- no matter what those Ronin fans say...)
My point is a simple one- there is *nothing* in airport novels that cannot be found elsewhere in literature, and is often better-written. I'll reiterate...if you want cheap entertainment- go watch a film! If you like reading thrillers, read the classics first- you'll never go back to an airport novel again.
Grow up shank- littering your posts with insults doesn't increase anyone's opinion of you- they just make you sound (perhaps if I emphasize the distinction he'll get it this time /me hopes)childish and uninformed. I don't object to people reading trash- but I do take umbridge when they compare it to fine art. Is Road-trip better than Blazing Saddles? Is Red Storm Rising better than War&Peace? Is The Bourne Identity better than Metamorphosis? No, no, (and thrice) no...
It's NOT snobbery- one is better-constructed than the other. It is that simple- name me the last airport novel that won a literature award of any description...I'd be most interested to hear if there was one. Read them...and enjoy them in good health- but don't spout BS on boards...I'd trade all airport novels in gladly for a single page of Lord of the Rings.
Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Vade Retro=
PS- the reason Waterstone's is empty is that they overprice their books- go to B&N or an antique bookstore, the two nearest me are always packed. Another possible explanation is that discerning readers fled Waterstones, sensing the foul stench of an airport novel-reader who values quick-fix thrills over subtle character interaction, descriptive panache and individual style- I think it distinctly likely for some reason
[This message has been edited by Bob the Unlucky Octopus (edited 15-05-2001).]0 -
Man yr making it really hard for me not to use "foul language" lol. Sorry but yr posts just reek of what I was on about earlier they are oozing of a know-all, I'm better, elitist attitute whether yr aware of this or not I don't know.
BTW an insult is still an insult even if it is a thinly veiled one.
I've read all Doyle's Holmes story's loved them - I've read all Michael Connelly loved them too, both authors provided great reads imo, yet if you had yr way I would not read Connelly because he is a so called airport novelist. LOTR incredible book reading it to my kids atm ( kinda puts paid to yr earlier observations re sexually frustraed child).
The main difference between you and me seems to be that I'm pretty much open to a lot of types of books bar maybe Austen/Dickens type stuff(both of which I read at least one book and hated) where you seem to need yr book choices to be recognised clasics. I don't know but that seems a little close minded to me.
Notice my restraint with regards to foul language, btw when I read yr post I get this mental image of the baby from family guy, thats not an insult btw, well maybe it is I dunno, you decide 0 -
-
-
*sigh*
I never said people shouldn't read airport novels...read my last post. People's choices are their own- I mean some people consider Archie comics to be a cracking good read...it's not about what people like and dislike- that's up to the individual. I merely point out a blatant and obvious fact- that airport novels, while entertaining and slick, gripping and even scintillating at times, on average is a shallow work of fiction. There's just no getting around that any way you slice it. People enjoy shallow works- you only need to look at the current fanactical followings that boy-bands have acquired to see what a little shallow light entertainment can do to the masses.
I don't care if people make an individual choice- but to proclaim that choice as the best above recognized works of fiction? Scroll up near the top of this post shank- you'll notice that I *shock horror* recommend two airport novels. Just because something is shallow and developed to appeal to a level of infantile simplicity doesn't mean it's not enjoyable when you want a few quick kicks.
A great deal of patience and focus is required when reading literature classics. Having children of your own, perhaps most of your patience is exhausted on them- I certainly can empathize with the feeling. But that doesn't mean that airport novels are superior works of literature, or even on the same level as great works that have stood the test of time. Whether or not you or I find either genre interesting is irrelevant- it is patently obvious that one genre is written with superior quality than the other.
That doesn't mean to say you can't enjoy both...I like a good Bordeaux Red, or perhaps a Chateaux Chartreuse along with dinner...but if I'm going out with my friends to a bar, I'm not going to order wine- I'll order a big fat bottle of Grolsch or some other beer. It's obvious that the wine is alcohol of superior quality, but beer fits a particular niche and location for me.
The same's true of literature- classics are like the fine old wines of the Old World, and airport novels are a pint at your local...more people enjoy a pint even though the wine is carefully suited to taste and aged with exquisite care. Tortuous analogy it may be...but it serves.
If I'm hopping on to a 5 hour flight to a work destination, I'm not going to bring along War&Peace...that requires almost as much focus as the work I'll be doing. No, I'd stop along and pick up Grisham's latest offering and wallow in mediocrity for the duration of the flight- it's a nice vapid thriller of a read that I don't need to pay too much attention to- I usually pitch the book after landing. If I'm seriously sitting down for a book though- there'd be no point in me picking up Grisham or Clancy- I'd finish it in a day- that's how fast the plot would move. But that's just you and me- a question of taste. From an objective standpoint(which I've been arguing from all along if you read the precise wording of my posts) it is impossible to judge them on equal footing- the critics certainly don't. And wouldn't you say the critics know a tad more than you or I about what makes a good work of fiction?
On a side note- yes, the car-chase scenes in Ronin were exciting, adrenaline packed, etc...but in Bullit, Steve McQueen actually does all the driving HIMSELF. The camera shots aren't cut every 5 seconds as they are in Ronin- and you can see distance shots which clearly show McQueen speeding along at breakneck speed through the streets of San Francisco. You could say "well what's the difference?" but for some reason...it just seems more thrilling to me that he's risking his own neck rather than the studio paying off a stunt-driver. Call me cynical but that's how I feel...
Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Alea Jacta Est=
PS- Restraining your use of foul language is good shank- surely you have to do it in front of your kids all the time...if they're old enough to find the internet and look through your history folder, finding what you post...it's hardly a smashing paternal example is it? And I don't find being compared to that baby insulting- it's a compliment of the highest order! That baby rocks my souuuuuuuuul!
0 -
Advertisement
-
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
But seriously folks- has our society really become too impatient to read such classics as Crime and Punishment, Heart of Darkness or For Whom the Bell Tolls? </font>
yes (trademark glib Blitzie comment )<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
our society (thankfully) still values good creative writers that have stood the test of time</font>
Let's go even further down the food chain. Maybe the most consistent best selling author in the world right now is Stephen King. If you hate Clancy you'll loathe King. His work will stand the test of time, if only as a footnote. How many King novels have been thrown into a god-awful time capsule for future generations? Like it or not, he has an influence (however small) on our culture and will be remembered for it. So standing the test of time alone does not mean something is a classic.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
it's just the facts</font>
(taken slightly out of context) It's not facts - it's your opinion. Tbh comparing Dickens to Clancy is like comparing chalk to cheese. The two are so different there's little value in comparing them. I'm just saying that both have value (even if you don't value them equally) and neither is a waste of time.
I'm currently reading "The Red Badge of Courage" and trying to compare that to Dickens would be a waste of time too.
And if you want to go by critics, some 'airport novels' do get good reviews. With the sheer volume of books out there it's insane to dismiss thousands as 'a waste of time'. Take Roddy Doyle for instance. I've read all his books, but by reading "The Snapper" or "The Van" you wouldn't think him capable of writing something like "A Star Called Henry".
Also, to cast a more favorable light on Clancy - I'm also reading "Carrier Arsenal" by Keith Douglas (or something) and that is a truly awful 'Airport novel'. It's so bad and full of errors. The guy can't have done any research at all. He asserts that 90% of the earth's surface is covered in water.
0 -
A couple of points...
Well blitz, if our society is too impatient to read these classics...then why do antique bookstores stay in business? And why is there a Victorian author's festival in practically every major city in Europe EVERY year? Governments won't ring-fence taxpayers' money for a national project like this unless it's what the taxpaying voters want.
Erm...who said I had to hate Stephen King as well as Tom Clancy? As a matter of fact I love some of King's books- Kujo especially was a real eyeopener for me in college. There's a huge gulf in class between the two authors. Every critic worth listening to describes Tom Clancy as incapable of good descriptive writing.
The hallmark of a good descriptive writer Blitz, is that subtle suggestions are planted in the mind of the reader, to be confirmed or denied later in the book- this is called "foreshadowing". With Clancy- no such luck- the plots are blatantly predictable- the character's motivations are clear from the second you lay eyes on them, and the rest of the book is littered (CRAWLING) with 21st-century stereotypes.
Stephen King on the other hand, thrives on suggestion, mystery, character faux-pas and setting a subtle mood. Stephen King revived what could easily have been called a dead genre when he started writing...I wouldn't compare him to Clancy. As I said- Clancy, Forsyth and Grisham are just poor reincarnations of Buchan, Rider Haggard, Conan Doyle and Christie. Stephen King breaks new ground- the other writers mentioned- simply retread it with a simple variation on an old theme.
Stephen King has enjoyed huge critical success back home- but the other authors mentioned haven't- and rightly so. Ironically, Clancy and Grisham's books make fantastic screenplays for films- they're so undescriptive, it allows the director free license to express his/her artistic vision. I mean- it's every director's dream to express themselves in a film that has no chance of losing at the box office because of a cultish literature following! It's because of a lack of subtle descriptive detail that so many of these books have been made into films.
And I wouldn't call Roddy Doyle an airport novelist- he writes in drama and light entertainment fiction, just as Nick Hornby does. Airport novels are a distinctive type of modern thriller, not family drama, football drama or light entertainment.
And Blitz- you say slightly out of context- that's waaay out of context. I used a metaphor to describe a comparison between two sets of paradigms...and you pick out a single statement and challenge me on it. How can I organize argumentation when you attack me from an irrelevant angle?
As it happens Blitz- it's not just my opinion...it's the opinion of the VAST majority of literary experts. And what do we call a scientific theory that has the weight of the scientific community's support behind it? Scientific...FACT. So you see Blitz, in the absence of established dissenting critical opinion- I'm not an isolated voice when discussing the critical quality of airport novels. As I said- find me an airport novel that has won a critical acclamation at an established event, and I'll rethink my remarks. Until then- let's stick to the established facts- however entertaining some of them may be- airport novels are unoriginal and filled with blatant paradigms. The best novels punch a subtle message- I have never seen an airport novel carry it off successfully- or receive wide critical acclaim for literary achievement.
The unoriginality of the themes surrounding airport novel these days confirms my sad observation about the demise of the modern thriller. Three different authors, three different books: "Day of the Jackal", "Shall We Tell the President?" and "Executive Orders". Three different books- but with almost exactly the same central theme. Down to the ending of those plot-lines. Assuming Jeffrey Archer, Frederick Forsyth and Tom Clancy didn't sit down in a room and brainstorm the ideas for these 3 books together- it's fair to say that the topic selection has gone down the tubes.
Trying to pick my way through these books and find an intelligent piece of writing is like squeezing blood out of a stone. It makes me yearn for "The 39 Steps", "The Spy that Came in from the Cold", "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes", "The Guns of Navarone", and many more. Those books raise new questions, thoughts, concerns and doubts about human nature than any other thrillers I've read. For the record, they're all incredible page-turners and cracking good reads. They're considered classics by the critics not because they're old- but because no author since that period has been able to capture human emotions behind a character in a thriller effectively.
Unfortunate, but there you have it- just the facts, blitz
Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Veni Vidi Vici=0 -
-
-
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
- the plots are blatantly predictable-</font>
That's every book nowadays (practically). As soon as the characters are introduced you know exactly what's going to happen. After the first few chapters of Pet Semetary, you couldn't have guessed what would happen? And talk about two dimensional characters - King is the King of two dimensional characters. From the husband who just can't live without his wife to the dweeb who butt-****s satan's bride in The Stand.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
you say slightly out of context- that's waaay out of context. </font>
Not really - you're trying to convince us your opinion is fact. In context it wasn't what you said but it's the gist of your argument.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
it's the opinion of the VAST majority of literary experts.</font>
That has to be the worst argument ever. I've seen it before too. Way back in 'social studies' a.k.a. relgion class in school the teacher came up with the brilliant argument that there must be a god, because there are millions of catholics and they can't all be wrong.
Of course they can all be wrong.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
And I wouldn't call Roddy Doyle an airport novelist- </font>
The crux of the argument seems to be that if you think an author is good, they're not an airport novelist but all crap authors are.
Using my psychic powers I predict that you will say 'that's not what I said', and literally it's not. But from where I'm sitting it is.0 -
-
-
I am sorry I didn't get in here sooner. This is the best thread I have seen in ages and I will post at length tomorrow, after my final exam this evening.
By the by- like my new Signature Bob. I mock you from afar.
Excelsior
=Consto Suffragium Cussu Famina=0 -
Baz- just because I state a valid opinion doesn't give you the right to flame or get personal. For the record- I usually ignore anyone who makes personal attacks- they're usually not worth the trouble.
You obviously didn't bother to read my post Baz...strange that I actually took the trouble to read your long post...
I clearly stated that what people enjoy is their own affair. At the same time they can't go around bl33ting that what they enjoy is a far superior piece of literature than established novels. What they enjoy is a subjective question- what comprises established and classical literature is an objective judgement THEY CAN'T MAKE. Since they enjoy a particular kind of book, it's impossible for them to judge its objective worth. That is left to the critics- and more important...the COLLECTIVE weight of critical opinion.
From your remark about critics- you probably don't even know what critics do, or why they are important to the arts. Critique of a piece of art in whatever form, allows its strengths and weaknesses to be presented to the public from a critical view, hence the term "critic". Critics don't read a novel with the intention of destroying the author's reputation, a policy you clearly seem to regard as their natural instinct.
I'll say it again in case you didn't catch that the first time Baz- what people enjoy is subjective- for objective criticism we look to the weight of critical opinion. The analogy in the latter half of your post is as facetious as your view of critics- a broken and specious metaphor. I may enjoy fast food, but I let the experts define what constitutes gourmet food. Just because I enjoy fast-food doesn't mean I have the subjective right to redefine the nomenclature of the subject!
So is it with literature. What people enjoy is their own affair...but what experts regard as crafted art in book form...we'd better leave that to the experts, hadn't we Baz? After all...it's *their* job to remark with critique upon a novel...not yours or mine.
If you're going to post...at least take the trouble to read what you're replying to...that way our arguments won't be like two ships passing in the night. Thanks.
Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Errare Humanum Est=
PS- I'm not sure if that Latin quotation of yours was gramatically correct Excel(although my school latin is shaky at best)..."Support for the right of voting...*something* *something*"- don't remember either of the last two words' meanings...perhaps you could enlighten us?
Here's another voting one- appropriate with a general election coming up in the UK:
=Conductos et Sicarios Suffragium Ferre et Eam Legem Putare=0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
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=0 -
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? 0 -
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=0 -
Advertisement
-
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?=0 -
-
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?...0 -
-
<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=0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Actually, it is far from indisputable.<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>
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
0
Advertisement