Off Topic, General banter...

lordgoat

Hope this is ok, have seen threads like this in other forums work well.

Said i'd throw one up in here.

So stumbled across this today and couldn't warrant starting a new thread for it, so it helped make me start this thread.

Has anyone listened to this.

http://opus.fm/v1/view/max_richter_songs_from_before/

Max Richter arranges music and Robet Wyatt reads Murakami pieces over some of them. Really beautiful in places.

OakeyDokey

Good to see an off topic thread in here, I hope to have many rants about books etc. in here.

I haven't listened to it but will have a check now.

Denerick

Let me use this opportunity to state that I find Eliot Rosewater's views on George R.R. Martin to be deeply flawed... nay, contemptible.

It has been thusly stated.

Einhard

Denerick wrote: »

Let me use this opportunity to state that I find Eliot Rosewater's views on George R.R. Martin to be deeply flawed... nay, contemptible.

It has been thusly stated.

Hmmm, interesting. Let's just say I'm going to have to kill one of you.

lordgoat

Denerick wrote: »

Let me use this opportunity to state that I find Eliot Rosewater's views on George R.R. Martin to be deeply flawed... nay, contemptible.

It has been thusly stated.

I'm a big fan of Martin but it'll come down to how well he ends it. I won't be reading him until he's finished the series though or until i know a release date for the last book. It's how i do things these days!

I thoroughly enjoyed the TV Series. And the boobs.

Eliot Rosewater

Dunno if all you guys heard the bad news, but Denerick's opinions on books aren't worth anything anymore - he may as well be banned tbh. He got these notions into his head that this random book that he found in the jacks in McDonald's - "Game of Thrones" - was something other than Cecelia Ahern for males ... a terrible loss to our community

Isard

lordgoat wrote: »

Robet Wyatt reads Murakami pieces over some of them

It's a very good idea. I listened to Doris Day yesterday, the song named To Ulrike M, and they use some fragments of Ulrike Meinhof's speeches. It's not that uncommon, actually, but I never heard pieces of fiction read over music... Are there any more?;)

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

"Game of Thrones" - Cecelia Ahern for males ...

Surprised you're not saying this about Robert Jordan:D

The RR in George RR Martin stand for "rape" & "rape". Like terry goodkind. Well no, terry goodkind is just woeful. GoT is a bit better.

OakeyDokey

Got to the library in the last minute and picked up three books to tie me over

old gregg

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

Hermy

@Isard
United Future Organization Poetry And All That Jazz
features Jack Kerouac reading Jazz and the Beat Generation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQWHEaZSIZI

Also check Closed On Account of Rabies and Dead City Radio.

Christopher Walken reading The Raven

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WGOTOPkJjI

William S. Burroughs reading Love Your Enemies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC3soWp6LYk

raah!

Speaking of the beat writers:

Flannery O'Connor, The Habit of Being (Farrar, Straus, & Giroux, 1979), pp. 336-337, in a letter to Dr. T. R. Spivey dated 21 June 1959:

I haven't read the article in PR [Paris Review?] or the beat writers themselves. That seems about the most appalling thing you could set yourself to do -- read them. But reading about them and reading what they have to say about themselves makes me think that there is a lot of ill-directed good in them. Certainly some revolt against our exaggerated materialism is long overdue. They seem to know a good many of the right things to run away from, but to lack any necessary discipline. They call themselves holy but holiness costs and so far as I can see they pay nothing. It's true that grace is the free gift of God but to put yourself in the way of being receptive to it you have to practice self-denial. I observe that Baron von Hügel's most used words are derivatives of the word cost. As long as the beat people abandon themselves to all sensual satisfactions, on principle, you can't take them for anything but false mystics. A good look at St. John of the Cross makes them all look sick.

You can't trust them as poets either because they are too busy acting like poets. The true poet is anonymous, as to his habits, but these boys have to look, act, and apparently smell like poets.

Burn!

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

bluewolf wrote: »

The RR in George RR Martin stand for "rape" & "rape". Like terry goodkind. Well no, terry goodkind is just woeful. GoT is a bit better.

What about "really rather a lot of descriptions of food"? You could guess the man was a fattie (I'm quite enjoying the books)

old gregg wrote: »

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

I like having music on, only stuff I've listened to a lot and don't have to pay too much attention to though

Eliot Rosewater

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

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

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

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

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Alison Tight Tumor

Alison Tight Tumor wrote: »

What about "really rather a lot of descriptions of food"? You could guess the man was a fattie (I'm quite enjoying the books)

Food? I missed all that!! I remembered something about 77 courses on a feastday and that was about it! I think I was too traumatised by the rest of it!
:pac:

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Right, I'm off to sit beside my bookshelf and look pensive, so I can appear intellectual and refined.

lordgoat

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Dunno if all you guys heard the bad news, but Denerick's opinions on books aren't worth anything anymore - he may as well be banned tbh. He got these notions into his head that this random book that he found in the jacks in McDonald's - "Game of Thrones" - was something other than Cecelia Ahern for males ... a terrible loss to our community

Ah here! Wash your mouth out.

bluewolf wrote: »

The RR in George RR Martin stand for "rape" & "rape". Like terry goodkind. Well no, terry goodkind is just woeful. GoT is a bit better.

Goodkind and Jordan are just terrible imo

Alison Tight Tumor wrote: »

I like having music on, only stuff I've listened to a lot and don't have to pay too much attention to though

I can read and listen no probs.

Also I love your username. I have no idea why.

lordgoat

lordgoat wrote: »

Goodkind and Jordan are just terrible imo

I love wheel of time It's not exactly amazing literature, but very enjoyable!
Agreed on goodkind. Thinly veiled preaching, and completely goes off the deep end after the first couple books (ripping off Jordan) :rolleyes:

lordgoat

bluewolf wrote: »

I love wheel of time It's not exactly amazing literature, but very enjoyable!
Agreed on goodkind. Thinly veiled preaching, and completely goes off the deep end after the first couple books (ripping off Jordan) :rolleyes:

Really? I gave up after path of daggers. A truly terrible book...

And we even bonded over ye olde Roost. Oddly i'm off to the roost tonight, in all it's new fangled glory. Ughhh dread.

lordgoat

lordgoat wrote: »

Really? I gave up after path of daggers. A truly terrible book...

And we even bonded over ye olde Roost. Oddly i'm off to the roost tonight, in all it's new fangled glory. Ughhh dread.

The best ones are about 4-7 I think, then it goes downhill a bit. I actually started on book 6... :pac:
It's interesting reading Sanderson's take on the last couple of books, though he really did a bad job with Mat.
I also have to admit a lot of the female characters are pretty irritating in that way typical of some male fantasy writers, Eddings comes to mind... not that our original subject of discussion, Martin, was much better!

Awful! I'm off to Bradys tonight! If I ever get moving...

Denerick

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I can sympathise with this lady; I'm something of a bibliophile and have went out of my way to collect books (mainly first edition, but generaly those with a 'vintage' feel) because I like the look and smell of them. Indeed, if I ever come into money (A highly unlikely occurance) I would quite like the idea of setting up an antique bookshop. I own more books than a man my age or income level should; which is not to say I've read that many. I'd say I've read around one in three of the books in my collection. The important thing is that I aspire to read more... but I lack the necessary leisure time in which to do so. Work may be the curse of the drinking classes, but it is also held in contempt by bibliophiles everywhere.

Denerick

bluewolf wrote: »

Food? I missed all that!! I remembered something about 77 courses on a feastday and that was about it! I think I was too traumatised by the rest of it!
:pac:

I vaguely remember an obsession with lemon cakes. Lemon cakes were everywhere.

lordgoat

bluewolf wrote: »

The best ones are about 4-7 I think, then it goes downhill a bit. I actually started on book 6... :pac:
It's interesting reading Sanderson's take on the last couple of books, though he really did a bad job with Mat.
I also have to admit a lot of the female characters are pretty irritating in that way typical of some male fantasy writers, Eddings comes to mind... not that our original subject of discussion, Martin, was much better!

Awful! I'm off to Bradys tonight! If I ever get moving...

I could hear you tugging your braid from here. (Oh Matron!)

Also give Brent Weeks Night Angel Trilogy a read. Best fantasy series i've read in years. Oh and Feist, he deals with the ladies quite well.

Might end up in bradys, downstairs though. Depending on how much i hate the roost.

lordgoat

lordgoat wrote: »

I could hear you tugging your braid from here. (Oh Matron!)

:pac:

Also give Brent Weeks Night Angel Trilogy a read. Best fantasy series i've read in years. Oh and Feist, he deals with the ladies quite well.

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

Might end up in bradys, downstairs though. Depending on how much i hate the roost.

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

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

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

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

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

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

How many spelling and grammar mistakes were in it? The Express really annoys me, aside from the pretty much uniformly awful content of the articles you often get things like the same paragraph repeated within an article, and once when I was very bored I actually did take a red pen to it, I lost the will to continue at about forty mistakes.

That kind of attitude is just pure student can't-think-for-myself hipsterism, it's people who have somehow, somewhere picked up the idea that reading is good (somebody in the SU probably told them it was "all part of the college experience" or something) but they haven't the cop on, attention span or capacity for independent thought to actually read all by their little selves. If the person who wrote that had stopped for five minutes to think about what they were writing they would have -or should have- realised what a dick they were being but they're just surrounded by people who all think (I use that word because I can't think of a better one) the same as them. Reading is just like owning a Mac or wearing scarves or liking David Norris; it's just part of the image, something they all do regardless of whether they enjoy or understand it at all. Grrr sometimes I really don't miss college

bluewolf wrote: »

Food? I missed all that!! I remembered something about 77 courses on a feastday and that was about it! I think I was too traumatised by the rest of it!
:pac:

Ah no god, every time anyone sits down to a meal it's described in much more detail than it needs to be, everything seems to be swimming in butter and falling off the bone. I mean yeah fair enough sometimes it's relevant to the plot, but it gets annoying, or it did for me anyway.

lordgoat wrote: »

Also I love your username. I have no idea why.

Because it's feckin magical.

KnifeWRENCH

Denerick wrote: »

Let me use this opportunity to state that I find Eliot Rosewater's views on George R.R. Martin to be deeply flawed... nay, contemptible.

It has been thusly stated.

I am gonna display my amazing knowledge of current literature here (the modern stuff that all you young kids read) by admitting that I had to google who George R.R. Martin was. All I could think of was your man who worked with The Beatles!

old gregg wrote: »

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

I can't do both. It's either read or listen to music but not both. Unless it's pure background music that I wouldn't pay much attention to anyway.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

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

Harry Potter was an almost amazing and very well written series of books that would have been perfectly in tune with literary snobbery if that bitch had not ruined it all with that mawkish, pathetic excuse for an ending. :mad: If I knew in advance that *

stupid fúcking LOVE would save everything

I wouldn't have bothered ever reading them.

*spoiler included for possible cave dwellers who haven't read Deathly Hallows yet.

Kinski

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

Harry Potter was an almost amazing and very well written series of books that would have been perfectly in tune with literary snobbery if that bitch had not ruined it all with that mawkish, pathetic excuse for an ending. :mad: If I knew in advance that *

stupid fúcking LOVE would save everything

I wouldn't have bothered ever reading them.

Love? Is that how he came back to life? That whole thing annoyed me.

I was dragged to the last movie, even though I hadn't seen the previous ones. I was lost.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

Harry Potter was an almost amazing and very well written series of books that would have been perfectly in tune with literary snobbery if that bitch had not ruined it all with that mawkish, pathetic excuse for an ending. :mad: If I knew in advance that *

stupid fúcking LOVE would save everything

I wouldn't have bothered ever reading them.

*spoiler included for possible cave dwellers who haven't read Deathly Hallows yet.

I'm pretty ambivalent about Harry Potter, seriously some of the most exciting moments of my childhood revolved the books but...well for one thing there's a bit of a seismic shift in tone halfway through the series I think, kind of starts in Goblet of Fire but especially in the following books, it's like the plot and subject matter just get a smidgen too serious to fit with the tone and form of the series up to that point and it just gets messy. I often think I'd love to see Guillermo del Torro or somebody do a series of Harry Potter films now that all the plot is known and make it a bit more grown up. They're children's books aimed at 8-14 year olds and within that genre they're absolute classics but as far as books for adults who have read other books go you'd be as well off arguing for a well written piece of travel journalism or something. I think they're good because they introduce kids to reading, they're exactly the kind of book that will get people into reading for enjoyment because they're not entirely stupid and I do smile every time I see kids reading them for exactly that reason but still. Yes they're great for what they are, people our age are probably always going to have a real emotional connection to them but there's no point dressing them up as something they aren't.

Kinski wrote: »

Love? Is that how he came back to life? That whole thing annoyed me.

I was dragged to the last movie, even though I hadn't seen the previous ones. I was lost.

In fairness though, a lot of those books was inner monologues and stuff. I watched the movies (under duress) quite some time after I read the books and I would have been completely lost if I hadn't read the plot first. Those books were a cash cow and I don't like anything about them, despite the fact that the books are really visual and could make an amazing series if people were willing to take liberties with the source material. Anyways don't judge the books by the films, the books really are a far superior specimen.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Also, despite what I've posted in this thread so far I do read books that haven't had a TV/movie treatment.

Anybody want to talk about "We Need To Talk About Kevin"? (quite quickly)

KnifeWRENCH

Alison Tight Tumor wrote: »

I'm pretty ambivalent about Harry Potter, seriously some of the most exciting moments of my childhood revolved the books but...well for one thing there's a bit of a seismic shift in tone halfway through the series I think, kind of starts in Goblet of Fire but especially in the following books, it's like the plot and subject matter just get a smidgen too serious to fit with the tone and form of the series up to that point and it just gets messy.

I'd say most people were glad of that seismic shift. Rowling realised that people who read Philosopher's Stone when they were 10 wouldn't want to read another Philosopher's Stone when they were 18. I didn't think it was messy, although perhaps she could have done with fewer characters and side plots.

They're children's books aimed at 8-14 year olds and within that genre they're absolute classics but as far as books for adults who have read other books go you'd be as well off arguing for a well written piece of travel journalism or something.

Excuse me! I happen to enjoy travel journalism. Seriously, I will spend half the night just browsing through Wikitravel.

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

I'd never suggest Harry Potter was the greatest thing ever to happen to literature or anything (especially not with that fúcking ending) but still there are some supposed "classics" out there that I'd recommend Harry Potter over any day of the week. :pac:

Alison Tight Tumor wrote:

Anyways don't judge the books by the films, the books really are a far superior specimen.

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

lordgoat

bluewolf wrote: »

:pac:


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


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

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

Alison Tight Tumor wrote: »

Because it's feckin magical.

Magical it surely is.

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

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

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

Eliot Rosewater

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

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

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

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

Kinski

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

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

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

lordgoat wrote: »

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

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

lordgoat

Kinski wrote: »

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

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

Denerick

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

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

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

Eliot Rosewater

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

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

Hermy

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

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

What if you can't explain your pleasure?

Eliot Rosewater

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

Okay, mathematician stuff aside, agreed, yeah.

Toby Take a Bow

Denerick wrote: »

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

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

Hermy

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

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

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

Eliot Rosewater

Hermy wrote: »

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

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

Hermy

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

Hermy

Hermy wrote: »

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

Read more books until you can express yourself?

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

Hermy

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

Hermy

bluewolf wrote: »

Read more book reviews...??

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

emeraldstar

Hermy wrote: »

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

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

I'd consider that a bit silly really.

Hermy

emeraldstar wrote: »

I'd consider that a bit silly really.

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

kerash

emeraldstar wrote: »

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

I'd consider that a bit silly really.

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

kerash

old gregg wrote: »

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

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

raah!

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

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