Down with Literature!

[rynner2]

John Grisham: 'I tried literature and didn't like it much.'
Dan Brown, who was criticised by his fellow best-selling novelist Philip Pullman last week for his 'flat, stunted and ugly' prose, has won sympathy from John Grisham.
By Richard Eden
Published: 10:54PM BST 19 Sep 2009

"I know that what I do is not literature," says Grisham, who has sold more than 250 million copies of his legal thrillers such as The Pelican Brief and The Firm.

"For me, the essential component of fiction is plot. My objective is to get the reader to feel impelled to turn the pages as quickly as possible. If I want to achieve that, I can't allow myself the luxury of distracting him. I have to keep him hanging on and the only way to do it is by using the weapons of suspense. There is no other way.

"If I try to understand the complexities of the human soul, people's character defects and those types of things, the reader gets distracted."

The American author adds: "Of course, I've read literature in the classic sense. We've all got those type of books on the shelves at home. They made me read them at school and I admit that I didn't like them much. I couldn't understand why they were said to be so good."

As The Lost Symbol, Brown's follow-up to The Da Vinci Code, was published last week, Pullman, who has sold 15 million books, said his rival author populated his novels with "completely flat and two-dimensional" characters.

"His basic ignorance about the way people behave is astonishing, talking in utterly implausible ways to one another," he said. "All the usual literary things he just doesn't know how to do, but he's not interested in those and nor are his millions of readers. There's nothing wrong in writing as he does, but it is not great writing."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/book ... much..html

On the whole, I agree. I prefer stuff with action and a plot to arty-farty stuff. I like a good description of setting (so I can understand what's going on) but I don't want the author droning on for pages about it, trying to build up 'atmosphere'. A bare minimum of character description is necessary, but too much discussion of his divorce/phobias/kids' problems/addictions tends to get in the way of finding out who actually stuck a dagger in John Doe down a dark alleyway.

(But I admit there's good and bad writing in all genres. )

 

[rynner2]

Former governor denounces BBC for dumping the Bard
Richard Brooks, Arts Editor
THE former head of the National theatre, Sir Richard Eyre, has accused the BBC of “a dereliction of duty” by neglecting classic drama on television.

Eyre, who was a BBC governor from 1995 until 2003, believes the broadcaster has abandoned plays by famous British writers such as William Shakespeare, George Bernard Shaw and TS Eliot.

Instead, he reckons it has narrowed its drama output over the past decade to focus almost exclusively on contemporary works. The only classics it has produced are adaptations of “bonnet buster” novels such as Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen and Bleak House by Charles Dickens.

The BBC has also abandoned some of the greatest foreign playwrights such as Chekhov — and more recently Tennessee Williams and Arthur Miller.

He is also critical of the high salaries paid to BBC executives.

Eyre, who ran the National theatre from 1987 to 1997 and has since directed hit films such as Notes on a Scandal, pointed out that part of the BBC’s public service remit is to be “educational and inspiring”, but that it is “failing when it comes to drama”.

He said that in the 1950s, as a teenager, he was inspired by seeing great dramas on BBC1. “I did not live near a theatre and it was watching a television production of As You Like It, starring Vanessa Redgrave, that gave me my interest in the stage,” he said.

“But young people these days can’t do this as the BBC is not doing these sorts of plays. I’m not saying the BBC should do classics for their own sake, but they must be a part of the mix.”

etc...

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ ... 841247.ece

Shakespeare, eh? Very interesting, and entertaining in parts, but has it had its day as popular entertainment?

 

[James_H]

I've got a quote somewhere from Isaac Asimov where he says that unlike other sf writers, he has never pretended to be influenced by 'high literature' - he learnt to write sf by reading sf.

 

[agentbuffy]

I sort of fall between two stools here - I absolutely cannot stand the two novels by Dan Brown I struggled to read (Angels and Demons and The Da Vinci Code), but equally I went through a phase of being a literary snob a while ago, and read some of the more modern classics (On The Road, For Whom The Bell Tolls, Illywhacker) and found them on the whole dreadfully dull.

My problem with Dan Brown's writing isn't the uninspired, Central Casting characters that he uses, it's more that his turn of phrase can suddenly make me sit up and remember I'm actually reading a book - the one that sticks in my mind most is from (I think) Angels and Demons, where the crazed killer is described as "serpentining" through a crowd. Now, I'm no philologist, but I've never come across the verb "to serpentine" before , and it's total incongruity made me go "Whoah - what happened there!".

Oh, and I get the feeling that I've read great swathes of his "conspiratorial" stuff, word for word on the internet, long before it hit print in his books - I spent a lot of time on those sorts of websites in one of my old jobs, and I got a real sense of cut-and-paste when reading Angels and Demons.

TBH, I think a lot of my issue is jealousy - I think I may know more about the subject matter than Dan Brown does, and feel I would be able to write at least as well as him, yet it's him laughing all the way to the bank. If only I had got there first ...

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

etc...

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ ... 841247.ece

Shakespeare, eh? Very interesting, and entertaining in parts, but has it had its day as popular entertainment?

I don't know about, 'popular entertainment', but I have to admit, I really like watching a good Shakespeare adaptation. Especially the comedies. The language is complex, the puns excruciating, the occasional double entendre and there's usually a happy ending. Where would BritCom, 'Round The Horne', 'Carry On', etc., be without Shakespeare?

'Much Ado About Nothing' is my favourite. It's like 16th century Howard Hawks.

 

[Spookdaddy]

(But I admit there's good and bad writing in all genres. )

And Dan Brown is awful.

I read classics, I read modern 'literature', and I read popular fiction. I'd argue that some of the better genre fiction is technically more competent than some examples of what passes for modern 'literature'. Indeed I'd go as far as to say that some of the best contemporary American fiction being produced will be found in the crime section of your local bookshop.

As Rynner says, there's good and bad in all genres, and trying to hide the latter behind false opposites and inferred accusations of intellectual snobbery is as predictable as the plot of a bad novel. At the moment I'm reading Dostoyevsky's, The Gambler, and James Lee Burke's, Black Cherry Blues. Different, of course they're different - but the enjoyment and appreciation of one does not exclude the possibility of enjoying and appreciating the other. The most widely read person I know, and the only one who has read The Anatomy of Melancholy in its entirety, is never without a battered copy of a Flashman novel rammed in one of his pockets. If Grisham wants to pigeonhole himself, that's fine - but maybe he needs to credit his potential readership with a little more intelligence.

 

[ramonmercado]

Give me Hamlet any day! The plot has been stolen so many times as have the characters. As for The Tempest, we wouldn't have Forbidden Planet without it.

I'm not a Shakespeare purist by any means, I loved Ian McKellan as the Mosley style Richard III. Baz Luhrmans Romeo & Juliet sang in more ways than one.

 

[MsPix]

....My problem with Dan Brown's writing isn't the uninspired, Central Casting characters that he uses, it's more that his turn of phrase can suddenly make me sit up and remember I'm actually reading a book - the one that sticks in my mind most is from (I think) Angels and Demons, where the crazed killer is described as "serpentining" through a crowd. Now, I'm no philologist, but I've never come across the verb "to serpentine" before , and it's total incongruity made me go "Whoah - what happened there!".....

That's the best line in the book! I fell about laughing at that point...

The stuff is quite compulsive, like eating a huge box of sweeties, you know it's bad for you but you can't stop (and I'm really jealous abous DB's sucess as well)

 

[ramonmercado]

I'm good at serpentining through crowds but its normally referred to weaving.

 

[rynner2]

Not only is Dan Brown's writing tedious, he ripped the plot for the Da Vinci Code from Holy Blood, Holy Grail (despite the trial verdict).

 

[Peripart]

Not only is Dan Brown's writing tedious, he ripped the plot for the Da Vinci Code from Holy Blood, Holy Grail (despite the trial verdict).

Still, unlike Leigh and Baigent, he's not offering his version as non-fiction (despite what some of his rabid fans might think!). All he wants is that you keep turning the pages.

It's funny, really - I can't bring myself to dislike The Da Vinci Code as much as I'm supposed to. It was utterly preposterous, of course, and clunkily written, but a fun couple of hours reading, while it lasted. I was bought Angels and Demons for my birthday, but have put off reading it so far...

As Grisham says, no-one really has any right to expect his or similar work to be great literature. Books like his are disposable entertainment, and as such, they work pretty well. Some are well-written (I used to enjoy the books of Hammond Innes et al), and some are poorly written - have you ever read Colin Forbes? Now there's an author to make you want to poke out your eyes, just to make it stop...

 

[rynner2]

Some are well-written (I used to enjoy the books of Hammond Innes et al), and some are poorly written - have you ever read Colin Forbes? Now there's an author to make you want to poke out your eyes, just to make it stop...

Ah yes! (I think I've mentioned him elsewhere.)

 

[Spookdaddy]

My problem with Dan Brown's writing isn't the uninspired, Central Casting characters that he uses, it's more that his turn of phrase can suddenly make me sit up and remember I'm actually reading a book - the one that sticks in my mind most is from (I think) Angels and Demons, where the crazed killer is described as "serpentining" through a crowd. Now, I'm no philologist, but I've never come across the verb "to serpentine" before , and it's total incongruity made me go "Whoah - what happened there!"...

To be fair to Brown (for a moment ) many great authors have used words in a cavalier manner, when they've thought it appropriate. But they tend to do it on purpose.

I don't have an issue with pedestrian writing, monochrome characterisation or cliched plot, as such. What I do get worked up about is the feeling that I'm being insulted as a reader. One or two errors, okay. But when the errors keep coming, and they've got past literary agents, proof-readers, and editors etc, you can't help but get the feeling that no-one gave much of a shit as long as you bought the thing.

 

[LaurenChurchill]

The book I tried reading last week was by an author who's usually compared to Dan Brown: Matthew Reilly, 7 Deadly Wonders.

Oh. My. God. What a singularly awful piece of shit. I'd been planning on reading it for months since the sequel same out (6 Sacred Stones) and my boyfriend loaned it to me a few weeks back.

I can't even think where to begin with complaining. Maybe with the random drawings of booby-traps throughout, that make it seem as though some guy just drew a few pictures and tried to make a story around them.

Or maybe the first booby-trap that consisted of a 2000-year-old pit that had no entry or escape, and yet was somehow filled to the brim with crocodiles. The same crocodiles that are described as lazily chewing chunks out of the bodies of two Sudanese men that had been in there for a week.

Or hang on, the next trap which was a water pit filled with microscopic bloodworms, that burrow into your spinal cord and send you crazy. But the water was SO FILLED with them (and they know this because they stuck a Q-tip in there and it went red) that you would die within minutes. Yeah, those are some hardworking, yet useless parasites.

Or my favourite part. The big room (an old diorite mine, supposedly unable to be cut by ANYTHING other than diolite) that was filled with booby-traps. Like the one that shoots a fucking crocodile out of the wall. Yeah. A crocodile. Which was either an undead croc that had been waiting for 2 millenia, or a regular croc who I'm sure was pretty damn surprised to find himself hurled through a hole in the wall at a pack of Indiana-Jones wannabes.

This same room had a booby-trap which, when triggered, sent crude oil pouring out of the walls and then set it on fire, so burning oil was raining down on them. And do you know how they got through that? They stabbed a frigging aluminium umbrella into the god-dammed wall and ran under it. The wall which was unable to be cut with anything other than diolite.

But I think what enraged me the most was the author's insistence that, instead of using actual adverbs or adjectives, it would be better to just write in italics and add a few exclamation points at the end. Wow that totally worked Mr Reilly!!! I'm so excited now I think my bra just exploded!!!! I can't wait until your next book!!!!!

And I only got two chapters in. All in all I have to say, as far as pulpy airport action books go, at least Dan Brown doesn't annoy me too much.

OK. Rant over

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Do the, 'pulpy airport action books', of a pair of literary hacks, like Dan Brown and Matthew Reilly, count as, 'Literature', for the purposes of the Thread?

:lol:

 

[rynner2]

Sir Michael Gambon has never read Harry Potter
Sir Michael Gambon, who played Albus Dumbledore in the Harry Potter films, has admitted that he has never read any of JK Rowling's novels.
Published: 6:45AM BST 22 Sep 2009

The actor said he prefers not to read books before appearing in their screen adaptations, as it stops him feeling disappointed about what gets left out.

Sir Michael is to appear in a new four-part BBC version of Jane Austen's novel Emma, and said the author's work had also passed him by.

"I didn't know Jane Austen nor had I read the books," he said.

"I have been in five Harry Potter films and never read a Harry Potter book.

"If you are an actor all you have is the script you are given. If you read the book you might get disappointed about what's been left out.

"All you have got is the script so I think it's safer just to follow that – well that's my excuse for not reading the book."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/harr ... otter.html

Like Sir Michael, I've never read any Harry Potter books either, although I've heard they're well written - this is because I find the whole concept so cliche-ridden (witches, pointed hats, spells, flying broomsticks, etc) that it would make me squirm!

As for Jane Austen, I think I have read Northanger Abbey - can't remember much about it, though...

And as I get older, I'm conscious that there is descreasing time left for all those books one "ought" to read, so I guess most of them will remain unread unless there is some new and urgent reason to reconsider some of them.

 

[Spookdaddy]

And as I get older, I'm conscious that there is descreasing time left for all those books one "ought" to read, so I guess most of them will remain unread unless there is some new and urgent reason to reconsider some of them.

There's nothing more effective at destroying the pleasure a book might have given you than the feeling that you really ought to read it. As someone who has read and enjoyed quite a lot of the so-called classics the only thing that might have deterred me is the snobbery of certain bores who think that's all there is.

But don't be put off. Lots of people skirt the Classics section of Waterstone's thinking it's not for them and don't even consider giving something a quick flick through to just to see if they might like it. I once, half jokingly, recommended Trollope to a friend of mine (stop sniggering at the back) who was not much of a reader, when were having a similar conversation. I knew she liked Soaps and a lot of Trollope has a geographically claustrophobic, character-heavy, gossipy kind of feel to it that I thought she might connect with. He's also good at creating characters so irritating that you turn the pages just in the hope of seeing them get their comeuppance. Anyway, it worked - she went from Chick-lit to Classical Lit in one easy bound.

So, don't feel pressured - but don't entirely give up on it either.

 

[rjmrjmrjm]

I was made to read The Adventures of Caleb Williams in university. Christ there was a book to make you weep. Worst thing was they'd actually removed De Quincy from the Literature of the Romantic Period module reading list to make way for Godwins horrid novel.

A good philosopher he may have been but he should've stuck to it.

 

[KarlD]

I think the worst book I ever tried to read because 'you really should read it' was Finnigan's wake, its almost impossible to read.

 

[stu neville]

I think the worst book I ever tried to read because 'you really should read it' was Finnigan's wake, its almost impossible to read.

It's best approached once you're fully acquainted with Joyce. Start with Dubliners and work inward - and I would recommend the latter to anyone, by the way.

When you get to grips with his style - which I agree can be obtuse to start with - you start to see just how much he influenced a load of other authors.

 

[Ulalume]

As someone who will read anything, from Chaucer to Borges to the back of cereal boxes and gum wrappers, I will say that what I absolutely loathe the most is having my intelligence - such as it is - insulted.
(I'm talking to you, Dan Brown! And Grisham, too, for that matter.)

Reading is difficult when you have to keep putting the book down to do the *facepalm* maneuver.

I liked the Harry Potter books. Rowling at least never underestimated her audience.

 

[Mister_Awesome]

As someone who will read anything, from Chaucer to Borges to the back of cereal boxes and gum wrappers, I will say that what I absolutely loathe the most is having my intelligence - such as it is - insulted.
(I'm talking to you, Dan Brown! And Grisham, too, for that matter.)

Reading is difficult when you have to keep putting the book down to do the *facepalm* maneuver.

I liked the Harry Potter books. Rowling at least never underestimated her audience.

"Condescending to someone doesn't do them any favors" has been my motto lately. Discovering that stuff sells better when you dumb it down hasn't been good for the quality of entertainment, in any medium.

 

[Yithian]

I think the worst book I ever tried to read because 'you really should read it' was Finnigan's wake, its almost impossible to read.

the biggest pile of overrated crap i've ever read was the naked lunch. it was shit.

I thought so too. I think you had to 'be there' when it was published. I wasn't.

 

[sonofajoiner]

Sir Michael Gambon has never read Harry Potter

To paraphrase Stewart Lee, that's because he's a grown man.

 

[amarok2005]

Oh, is this where we rag on the books we didn't like? Well, I was in the mood for a horror/monster/action book of some kind, so I picked up Steve Alten's MEG, about the giant prehistoric shark. There are several Japanese characters, and I noticed that the phrase "brown almond eyes followed him across the room" seemed to show up every ten pages. As well as "the sun kissed the distant Pacific" (i.e., sundown).

My favorite line, though, which has entered my private lexicon, comes after the shark knocks several sailors into the water: "Paralyzed, they swam for the ship."

I ordinarily wouldn't be bothered with posting such things, but this edition of MEG was touted as being the totally re-written and edited 10th anniversary edition.

. . . And I'm still going to give "The Loch" a try.

 

[rynner2]

And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

Ecclesiastes 12:12

A humungous number of books aimed at the Christmas market came out at the start of this month - but not this one:

Bookshops 'will not stock Jordan's latest book'
Book chains have suggested they will not stock Katie Price's latest autobiography, because it is her fourth in five years, according to reports.
By Chris Irvine
Published: 7:56AM BST 05 Oct 2009

The former glamour model, otherwise known as Jordan, is set to release her latest book in time for the Christmas market, and it is set to detail her split and divorce from Peter Andre.

But book chains including Blackwell's have said they will not be stocking her latest offering unless managers specifically request copies.

Katie and Peter separate A spokesman said: "She has done three already.

"This is not a book we would say to our readers, 'You must buy'."

Waterstone's has also indicated that it would only make the books available in its stores "if we thought it was the right thing to do."

Price sold more than a million copies of her first book Being Jordan, in 2004. A successful children's fiction author, she has also released A Whole New World in 2007 and Pushed To The Limit last February.

A source at publishing company Random House told The Sun: "Bookshop managers are really worried.

"They fear this latest book could do more harm than good for business and are seriously considering shunning it altogether. Booksellers do not want to annoy their customers by putting out yet another autobiography from the same person who has already had three printed. :shock:

"It seems to them as though she is trying to milk her fans for everything they've got."

Despite the potential ban, ex-husband Andre is also set to release his own autobiography in the run-up to Christmas.

The source added: "Reputable companies also do not want to get dragged into a sorded sales war where bitter partners are dishing the dirt on each other."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... -book.html

 

[rynner2]

Thinking on similar lines:

There's too much stuff. We live in a stuff-a-lanche. It's time for a cultural diet
I want to be told what to read, watch and listen to
Charlie Brooker The Guardian, Monday 5 October 2009

I'm fairly certain I recently passed a rather pathetic tipping point, and now own more unread books and unwatched DVDs than my remaining lifespan will be able to sustain. I can't possibly read all these pages, watch all these movies, before the grim reaper comes knocking. The bastard things are going to outlive me. It's not fair. They can't even breathe.

The other day I bought a DVD boxset of Carl Sagan's astronomy epic Cosmos: by all accounts, one of the best documentary series ever made. On my way home, I made the mistake of carefully reading the back of the box, where I discovered it has a running time of 780 minutes. Thirteen hours. It's against my religion to only watch part of it – it's all or nothing. But 13 hours? That's almost a marriage. The sheer weight of commitment is daunting. So it sits on the shelf, beside similarly unwrapped and unwatched obelisks. I'm not buying these things for myself any more. I'm hoarding them for future generations.

DVD and book purchases fall into two main categories: the ones you buy because you really want to watch them, and the ones you buy because you vaguely think you should. Two years ago I bought Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, partly because I'd heard it was a good book and an easy read, but mainly because I figured reading it would make me cleverer – or at the very least, make me seem a bit cleverer to anyone sitting opposite me on the tube. I never read it. A few months ago, having forgotten I already owned a copy, I bought it again. This means I haven't read it twice.

And I haven't read it (twice) because it's got too much competition from all the other books I've bought but never read. Popular science books. Biographies. Classic works of fiction. Cult sci-fi and horror stories. Reference works. How-to guides. Graphic novels. I can't buy one book at a time: I have to buy at least four. Which makes it exponentially trickier to single out one to actually read. When I buy books, all I'm really doing is buying wall insulation, like a blackbird gathering twigs to make a nest.

etc...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... tural-diet

 

[CarlosTheDJ]

Everyone should read the Baroque Cycle by Neal Stephenson, three volumes of around about 800 pages each....I'm halfway through the second instalment.

The series is set in the late 17th / early 18th century, and is "scholarly fiction", i.e. lots of swashbuckling piratical stuff, mixed in with Isaac Newton, Samuel Pepys, Versailles, The Great Fire Of London, Amsterdam, Brussels, Algeria, slave galleys and a multitude of other cool thangs.

The first volume, "Quicksilver", is without doubt the best book I have ever read.....and I've read a lot. Although this may well be superseded bu volumes 2 and 3.

 

[rjmrjmrjm]

Brooker is brilliant. I bought the entire box set of Babylon 5, every damn one made. Watched one episode every week day and three on saturdays (sunday was a day off).

Bliss.

Unrelated to the topic but damn interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hR-A_ppO5o&NR=1

 

[ramonmercado]

Everyone should read the Baroque Cycle by Neal Stephenson, three volumes of around about 800 pages each....I'm halfway through the second instalment.

The series is set in the late 17th / early 18th century, and is "scholarly fiction", i.e. lots of swashbuckling piratical stuff, mixed in with Isaac Newton, Samuel Pepys, Versailles, The Great Fire Of London, Amsterdam, Brussels, Algeria, slave galleys and a multitude of other cool thangs.

The first volume, "Quicksilver", is without doubt the best book I have ever read.....and I've read a lot. Although this may well be superseded bu volumes 2 and 3.

Truly wonderful!

His latest book Anathem is also a cracker, sepecially if you like SF with a bit of maths.