Literature (2 Viewers)

[MiuMiu]

I love the classics and barely read anything else. However everyone here has to read 'The Thorn Birds' by Colleen McCollough...possibly my favourite book ever.

About to start Dostoevsky's 'From the Underground'

And I'll defend Pride and Prejudice, I loved it.

 

[Tulipa]

And I'll defend Pride and Prejudice, I loved it.

OH DEAR GOD WHY?

i mean really, anything jane austen is soap operatic, boring filth that is not classic. its a storyline that is neither special nor new (even when she was writing). if you want to discuss her classic female heroines and how they are so original, remember that most if not all of them end up as women were supposed to in the era

its a boring love story. there's many to choose from. its not a classic.

 

[nwatts]

OH DEAR GOD WHY?
i mean really, anything jane austen is soap operatic, boring filth that is not classic. its a storyline that is neither special nor new (even when she was writing). if you want to discuss her classic female heroines and how they are so original, remember that most if not all of them end up as women were supposed to in the era
its a boring love story. there's many to choose from. its not a classic.

hehe, <3 you sarah . We need an austen-haters club.

life's too short to read the same book twice - there are 1000s of books that are read-worthy

Ah, disagree. Some books are definitely worthy of repeat reads. Although To Kill a Mockingbird isn't, considering it's such a simply told tale.

 

[nwatts]

Also, I read Salinger's Catcher in the Rye this week. Interesting book, quite a good read. Author carried and sustained a very good voice thoughout the piece, which made it a captivating read. I can tell it's been quite influential too, as this style of using a very distinct voice to narrate over a story and its characters is pretty popular and quite effective. Although different, a favourite of mine Virgin Suicides by Eugenides tells its story through this interesting frame of a distinct voice (using a 1st person collective, as a reflection, rather than a 1st person live).

Books are written in the 1st person all the time, but these couple of books seem to just take it a little further.

 

[MiuMiu]

Actually, Pride and Prejudice was very well written, and I hate to tell you, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean its not a classic.

It has been considered a classic for a very long time.

 

[Tulipa]

just because something has public opinion behind it for a great period of time does not add weight to it's supposed claim of being a "classic".

pride and prejudice is not better written than any other drivel spawned by austen or her fellow boy meets girl, has conflict, gets married storyline loving authors.

its not classic if it's repetitive and a rather pointless storyline. point out it's "classic" virtues. please, i'd love to hear them.

 

[ishq]

Although To Kill a Mockingbird isn't, considering it's such a simply told tale.

A completely and absolutely correct statement. But, I believe, that's where it's value lies - in its simplicity. There's no better way to put forth the idiosyncrasies and hypocrytical nature of man, than through a child's perspective. Satirical and very much a part of its time and context.

Hitchhiker's on the other hand, is just plain funny

P&P - is like Mills and Boon with a point. I'm not fond of either
Catcher in the Rye is also a great book.

Has anyone read An Equal Music by Vikram Seth? Just curious as to what people thought of this book.

 

[MiuMiu]

Tulipa, Im afraid the definition of classic is majority public consensus.

 

[Mr Lovepony]

Henry James- The Turn of the Screw
Homer- The Iliad (I thought it was more boring than I expected)
Margaret Atwood- The Blind Assassin ( or are you talking about classics?) I think this woman writes mighty well.

 

[special_k]

just because something has public opinion behind it for a great period of time does not add weight to it's supposed claim of being a "classic".

pride and prejudice is not better written than any other drivel spawned by austen or her fellow boy meets girl, has conflict, gets married storyline loving authors.

its not classic if it's repetitive and a rather pointless storyline. point out it's "classic" virtues. please, i'd love to hear them.

did anyone read the review article on literature vs popular fic in the smh last w/e? it was basically about this.

 

[Tulipa]

did anyone read the review article on literature vs popular fic in the smh last w/e? it was basically about this.

no... i wish i had gotten a hold of that, i still have this old article from last year that i've read to death about how the new "theme" authors are destroying literature because they can't write a good story which i found true in some cases.

oh and miumiu? public opinion has been notoriously incorrect on many things considering the percentage of uneducated masses compared with those who could read for the better part of the time period since "pride and prejudice" was written. apart from that, you have no argument.

 

[jennylim]

hey -

The Book Thief by Markus Zusak has to have been one of the most heartwrenching books I've read for a LONG time. It's told from the perspective of death and has some really interesting insights into the power of language...really a good book.

The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold is another really good book...lyrical and wistful, but not as gruesome as you'd think.

And The Blind Assassin by Margaret Atwood is a fantastic read. In fact - anything by Margaret Atwood is going to be written well. I just love her poetic style and the mysteries behind her stories!!!

By the way, I'll step up and defend Austen - she is in no way a romantic fluffy author!!! Sure her stories are cliche. But it's the way they're written that make them fantastic. Her way of describing people (like Emma, for example) is so cruelly accurate that the reader has an uncomfortable sense of either feeling like Emma at some stage, or knowing someone like them...and her dry, almost sarcastic tone is just delightful. I probably just like Austen because of my English teacher...hehe...whatever the case, I think there's a lot more to her work than simple Mills and Boon.

 

[MasterP]

Also, I read Salinger's Catcher in the Rye this week. Interesting book, quite a good read. Author carried and sustained a very good voice thoughout the piece, which made it a captivating read. I can tell it's been quite influential too, as this style of using a very distinct voice to narrate over a story and its characters is pretty popular and quite effective.

I read Catcher in the Rye in one night (or morning I should say) and wanted to blow my brains out after it was over.
Yes, perhaps in that era, angst-fuelled first-person narratives weren't all that commonplace - but jesus, it depressed me so much I wanted to reach in and stangle that punk Claufield.

The novel sparked controversy when it was released (50's, USA, figures) because of the "lewd" content and usage of the word "Fuck" (gasp) and the fact that it was banned in many schools was a propellant for much of it's popularity and fame. Most believe that if it was released in this day and age, it would be just ho-hum, but the way it expressed itself in that day was rather counter-culture and it was highly influencial because of this (influence the beats, who influenced the hippies and so on).

 

[MasterP]

just because something has public opinion behind it for a great period of time does not add weight to it's supposed claim of being a "classic".

pride and prejudice is not better written than any other drivel spawned by austen or her fellow boy meets girl, has conflict, gets married storyline loving authors.

its not classic if it's repetitive and a rather pointless storyline. point out it's "classic" virtues. please, i'd love to hear them.

1) It's old.

2) A lot of women and gay men like it.

3) It's old.

Jane Austen can sit on it.

 

[nwatts]

I read Catcher in the Rye in one night (or morning I should say) and wanted to blow my brains out after it was over.
Yes, perhaps in that era, angst-fuelled first-person narratives weren't all that commonplace - but jesus, it depressed me so much I wanted to reach in and stangle that punk Claufield.

The novel sparked controversy when it was released (50's, USA, figures) because of the "lewd" content and usage of the word "Fuck" (gasp) and the fact that it was banned in many schools was a propellant for much of it's popularity and fame. Most believe that if it was released in this day and age, it would be just ho-hum, but the way it expressed itself in that day was rather counter-culture and it was highly influencial because of this (influence the beats, who influenced the hippies and so on).

Haha.. it didn't have such an adverse affect on me. The ending wasn't "happy", but it resolved this small chapter in Holden's story, and the relationship between him and his sister was something that raised the tone of the latter half of the book - so it wasn't an excersise in wallowing in sadness, but took a slightly more positive look at life in general, showing Holden (and the readers) that yes life can suck but there are parts of it well worth living.

I think you're right, though. If it was released today it wouldn't get anywhere near as much publicity, because society is far more liberal and "open-minded" than it was sixty or so years ago. However I think it'd draw a similar response that the film Fight Club did, because it is more corrosive in the ideas it presents/way they're presented than any of its actual content. Neither text is especially perverse (a bit of violence in Fight Club, but not a lot), but they're both very caustic in the ideas they present, and seem to insight real thoughts into people who go away and act out what they see/read about.

I'm reading Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder at the moment - great book, definite literary gem.

 

[nwatts]

Tulipa, Im afraid the definition of classic is majority public consensus.

The definition of classic is subject to the individual, which is why this debate is so useless.

 

[Mr Lovepony]

I read Catcher in the Rye in one night (or morning I should say) and wanted to blow my brains out after it was over.
Yes, perhaps in that era, angst-fuelled first-person narratives weren't all that commonplace - but jesus, it depressed me so much I wanted to reach in and stangle that punk Claufield.

Try reading "The Bell Jar" by Sylvia Plath. That chick really wants to die.

 

[nedzelic]

Try reading "The Bell Jar" by Sylvia Plath. That chick really wants to die.

well she did suceed in the most ironic/comical of circumstances.

 

[Mr Lovepony]

hey -

And The Blind Assassin by Margaret Atwood is a fantastic read. In fact - anything by Margaret Atwood is going to be written well. I just love her poetic style and the mysteries behind her stories!!!

I first thought she wrote chick lit. because of her book covers but then I found out that The Blind Assassin won the booker prize so I read it in about a week. It turned out to be one of the best thing I've read so far.

 

[Enlightened_One]

Margaret Atwood annoys me. Her style is immature and reminds me of reading my classmates stories back in early high school. That said, the only one of her books I halfway struggled through was the Handmaiden's Tale. Usually I finish any book I start, just to find out the resolution, but I couldn't do it in this case. On the upside for her, it was an interesting concept; but ahe didn't do it justice.