|
Post by Ganymede on Mar 28, 2002 23:39:32 GMT -5
What are you reading now? Anything good? Do you miss the good old days or are you in love with what's new?
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 29, 2002 18:48:54 GMT -5
What are you reading now? Anything good? Do you miss the good old days or are you in love with what's new? I tend to read a lot of things at once. Right now, I'm getting through Macbeth, The Fabulous Riverboat (an obscure Science Fiction novel), and The Treasure of Alpheus Winterborn (a childhood favorite of mine). As for your question about the state of literature, my first instinct was to agree wholeheartedly that modern literature has lost something. Then I got to thinking. It's really an unfair comparison. The authors of "The Good Old Days" are a collective greatest hits of over 700 years of literature. Tolkein doesn't even count as modern, and he was only 50 years ago. I agree that we haven't had that many world shattering authors in the last ten years (maybe Daniel Quinn, and some would argue for Toni Morrison, John Updike, or David Mammet), but the last century has been filled with amazing stuff. It's also important to keep in mind how authors are not always recognized properly in their own times. Novels were originally considered pulp nonsense. Drama was smut. And while novelsist and dramatists were recognized in their own time, no one dared to put Shakespeare up their as one of the greatest "authors" of all time until the late 19nth century, 300 years after he wrote. Today, we treat science fiction and fantasy in the same way. Maybe later generations will awe over Terry Brooks or Robert Jordan. I suspect they won't, but the genre will be more respected, and the great sci-fi and fantasy authors of the last century will be revered.
|
|
Desdemona
Money Lender
He was not of an age, but for all time!
Posts: 39
|
Post by Desdemona on Apr 6, 2002 7:45:30 GMT -5
I agree with that: you can't say what people will think about 20th century books within let's say 200 years. The problem is that there are no rules anymore nowadays: everything is allowed, there are no fixed standards anymore, so how should you evaluate a work? I think it's just become a matter of taste, a very personal thing.
I also read a couple of books at once. I've just finished Bram Stoker's 'Dracula' and Douglas Coupland's 'Life After God' and I'm still reading Shelley's 'Frankenstein' (which I find very hard to read), Dostojewski's 'Crime and Punishment' and some Old Dutch novels (for a class). Oh, and I'm reading 'Romeo and Juliet' again too. At present Coupland's my favourite author: his books are very fluently written, they're 'different', taken from life and once I start reading I just can't stop. And I find that very important: if you feel like you want to finish a book at once, it can't be bad.
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on Apr 6, 2002 12:07:43 GMT -5
Coupland, you say? You're just full of good suggestions!
I concur about Frankenstein, by the way. Honestly, I've never been able to grasp the allure of it, other than the "gothic" feel. For me, it just feels like an updated version of Paradise Lost (a comparison that it consciously makes over and over again). I love the 1930s Boris Karloff film, but you can hardly call that Shelly's Frankenstein.
|
|
Desdemona
Money Lender
He was not of an age, but for all time!
Posts: 39
|
Post by Desdemona on Apr 6, 2002 12:37:39 GMT -5
Well, I have only read extracts from Paradise Lost, so I can't compare... It's not that I don't like the story about Frankenstein, it's just that it's not fluently written AT ALL. But I will go through with it, no matter how long it'll take me. I want to have read it. Do you know why Mary Shelley wrote the story? Together with her husband (Percy Bysshe Shelley)she was on a holiday at Lake Geneva, visiting their very close friend Lord Byron. Since all of them were writers, they started telling each other stories. One evening they decided to make up horror stories and that's where Mary got the idea for Frankenstein. That evening she had only made up some kind of short story; her husband and Lord Byron pushed her to elaborate it and that's how Frankenstein became a novel. I like this kind of background information;it's fun to know things that other people don't.
|
|
|
Post by Ganymede on Apr 6, 2002 13:02:29 GMT -5
Am I the only one who actually liked Shelley's Frankenstein? Alas, alack! I didn't find it hard to read at all. I got through it rather quickly. While I don't think it's a perfect novel, I did find it to be an interesting story. Also, it lends itself very well to interpretation. There's so much there to discuss! Once Desdemona gets through with the book, maybe we can go to it! What I didn't like was the way Dr. Frankenstein was like, "I found a way to create life from dead body parts, but I can't tell you how because I can't chance you copying my same experiment." It's plausible, but it seemed like a cop-out to me on Mary Shelley's part. She probably had no idea about how such a thing could be done and didn't want to risk sounding stupid by making something up. I understand, but still I was curious! Especially since the entire novel hinges on that being possible. And believe me, I wasn't going to repeat Dr. Frankey's experiment. Digging up dead bodies doesn't sound to me like a good time....
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on Apr 6, 2002 16:19:59 GMT -5
Do you know why Mary Shelley wrote the story? Together with her husband (Percy Bysshe Shelley)she was on a holiday at Lake Geneva, visiting their very close friend Lord Byron. Since all of them were writers, they started telling each other stories. One evening they decided to make up horror stories and that's where Mary got the idea for Frankenstein. That evening she had only made up some kind of short story; her husband and Lord Byron pushed her to elaborate it and that's how Frankenstein became a novel. I like this kind of background information;it's fun to know things that other people don't. Yup. I love that story. Two of the greatest Romantics of their time sitting around writing, and the wife beats them silly! Go Mary!!! By the way, you really should get to Paradise Lost at some point. It has some incredibly slow moments (avoid God and the angels whenever possible) but Satan may very well be the best-written character in the entire English language. Shakespeare's got nothing on him.
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on Apr 8, 2002 16:49:40 GMT -5
I was giving the initial question some thought today, and some more thoughts occured to me.
When we look at literature of the past, we view it as a conglomeration of mixed media. We include books, poetry, and even plays. But when we discuss "literature" today, the catagory tends to only include books; sometimes modern poetry. Modern theatre is not considered literature, nor is film, which is still young and constantly attaining new standards of artistic quality. If we can view modern literature as the same conglomeration as literature of the past, we have a lot of exciting things happening. In two hundred years, Star Wars and Jesus Christ: Superstar will be two of the thousands of pieces of "literature" included in Introduction to English textbooks.
|
|
|
Post by nolablue on Apr 9, 2002 16:12:57 GMT -5
Good point; where do you draw the line as to what is literature and what is not? I think the only thing keeping most people from counting film as a form of literature is the fact that you watch it, not read it, and it is (usually) only dramatically interpreted once. Yet Citizen Kane or, more recently, movies like Fargo have a great deal to say about human nature, and a very beautiful way of saying it. (Interestingly enough, the closing moments of Fargo have been called 'Shakespearean' in their redemptive power.)
As for what I'm reading right now, I have pulled on my mental hip boots and am wading through the 800-page mid-70s acid trip known as the Illuminatus! Trilogy. Shoot me.
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on May 29, 2002 9:34:44 GMT -5
What are you reading now? Anything good? Do you miss the good old days or are you in love with what's new? Currently reading a book called "White Mars, or The Mind Set Free" by Brian Aldiss, the author of the short story A.I. was based upon. It's about the history of the colonization of Mars, as told by various people who were involved. It's unique and interesting, but I'm taking my time reading it. I don't tend to be a fast reader.
|
|
Desdemona
Money Lender
He was not of an age, but for all time!
Posts: 39
|
Post by Desdemona on May 30, 2002 3:26:18 GMT -5
A couple of days ago I started reading a collection of Scottish folk and fairy tales. They're really nice and I think it's interesting to see how many different tales there are. Of course, many of them are just a variation on 'the classics' eg. Snowwhite. But well, I fall asleep pretty easily after having read one --and after having studied all day, that's really a good thing
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on May 30, 2002 7:39:38 GMT -5
Completely off topic, but Desdamona, your avator picture is hysterical! I love it ;D
|
|
The_Turtle
Denizen
Nay, faith, let not me play a woman; I have a beard coming
Posts: 52
|
Post by The_Turtle on Jun 11, 2002 8:52:12 GMT -5
I just finished Stephen Fry's 'The Hippopotamus'. I was utterly disappointed and have already dived head over heels in rereading 'Ulysses.' I started on Fry because I enjoyed his performance in 'The Discovery of Heaven'. I'm afraid that his thespian skills are somewhat greater than his writing skills. Talking about 'The Discovery of Heaven' however; I do not know if Mulisch is known at all outside The Netherlands, but it is absolutely worth your effort to find it. The book that is. The film is also great, but the book...
|
|
Juliet
Denizen
There's many a man hath more hair than wit.
Posts: 53
|
Post by Juliet on Jun 25, 2002 1:58:49 GMT -5
Ah, you know you're in a Renaissance site when we're discussing Mary Shelley as "Literature of Today" I'm going to pay no attention to the "State of Literature," and concentrate on the "Today." As far as modernity goes, I'm really liking Tracy Chevalier, author of Girl with a Pearl Earring and Falling Angels. She's slightly unsettling, but she is certainly creative and writes well enough. Another knock-out favorite was "Kissing the Virgin's Mouth." I forget the author, but I highly recommend it; it's gritty and flavorful, the story of a Mexican girl from a poor barrio who makes a life for herself, goes through several husbands, and has a good time. The writing, a nice Espanolized English, is lyric. My favorite, for example, "Vows of love and chimney smoke, the wind soon blows away." Not bad for the first page. As far as poetry goes, Billy Collins is wonderful. He's quirky, funny, and touching, with lots of nice witty classical illusions. ~Juliet~
|
|
|
Post by Ellinore on Jul 6, 2002 16:04:55 GMT -5
I concur about Frankenstein, by the way. Honestly, I've never been able to grasp the allure of it, other than the "gothic" feel. For me, it just feels like an updated version of Paradise Lost (a comparison that it consciously makes over and over again). I love the 1930s Boris Karloff film, but you can hardly call that Shelly's Frankenstein. *cracks up* There is no particular allure to "I questioned the state of my soul; I languished in utter despair; Oh God! no one can comprehend my misery" over and over again, regardless of the author's skill. At any rate, Frankie is a Promethean figure. Comparisons to Judeochristian mythotypes didn't resonate for me.
Speaking of Paradise Lost, though -- has anyone been following these new children's books by Philip Pullman -- The Golden Compass and The Subtle Knife and so forth? They also borrow from its structure and substance, and they are quite good, in an alien fantastical-world way.
Fargo redemptive? By whose estimation? I did feel as though the young officer, what was her name, had a Fortinbras sort of role there at the end... but egads, redemptive?
I agree, nonetheless, that film ought to class as "literature" -- as ought hypertext, informational art installations, etcetera -- but then I confess to some snarkily postmodern leanings which may be out of place in the lands of classicism?
|
|