ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Lifestyle and Entertainment => Topic started by: schmalex on December 27, 2010, 09:01:08 pm
-
That after reading literary classics for school, you go to read popular fiction, and stuff that you might have enjoyed years earlier just seems really poorly written. I used to enjoy reading just about anything, but now I feel like a book-snob. Most stuff I pick up for light-reading just appears really cheesy and poorly written, and most of the stuff that meets my standards is fairly dense and requires brain-power. It's quite annoying >:(
-
Popular fiction for me is still well crafted in the sense that it sells.
For instance Stefanie Meyer's Twilight series is a masterpiece because she does detailed descriptions of Edward Cullen, and all his *amazingness* hahah.
On the contrary she barely describes bella, and leaves bella very open ended so that all the tween girls can fit into her shoes and romantically fantasize about Edward Cullen.
This has made her book a success.
-
I may have to look into this well-crafted series....it sounds intriguing.
-
I don't see it as annoying - I see it as enlightenment. :D
Seriously though, you should be able to enjoy trashy stuff still, it's just you'll see it a bit differently I guess.
-
Trashy stuff is written with a target audience, the general public. It may not specifically target different groups in society but yes, to publishers all that matters is that the book sells.
In truth a lot of the critiques of novels by newspapers such as New York Times are disagreeable, but then you could also argue the literary classics we are fed at school aren't as great as they seem, or a bit overrated.
-
I don't see it as annoying - I see it as enlightenment. :D
Seriously though, you should be able to enjoy trashy stuff still, it's just you'll see it a bit differently I guess.
I just don't know what to read now!
-
Do what I'm doing and try to read all of Shakespeare's works. :p
-
Do what I'm doing and try to read all of Shakespeare's works. :p
My friend's dad has actually done this, but I'm taking a break from Shakespeare now that school's finished. Analysing Hamlet did my head in.
-
Of course popular literature these days doesn't compare to the classics.
Example: Twilight.
-
If your looking for fiction that is not "mainstream", apparently Terry Prachet is supposed to be a really good author. His books are both entertaining and extremely enjoyable if you can understand their humour.
-
Discworld is amazing
-
Do you regard Harry Potter as clunky pablum?
-
Do you regard Harry Potter as clunky pablum?
Rowling's writing was just awful in the first couple of books but she improved over time.
-
I thnk Harry Potter isn't as clever as it tries to be.
-
Same here, after reading some of the classics, I can't read modern fiction anymore. It all seems so poorly phrased (a bit like this post lol).
-
The only problem when reading mainstream texts is a lack of impartiality. If you go into reading a text thinking that it's gonna be crap and lack literary depth then you're bound to become pretentious and dismiss it before it has a chance to prove you wrong. If you approach it with a different attitude then you'll be able to find things you didn't expect and view different parts of a novel that you wouldn't usualy (characterisation is a big one).
-
^ What about when you revisit an old text you used to love and find the main thing. I can't say I ever found Rowling's writing style brilliant, but the story was solid to say the least. Currently i'm reading a book I got for christmas called "final impact" and I think it's the third book in a series so that may explain it, but i'm completely lost. It's meant to be about WWII I think... But I think there was some time travel at one point. Anyhoo, I find it's the descriptive language in a novel that really lets down the modern texts.
For example the descriptions in A Streetcar Named Desire served a purpose in displaying Blanche as a broken down woman clinging to her past. I don't care about the taste of stale coffee in a book meant to be about war... just saying.
-
The only problem when reading mainstream texts is a lack of impartiality. If you go into reading a text thinking that it's gonna be crap and lack literary depth then you're bound to become pretentious and dismiss it before it has a chance to prove you wrong. If you approach it with a different attitude then you'll be able to find things you didn't expect and view different parts of a novel that you wouldn't usualy (characterisation is a big one).
I'm sure there are modern books that are really well written, but I don't think that impartiality is the problem. I can pick up a book I used to love expecting to find it just as enjoyable as I did last time and just get put off.
-
When it comes to tastes, whether it may be art, dining, sport etc. being a snob is a good thing.
-
^ What about when you revisit an old text you used to love and find the main thing. I can't say I ever found Rowling's writing style brilliant, but the story was solid to say the least. Currently i'm reading a book I got for christmas called "final impact" and I think it's the third book in a series so that may explain it, but i'm completely lost. It's meant to be about WWII I think... But I think there was some time travel at one point. Anyhoo, I find it's the descriptive language in a novel that really lets down the modern texts.
For example the descriptions in A Streetcar Named Desire served a purpose in displaying Blanche as a broken down woman clinging to her past. I don't care about the taste of stale coffee in a book meant to be about war... just saying.
Completely disagree - the nature of descriptive language in literature hasn't really changed, as far as I can see. Maybe the taste of stale coffee in your particular example is meant to emphasise some aspect of the war, or otherwise serve a narrative purpose in allowing you to empathise with where the character is?
The only problem when reading mainstream texts is a lack of impartiality. If you go into reading a text thinking that it's gonna be crap and lack literary depth then you're bound to become pretentious and dismiss it before it has a chance to prove you wrong. If you approach it with a different attitude then you'll be able to find things you didn't expect and view different parts of a novel that you wouldn't usualy (characterisation is a big one).
I'm sure there are modern books that are really well written, but I don't think that impartiality is the problem. I can pick up a book I used to love expecting to find it just as enjoyable as I did last time and just get put off.
I still argue that you have to read "trash fiction" with a bit of a different mindset to enjoy it, once you've been exposed to "high literature".
When it comes to tastes, whether it may be art, dining, sport etc. being a snob is a good thing.
Urgh, Modernism. I hate this way of thinking. >.>
-
Well I'm a snob about the fact that I read trashy mass market fiction, does that count?
-
I'm the guy who stands unmoving at shows with my arms crossed while staring down the artist. Elitism is cool
-
Anyhoo, I find it's the descriptive language in a novel that really lets down the modern texts.
For example the descriptions in A Streetcar Named Desire served a purpose in displaying Blanche as a broken down woman clinging to her past. I don't care about the taste of stale coffee in a book meant to be about war... just saying.
Streetcar was a play; and as such, any descriptive narration was used to explain precisely how Williams wished for the scenes and the characters to be depicted. Most description was included as stage directions, and the play was not really intended to be read in the same way that a novel is. You'll find that most, if not all, classic novels contain the same kind of arbitrary descriptive language and embellishments as "the taste of stale coffee" in your WW2 book. The descriptive language helps the reader to envisage the story and really immerse themself in what they're reading. The little details are what bring a story to life in the reader's mind.