Huckleberry Finn vs "Literary"
Myrnag2555
avoid being "vague" by telling you what it is about James Joyce that I hate?
No. Although I have read works by James Joyce I can't remember anything about
them afterward except vague impressions. Something about someone miserable
wandering around Dublin and being miserable?
Randy Money
Who said Huck wasn't "literary"? Hemingway declared it the first true
American novel (or something to that effect, meaning the first American
novel to completely shake off the effects of European literature), and
others have laid similar claims for it for years. Well, those who
haven't complained about how badly it tails off after Tom Sawyer reappears.
Anyway, where'd you get the idea it wasn't "literary" or "literature" or
whatever?
Randy M.
James Nicoll
Randy Money <rbm...@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu> wrote:
>Myrnag2555 wrote:
>> So if Huckleberry Finn isn't "literary" what is? James Joyce is. Could I
>> avoid being "vague" by telling you what it is about James Joyce that I hate?
>> No. Although I have read works by James Joyce I can't remember anything about
>> them afterward except vague impressions. Something about someone miserable
>> wandering around Dublin and being miserable?
>
>Who said Huck wasn't "literary"? Hemingway declared it the first true
>American novel (or something to that effect, meaning the first American
>novel to completely shake off the effects of European literature), and
>others have laid similar claims for it for years. Well, those who
>haven't complained about how badly it tails off after Tom Sawyer reappears.
sf/x: Tom Sawyer colliding with Lazarus Long in the memespace
between my ears.
Augh! Get! Out! Of! My! Head!
Need amnesia ray, at least .38 calibre.
--
"The keywords for tonight are Caution and Flammable."
Elvis, _Bubba Ho Tep_
Randy Money
My deepest sympathies. Also my apologies for anything I had to do with
implanting that thought.
Randy M.
Anthony Nance
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> sf/x: Tom Sawyer colliding with Lazarus Long in the memespace
>between my ears.
>
> Augh! Get! Out! Of! My! Head!
>
> Need amnesia ray, at least .38 calibre.
<jamesTkirk>
Fight it James! Fight it! You. can. save. yourself.
</jamesTkirk>
For unpleasant songs that get stuck in my head, I have one
or two standard earworms I go to which will boot out the
(more) unpleasant one. And then I know how to deal with
the stock substitute.
By analogy, you could keep one or two stock scenes on hand
to boot out unpleasant ones such as the above. (Warning:
Experimentation can be dangerous. Be careful.)
I hesitate to mention my own since they are strong, and
since "unpleasant" is so subjective. (i.e. my suggestions
could make it worse)
Tony
Myrnag2555
I did. And what I meant was "It isn't James Joyce, or in any way influenced by
James Joyce". When sf fans complain about "literary" fiction, odds are they
aren't talking about Mark Twain, who has plots and a straightforward prose
style.
Randy Money
Ack! Rhetorical question and I missed it. My oops. Sorry.
On the other hand, they might also disdain Chekov (Anton, not Ensign) as
dull and too focused on the everyday, or Henry James, who never met a
sentence he didn't want to over-accessorize with subordinate clauses.
But, yeah, most genre fans are not fond of Joyce or the whole movement
of 20th century literature that stemmed from him.
Randy M.
Ron Henry
news:20040713141043...@mb-m28.aol.com...
> So if Huckleberry Finn isn't "literary" what is?
Who said it wasn't? It certainly is a masterwork of American literature
in my book.
> James Joyce is. Could I
> avoid being "vague" by telling you what it is about James Joyce that I
hate?
> No. Although I have read works by James Joyce I can't remember
anything about
> them afterward except vague impressions. Something about someone
miserable
> wandering around Dublin and being miserable?
<blink> Is it really necessary to abuse books others like in order to
make the work you like seem better by comparison?
Besides, I can think of plenty of books that feature people being
miserable that I really loved, including sf ones (this being a sf
discussion group and all). <gesture at the bibiliographies of William
Barton, Maureen McHugh, and John Barnes>
Ron
Ron Henry
Huh? Just because _you_ define Joyce as the be-all and end-all of
literature doesn't mean others are so closed-minded. Literature is a
vast field, with niches for all sorts of cool writings. Joyce's works,
great as they are, are only a few data points among a vast many.
Ron Henry
Myrnag2555
>anything about
>> them afterward except vague impressions. Something about someone
>miserable
>> wandering around Dublin and being miserable?
>
><blink> Is it really necessary to abuse books others like in order to
>make the work you like seem better by comparison?
>
So you are saying that I should never say I hate anything?
Myrnag2555
>influenced by
>> James Joyce". When sf fans complain about "literary" fiction, odds
>are they
>> aren't talking about Mark Twain, who has plots and a straightforward
>prose
>> style.
>
>Huh? Just because _you_ define Joyce as the be-all and end-all of
>literature
Which in fact I don't. I was responding to a complaint by someone in a thread
I lost track of that when SF fans use the word "literary" they are vague about
what that means. I'm saying that said fans aren't in fact talking about
"literature" when they refer to "literary" fiction.
William George Ferguson
Perhaps taking to heart Twain's notice at the beginning of the book
"PERSONS attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be
prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished;
persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot."
"By Order of the Author"
--
"Who needs the big picture? Not me. Hints are fine."
Joan Girardi (after God shows her just a little of his omnipresent brain)
James Nicoll
"Only the autor who denies being literary is truly literary!"
[OK, this leads to John Ringo being taught in uni but what the
hell, I am not an English major]
John Schilling
>"Myrnag2555" <myrna...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20040713154102...@mb-m14.aol.com...
>> >Who said Huck wasn't "literary"?
>> I did. And what I meant was "It isn't James Joyce, or in any way
>> influenced by James Joyce". When sf fans complain about "literary"
>> fiction, odds are they aren't talking about Mark Twain, who has plots
>> and a straightforward prose style.
>Huh? Just because _you_ define Joyce as the be-all and end-all of
>literature doesn't mean others are so closed-minded.
Neither is he. His definition was, "James Joyce *or in any way
influenced by James Joyce*". Which is a defensible and not terribly
closed-minded definition of modern literature, or at least of literary
modernism.
ObWrittenSF: The Pre-Joycean Fellowship, which chose that name for a
reason.
>Literature is a vast field, with niches for all sorts of cool writings.
>Joyce's works, great as they are, are only a few data points among a
>vast many.
Yes, but works influenced by Joyce are most of the data points for
modern literature as defined by most people who try to draw a line
between literature and fiction. Heck, the very concept of trying to
draw a line between literature and fiction, owes a great deal to
Joyce.
Where in the continuum from "influenced by" to "consciously imitative of"
that ceases to be true, is debatable, but that Joyce had a *huge* effect
in the way of redefining the literary landscape of a century, far more
than just the few data points of his own works, is not.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Mark
Huckleberry Finn is "literary" in the sense that it says something
true at a very deep level. Ulysses likewise. It's not a question of
style. It has always been what the work has to say, how truthfully it
says it, and how deeply it resonates with the reader that puts a work
(potentially) in the category of "literary"--which in the end, except
as an academic category, means that the book does its job far better
than books that fail to resonate.
Ulysses says much more than your characterization, although a surface
reading will leave you with that impression. It's one of those books
that demands close attention and a willingness to work hard to make
the connections. It can pay off, but certainly it's a tough go and
not everyone will enjoy the trip.
Huckleberry Finn, on the other hand, pretends to a simplicity that
covers a profound psychological and emotion journey, so a quick read
can be enjoyable and seem to require no more attention. The same
close reading one might give Joyce, however, will pay off in much the
same way.
"Literary" has two meanings (well, more than that, but let's stick to
just these two for now): one is mocking--meaning something that is
pretentious. The other is suggestive--meaning something that can be
read again and again without exhausting the aesthetic mine. Both Huck
Finn and Ulysses fit the latter description.
Mark
author of:
COMPASS REACH
METAL OF NIGHT
PEACE & MEMORY
REMAINS (forthcoming)
www.marktiedemann.com
loki
"James Nicoll" <jdni...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cd1ndi$d3s$1...@panix2.panix.com...
In the Python Universe that _proves_ he is truly literary!!!
--
'Because he was human
Because he had goodness
Because he was moral
They called him insane' -rush
Joseph T Major
> sf/x: Tom Sawyer colliding with Lazarus Long in the memespace
>
>between my ears.
>
> Augh! Get! Out! Of! My! Head!
>
>
> Need amnesia ray, at least .38 calibre.
>
ISTR that in _Caleb Catlum's America_ Tom Sawyer was a Catlum -- and
Caleb Catlum is a literary ancestor of Lazarus Long.
Can I recommend the .44 Magnum Amnesia Ray, the most forgettable ray
ever made, one blast will wipe your head clean out . . .
Joseph T Major
--
"Yrlsqb nx sobshuggum illingoon. Mark my words!"
-- Cyril Q. Kornbluth
Konrad Gaertner
>
> "Literary" has two meanings (well, more than that, but let's stick to
> just these two for now): one is mocking--meaning something that is
> pretentious. The other is suggestive--meaning something that can be
> read again and again without exhausting the aesthetic mine. Both Huck
> Finn and Ulysses fit the latter description.
I'm not sure what you mean by "aesthetic mine", but if all you need
is "learning something new each re-read", then my literary authors
are: Tolkien, Brust, Pratchett, Hobb, Snicket, Jordan ... um...
any other definitions available?
--KG
anxious triffid
news:78b1aacb.04071...@posting.google.com:
> myrna...@aol.com (Myrnag2555) wrote in message
> news:<20040713141043...@mb-m28.aol.com>...
>> So if Huckleberry Finn isn't "literary" what is?
>
>
> Huckleberry Finn is "literary" in the sense that it says something
> true at a very deep level.
If a novel which contains the performance of nearly all of Shakespeare's
plays intertextualised with each other and the boundries betwixt them
blurred isn't literary, then what is?
I quote Hamlet's solilouy -
"To be, or not to be; that is the bare bodkin
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would fardels bear, till Birnam Wood do come to Dunsinane,
But that the fear of something after death
Murders the innocent sleep,
Great nature's second course,
And makes us rather sling the arrows of outrageous fortune
Than fly to others that we know not of.
There's the respect must give us pause:
Wake Duncan with thy knocking! I would thou couldst;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The law's delay, and the quietus which his pangs might take,
In the dead waste and middle of the night, when churchyards yawn
In customary suits of solemn black,
But that the undiscovered country from whose bourne no traveler returns,
Breathes forth contagion on the world,
And thus the native hue of resolution, like the poor cat i' the adage,
Is sicklied o'er with care,
And all the clouds that lowered o'er our housetops,
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.
'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished.
But soft you, the fair Ophelia:
Ope not thy ponderous and marble jaws,
But get thee to a nunnery揚o!"
Robert Hutchinson
> ><blink> Is it really necessary to abuse books others like in order to
> >make the work you like seem better by comparison?
>
> So you are saying that I should never say I hate anything?
People, people! Let's follow the example of Mark Twain, who would never
say anything mean or nasty about ... other authors' books ... um, never
mind.
--
Robert Hutchinson | "[Destiny's Child] got booed at the NBA
| playoffs. Even men in plush animal costumes
| don't get booed at the NBA playoffs."
| -- Fametracker.com
David Tate
Even if you're right, the odds that they're talking about James Joyce,
or writers seeking to emulate Joyce, are vanishingly small.
Current writers setting out to write Literature are far more likely to
have their sights set on F. Scott Fitzgerald, or Ernest Hemingway, or
Graham Greene, or Kingsley Amis, or John Irving, or John Barth, or
Virginia Woolf, or Somerset Maugham, or Gabriel Garcia Marquez, or...
David Tate
Dwight Thieme
That was me, and it wasn't a complaint, it was an observation paired
with, to me, a plausible interpretation that I have yet to see anyone
attempt to shoot down. Here is the original quote:
----begin----
I don't really understand, viscerally, why "literary" books which
don't attract me at all - say, someone has an affair and then
they're unhappy about it - get prizes of quite a lot of money.
I sincerely believe that there's a /lot/ of Emperor's New Clothes
going on here.
----end----
And in fact, the canonical example is even more extreme - the
'literature' that's usually complained about is supposedly written by
English professors about English professors having unsatisfactory
affairs and agonizing at length on the sad state of their sorry lives.
So . . . anybody got any titles in mind? Should be easy, they
dominate the landscape, at least the contemporary landscape, right?
And no, "Ulysses" is not an example. I stick to my assertion that
there are certain stories told in a certain way that a certain class
of sf reader simpy doesn't like, and said reader is resentful that
these stories make the cut of 'serious stuff' whereas their preferred
pleasures are ghettoized.
This is an attitude I've never understood, btw. I'll cheerfully admit
to reading mysteries, romances (_harlequin_ romances), oat operas,
space operas and boat operas. And I like 'em with greasy chips, in
bed. So what? Except for a few odd situations, I don't read for
other people, I read for myself.
anxious triffid
news:b12606fc.04071...@posting.google.com:
> I stick to my assertion that
> there are certain stories told in a certain way that a certain class
> of sf reader simpy doesn't like, and said reader is resentful that
> these stories make the cut of 'serious stuff' whereas their preferred
> pleasures are ghettoized.
>
Ah, those will be the sf stories written by authors that loudly proclaim to
all and sundry that they are not science-fiction because they do not
feature "talking squids in space".
Ron Henry
> Which in fact I don't. I was responding to a complaint by someone in
a thread
> I lost track of that when SF fans use the word "literary" they are
vague about
> what that means. I'm saying that said fans aren't in fact talking
about
> "literature" when they refer to "literary" fiction.
And I think that's an over-broad and unfair generalization of sf
readers. There's a large body of posts you can Google that would show
you many who post to this group read both "literary" fiction and sf,
know the difference, and know when and how certain sf works have
"literary" qualities (for better and for worse, depending on the writer
and work).
Besides, comparing books to Joyce's fiction as a test of "literary-ness"
is as silly as comparing scientists to Einstein as a test of their
mettle as scientists. Both are household-name famous but generally
unrepresentative of their categories. Silly to meaningless.
Ron Henry
Ron Henry
news:b12606fc.04071...@posting.google.com...
> And in fact, the canonical example is even more extreme - the
> 'literature' that's usually complained about is supposedly written by
> English professors about English professors having unsatisfactory
> affairs and agonizing at length on the sad state of their sorry lives.
For the most part, I think the category is a straw man that's more
convenient for mockery than respresentative of any actual trend in
contemporary literature.
That said, the canonical example would be someone like (Pulitzer Prize
winning novelist) Alison Lurie, who has mined her life as a Cornell
professor to advantage. Or maybe a couple of Nabokov's novels (such as
Lolita and Pale Fire). I'm not sure what the vast sea of mediocre
representatives of this category are, however. (I can think of good
academic novels by people like Philip Roth, Richard Powers, Jane Smiley,
Kingsley Amis...)
Ron Henry
Ron Henry
news:bqm8f0d5qvej1aihr...@4ax.com...
Heh. Don't forget the implied "Persons lacking irony attempting to read
this book (or any Twain work) will gain the contempt of the author" as
well... ;-)
Ron Henry
Randy Money
"Me thinks he doth protest too much." (have a feeling that's only an
approximate quote)
Frankly, many an author has used the tactic of saying pretty much the
opposite of what they mean in a context that indicates it's the
opposite. (See also, Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal") I'm not
positive it applies to Twain in this instance, but he certainly wasn't
above such tactics.
Randy M.
Mark
I mean that in the sense of a gold mine or diamond mine. Aesthetics
being that which opens us to experience, new, recapitulated, or
otherwise, the mine being the near limitless depths of all that is
worth experiencing.
Taste obviously has a lot to do with it. Of your list, I would agree
with Tolkein and probably Snicket. The rest are simply not to my
taste.
Examples in genre? Wolfe, Delany, Crowley, Bishop, Butler, Sturgeon.
Just to name a few.
"Learning" something new on each re-read is probably insufficient.
Learning combined with an undiminished aesthetic experience, that
would be closer.
stePH
> Ulysses says much more than your characterization, although a surface
> reading will leave you with that impression. It's one of those books
> that demands close attention and a willingness to work hard to make
> the connections. It can pay off, but certainly it's a tough go and
> not everyone will enjoy the trip.
I'm rather fond of_Finnegans Wake_ myself, though my comprehension level
hovers somewhere around 2% :) _Ulysses_ is somewhat easier going.
stePH
--
"A lion will exert himself to the utmost, even when entering the tiger's
den to throw baby rabbits off a cliff!" -- Moroboshi Ataru
Michael Stemper
>So if Huckleberry Finn isn't "literary" what is?
Better yet, what's a good functional definition of "literature" that isn't
designed to either keep out genre books, or to specifically let them in?
Anybody supplying a definition should also apply it to some of the following
and show how, under their definition, it either is or is not literature:
_A Knight of Ghosts and Shadows_ (Anderson)
_Stand on Zanzibar_ (Brunner)
_Huckleberry Finn_ (Clemens)
_Dhalgren_ (Delany)
_The Number of the Beast_ (Heinlein)
_The Sun Also Rises_ (Hemingway)
_The Time Bender_ (Laumer)
_Night of Masks_ (Norton)
_Spacehounds of IPC_ (Smith)
_Travels With Charlie_ (Steinbeck)
_Snow Crash_ (Stephenson)
_Lord of the Rings (Tolkien)
BTW, I'm not saying that there's a right or wrong answer for these; I'm
just throwing these titles out as a litmus test for the proposers of
definitions. Please, don't just say "I think <listA> are literature and
<listB> aren't." Say what *you* think the term "literature" means, and
then display the consequences of your meaning.
I'm very interested in seeing what definitions people come up with, and
how those definitions work out in practice.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
COFFEE.SYS not found. Abort, Retry, Fail?
Myrnag2555
I was talking about "literature". I was talking about "literary".
Bill Reich
> >Who said Huck wasn't "literary"?
>
> James Joyce". When sf fans complain about "literary" fiction, odds are they
> aren't talking about Mark Twain, who has plots and a straightforward prose
> style.
"Not influenced by Joyce" might take a book out of the "litratchuh"
class if it were written after the author had a chance to marvel at
the wonders of _Ulysses_ I don't think even the harshest critic would
take Twain to task for not taking into account a book that did not yet
exist.
I don't complain about literary fiction but I mean _Huckleberry Finn_
whenever I say "greatest novel in the English language."
The scene where Huck decides that God will send him to Hell if he
helps Jim escape from slavery and then decides that he will help Jim
anyway is the most liberating scene in fiction.
Oddly enough, there are stories in Joyce's _Dubliners_ and even scenes
in his novels that show he could have been a contender. Some people,
of course, think he was. My mileage varies.
Will in New Haven
Ross TenEyck
>Oddly enough, there are stories in Joyce's _Dubliners_ and even scenes
>in his novels that show he could have been a contender. Some people,
>of course, think he was. My mileage varies.
I like most of the stories in _Dubliners,_ particularly "The Dead."
But it was _Ulysses_ that blew me away. I read it for a class,
in parallel with one of the extensive "Partial Explanation of What
the Hell is Going On in Ulysses" books; and Joyce basically
-- warning: politically incorrect and possibly offensive
expression follows --
makes the English language his bitch.
There's the chapter that's written in the form of a symphony,
starting with the tuning up and going through movements and themes
and solos. There's the chapter that's written in a series of styles,
mirroring the progression of English literature; beginning with
Beowulf-like epic and ending with opaque modernism. There's the
one written in the style of a mushy woman's magazine. There's...
heck, it's been too long; I can't even remember all the tricks
he plays.
The kind of art that Joyce is doing in _Ulysses_ is, manifestly,
not to everyone's taste. But for those who like that kind of thing,
Joyce did it supremely well.
--
================== http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~teneyck ==================
Ross TenEyck Seattle, WA \ Light, kindled in the furnace of hydrogen;
ten...@alumni.caltech.edu \ like smoke, sunlight carries the hot-metal
Are wa yume? Soretomo maboroshi? \ tang of Creation's forge.
Mark
> Mark wrote:
> > Ulysses says much more than your characterization, although a surface
> > reading will leave you with that impression. It's one of those books
> > that demands close attention and a willingness to work hard to make
> > the connections. It can pay off, but certainly it's a tough go and
> > not everyone will enjoy the trip.
>
> I'm rather fond of_Finnegans Wake_ myself, though my comprehension level
> hovers somewhere around 2% :) _Ulysses_ is somewhat easier going.
>
>
> stePH
If you liked Finnegan's Wake, try Brian Aldiss's Barefoot In The
Head. It an homage to FW, with the added bonus of actually having a
plot. Of sorts.
Andrew Wheeler
>
> >Better yet, what's a good functional definition of "literature" that isn't
>
> I was talking about "literature". I was talking about "literary".
Assuming your first sentence above is missing a "not" (otherwise, it
doesn't make much sense):
"literary" is the adjective that means "having the form and substance of literature."
You're basically saying "I wasn't talking about gravity; I was talking
about the way things fall down."
--
Andrew Wheeler
--
"Were you in the First World War, Jeeves?"
"I dabbled in it to a certain extent, m'lord."
-- from _Ring for Jeeves_
Myrnag2555
>literature."
Having the form and substance of
_great_ literature.
Richard R. Hershberger
I'll not try to define "literature" [1] for more-or-less contemporary
fiction, but I will observe that anything still read a hundred or so
years after initial publication falls into the "classic" category.
This gives it a free pass into the "literature" section, regardless of
how it was classified initially. Charles Dickens is the obvious
example of this. So from your list, Huck Finn gets in by default, all
other considerations notwithstanding. Several of the others we can
speculate likely will get in the same way, but we will have to wait
and see.
Richard R. Hershberger
[1] if for no other reason than I don't find the distinction useful,
except possibly for figuring out where in the bookstore to look...
stePH
> If you liked Finnegan's Wake, try Brian Aldiss's Barefoot In The
> Head. It an homage to FW, with the added bonus of actually having a
> plot. Of sorts.
The first reviewer on Amazon.com blasts it as derivative of William S.
Burroughs and Philip K. Dick, but the rest of the reviews I looked at
are positive (and you can always count on at least one negative review
for any item on Amazon) -- I'll check it out; thanks for the reco.
MJ Stoddard
>In article <20040713141043...@mb-m28.aol.com>,
>Myrnag2555 writes:
>>So if Huckleberry Finn isn't "literary" what is?
>
>Better yet, what's a good functional definition of "literature" that
>isn't designed to either keep out genre books, or to specifically
>let them in?
Here is my rough sketch
Literary Value is a multi-dimensional scale applied to written
materials, including but not limited to novels, poetry, plays, history,
science and similar works. A work may have great Literary Value on one
scale, while not on others.
The elements of the Literary Value Scale include, but are not limited
to:
Plot (Norton)
Idea density | Persuasiveness (Clemens, Brunner)
Age | Longevity | Survival (Frankenstein, Dumas, Doc Smith)
Influence (LOTR, Delany, Sherlock Holmes)
Clarity of text (Hemingway, Jared Diamond, Anderson)
Style of text (New wave, Finnegan's Wake)
Some classifiers heavily weigh one or more of the scales in assessing
Literary Value; others require high values in all or most scales. Some
individuals use different scales depending on how they feel, or the
phase of the moon.
Finally, trying to fit a multidimensional scale into two dimensions is
a splendid way to start a discussion on RASFW.
Andrew Wheeler
I'd say "great" is implied in "literature." That's why the bookstores
call their mainstream sections "fiction and literature" -- those two
labels means "the stuff you read anyway" and "the stuff you should be reading."
raycun
> Myrnag2555 wrote:
> >
> > >"literary" is the adjective that means "having the form and substance of
> > >literature."
> >
> > Having the form and substance of
> > _great_ literature.
>
> I'd say "great" is implied in "literature." That's why the bookstores
> call their mainstream sections "fiction and literature" -- those two
> labels means "the stuff you read anyway" and "the stuff you should be reading."
But they should really have 'fiction', 'great literature' and 'stuff
about English professors having affairs and feeling guilty
afterwards'. That would be one of the bigger sections, apparently.
Ray
Robert St Amant
Sure, and the SF section can be broken down into "Extruded Fantasy
Product" and "Space ships and ray guns blowing up aliens", plus "good
SF" (with three or four books in this last category, at the very
least). Oops, forgot "Media Tie-ins".
--
Rob St. Amant
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~stamant
stePH
> Even if you're right, the odds that they're talking about James Joyce,
> or writers seeking to emulate Joyce, are vanishingly small.
>
> Current writers setting out to write Literature are far more likely to
> have their sights set on F. Scott Fitzgerald, or Ernest Hemingway, or
> Graham Greene, or Kingsley Amis, or John Irving, or John Barth, or
> Virginia Woolf, or Somerset Maugham, or Gabriel Garcia Marquez, or...
... Sinclair Lewis ...
stePH (will finish last 40 pages of _Main Street_ tonight)
stePH
acet...@earthlink.net
stePH
> Sure, and the SF section can be broken down into "Extruded Fantasy
> Product" and "Space ships and ray guns blowing up aliens", plus "good
> SF" (with three or four books in this last category, at the very
> least). Oops, forgot "Media Tie-ins".
>
"Media Tie-ins" is actually a section in most bookstores, usually found
adjacent to the "Fantasy and Science Fiction" section.
stePH
Konrad Gaertner
>
> Here is my rough sketch
>
> to:
> Plot (Norton)
> Idea density | Persuasiveness (Clemens, Brunner)
> Age | Longevity | Survival (Frankenstein, Dumas, Doc Smith)
I'm not sure if Smith will make the cut. How many of his fans were
born after he died?
> Influence (LOTR, Delany, Sherlock Holmes)
> Clarity of text (Hemingway, Jared Diamond, Anderson)
Surely Asimov needs to be mentioned here.
> Style of text (New wave, Finnegan's Wake)
--KG
anxious triffid
news:lpn658o...@haeckel.csc.ncsu.edu:
Fun challenge: name a sf work which fits into the junction all these four
sets.
Konrad Gaertner
>
> Robert St Amant <sta...@haeckel.csc.ncsu.edu> wrote in
> news:lpn658o...@haeckel.csc.ncsu.edu:
> >
> > Product" and "Space ships and ray guns blowing up aliens", plus "good
> > SF" (with three or four books in this last category, at the very
> > least). Oops, forgot "Media Tie-ins".
>
> Fun challenge: name a sf work which fits into the junction all these four
> sets.
Duane's Star Trek books or maybe Zahn's Star Wars.
--KG
Dwight Thieme
Riiiight. You should have no problem giving us five titles in the
latter category then. </sarcasm>
This one seems to be right up there with the administration insisting
there were 'ties' between Al Quida and Saddam in terms of
Pronouncements That Will Not Die.
Konrad Gaertner
>
> Konrad Gaertner <kgae...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<40F47940...@worldnet.att.net>...
> > Mark wrote:
> > >
> > > "Literary" has two meanings (well, more than that, but let's stick to
> > > just these two for now): one is mocking--meaning something that is
> > > pretentious. The other is suggestive--meaning something that can be
> > > read again and again without exhausting the aesthetic mine. Both Huck
> > > Finn and Ulysses fit the latter description.
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "aesthetic mine", but if all you need
> > is "learning something new each re-read", then my literary authors
> > are: Tolkien, Brust, Pratchett, Hobb, Snicket, Jordan ... um...
> > any other definitions available?
>
> being that which opens us to experience, new, recapitulated, or
> otherwise, the mine being the near limitless depths of all that is
> worth experiencing.
I keep forgotting which word means "beauty" and which one means
"self-torture". Having said that, that works as a decent summary
of where I disagree with common examples of "Literature".
I can't think of a single novel length work that I read in school
that "opened me to a new experience" or whatever the first time
through, and I certainly won't read any of them a second time.
In fact using this definition, I would expect most qualifying
to be SF (but not vice versa).
> Taste obviously has a lot to do with it. Of your list, I would agree
> with Tolkein and probably Snicket. The rest are simply not to my
> taste.
Having given it a bit more thought, I may remove Snicket. Sure,
he's deeper than anyone else currently writing for that age group,
but he's still (IMO) shallower than Pratchett or Lewis Carroll.
I may add Gaiman for his Sandman series.
> Examples in genre? Wolfe, Delany, Crowley, Bishop, Butler, Sturgeon.
> Just to name a few.
I've read a little of Wolfe, nothing of any of the others.
Definately a matter of taste (actually expectated taste).
Speaking of literary SF, I've just started reading an ARC of
_Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell_, which seems to be trying
really hard to make fantasy respectable.
--KG
Andrew Wheeler
>
> Speaking of literary SF, I've just started reading an ARC of
> _Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell_, which seems to be trying
> really hard to make fantasy respectable.
Really? It didn't read to me like a "fantasy novel" at all. I took it as
an attempt to write a 19th century novel (with the net up as high as it
can go) with magic in it -- the kind of thing that might have been
written about 1830 had things gone differently.
Konrad Gaertner
>
> Konrad Gaertner wrote:
> >
> > Speaking of literary SF, I've just started reading an ARC of
> > _Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell_, which seems to be trying
> > really hard to make fantasy respectable.
>
> Really? It didn't read to me like a "fantasy novel" at all.
Yes, that's basically what I meant.
> I took it as
> an attempt to write a 19th century novel (with the net up as high as it
> can go) with magic in it -- the kind of thing that might have been
> written about 1830 had things gone differently.
Have you read the whole thing? Does it get more interesting after
the focus leaves Mr. Norrell?
Is there any explanation of who the narrator is or why it is being
written? It seems to be written at the time the events occurred,
and includes details that the characters have explicitly forgotten,
but it also has a somewhat literary tone with footnotes (including
references to a book that was written 15 years later).
--KG
Andrew Wheeler
>
> Andrew Wheeler wrote:
> >
> > Konrad Gaertner wrote:
> > >
> > > Speaking of literary SF, I've just started reading an ARC of
> > > _Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell_, which seems to be trying
> > > really hard to make fantasy respectable.
> >
> > Really? It didn't read to me like a "fantasy novel" at all.
>
> Yes, that's basically what I meant.
OK, but I think we're talking about different things.
> > I took it as
> > an attempt to write a 19th century novel (with the net up as high as it
> > can go) with magic in it -- the kind of thing that might have been
> > written about 1830 had things gone differently.
>
> Have you read the whole thing? Does it get more interesting after
> the focus leaves Mr. Norrell?
I found it very interesting -- it does start slowly, I'll admit, and
Norrell is one of the least interesting characters in it (by design).
Strange in particular is a more dynamic and active character. The ending
is very impressive.
> Is there any explanation of who the narrator is or why it is being
> written?
The narrator isn't any person in the book; it's just the voice of the
author. That's one of the things I found so impressive about _Jonathan
Strange_ -- it really does read like a novel of its supposed era. The
narrator is completely omniscient, but the narrative never enters the
thoughts of any character.
> It seems to be written at the time the events occurred,
> and includes details that the characters have explicitly forgotten,
> but it also has a somewhat literary tone with footnotes (including
> references to a book that was written 15 years later).
It's clearly written after the end of the events of the story and the
publication of Strange's book. I'd peg it at about 1830 to 1840, but,
without knowing what happens later in this world, that's really a guess.
Again, though, this is a *19th century* style novel, so expectations
based on modern and post-modern literature are often mistaken.
Konrad Gaertner
>
> Konrad Gaertner wrote:
> >
> > Andrew Wheeler wrote:
> > >
> > > Konrad Gaertner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Speaking of literary SF, I've just started reading an ARC of
> > > > _Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell_, which seems to be trying
> > > > really hard to make fantasy respectable.
>
> > > an attempt to write a 19th century novel (with the net up as high as it
> > > can go) with magic in it -- the kind of thing that might have been
> > > written about 1830 had things gone differently.
> >
> > Have you read the whole thing? Does it get more interesting after
> > the focus leaves Mr. Norrell?
>
> I found it very interesting -- it does start slowly, I'll admit, and
> Norrell is one of the least interesting characters in it (by design).
For values of "start" that include "200+ pages of small type". And
the wierd spellings don't help either (I don't care if that's how
they spelled back then, you shouldn't spell "show" with an "e").
> Strange in particular is a more dynamic and active character. The ending
> is very impressive.
Damn. I was hoping you'd say "That's as good as it gets" so I
wouldn't have to finish it.
> > Is there any explanation of who the narrator is or why it is being
> > written?
>
> The narrator isn't any person in the book; it's just the voice of the
> author. That's one of the things I found so impressive about _Jonathan
> Strange_ -- it really does read like a novel of its supposed era. The
> narrator is completely omniscient, but the narrative never enters the
> thoughts of any character.
Really? It certainly seems like we're seeing their thoughts.
ObOtherThread: I'm tempted to scan the spine to use as an exmaple
of bad cover design.
--KG
Martin Wisse
<anxious...@INFEAROFSPAMfserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Robert St Amant <sta...@haeckel.csc.ncsu.edu> wrote in
>news:lpn658o...@haeckel.csc.ncsu.edu:
>> Sure, and the SF section can be broken down into "Extruded Fantasy
>> Product" and "Space ships and ray guns blowing up aliens", plus "good
>> SF" (with three or four books in this last category, at the very
>> least). Oops, forgot "Media Tie-ins".
>>
>
>Fun challenge: name a sf work which fits into the junction all these four
>sets.
_Splinter of the Mind's Eye_
Timothy Zahn's first Star Wars trilogy is less obviously fantasy
Martin Wisse
--
Bearded men have two options:
they can either look like one of the Dubliners or they can look like Noel Edmunds.
Jeremy Hardy, BBC Radio 4
Bill Reich
It made for an entertaining semester, when accompanied by an
enthusiastic faculty member and some fellow-students who seemed
brighter in that class than I ever remember them being elsewhere. I
remember it fondly. Thinking about that class after more than thirty
years is still exciting.
It was not, in my opinion, a novel. The thing itself, was, under those
perfect conditions, to my taste but the _kind_ of thing it was
certainly isn't. People who try to do that kind of thing end up
annoying me and/or putting me to sleep. Not that they care, or should
care.
Will in New Haven
--
This hand will raise now.
There is no I to do it;
The cards themselves act.
Michael Stemper
>ray...@gmail.com (raycun) wrote in message news:<b543f143.04071...@posting.google.com>...
>> But they should really have 'fiction', 'great literature' and 'stuff
>> about English professors having affairs and feeling guilty
>> afterwards'. That would be one of the bigger sections, apparently.
>
>Riiiight. You should have no problem giving us five titles in the
>latter category then. </sarcasm>
I've read reviews of some of these in the "Books & Arts" section of _The
New Republic_ over the years. Well, a column or two of each review,
typically, before I realized that I had no interest in ever reading the
subject book. Since I had no interest in reading such books (they sounded
like rampant Marysueism at *best*), I naturally did not keep track of
their titles.
I make no claim as to how prevalent or signifcant "books about English
professors having affairs" are. I merely note that they a. exist and b.
are considered worthy of review by at least one magazine.
--
Michael F. Stemper
The FAQ for rec.arts.sf.written is at:
http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper/sf-written.htm
Please read it before posting.
anxious triffid
news:4105f0b8....@news.individual.net:
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 00:07:49 +0000 (UTC), anxious triffid
> <anxious...@INFEAROFSPAMfserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Robert St Amant <sta...@haeckel.csc.ncsu.edu> wrote in
>>news:lpn658o...@haeckel.csc.ncsu.edu:
>
>>> Sure, and the SF section can be broken down into "Extruded Fantasy
>>> Product" and "Space ships and ray guns blowing up aliens", plus
>>> "good SF" (with three or four books in this last category, at the
>>> very least). Oops, forgot "Media Tie-ins".
>>>
>>
>>Fun challenge: name a sf work which fits into the junction all these
>>four sets.
>
> _Splinter of the Mind's Eye_
>
That's a pretty good answer there.
Catherine Hampton
>So if Huckleberry Finn isn't "literary" what is?
And what nitwit is claiming that Huckleberry Fin isn't literary?
--
Catherine Hampton <ar...@spambouncer.org>
Home Page * <http://www.devsite.org/>
The SpamBouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>
(Please use this address for replies -- the address in my header is a
spam trap.)
Bill Reich
The first bookstore I worked in during my long march through the bookstores
of New Haven was Book World. I remember my annoyance that we had an aisle
with "fiction" on one side and "literature" on the other. The "lit" side
was NOT lit/crit or non-fiction of a literary bent it was just the good stuff,
in SOMONE'S opinion.
Talk about a way to piss off customers. We changed it eventually but we never
followed my suggestion which was to simply divide the store into Fiction,
physics and opinion.
Will in New Haven
--
"I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom.
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them
tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break
them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally
responsible for everything I do."
--Professor Bernardo de la Paz
in Robert A. Heinlein's _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Myrnag2555
>>So if Huckleberry Finn isn't "literary" what is?
>
>And what nitwit is claiming that Huckleberry Fin isn't literary?
To be specific I'm claiming it isn't what I think of when I hear the word
"literary" and I don't think it's what a lot of science fiction fans think of
when they talk about "literary" fiction. After all, it's highly accessible to
virtually every reader.
Richard R. Hershberger
> rrh...@acme.com (Richard R. Hershberger) wrote:
> >I'll not try to define "literature" [1] for more-or-less contemporary
> >fiction, but I will observe that anything still read a hundred or so
> >years after initial publication falls into the "classic" category.
> >This gives it a free pass into the "literature" section, regardless of
> >how it was classified initially. Charles Dickens is the obvious
> >example of this. So from your list, Huck Finn gets in by default, all
> >other considerations notwithstanding. Several of the others we can
> >speculate likely will get in the same way, but we will have to wait
> >and see.
> >
> >Richard R. Hershberger
> >
> >[1] if for no other reason than I don't find the distinction useful,
> >except possibly for figuring out where in the bookstore to look...
>
> The first bookstore I worked in during my long march through the bookstores
> of New Haven was Book World. I remember my annoyance that we had an aisle
> with "fiction" on one side and "literature" on the other. The "lit" side
> was NOT lit/crit or non-fiction of a literary bent it was just the good stuff,
> in SOMONE'S opinion.
>
> Talk about a way to piss off customers. We changed it eventually but we never
> followed my suggestion which was to simply divide the store into Fiction,
> physics and opinion.
I find most such distinctions pretty much arbitary and artistically
meaningless. What is the difference between classical and
non-classical music? (Wasn't it Tom Lehrer who observed that there
are two types of music: popular and unpopular?) Heck if I know.
About the only useful distinction is that classical music is usually
(but not always) organized by composer while non-classical music is
usually (but not always) organized by performer. So it is good to
know what a store considers classical and what is non-classical to
help find what I am looking for. Other than that...
Richard R. Hershberger
how...@brazee.net
On 19-Jul-2004, Catherine Hampton <spam...@spambouncer.org> wrote:
> >So if Huckleberry Finn isn't "literary" what is?
>
> And what nitwit is claiming that Huckleberry Fin isn't literary?
If you don't like "literary", or if you don't like "SF", or if you don't
like sports or anything else - and someone shows you an example that you do
like, the response generally is "that's not really "literary", or "SF", or
sports or whatever.
That way we can keep our biases and know how superior our tastes are.
Ron Henry
news:40fc8c8e$1...@127.0.0.1...
> The first bookstore I worked in during my long march through the
bookstores
> of New Haven was Book World. I remember my annoyance that we had an
aisle
> with "fiction" on one side and "literature" on the other. The "lit"
side
> was NOT lit/crit or non-fiction of a literary bent it was just the
good stuff,
> in SOMONE'S opinion.
Hey, I bought a lot of books there back in the late 80s... good store.
Is it still there? (I don't live in New Haven anymore and notice it's
not on Evelyn Leeper's list for CT.)
> Talk about a way to piss off customers. We changed it eventually but
we never
> followed my suggestion which was to simply divide the store into
Fiction,
> physics and opinion.
This former patron (who reads a lot of poetry, too) is awfully glad it
wasn't that way when he shopped there... ;-)
Ron Henry
stePH
> I find most such distinctions pretty much arbitary and artistically
> meaningless. What is the difference between classical and
> non-classical music? (Wasn't it Tom Lehrer who observed that there
> are two types of music: popular and unpopular?) Heck if I know.
> About the only useful distinction is that classical music is usually
> (but not always) organized by composer while non-classical music is
> usually (but not always) organized by performer. So it is good to
> know what a store considers classical and what is non-classical to
> help find what I am looking for. Other than that...
My music theory teacher over ten years ago divided music into "art
music" and "pop music." The distinction as he told it was, "pop music
is done to make money."
(Seems to me that quite a bit of what he considered "art music" was
actually "pop music" at the time it was written, though I never bothered
to mention that to him.)
Michael Stemper
>> reading the subject book. Since I had no interest in reading such
>> books (they sounded like rampant Marysueism at *best*), I naturally
>> did not keep track of their titles.
>Seems to me that they exist within a larger trend of writers writing
>about writers (in which the main character is a lit professor, editorial
>assistant, novelist, whatever).
> Personally I
>find this a bit annoying, same way I dislike songs about music and movies
>about acting and so on,
What? Heresy! At one stroke you've thrown out just about every musical
made in the 1930s and 1940s!
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
The name of the story is "A Sound of Thunder".
It was written by Ray Bradbury. You're welcome.
Michael Stemper
>Talk about a way to piss off customers. We changed it eventually but we never
>followed my suggestion which was to simply divide the store into Fiction,
>physics and opinion.
No math books, then?
Robert St Amant
> In article <40fc8c8e$1...@127.0.0.1>, Bill Reich writes:
>
> >Talk about a way to piss off customers. We changed it eventually but we never
> >followed my suggestion which was to simply divide the store into Fiction,
> >physics and opinion.
>
> No math books, then?
It would be interesting to see books like _The Rise and Fall of the
Third Reich: A Physics Perspective_ or _Physics and the Causes of the
Civil War_. Or maybe Bill Reich has Henry Ford's view of history.
--
Rob St. Amant
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~stamant
Brian McGuinness
I believe that Twain himself wrote something to the effect that works that
were generally considered good literature were things that everyone wanted
to have read but nobody wanted to read. So "literary" works have a
longstanding reputation of being deathly dull. To the extent that a story
such as "Huckleberry Finn" is enjoyable, it doesn't fit this definition of
"literary". This seems to be the basic point of this thread.
--- Brian
Daniel Silevitch
Michael Stemper <mste...@siemens-emis.com> wrote:
>In article <40fc8c8e$1...@127.0.0.1>, Bill Reich writes:
>
>>Talk about a way to piss off customers. We changed it eventually but we never
>>followed my suggestion which was to simply divide the store into Fiction,
>>physics and opinion.
>
>No math books, then?
There should at least be a stamp collecting section.
-dms
Bill Reich
> "Bill Reich" <willre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:40fc8c8e$1...@127.0.0.1...
>
> > The first bookstore I worked in during my long march through the
> bookstores
> > of New Haven was Book World. I remember my annoyance that we had an
> aisle
> > with "fiction" on one side and "literature" on the other. The "lit"
> side
> > was NOT lit/crit or non-fiction of a literary bent it was just the
> good stuff,
> > in SOMONE'S opinion.
>
> Hey, I bought a lot of books there back in the late 80s... good store.
> Is it still there? (I don't live in New Haven anymore and notice it's
> not on Evelyn Leeper's list for CT.)
It's been gone since 1990. I worked there off and on from 1974 to 1990
but wasn't there quite at the end. We probably had the best SF section
in New Haven right up to the last few months.
>
> > Talk about a way to piss off customers. We changed it eventually but
> we never
> > followed my suggestion which was to simply divide the store into
> Fiction,
> > physics and opinion.
>
> This former patron (who reads a lot of poetry, too) is awfully glad it
> wasn't that way when he shopped there... ;-)
>
> Ron Henry
Good poetry would be filed under physics. Bad poetry under opinion.
Will in New Haven
--
This hand will raise now.
Richard R. Hershberger
> Richard R. Hershberger wrote:
> > I find most such distinctions pretty much arbitary and artistically
> > meaningless. What is the difference between classical and
> > non-classical music? (Wasn't it Tom Lehrer who observed that there
> > are two types of music: popular and unpopular?) Heck if I know.
> > About the only useful distinction is that classical music is usually
> > (but not always) organized by composer while non-classical music is
> > usually (but not always) organized by performer. So it is good to
> > know what a store considers classical and what is non-classical to
> > help find what I am looking for. Other than that...
>
> My music theory teacher over ten years ago divided music into "art
> music" and "pop music." The distinction as he told it was, "pop music
> is done to make money."
>
> (Seems to me that quite a bit of what he considered "art music" was
> actually "pop music" at the time it was written, though I never bothered
> to mention that to him.)
I wonder if perhaps your teacher didn't have a romanticized view of
musicians and composers of the past. Professional classical musicians
in the upper tiers get paid quite well (as they should). I know
musicians, on the other hand, who play what would normally be
classified as "pop music", who hold day jobs and have no expectation
of ever financially supporting themselves on their music, who happily
play for their own pleasure and that of their friends. Come to think
of it, your teacher may have been overly cynical about pop music,
assuming that its motivation is purely commercial.
Richard R. Hershberger
stePH
I don't know what Henry Ford said about history, but with the above
categories I think those books would be filed under "Opinion" since we
all know history is written by the winners ;)
... or maybe the history books would be filed under "Fiction"
Dwight Thieme
> In article <b12606fc.04071...@posting.google.com>, Dwight Thieme writes:
> >ray...@gmail.com (raycun) wrote in message news:<b543f143.04071...@posting.google.com>...
>
> >> But they should really have 'fiction', 'great literature' and 'stuff
> >> about English professors having affairs and feeling guilty
> >> afterwards'. That would be one of the bigger sections, apparently.
> >
> >Riiiight. You should have no problem giving us five titles in the
> >latter category then. </sarcasm>
>
> I've read reviews of some of these in the "Books & Arts" section of _The
> New Republic_ over the years. Well, a column or two of each review,
> typically, before I realized that I had no interest in ever reading the
> subject book. Since I had no interest in reading such books (they sounded
> like rampant Marysueism at *best*), I naturally did not keep track of
> their titles.
>
> I make no claim as to how prevalent or signifcant "books about English
> professors having affairs" are. I merely note that they a. exist and b.
> are considered worthy of review by at least one magazine.
But the claim has been made again and again that 'books about English
professors having affairs and feeling guilty afterwards' are both
prevalent and significant, that they 'would be one of the bigger
sections'. If this is true, then anyone should be able to toss out a
title or sixty that we would all recognize as part of the genre. So
far _not one_ undisputed work has been referenced, let alone the five
that I asked, let alone stories that we would all recognize as such.
I guess I'm asking as politely as possible that the folks making these
sorts of claims either put up or shut the hell up. Pardon my French.
It doesn't help that a lot of these people also seem to be from the
fans are Slans contingent
Konrad Gaertner
>
> My music theory teacher over ten years ago divided music into "art
> music" and "pop music." The distinction as he told it was, "pop music
> is done to make money."
Yet I imagine John Williams makes more money than all this country's
folk singers put together.
--KG
Robert St Amant
> Robert St Amant wrote:
>
> > mste...@siemens-emis.com (Michael Stemper) writes:
> >
> >>In article <40fc8c8e$1...@127.0.0.1>, Bill Reich writes:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Talk about a way to piss off customers. We changed it eventually but we never
> >>>followed my suggestion which was to simply divide the store into Fiction,
> >>> physics and opinion.
> >>
> >>No math books, then?
> > It would be interesting to see books like _The Rise and Fall of the
> > Third Reich: A Physics Perspective_ or _Physics and the Causes of the
> > Civil War_. Or maybe Bill Reich has Henry Ford's view of history.
>
> I don't know what Henry Ford said about history, but with the above
> categories I think those books would be filed under "Opinion" since we
> all know history is written by the winners ;)
>
> ... or maybe the history books would be filed under "Fiction"
Either/or. Ford is supposed to have said, "History is bunk," though
some say that that's a misquotation: he really said, "History is more
or less bunk." I'd guess Ford would have gone with "Fiction".
Robert St Amant
I don't think you'll get much of a response. I like books about
English professors, but they tend to be more along these lines:
English professor has affair, gains supernatural power to influence
people's actions and thoughts, has many adventures in the world of
lit-crit (Hynes, The Lecturer's Tale).
English professor thinks about affair, but doesn't manage it, given
prostate problems; threatens to kill campus geese on local TV
unless demands are met; oddities ensue (Russo, Straight Man).
English professor worries about wife's affair while running a
Hitler Studies program at his university, near a chemical plant
that releases toxic gas clouds (Delillo, White Noise).
Not much guilt here. There are lots more examples; these are just a
few examples from the comic side of things. When I think of books
about guilty English professors, I think of Brookner and Byatt and so
forth, but of course they don't write such cliched, easily pigeonholed
stuff.
Konrad Gaertner
>
> What is the difference between classical and
> non-classical music? (Wasn't it Tom Lehrer who observed that there
> are two types of music: popular and unpopular?) Heck if I know.
Datapoint: Amazon apparently considers John Philip Sousa to be
[part of] the dividing line. Half of the CDs of his works are
classical, half popular.
> About the only useful distinction is that classical music is usually
> (but not always) organized by composer while non-classical music is
> usually (but not always) organized by performer. So it is good to
> know what a store considers classical and what is non-classical to
> help find what I am looking for. Other than that...
But that's because most with "popular" music, few consumers know
who composed it, and even when they do, they're more concerned
with who performs it. These same people, of course, can't hear
any difference between two orchestras.
Note that chain stores like Borders (and probably B&N) have a
section under classical for soloists, and also for famous
ensembles.
--KG
Andrea Leistra
Dwight Thieme <dbt...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
>But the claim has been made again and again that 'books about English
>professors having affairs and feeling guilty afterwards' are both
>prevalent and significant, that they 'would be one of the bigger
>sections'. If this is true, then anyone should be able to toss out a
>title or sixty that we would all recognize as part of the genre.
I don't think that follows.
I know romance is a fairly major genre. But I couldn't name a single
title, because it *doesn't interest me*. I don't claim to be well-read
enough in modern mainstream literary fiction to address how common
the "writer having affairs" plot is.
--
Andrea Leistra
James Nicoll
But I don't see you making generalizations about romance (or
LitProfLit).
--
"Place that idiot scientist under arrest!"
"I prefer to be called 'evil genius'."
Andrea Leistra
The "anyone" in your statement seemed to be more all-encompassing than
you must have intended it as, then.
--
Andrea Leistra
James Nicoll
Andrea Leistra <alei...@bast.u.arizona.edu> wrote:
>In article <cdkh58$eae$1...@panix1.panix.com>,
>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <cdkgf6$d7n$1...@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu>,
>>Andrea Leistra <alei...@bast.u.arizona.edu> wrote:
>>>In article <b12606fc.04072...@posting.google.com>,
>>>Dwight Thieme <dbt...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>But the claim has been made again and again that 'books about English
>>>>professors having affairs and feeling guilty afterwards' are both
>>>>prevalent and significant, that they 'would be one of the bigger
>>>>sections'. If this is true, then anyone should be able to toss out a
>>>>title or sixty that we would all recognize as part of the genre.
>>>
>>>I don't think that follows.
>>>
>>>I know romance is a fairly major genre. But I couldn't name a single
>>>title, because it *doesn't interest me*. I don't claim to be well-read
>>>enough in modern mainstream literary fiction to address how common
>>>the "writer having affairs" plot is.
>>
>> But I don't see you making generalizations about romance (or
>>LitProfLit).
>
>The "anyone" in your statement seemed to be more all-encompassing than
>you must have intended it as, then.
>
As far I recall, I actually mentioned a book that seemed to
fulfil the LitProfLit definition, and then hedged my bet by explaining
why it might not count.
Richard R. Hershberger
conductor, is that really "art music"? It is called "Pops" for a
reason. If you mean John Williams the classical guitarist, I doubt
that your premise is correct.
Richard R. Hershberger
Dwight Thieme
> dbt...@showme.missouri.edu (Dwight Thieme) writes:
> > I guess I'm asking as politely as possible that the folks making these
> > sorts of claims either put up or shut the hell up. Pardon my French.
> > It doesn't help that a lot of these people also seem to be from the
> > fans are Slans contingent
>
> I don't think you'll get much of a response. I like books about
> English professors, but they tend to be more along these lines:
I don't think so either - because these books in their legions don't
exist (there was a trendy style called minimalism - not a serious
trend - spare text, domestic drama, bleak viewpoint that might be
what's being referrenced at a remote second hand. Y'know, stuff along
the lines of Coover's "The Enormous Radio" withouth the McGuffin.)
The question then is, why the snide fantasy? Is it just a lazy
defesiveness on the part of denizens who dwell deep in the ghetto? Or
would that be a defensive laziness?
<snip of fun examples>
> Not much guilt here. There are lots more examples; these are just a
> few examples from the comic side of things. When I think of books
> about guilty English professors, I think of Brookner and Byatt and so
> forth, but of course they don't write such cliched, easily pigeonholed
> stuff.
Otoh, guilt is just soooo easy to overdo as a Deep Emotion. In fact,
a lot of stuff out there practically satirizes itself. Remember "The
View from Clausen's Pier" from two seasons ago, or last year's "I
Don't Know How She Does It?" 'Course, these are ripped from the NYT's
bestseller lists, so it's hard to argue that stuff like that is meant
when one is told to go read the Good Stuff.
Ron Henry
news:cdkgf6$d7n$1...@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
FWIW, I read as much non-sf contemporary fiction as I do sf, and I can't
think of an example of the so-called prevalent "English professor having
an affair with subsequent angst" subgenre. I can only think of a couple
novels I've read in the past year that even feature [humanities]
professors as narrators, but neither of those were affair-oriented. More
often they involve the recent death of a spouse. (I am thinking of
Auster's _Book of Illusions_, David Herter's _Evening's Empire_ [which
is actually sf], and Carolyn Parkhurst's _The Dogs of Babel_.)
Just one data point, of course. As I said in another post, if we modify
that to "upper middle class neurotic having an affair and regretting it"
then I'll tentatively agree, though I can't think of a specific one of
those either -- but bear in mind that's just a current manifestation of
the classic love triangle setup, which has been one of the standards of
drama since humans have been telling stories.
Ron Henry
Ron Henry
Are you implying the (former?) conductor of the Boston *Pops* is not in
the business of pop[ular] music? I can't imagine many classical music
aficionados considering his movie scores or arrangements of lite
classical favorites to be "art" music.
Ron Henry
Robert St Amant
> Robert St Amant <sta...@haeckel.csc.ncsu.edu> wrote in message news:<lpnllhe...@haeckel.csc.ncsu.edu>...
>
> > dbt...@showme.missouri.edu (Dwight Thieme) writes:
>
> > > I guess I'm asking as politely as possible that the folks making these
> > > sorts of claims either put up or shut the hell up. Pardon my French.
> > > It doesn't help that a lot of these people also seem to be from the
> > > fans are Slans contingent
> >
> > I don't think you'll get much of a response. I like books about
> > English professors, but they tend to be more along these lines:
>
> I don't think so either - because these books in their legions don't
> exist (there was a trendy style called minimalism - not a serious
> trend - spare text, domestic drama, bleak viewpoint that might be
> what's being referrenced at a remote second hand. Y'know, stuff along
> the lines of Coover's "The Enormous Radio" withouth the McGuffin.)
Coincidentally, I just read a nice book review on Salon that
characterized minimalism as follows:
<http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2004/07/15/peck_wood/>
The quintessential minimalist work was a short story written in
austere, emotionally muted prose. It described a scene of domestic
despair or disconnection fully understood by its protagonist only
in a closing moment of bleak epiphany. It was written by Raymond
Carver or Ann Beattie or an acolyte thereof, and edited by Gordon
Lish. It was published in the New Yorker.
The current trend, exemplified by Delillo, Franzen, Moody, et al., is
described as "maximalism" in the article.
> The question then is, why the snide fantasy? Is it just a lazy
> defesiveness on the part of denizens who dwell deep in the ghetto? Or
> would that be a defensive laziness?
Defensiveness is a good way of describing it.
Randy Money
> Robert St Amant <sta...@haeckel.csc.ncsu.edu> wrote in message news:<lpnllhe...@haeckel.csc.ncsu.edu>...
[...]
>>I like books about
>>English professors, but they tend to be more along these lines:
>
>
> I don't think so either - because these books in their legions don't
> exist (there was a trendy style called minimalism - not a serious
> trend - spare text, domestic drama, bleak viewpoint that might be
> what's being referrenced at a remote second hand. Y'know, stuff along
> the lines of Coover's "The Enormous Radio" withouth the McGuffin.)
*cough*Cheever?*cough*
> The question then is, why the snide fantasy? Is it just a lazy
> defesiveness on the part of denizens who dwell deep in the ghetto? Or
> would that be a defensive laziness?
Both?
Randy M.
Konrad Gaertner
>
> Konrad Gaertner <kgae...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<40FD8B86...@worldnet.att.net>...
> > stePH wrote:
> > >
> > > My music theory teacher over ten years ago divided music into "art
> > > music" and "pop music." The distinction as he told it was, "pop music
> > > is done to make money."
> >
> > Yet I imagine John Williams makes more money than all this country's
> > folk singers put together.
> >
> If you mean John Williams the Star Wars composer and Boston Pops
> conductor, is that really "art music"? It is called "Pops" for a
> reason.
Yes. My point is that Williams is shelved in Classical and folk
singers (those that actually have recordings) get shelved near the
Pop/Rock.
BTW, can anyone name a piece of classical music, or a classic work
of literature that *wasn't* a commercial success before being named
"classic"? It doesn't have to be a success for the author/composer
(I already thought of Edgar Allan Poe).
--KG
Konrad Gaertner
>
> The question then is, why the snide fantasy? Is it just a lazy
> defesiveness on the part of denizens who dwell deep in the ghetto? Or
> would that be a defensive laziness?
I'd guess it was a sarcastic response to someone claiming something
like "all fantasy is about a party of adventurers (one from each
Good races) collecting Plot Coupons to defeat the Dark Lord".
--KG
Randy Money
_Moby Dick_ by Herman Melville, though just how unpopular it was seems
to depend on the source you read.
Seems like Thomas Hardy's work, wasn't particularly successful, though
I'm not sure if that was financially or critically. Anyway, its lack of
success caused him to move on to poetry. (Melville made a similar move.)
When he won the Nobel, Faulkner only had one of his books still in print
in the U.S. -- _The Portable Faulkner_, a sort of last ditch effort by
Malcolm Cowley to have Willie in print at all. Just a few years before
that Bennett Cerf, Faulkner's publisher, had declared Faulkner dead. His
literary career, that is, since Faulkner himself was still up and about,
writing the occasional screenplay to keep some money flowing into the
household. Since then _The Sound and the Fury_, _As I Lay Dying_ and
_Absalom, Absalom_, variously and among others, have been deemed
classics of American literature and sometimes named THE great American
novel by people who should know better than to make absolute statements
when there are others about who will argue them just 'cause.
Randy M.
Richard R. Hershberger
> Robert St Amant wrote:
>
> > mste...@siemens-emis.com (Michael Stemper) writes:
> >
> >
> >>In article <40fc8c8e$1...@127.0.0.1>, Bill Reich writes:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Talk about a way to piss off customers. We changed it eventually but we never
> >>>followed my suggestion which was to simply divide the store into Fiction,
> >>>physics and opinion.
> >>
> >>No math books, then?
> >
> >
> > It would be interesting to see books like _The Rise and Fall of the
> > Third Reich: A Physics Perspective_ or _Physics and the Causes of the
> > Civil War_. Or maybe Bill Reich has Henry Ford's view of history.
>
> I don't know what Henry Ford said about history, but with the above
> categories I think those books would be filed under "Opinion" since we
> all know history is written by the winners ;)
Except for the Peloponnesian War, where virtualy all the history was
written by the losers...
David Tate
> Konrad Gaertner <kgae...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<40FD8B86...@worldnet.att.net>...
> > stePH wrote:
> > >
> > > My music theory teacher over ten years ago divided music into "art
> > > music" and "pop music." The distinction as he told it was, "pop music
> > > is done to make money."
> >
> > Yet I imagine John Williams makes more money than all this country's
> > folk singers put together.
> >
> If you mean John Williams the Star Wars composer and Boston Pops
> conductor, is that really "art music"?
Original film scores are generally considered formal music (or
'classical'). That's where Williams made his reputation.
Then again, folk singers aren't "pop music", either, except on rare
occasions where a singer or group gets popular enough to break into
the charts -- like Peter, Paul, and Mary in the US, or Steeleye Span
in the UK. I can't think of any recent examples.
David Tate
David Tate
> "Richard R. Hershberger" wrote:
>
> BTW, can anyone name a piece of classical music, or a classic work
> of literature that *wasn't* a commercial success before being named
> "classic"?
Classical music is easy. Bach's "Brandenberg Concerti", for example.
They were written as audition pieces for the Marquis of Brandenberg.
Bach lost, someone else got the job, and they were forgotten for a
long time. Indeed, Bach himself was pretty much forgotten, and much
less famous than a couple of his sons, until his 19th century
rediscovery by (among others) Mendelssohn.
> It doesn't have to be a success for the author/composer
Well, by definition, if we remember it today, it was a success at some
point. That's not quite the right test.
That said, I can't imagine that the works of Charles Ives or William
Schumann were ever commercially successful.
> (I already thought of Edgar Allan Poe).
Emily Dickinson and Edward Taylor both wrote private poetry that was
supposed to be destroyed upon their respective deaths, but (luckily)
wasn't.
David Tate