Salman Rushdie pans TTT, praise Gangs of NY
ver 3.1
As the world prepares for war, two extraordinary portraits of
human conflict have been offered at US movie theatres this
Christmas. Peter Jackson's The Two Towers, the second installment
of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and Martin Scorsese's Gangs of
New York are superficially similar because of their mutual interest
in battle; but they could not be more different...
[ snip ]
Like its precursor, The Fellowship of the Ring, Jackson's picture
is an improvement on its source material, if only because Jackson's
film language is subtler, more sophisticated and certainly more
contemporary than the stilted, deliberate archaisms of JRR Tolkien's
descriptive prose and, even more problematically, of his dialogue.
[ snip ]
Tolkien didn't like people calling his great work an allegory of the
battle against Adolf Hitler, but the echoes of the second world war,
the last just war, are everywhere.
[snip]
Scorsese's film offers no such extreme moral contrasts. As knife
goes up against cleaver, club against skull, nativist against
immigrant American, Protestant against Catholic, "good" and "evil"
seem almost irrelevant.
[snip]
This is a far braver, rarer vision than that of The Two Towers,
brilliant as the fantasy epic is.
[snip]
Ambiguity is out of fashion, however. We will be given a war of
heroes against villains at all costs. After all, The Two Towers
is a vast popular success, and Gangs of New York is doing no
better than modest business. Perhaps when the time for the Oscars
comes round, the academy will see fit to reward the more profound
complexities of the Scorsese movie.
from:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/artsandentertainment/story/0,6000,868101,00.html
Mark
Jeffrey C. Dege
>He liked "Gangs" better, but he certainly doesn't pan TTT.
He certainly manages to get every fact about Tolkien wrong, so I feel
pretty well justified in ignoring his opinions.
--
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within
limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add
'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's
will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
- Thomas Jefferson
Rick
"Jeffrey C. Dege" <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote in message
news:slrnb1ct9q...@jdege.visi.com...
> On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 21:40:07 -0800, Mark <nos...@thanksanyway.org> wrote:
> >He liked "Gangs" better, but he certainly doesn't pan TTT.
>
> He certainly manages to get every fact about Tolkien wrong, so I feel
> pretty well justified in ignoring his opinions.
>
I doubt anyone would know who the guy is if it weren't for the Islamic death
sentence thing.
Matt Austern
You're wrong. He was famous for _Midnight's Children_ long before
_The Satanic Verses_ was written.
Which doesn't mean that you have to like his writing, of course (have
you read him?), or that you have to agree with his opinions about
modern fantasy. But factually, he is famous for his writing.
David Johnston
>
> On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 21:40:07 -0800, Mark <nos...@thanksanyway.org> wrote:
> >He liked "Gangs" better, but he certainly doesn't pan TTT.
>
> He certainly manages to get every fact about Tolkien wrong, so I feel
> pretty well justified in ignoring his opinions.
In reading that article I note that it would be very difficult to
get every fact about Tolkien wrong, since he only gave one fact about
Tolkien, that Tolkien denied the World War II allegory interpretation of
his work. Since this fact is real, I'm not certain what you are talking
about.
Jim Boyer
"Matt Austern" <aus...@well.com> wrote in message
news:dil65t5...@mattlinux.localdomain...
I have read both of the books you mention, and about 1/2 of the last one as
well [_Fury_. It's actually awful, I would even dare say unreadable. Hence
my refusal to finish.] Midnight's Children was by far his best effort, and
that was twenty years ago. Some authors only have one book in them.
_Midnight's Children_ preceded _The Satanic Verses_ by eight years. Unless
you are quite young, that's not "long" before.
As to fame: that's also a relative thing, but you certainly can't be
claiming that he's _famous_ for his writing except in a pretty small circle.
If not for the fatwa, he would be a relatively obscure author. Joe and
Sally six-pack know about him from the six o'clock news. I wonder how many
people in this NG have even heard of _Midnight's Children_. I understand
you're wanting to advance his literary currency, but please. Factually, he
is _far_ more famous for a death sentence passed on him by a maniac.
And, he _does_ manage to get everything about Tolkien wrong: did he ever
really read Tolkien, or just pass along the reflexive "opinions" of his
intellectualoid friends?
Tolkien had one of the best replies to his critics I've ever seen from an
author, and it deserves a direct quote and not something from memory, but my
wife is asleep, so here goes off the top of my head, from the Foreword:
"A number of people who have read the book, or at any rate reviewed it, have
found it to be absurd, boring, or contemptible, and I have no cause to
complain, since I have a similar opinion of their work or the kind of
writing they evidently prefer."
I have my suspicions about what JRRT would have thought of Sal Bass's work,
or the kind or writing he evidently prefers...
Jim Boyer
"David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:3E167C...@telusplanet.net...
> Jeffrey C. Dege wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 21:40:07 -0800, Mark <nos...@thanksanyway.org> wrote:
> > >He liked "Gangs" better, but he certainly doesn't pan TTT.
> >
> > He certainly manages to get every fact about Tolkien wrong, so I feel
> > pretty well justified in ignoring his opinions.
[The fact that it's a review in the Guardian should have been your his clue
to ignore it.]
>
> In reading that article I note that it would be very difficult to
> get every fact about Tolkien wrong, since he only gave one fact about
> Tolkien, that Tolkien denied the World War II allegory interpretation of
> his work. Since this fact is real, I'm not certain what you are talking
> about.
>
You're splitting hairs. He gets a number of things wrong about Tolkien.
Tolkien denied the WWII allegory, and we should take an author on his word.
But we can also look at history. The real war does not resemble the
imaginary war, in its causes or its conclusions, certainly in none of its
Principals [or principles], so it is _not_ a fact at all.
Rushdie carelessly repeats the calumny that LotR is a shallow fable about
good vs. evil. Wrong.
He calls the dialog "tortured". That's his opinion, and he is wrong.
He says "Jackson's film language is subtler, more sophisticated". That's
bilge of the first order. Tolkien is to Jackson as jeweler's hammer is to
sledge. People on both sides of the debate in this NG have accused PJ of
lots of things, but subtle isn't one of them.
In fact, in _every_ paragraph that he mentions T2T, he manages to get
something wrong. See how easy it is if you actually read what somebody
writes?
Rushdie is simply regurgitating the fashionable opinion that "serious"
writers are supposed to vomit up when JRRT is mentioned. I doubt Sal Bass
has even read LotR, and I find it unlikely for that matter that he's even
seen the film.
Allan Griffith
jboy...@adelphia.net says...
> He calls the dialog "tortured". That's his opinion, and he is wrong.
You have the right to say his opinions differs from yours. You don't
have the right to say his opinion is wrong, since it's an opinion on a
matter of taste rather than of fact.
Al
z11
> is an improvement on its source material, if only because Jackson's
> film language is subtler, more sophisticated and certainly more
> contemporary than the stilted, deliberate archaisms of JRR Tolkien's
> descriptive prose and, even more problematically, of his dialogue.
What, is Rushdie bored with offending Muslims so now he's decided to move on
to Tolkien fans?
RogerM
Indeed. I nearly choked when I read that bit.
> Tolkien is to Jackson as jeweler's hammer is to
> sledge. People on both sides of the debate in this NG have accused PJ of
> lots of things, but subtle isn't one of them.
>
> In fact, in _every_ paragraph that he mentions T2T, he manages to get
> something wrong. See how easy it is if you actually read what somebody
> writes?
>
My regard for the man dropped considerably as a result of this thread.
>
> Rushdie is simply regurgitating the fashionable opinion that "serious"
> writers are supposed to vomit up when JRRT is mentioned. I doubt Sal Bass
> has even read LotR, and I find it unlikely for that matter that he's even
> seen the film.
Who is this Sal Bass, of whom you speak? The character from Seinfeld?
--
Real time doesn't have a pause key.
"Slow and steady" actually has a very poor winning percentage re: races.
"all you do is mate and sleep and eat and mate and...where do I sign up? - Homer
Simpson
God isn't dead, but he did just buy a condo in Florida.
RogerM
> What, is Rushdie bored with offending Muslims so now he's decided to move on
> to Tolkien fans?
Now he'll know what it is to deal with true fanatics.
Doug Haxton
Nitpick: he certainly has the *right* to say Rushdie's opinion is
wrong, or almost anything else, for that matter.
1st amendment and all that.
Doug
Jeffrey C. Dege
>"Rick" <sf.w...@verizon.net> writes:
>
>> I doubt anyone would know who the guy is if it weren't for the Islamic death
>> sentence thing.
>
>You're wrong. He was famous for _Midnight's Children_ long before
>_The Satanic Verses_ was written.
Famous?
Known among literary circles, perhaps. But that's not fame.
--
Those who would trade their essential Liberty for a perceived temporary
Security deserve neither Liberty nor Security.
- Benjamin Franklin
Orac
"Jim Boyer" <jboy...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> He says "Jackson's film language is subtler, more sophisticated". That's
> bilge of the first order. Tolkien is to Jackson as jeweler's hammer is to
> sledge. People on both sides of the debate in this NG have accused PJ of
> lots of things, but subtle isn't one of them.
Indeed. I nearly spit up my coffee when I read that line.
I really like Jackson's take on LotR for most instances, but there's
very little that's particularly subtle about it.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
Pradera
>>> He calls the dialog "tortured". That's his opinion, and he is wrong.
>>
>>You have the right to say his opinions differs from yours. You don't
>>have the right to say his opinion is wrong, since it's an opinion on a
>>matter of taste rather than of fact.
>
> Nitpick: he certainly has the *right* to say Rushdie's opinion is
> wrong, or almost anything else, for that matter.
>
> 1st amendment and all that.
>
And besides, it's only an opinion *grin*
--
Pradera
---
-Lynch was more true to the book!-
JXStern
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 11:17:32 3i
Xref: archiver1.google.com alt.fan.tolkien:154935 alt.politics.liberalism:323818 rec.arts.sf.written:330806
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 20:44:20 -0800 (PST), v...@deadmarshes.com (ver 3.1)
wrote:
>From a GUARDIAN article by Salman Rushdie
>
>As the world prepares for war, two extraordinary portraits of
>human conflict have been offered at US movie theatres this
>Christmas. Peter Jackson's The Two Towers, the second installment
>of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and Martin Scorsese's Gangs of
>New York are superficially similar because of their mutual interest
>in battle; but they could not be more different...
The Longest Day and Rocky are superficially similar because of their
mutual interest in battle; but they could not be more different ...
>Like its precursor, The Fellowship of the Ring, Jackson's picture
>is an improvement on its source material, if only because Jackson's
>film language is subtler, more sophisticated and certainly more
>contemporary than the stilted, deliberate archaisms of JRR Tolkien's
>descriptive prose and, even more problematically, of his dialogue.
Yes, I have heard academics criticize the stilted, deliberate
archaisms of Tolkien even before these movies were made. They seem to
assume it was not deliberate and a reasonable, perhaps necessary
element to achieving the certain unrealistic idealism that a mythic
story deals in.
>Ambiguity is out of fashion, however. We will be given a war of
>heroes against villains at all costs. After all, The Two Towers
>is a vast popular success, and Gangs of New York is doing no
>better than modest business. Perhaps when the time for the Oscars
>comes round, the academy will see fit to reward the more profound
>complexities of the Scorsese movie.
As someone said, since this appeared in the Guardian, one must assume
it was going to be idiotic. Thanks to the Internet, we Americans get
to share in its blessings that much more easily. Swell.
For another view of the complexities of Gangs:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110002849
'Gangs' vs. Mob
Scorsese confuses crime and protest.
BY ALLEN BARRA
Thursday, January 2, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST
Just in time for the holidays, Martin Scorsese's mangled, bloody
corpse of a movie, "Gangs of New York," was dumped on our doorstep for
our moral and aesthetic edification. The film's ads tell us that
"America was born in the streets," and the director has been seen all
over television telling us how our political system was "born in gang
wars." But "Gangs of New York" has as little to do with the realities
of American history as "Gone With the Wind."
...
Their only real legacy, as Asbury makes clear, was to pass on their
street smarts to a newer type of gangster who, in the 20th century,
would turn organized crime into a warped reflection of American free
enterprise. The last hero in Asbury's book is Owney "The Killer"
Madden, who, along with such worthies as Charles "Lucky" Luciano and
Meyer Lansky, would become an architect of the modern crime syndicate.
You might think that this is precisely the element that would have
appealed to the director of "Mean Streets" and "Goodfellas." But,
alas, in recent years he seems to have been struck by the dreaded
post-Coppola virus, which clouds judgment and fills filmmakers'
efforts with gassy Significance.
Viewers who come to "Gangs of New York" with scant knowledge of the
actual events are likely to emerge even more confused.
...
--
"Gassy Significance" is the stock in trade of such as Mr. Rushdie.
For that matter, so is confusion, aka "ambiguity" -- where it does not
exist, they complain and seek to introduce it.
J.
Nancy Lebovitz
>
>Scorsese's film offers no such extreme moral contrasts. As knife
>goes up against cleaver, club against skull, nativist against
>immigrant American, Protestant against Catholic, "good" and "evil"
>seem almost irrelevant.
>
>[snip]
>
>This is a far braver, rarer vision than that of The Two Towers,
>brilliant as the fantasy epic is.
>
>[snip]
>
>Ambiguity is out of fashion, however. We will be given a war of
>heroes against villains at all costs. After all, The Two Towers
>is a vast popular success, and Gangs of New York is doing no
>better than modest business. Perhaps when the time for the Oscars
>comes round, the academy will see fit to reward the more profound
>complexities of the Scorsese movie.
Somebody should send Rushdie a copy of A Song of Ice and Fire.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Bumper stickers *and* buttons
War is how Americans learn geography
Brian
"Nancy Lebovitz" <na...@unix1.netaxs.com> wrote in message
news:VpER9.1594$zi2.1...@newshog.newsread.com...
> In article <24l34747hjghj...@deadmarshes.com>,
> ver 3.1 <v...@deadmarshes.com> wrote:
> >From a GUARDIAN article by Salman Rushdie
> >[snip]
> >
> >Scorsese's film offers no such extreme moral contrasts. As knife
> >goes up against cleaver, club against skull, nativist against
> >immigrant American, Protestant against Catholic, "good" and "evil"
> >seem almost irrelevant.
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >This is a far braver, rarer vision than that of The Two Towers,
> >brilliant as the fantasy epic is.
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >Ambiguity is out of fashion, however. We will be given a war of
> >heroes against villains at all costs. After all, The Two Towers
> >is a vast popular success, and Gangs of New York is doing no
> >better than modest business. Perhaps when the time for the Oscars
> >comes round, the academy will see fit to reward the more profound
> >complexities of the Scorsese movie.
>
> Somebody should send Rushdie a copy of A Song of Ice and Fire.
I agree. That is the most mature of any fantasy series I have ever read.
Definitely not for children. The other thing I enjoyed is that characters
are portrayed in shdes of grey instead of black and white.
Jim Boyer
"RogerM" <rodger...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3E16E251...@ns.sympatico.ca...
> > Rushdie is simply regurgitating the fashionable opinion that "serious"
> > writers are supposed to vomit up when JRRT is mentioned. I doubt Sal
Bass
> > has even read LotR, and I find it unlikely for that matter that he's
even
> > seen the film.
>
> Who is this Sal Bass, of whom you speak? The character from Seinfeld?
>
Correct. Sal Bass is a putative Salman Rushdie that Kramer meets in a sauna
in the notorious "silicon valley" _Seinfeld_ episode. One hopes the ersatz
copy and not the real author wrote the review, which seems to me a
comparison between Scrosese's film on one hand, and the T2T movie trailer
advertisement on the other, with suppositions concerning the book from the
literary "cognoscenti" thrown in just to be nasty.
Jim Boyer
> z11 wrote:
>
> > What, is Rushdie bored with offending Muslims so now he's decided to
move on
> > to Tolkien fans?
>
> Now he'll know what it is to deal with true fanatics.
>
Yeh. If Salo could come up with the Quenya for "fatwa," I'm sure Louis
Epstein would issue it. [for the snide remarks about the book of course, not
the film.]
Beeblebear
"Brian" <blon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:itycnfrjVPb...@comcast.com...
The only thing that annoyed me about Song of Ice and Fire was that I thought
it was a trilogy.
Now I have to wait...
--
--
Chris Lyth (CL...@ifis.org.uk)
"I am become death, the shatter of worlds." -- Oppenheimer
Brian
"Beeblebear" <ch...@clyth.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:av7947$o3p$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Brian" <blon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:itycnfrjVPb...@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Nancy Lebovitz" <na...@unix1.netaxs.com> wrote in message
> > news:VpER9.1594$zi2.1...@newshog.newsread.com...
> > > In article <24l34747hjghj...@deadmarshes.com>,
> > > ver 3.1 <v...@deadmarshes.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Somebody should send Rushdie a copy of A Song of Ice and Fire.
> >
> > I agree. That is the most mature of any fantasy series I have ever
read.
> > Definitely not for children. The other thing I enjoyed is that
characters
> > are portrayed in shdes of grey instead of black and white.
> >
> >
> The only thing that annoyed me about Song of Ice and Fire was that I
thought
> it was a trilogy.
> Now I have to wait...
IIRC, Martin said it was going to be 5 books. The next one is due out by
Spring.
Konrad Gaertner
>
> From a GUARDIAN article by Salman Rushdie
>
>
> Like its precursor, The Fellowship of the Ring, Jackson's picture
> is an improvement on its source material, if only because Jackson's
> film language is subtler, more sophisticated and certainly more
> contemporary than the stilted, deliberate archaisms of JRR Tolkien's
> descriptive prose and, even more problematically, of his dialogue.
Bwahahahahahhahahahah
Thanks, I needed that laugh.
--KG
Louis Epstein
: From a GUARDIAN article by Salman Rushdie
: [ snip ]
: Like its precursor, The Fellowship of the Ring, Jackson's picture
: is an improvement on its source material,
With that assertion,all reason to read further evaporates.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Michael Grosberg
> From a GUARDIAN article by Salman Rushdie
>
>
> Like its precursor, The Fellowship of the Ring, Jackson's picture
> is an improvement on its source material, if only because Jackson's
> film language is subtler, more sophisticated and certainly more
> contemporary than the stilted, deliberate archaisms of JRR Tolkien's
> descriptive prose and, even more problematically, of his dialogue.
>
> [ snip ]
Now, what did you snip here? Let's see...
"I am a big fan of the book version of The Lord of the Rings, but
nobody ever read Tolkien for the writing."
> This is a far braver, rarer vision than that of The Two Towers,
> brilliant as the fantasy epic is.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is called "panning a movie"? I wonder what accounts as praising
it in your opinion - nothing short of calling it SuperMegaFabulous, I
suppose.
JXStern
Grosberg) wrote:
>This is called "panning a movie"?
This is coming down firmly on both sides of the issue.
J.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>"I am a big fan of the book version of The Lord of the Rings, but
>nobody ever read Tolkien for the writing."
Nonsense. While I'll freely admit that there's some bad writing in LOTR,
there's some very good writing, as well.
--
The true bureaucrat is a man of really remarkable talents. He writes
a kind of English that is unknown elsewhere in the world, and has an
almost infinite capacity for forming complicated and unworkable rules.
- H. L. Mencken
Öjevind Lång
> On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 07:14:01 GMT, Matt Austern <aus...@well.com> wrote:
> >"Rick" <sf.w...@verizon.net> writes:
> >
> >> I doubt anyone would know who the guy is if it weren't for the Islamic
death
> >> sentence thing.
> >
> >You're wrong. He was famous for _Midnight's Children_ long before
> >_The Satanic Verses_ was written.
>
> Famous?
>
> Known among literary circles, perhaps. But that's not fame.
He was a famous writer - like Mario Vargas Llosa, Günter Grass or John
Ashbery.
Öjevind
Jeffrey C. Dege
Names that not one in a thousand has heard, let alone read.
If you want famous authors, look at those who actually sell: i.e.,
John Grisham, Michael Crichton, Dean Koontz, Tom Clancy, Ken Follett,
Stephen King, Danielle Steel, etc.
--
The storm center of lawlessness in every American State is the State
Capitol. It is there that the worst crimes are committed; it is
there that lawbreaking attains to the estate and dignity of a learned
profession; it is there that contempt for the laws is engendered,
fostered and spread broadcast.
- H. L. Mencken
David D. Workman
Apparently so. I never thought I would have had common cause with rabid Islamic
Fundamentalists, but if I see Rushdie, that reward is going to be mine ;-)
David
Mike Schilling
news:slrnb1ena9...@jdege.visi.com...
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 22:51:36 +0100, Öjevind Lång <ojevin...@swipnet.se>
wrote:
> >"Jeffrey C. Dege" <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Famous?
> >>
> >> Known among literary circles, perhaps. But that's not fame.
> >
> >He was a famous writer - like Mario Vargas Llosa, Günter Grass or John
> >Ashbery.
>
> Names that not one in a thousand has heard, let alone read.
>
> If you want famous authors, look at those who actually sell: i.e.,
> John Grisham, Michael Crichton, Dean Koontz, Tom Clancy, Ken Follett,
> Stephen King, Danielle Steel, etc.
Being famous says anything important about a current writer, except the
state of his finances. Older writers are famous because their work
survived: Shakespeare, Dumas, Dickens, Tolstoy, Joyce, Faulkner, etc.
Rushdie probably has more chance of becoming that sort of famous writer than
any of the names you mentioned.
David Johnston
>
> "David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
> news:3E167C...@telusplanet.net..
> > >
> > > On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 21:40:07 -0800, Mark <nos...@thanksanyway.org> wrote:
> > > >He liked "Gangs" better, but he certainly doesn't pan TTT.
> > >
> > > He certainly manages to get every fact about Tolkien wrong, so I feel
> > > pretty well justified in ignoring his opinions.
>
> [The fact that it's a review in the Guardian should have been your his clue
> to ignore it.]
>
> >
> > In reading that article I note that it would be very difficult to
> > get every fact about Tolkien wrong, since he only gave one fact about
> > Tolkien, that Tolkien denied the World War II allegory interpretation of
> > his work. Since this fact is real, I'm not certain what you are talking
> > about.
> >
> You're splitting hairs. He gets a number of things wrong about Tolkien.
>
> Tolkien denied the WWII allegory, and we should take an author on his word.
> But we can also look at history. The real war does not resemble the
> imaginary war, in its causes or its conclusions, certainly in none of its
> Principals [or principles], so it is _not_ a fact at all.
You have not expressed yourself clearly.
>
> Rushdie carelessly repeats the calumny that LotR is a shallow fable about
> good vs. evil. Wrong.
>
> He calls the dialog "tortured". That's his opinion, and he is wrong.
Value judgements can't really be wrong. Just disagreed with.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>"Jeffrey C. Dege" <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote in message
>news:slrnb1ena9...@jdege.visi.com...
>> On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 22:51:36 +0100, Öjevind Lång <ojevin...@swipnet.se>
>wrote:
>> >"Jeffrey C. Dege" <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Famous?
>> >>
>> >> Known among literary circles, perhaps. But that's not fame.
>> >
>> >He was a famous writer - like Mario Vargas Llosa, Günter Grass or John
>> >Ashbery.
>>
>> Names that not one in a thousand has heard, let alone read.
>>
>> If you want famous authors, look at those who actually sell: i.e.,
>> John Grisham, Michael Crichton, Dean Koontz, Tom Clancy, Ken Follett,
>> Stephen King, Danielle Steel, etc.
>
>Being famous says anything important about a current writer, except the
>state of his finances.
I've said nothing about Rushdie's worth as an author. I don't consider
_any_ of the authors above to be good authors. But they are famous,
as Rushdie was not, prior to the Fatwah.
>Older writers are famous because their work
>survived: Shakespeare, Dumas, Dickens, Tolstoy, Joyce, Faulkner, etc.
>Rushdie probably has more chance of becoming that sort of famous writer than
>any of the names you mentioned.
Fame and immediate popularity are poor indicators of enduring worth in
an author. But the opinion of the self-annointed literary community is
of no more worth.
Shakespeare, Dumas, and Dickens were all of them disdained by the
literary critics of their day. Shakespeare pandered to the groundlings,
Dumas churned out popular pot-boilers by the thousands, Dickens wrote
sentimental crap, including a new Christmas Story, each and every year.
--
"[I]n fact, I didn't know that cats _could_ grin."
"They all can," said the Duchess; "and most of 'em do."
"I don't know of any that do," Alice said very politely, feeling quite
pleased to have gotten into a conversation.
"You don't know much," said the Duchess; "and that's a fact."
Christopher Adams
>> John Grisham, Michael Crichton, Dean Koontz, Tom Clancy, Ken Follett,
>> Stephen King, Danielle Steel, etc.
>
> Being famous says anything important about a current writer, except the
> state of his finances. Older writers are famous because their work
> survived: Shakespeare, Dumas, Dickens, Tolstoy, Joyce, Faulkner, etc.
In the case of at least Shakespeare and Dickens, their work has survived
because they were among the most astoundingly popular *and* talented
writers of their day. Both writers' works were absolutely devoured by their
fans, and both received a hell of a lot of critical commendation from their
peers.
Of that list of modern writers . . . I think perhaps only Stephen King is
successful and praised enough to last, but "survivabiity" is not really at
issue now. All of those writers' works will still be available five hundred
years from now, should anyone care to read them.
--
- Kit -
Darth Kent, the Man of Sith, Last Son of Kryptooine.
Outer space awaits our presence; we are
better and more unique creatures than this,
and all eternity is our playground.
- Bill Hicks
Chris Camfield
[snip]
>I have read both of the books you mention, and about 1/2 of the last one as
>well [_Fury_. It's actually awful, I would even dare say unreadable. Hence
>my refusal to finish.] Midnight's Children was by far his best effort, and
>that was twenty years ago. Some authors only have one book in them.
I know it's a slight volume in comparison, and a children's book to boot, but I
thought _Haroun and the Sea of Stories_ was quite delightful.
Chris
David Johnston
Cool. So you're saying that he was as famous as three guys I've never
heard of? I am impressed.
David Johnston
>
> "Jeffrey C. Dege" <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnb1ena9...@jdege.visi.com..
> > On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 22:51:36 +0100, Öjevind Lång <ojevin...@swipnet.se>
> wrote:
> > >"Jeffrey C. Dege" <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Famous?
> > >>
> > >> Known among literary circles, perhaps. But that's not fame.
> > >
> > >He was a famous writer - like Mario Vargas Llosa, Günter Grass or John
> > >Ashbery.
> >
> > Names that not one in a thousand has heard, let alone read.
> >
> > If you want famous authors, look at those who actually sell: i.e.,
> > John Grisham, Michael Crichton, Dean Koontz, Tom Clancy, Ken Follett,
> > Stephen King, Danielle Steel, etc.
>
> Being famous says anything important about a current writer, except the
> state of his finances. Older writers are famous because their work
> survived: Shakespeare, Dumas, Dickens, Tolstoy, Joyce, Faulkner, etc.
You know, Shakespeare, Dumas, Dickens and Faulkner were big best sellers
in their day. (Well, Shakespeare was a writer of plays that packed them
in but..."
> Rushdie probably has more chance of becoming that sort of famous writer than
> any of the names you mentioned.
I am quite confident that centuries from now, there will still be reprints
of at least some Stephen King and Danielle Steele books. And they'll still
outsell Joyce or Rushdie outside of university bookstores.
A.C.
news:zJwR9.43044$VA5.9...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> I have read both of the books you mention, and about 1/2 of the last one
as
> well [_Fury_. It's actually awful, I would even dare say unreadable.
Hence
> my refusal to finish.] Midnight's Children was by far his best effort, and
> that was twenty years ago. Some authors only have one book in them.
I thought the Moor's Last Sigh was quite good.
--
nomadi...@hotmail.com | http://nomadic.simspace.net
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand
Russell
Sydney Webb
"Jeffrey C. Dege" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 07:14:01 GMT, Matt Austern <aus...@well.com> wrote:
> >"Rick" <sf.w...@verizon.net> writes:
> >
> >> I doubt anyone would know who the guy is if it weren't for the Islamic death
> >> sentence thing.
> >
> >You're wrong. He was famous for _Midnight's Children_ long before
> >_The Satanic Verses_ was written.
>
> Famous?
>
> Known among literary circles, perhaps. But that's not fame.
Ah, sci-fi fans!
<Syd goes off to play Elvis Presley's "In the Ghetto">
- Syd
Craig Richardson
In other words, he was agreeing with Mr. Dege - "known among literary
circles". I've heard of both Vargas Llosa and Grass, and I associate
them very much with "literary circles" and not at all with "popular"
or "famous".
--Craig
--
Managing the Devil Rays is something like competing on "Iron Chef",
and having Chairman Kaga reveal a huge ziggurat of lint.
Gary Huckabay, Baseball Prospectus Online, August 21, 2002
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
> Shakespeare, Dumas, and Dickens were all of them disdained by the
> literary critics of their day. Shakespeare pandered to the groundlings,
> Dumas churned out popular pot-boilers by the thousands, Dickens wrote
> sentimental crap, including a new Christmas Story, each and every year.
Shakespeare was not disdained by the critics of his day. The only one who
criticized his works in writing was another playwright called Robert Greene,
and Greene was clearly doing it because of envy.
Öjevind
Öjevind Lång
You do realize what the obvious comeback to that one is, don't you?
Grass received the Nobel Prize for literature in 1999. His books have been
translated into many languages and sold in great numbers, and some of them
have been made into films.
Vargas Llosa has been translated into many languages and has been
nominated for the Nobel Prize over and over again. His books have sold in
great numbers. Like Grass, he is a first-class writer; I recommend you to
try reading him if you can tear yourself away from Ken Follett and Danielle
Steel for a while.
John Ashbery is probably the most famous living American poet. Certainly,
anyone studying literature at an American college or university is supposed
to know his name. And he too is a constant candidate for the Nobel Prize.
Öjevind
Pradera
>> > Known among literary circles, perhaps. But that's not fame.
>>
>> He was a famous writer - like Mario Vargas Llosa, G］ter Grass or John
>> Ashbery.
>
> Cool. So you're saying that he was as famous as three guys I've never
> heard of? I am impressed.
...
(put anything mildly insulting your wisdom here)
--
Pradera
---
-Lynch was more true to the book!-
Allan Griffith
says...
> If you want famous authors, look at those who actually sell: i.e.,
> John Grisham, Michael Crichton, Dean Koontz, Tom Clancy, Ken Follett,
> Stephen King, Danielle Steel, etc.
So most people read trash like Grisham and Clancy. What does that prove?
Al
wamccabe
"Jim Boyer" <jboy...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:zJwR9.43044$VA5.9...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>
> news:dil65t5...@mattlinux.localdomain...
> > "Rick" <sf.w...@verizon.net> writes:
> >
> > > "Jeffrey C. Dege" <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote in message
> > > news:slrnb1ct9q...@jdege.visi.com...
> > You're wrong. He was famous for _Midnight's Children_ long before
> > _The Satanic Verses_ was written.
> >
> > Which doesn't mean that you have to like his writing, of course (have
> > you read him?), or that you have to agree with his opinions about
> > modern fantasy. But factually, he is famous for his writing.
>
> _Midnight's Children_ preceded _The Satanic Verses_ by eight years.
Unless
> you are quite young, that's not "long" before.
>
> As to fame: that's also a relative thing, but you certainly can't be
> claiming that he's _famous_ for his writing except in a pretty small
circle.
> If not for the fatwa, he would be a relatively obscure author. Joe and
> Sally six-pack know about him from the six o'clock news. I wonder how
many
> people in this NG have even heard of _Midnight's Children_. I understand
> you're wanting to advance his literary currency, but please. Factually,
he
> is _far_ more famous for a death sentence passed on him by a maniac.
>
I've not read anything of Rushdie's but I had heard of him from Midnight's
Children. The book won some kind of award. It was "literary" fantasy at the
time when there seemed to be a minor boom in such things (Angela Carter's
fairy tales, Doris Lessing's awful SF series) which made it the sort of
thing that UK SF fans would recommend to people. Of course he's better known
for the fatwa but how many writers make it to the news anyway. The same
could be said of Cat Stevens - a minor songwriter of the late 60s - who
offered a bounty for anyone who would accomplish the fatwa on Rushdie.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.410 / Virus Database: 231 - Release Date: 31/10/2002
Pradera
> The same
> could be said of Cat Stevens - a minor songwriter of the late 60s - who
> offered a bounty for anyone who would accomplish the fatwa on Rushdie.
>
Minor Songwriter? MINOR SONGWRITER ???
*falls into Cat Stevens fan's frenzy*
Jereeza
>> He was a famous writer - like Mario Vargas Llosa, Günter Grass or John
>> Ashbery.
>
>Cool. So you're saying that he was as famous as three guys I've never
>heard of? I am impressed.
Errrrrrrrrr... I think you should have kept quiet about
this. Now run to the library and learn a thing or two.
Disappointed,
Mia
--
www.thereisnoy.com
www.theonering.net
[to mail, remove spam]
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>You do realize what the obvious comeback to that one is, don't you?
> Grass received the Nobel Prize for literature in 1999. His books have been
>translated into many languages and sold in great numbers, and some of them
>have been made into films.
> Vargas Llosa has been translated into many languages and has been
>nominated for the Nobel Prize over and over again. His books have sold in
>great numbers. Like Grass, he is a first-class writer; I recommend you to
>try reading him if you can tear yourself away from Ken Follett and Danielle
>Steel for a while.
> John Ashbery is probably the most famous living American poet. Certainly,
>anyone studying literature at an American college or university is supposed
>to know his name. And he too is a constant candidate for the Nobel Prize.
And all three of them together combined are known to fewer people than
Tom Clancy, and have sold fewer books.
Admittedly, Clancy started off as a mediocre writer, and has become
worse as he became more famous.
And Clancy isn't in any sense an important writer. I could make a fair
argument that Vargas Llosa is the second most important living writer,
after Vaclac Havel, but the conversation wasn't about quality, or about
importance, but about fame.
--
When a clever man was stupid, he was stupid in a way a man who was
stupid all the time could never hope to match, for the clever man's
stupidity, drawing as it did on so much more knowledge, had a breadth
and depth to it the run-of-the-mill fool found impossible to duplicate.
-- Harry Turtledove
Jeffrey C. Dege
That Grisham and Clancy are more famous.
Allan Griffith
says...
> >So most people read trash like Grisham and Clancy. What does that prove?
>
> That Grisham and Clancy are more famous.
Which we already knew. This is really a thread about nothing, isn't it?
Al
Jette Goldie
"Matt Austern" <aus...@well.com> wrote in message
news:dil65t5...@mattlinux.localdomain...
> "Rick" <sf.w...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> > "Jeffrey C. Dege" <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote in message
> > news:slrnb1ct9q...@jdege.visi.com...
> > > On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 21:40:07 -0800, Mark <nos...@thanksanyway.org>
wrote:
> > >
> > > He certainly manages to get every fact about Tolkien wrong, so I feel
> > > pretty well justified in ignoring his opinions.
> > >
> >
death
> > sentence thing.
>
> _The Satanic Verses_ was written.
Actually "Midnight's Children" is his ONLY readable book, IMHO.
Yes I read that book long long before the fatwah was declared
on him. Liked it so much I tried reading his other works - and
realised what they say is true "everyone has A book in them -
but most only have one."
--
Jette
(aka Vinyaduriel)
"Work for Peace and remain fiercely loving" - Jim Byrnes
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://bosslady.tripod.com/fanfic.html
Jette Goldie
"Pradera" <pra...@pradera.prv.pl> wrote in message
news:Xns92FA95957CE18p...@130.133.1.4...
> On 04 sty 2003, "wamccabe" <wamc...@ic24.net> scribbled loosely:
>
> > The same
> > could be said of Cat Stevens - a minor songwriter of the late 60s - who
> > offered a bounty for anyone who would accomplish the fatwa on Rushdie.
> >
>
> Minor Songwriter? MINOR SONGWRITER ???
>
> *falls into Cat Stevens fan's frenzy*
>
<g> To a child of the late 70s or later Cat Stevens would
come across as a "minor" songwriter. Only us aging
hippies remember how much influence he had on music
of the time.
(well, I suppose the young "wish-we-had-been-hippies"
might feel the same)
Jette Goldie
"Jeffrey C. Dege" <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote in message
news:slrnb1ena9...@jdege.visi.com...
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 22:51:36 +0100, Öjevind Lång <ojevin...@swipnet.se>
wrote:
> >"Jeffrey C. Dege" <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Famous?
> >>
> >> Known among literary circles, perhaps. But that's not fame.
> >
> >He was a famous writer - like Mario Vargas Llosa, Günter Grass or John
> >Ashbery.
>
> Names that not one in a thousand has heard, let alone read.
>
OK, I must know a lot of "one in a thousand people" then ;-)
> If you want famous authors, look at those who actually sell: i.e.,
> John Grisham, Michael Crichton, Dean Koontz, Tom Clancy, Ken Follett,
> Stephen King, Danielle Steel, etc.
ah yes, the "mental chewing gum" writers - their "best selling"
books make the top of the bookselling "charts" - where they
stay for a month or so....... but the "classic" writers rarely
make those charts - yet in the long run outsell anything by
the "chart-toppers" and are consistantly reprinted.
Jette Goldie
> On Sun, 05 Jan 2003 01:46:05 GMT, Mike Schilling
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"Jeffrey C. Dege" <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote in message
> >news:slrnb1ena9...@jdege.visi.com...
> >> On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 22:51:36 +0100, Öjevind Lång
<ojevin...@swipnet.se>
> >wrote:
> >> >"Jeffrey C. Dege" <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Famous?
> >> >>
> >> >> Known among literary circles, perhaps. But that's not fame.
> >> >
> >> >He was a famous writer - like Mario Vargas Llosa, Günter Grass or John
> >> >Ashbery.
> >>
> >> Names that not one in a thousand has heard, let alone read.
> >>
> >> If you want famous authors, look at those who actually sell: i.e.,
> >> John Grisham, Michael Crichton, Dean Koontz, Tom Clancy, Ken Follett,
> >> Stephen King, Danielle Steel, etc.
> >
> >Being famous says anything important about a current writer, except the
> >state of his finances.
>
> I've said nothing about Rushdie's worth as an author. I don't consider
> _any_ of the authors above to be good authors. But they are famous,
> as Rushdie was not, prior to the Fatwah.
Uh, maybe he wasn't "famous" where you live, but he was
definately famous here in the UK. If he'd been an unknown
the "Satanic Verses" wouldn't even have been noticed by
the Islamic fundamentalists - it was his fame that caused the
problem. As a famous writer, his book could be expected
to be read widely and therefore cause more *damage* than
something by an unknown.
Jette Goldie
>
> "RogerM" <rodger...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3E16E2B1...@ns.sympatico.ca...
> > z11 wrote:
> >
> > > What, is Rushdie bored with offending Muslims so now he's decided to
> move on
> > > to Tolkien fans?
> >
> >
>
> Yeh. If Salo could come up with the Quenya for "fatwa," I'm sure Louis
> Epstein would issue it. [for the snide remarks about the book of course,
not
> the film.]
>
As Mr Salo has been involved in the Peter Jackson movie
project, would Mr Epstein even deign to acknowledge him
these days? ;-)
Joe Mason
>> >He was a famous writer - like Mario Vargas Llosa, Günter Grass or John
>> >Ashbery.
>>
>> Names that not one in a thousand has heard, let alone read.
>>
>
> OK, I must know a lot of "one in a thousand people" then ;-)
Of course. People with similar interests tend to cluster.
Joe
Öjevind Lång
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 10:51:27 +0100, Öjevind Lång <ojevin...@swipnet.se>
wrote:
> >
> >You do realize what the obvious comeback to that one is, don't you?
> > Grass received the Nobel Prize for literature in 1999. His books have
been
> >translated into many languages and sold in great numbers, and some of
them
> >have been made into films.
> > Vargas Llosa has been translated into many languages and has been
> >nominated for the Nobel Prize over and over again. His books have sold in
> >great numbers. Like Grass, he is a first-class writer; I recommend you to
> >try reading him if you can tear yourself away from Ken Follett and
Danielle
> >Steel for a while.
> > John Ashbery is probably the most famous living American poet.
Certainly,
> >anyone studying literature at an American college or university is
supposed
> >to know his name. And he too is a constant candidate for the Nobel Prize.
>
> And all three of them together combined are known to fewer people than
> Tom Clancy, and have sold fewer books.
If "being known to everyone" and "selling millions of copies" are the only
criteria for a famous writer, then I doubt that Shakespeare or Dickens (or
Dostoyevsky! Or Shaw!) qualify as famous writers even today. I think that
when one speaks about a famous writer, one has a right to think primarily of
writers well-known among people interested in literature above the level of
popular mass literature. Yes, I do realize that *you* are interested in
quality literature. But when someone declares that people like Grass or
Vargas Llosa are not famous writers, then something is wrong with the
definitions they use.
To pick a parallel: I am rather ignorant about athletics. If I do not
recognize the name of a famous athlete, does that mean he is not a famous
athlete?
Öjevind
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
> Actually "Midnight's Children" is his ONLY readable book, IMHO.
Agreed. Like you, I started reading it long before the fatwa. Though, truth
to tell, I was not too wild about that one either.
Öjevind
David Johnston
>
> Once upon a time, more precisely on Sun, 05 Jan 2003
> 05:23:39 GMT, David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net>
> decided to release into cyberspace:
>
> >> He was a famous writer - like Mario Vargas Llosa, Günter Grass or John
> >> Ashbery.
> >
> >Cool. So you're saying that he was as famous as three guys I've never
> >heard of? I am impressed.
>
> Errrrrrrrrr... I think you should have kept quiet about
> this.
Why? Are they household names? Has everyone heard of them
except me?
>Now run to the library and learn a thing or two.
Thank you for the sneer. May I have another?
Mike Schilling
>
> > The same
> > could be said of Cat Stevens - a minor songwriter of the late 60s - who
> > offered a bounty for anyone who would accomplish the fatwa on Rushdie.
> >
>
> Minor Songwriter? MINOR SONGWRITER ???
>
> *falls into Cat Stevens fan's frenzy*
OK, minor singer/songwriter <ducks>
Matthew Bladen
news:8t%R9.1361$EG4...@nntpserver.swip.net...
I thoroughly enjoyed his book for children, 'Haroun and the Sea of Stories.'
--
Matthew
David Bilek
>
>Actually "Midnight's Children" is his ONLY readable book, IMHO.
>
>Yes I read that book long long before the fatwah was declared
>on him. Liked it so much I tried reading his other works - and
>realised what they say is true "everyone has A book in them -
>but most only have one."
"What they say" is stupid. The vast majority of people don't have a
single book in them. And most of those who have a book have more than
one.
-David
coyotes morgan mair fheal
Goldie" <j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
> "Pradera" <pra...@pradera.prv.pl> wrote in message
> news:Xns92FA95957CE18p...@130.133.1.4...
> > On 04 sty 2003, "wamccabe" <wamc...@ic24.net> scribbled loosely:
> >
> > > The same
> > > could be said of Cat Stevens - a minor songwriter of the late 60s - who
> > > offered a bounty for anyone who would accomplish the fatwa on Rushdie.
> > >
> >
> > Minor Songwriter? MINOR SONGWRITER ???
> >
> > *falls into Cat Stevens fan's frenzy*
> >
>
>
> <g> To a child of the late 70s or later Cat Stevens would
> come across as a "minor" songwriter. Only us aging
> hippies remember how much influence he had on music
> of the time.
i decided he was not so great after trying to make excuses
for people wanting to kill rushdie
(then again he wasnt doing music by then anyway)
after all regardless of my opinion of islam
i dont go around demanding moslems be burnt at the stake
coyotes morgan mair fheal
> > John Grisham, Michael Crichton, Dean Koontz, Tom Clancy, Ken Follett,
> > Stephen King, Danielle Steel, etc.
>
> ah yes, the "mental chewing gum" writers - their "best selling"
> books make the top of the bookselling "charts" - where they
> stay for a month or so....... but the "classic" writers rarely
> make those charts - yet in the long run outsell anything by
> the "chart-toppers" and are consistantly reprinted.
in which category would you place jrr tolkien?
Jette Goldie
"Joe Mason" <j...@notcharles.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnb1gvl...@gate.notcharles.ca...
LOL - I work in a large civil service office - most of my fellow
employees left school with minimum O grades, none are
what one would call "literary" - I'm normally considered the
"odd-bod"........ but even they know Gunter Grass and Mario
Vargas Llosa (we were having a conversation about favourite
writers and books just before Xmas, so I know this)(most
of them haven't *read* said authors and could barely spell
their names, but they do *know of* them)
Very few of them have read Tolkien (to be honest I'm the only
one - though several say their kids are big fans) but they
all enjoyed the movies enough to *want to think about*
reading his work.
Pradera
scribbled loosely:
>> > > The same
>> > > could be said of Cat Stevens - a minor songwriter of the late 60s
>> > > - who offered a bounty for anyone who would accomplish the fatwa
>> > > on Rushdie.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Minor Songwriter? MINOR SONGWRITER ???
>> >
>> > *falls into Cat Stevens fan's frenzy*
>> >
>>
>>
>> <g> To a child of the late 70s or later Cat Stevens would
>> come across as a "minor" songwriter. Only us aging
>> hippies remember how much influence he had on music
>> of the time.
>
> i decided he was not so great after trying to make excuses
> for people wanting to kill rushdie
> (then again he wasnt doing music by then anyway)
>
Indeed, that says nothing about him as a musician. I seriously can't
grasp the idea how political/religious/sociological views of an artist
can have any impact on his works as an artist (as long as he doesn't
promote these views through his art)...
Jette Goldie
"coyotes morgan mair fheal" <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mair_fheal-05...@c5.ppp.tsoft.com...
Me personally, or what the sales figures show?
In both cases "classic" - the books have been selling
consistantly for decades, being reprinted and read
by sucessive generations. You don't see many copies
of LotR in the "remaindered books" bins - unlike Clancy,
King and Steele.
Their current place at the top of the "best selling" charts
is something of an anomaly, caused solely by the movies.
coyotes morgan mair fheal
> >> come across as a "minor" songwriter. Only us aging
> >> hippies remember how much influence he had on music
> >> of the time.
> >
> > i decided he was not so great after trying to make excuses
> > for people wanting to kill rushdie
> > (then again he wasnt doing music by then anyway)
> >
>
> Indeed, that says nothing about him as a musician. I seriously can't
> grasp the idea how political/religious/sociological views of an artist
> can have any impact on his works as an artist (as long as he doesn't
> promote these views through his art)...
in many countries if a boy had grown up in the established religion
started singing songs and changed his religion
he could get himself executed as a heretic or apostate
in england stevens was permitted to follow his own mind
and along comes someone else doing the same
and stevens finds excuses why thats condemned
i see it as hypocrisy and that tarnishes the whole man
taking the advanrage of a liberal society is okay for stevens
but not okay for rushdie?
coyotes morgan mair fheal
Goldie" <j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
> "coyotes morgan mair fheal" <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:mair_fheal-05...@c5.ppp.tsoft.com...
> > > > If you want famous authors, look at those who actually sell: i.e.,
> > > > John Grisham, Michael Crichton, Dean Koontz, Tom Clancy, Ken Follett,
> > > > Stephen King, Danielle Steel, etc.
> > >
> > > ah yes, the "mental chewing gum" writers - their "best selling"
> > > books make the top of the bookselling "charts" - where they
> > > stay for a month or so....... but the "classic" writers rarely
> > > make those charts - yet in the long run outsell anything by
> > > the "chart-toppers" and are consistantly reprinted.
> >
> > in which category would you place jrr tolkien?
>
> Me personally, or what the sales figures show?
conside the thread subject
people have to divide authors into literature and trash
but people dont seem to agree on which is which
because aft is perpetually stuck in the 1930s
judging everything against an austrian corporal
i will mention the art shows of that time that divided the art world
into good art and bad art
and nowadays people still do the same with the same paintings
but they just reverse the labels
i have seen those i judge some of the good-art god and some bad
and some the bad-art bad and some good
theres room in the world for forthright celebration of the best of humanity
and a clear presentation of good and evil
and theres also room for addressing the complexity and ambiguities that beset us
and for acknowledge the worst of humanity
Sean O'Hara
>
> Shakespeare, Dumas, and Dickens were all of them disdained by the
> literary critics of their day. Shakespeare pandered to the groundlings,
No, Shakespeare was well liked by the English critics of his day
with only one or two exceptions. The major attacks on him came
much later from the French who disliked his disregard for the
Aristotlian Unities.
--
Sean O'Hara
Donnie: Why do you wear that stupid rabbit suit?
Frank: Why do you wear that stupid man suit?
--Richard Kelly, "Donnie Darko"
Sean O'Hara
>
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 10:51:27 +0100, Öjevind Lång <ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote:
> >
> >You do realize what the obvious comeback to that one is, don't you?
> > Grass received the Nobel Prize for literature in 1999. His books have been
> >translated into many languages and sold in great numbers, and some of them
> >have been made into films.
> > Vargas Llosa has been translated into many languages and has been
> >nominated for the Nobel Prize over and over again. His books have sold in
> >great numbers. Like Grass, he is a first-class writer; I recommend you to
> >try reading him if you can tear yourself away from Ken Follett and Danielle
> >Steel for a while.
> > John Ashbery is probably the most famous living American poet. Certainly,
> >anyone studying literature at an American college or university is supposed
> >to know his name. And he too is a constant candidate for the Nobel Prize.
>
> And all three of them together combined are known to fewer people than
> Tom Clancy, and have sold fewer books.
>
doesn't mean they they aren't famous. Just because I'm shorter
than Manute Bol doesn't mean that I'm not tall.
Matt Austern
> "Jeffrey C. Dege" <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnb1ena9...@jdege.visi.com...
> > On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 22:51:36 +0100, Öjevind Lång <ojevin...@swipnet.se>
> wrote:
> > >"Jeffrey C. Dege" <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Famous?
> > >>
> > >> Known among literary circles, perhaps. But that's not fame.
> > >
> > >He was a famous writer - like Mario Vargas Llosa, Günter Grass or John
> > >Ashbery.
> >
> > Names that not one in a thousand has heard, let alone read.
> >
>
> OK, I must know a lot of "one in a thousand people" then ;-)
>
> > If you want famous authors, look at those who actually sell: i.e.,
> > John Grisham, Michael Crichton, Dean Koontz, Tom Clancy, Ken Follett,
> > Stephen King, Danielle Steel, etc.
>
> ah yes, the "mental chewing gum" writers - their "best selling"
> books make the top of the bookselling "charts" - where they
> stay for a month or so....... but the "classic" writers rarely
> make those charts - yet in the long run outsell anything by
> the "chart-toppers" and are consistantly reprinted.
Oh, no need to denigrate those writers. They're famous too, and at
least some of them have written some good books. (Clancy wrote one
good book; King is underrated in general; I haven't read any Crichton
book that I liked, but maybe I just haven't read the right one.)
It's too early to say whether most of the writers mentioned above
will be considered classics in the future: most of them are too
recent. Günter Grass has lasted, although I have the sense that he's
not as popular as he once was. And, of course, Tolkien has lasted.
My guess is that Rushdie and King will too; no guesses about any of
the others.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>"Jeffrey C. Dege" wrote:
>>
>> Shakespeare, Dumas, and Dickens were all of them disdained by the
>> literary critics of their day. Shakespeare pandered to the groundlings,
>
>No, Shakespeare was well liked by the English critics of his day
>with only one or two exceptions. The major attacks on him came
>much later from the French who disliked his disregard for the
>Aristotlian Unities.
Dumas, on the other hand, ran a pulp-fiction factory, that churned out
popular pot-boilers by the thousand.
--
The great misfortune of the twentieth Century is to have been the one in
which the ideal of liberty was harnessed to the service of tyranny, the
ideal of equality to the service of privilege, and all the aspirations and
social forces included under the label of the "Left" enrolled in the service
of impoverishment and enslavement. This immense imposture has falsified most
of this century, partly through the faults of some of its greatest
intellectuals. It has corrupted the language and action of politics down to
tiny details of vocabulary, it has inverted the sense of morality and
enthroned falsehood in the very center of human thought.
- The Flight From Truth: The Reign of Deceit in the Age of Information
1991, Random House Jean Francois-Revel
the softrat
<agri4042@REMOVE_THIS.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>In article <slrnb1ena9...@jdege.visi.com>, jd...@jdege.visi.com
>says...
>> If you want famous authors, look at those who actually sell: i.e.,
>> John Grisham, Michael Crichton, Dean Koontz, Tom Clancy, Ken Follett,
>> Stephen King, Danielle Steel, etc.
>
>So most people read trash like Grisham and Clancy. What does that prove?
>
That most people are proles and peasants.
*I* don't read that stuff!
the softrat "Wannabe orcodentist"
==>Bakshi is Better!<==
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me
with questions?
the softrat
<ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>"David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
>> Cool. So you're saying that he was as famous as three guys I've never
>> heard of? I am impressed.
>
>You do realize what the obvious comeback to that one is, don't you?
> Grass received the Nobel Prize for literature in 1999. His books have been
>translated into many languages and sold in great numbers, and some of them
>have been made into films.
> Vargas Llosa has been translated into many languages and has been
>nominated for the Nobel Prize over and over again. His books have sold in
>great numbers. Like Grass, he is a first-class writer; I recommend you to
>try reading him if you can tear yourself away from Ken Follett and Danielle
>Steel for a while.
> John Ashbery is probably the most famous living American poet. Certainly,
>anyone studying literature at an American college or university is supposed
>to know his name. And he too is a constant candidate for the Nobel Prize.
>
But David Johnston has never heard of them so they *must* be
insignificant. BTW, I bet that David Johnston has heard of Spiderman
and other fine 'graphic novels'.
the softrat "Wannabe orcodentist"
==>Bakshi is Better!<==
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
God? I'm no God! God has MERCY!
coyotes morgan mair fheal
> insignificant. BTW, I bet that David Johnston has heard of Spiderman
> and other fine 'graphic novels'.
they are fine graphic novels
not quite up to the level of deadbone or idylls
the collective unconscienceous of odd bodkins
but theyll do
Pradera
> But David Johnston has never heard of them so they *must* be
> insignificant. BTW, I bet that David Johnston has heard of Spiderman
> and other fine 'graphic novels'.
Tsk, tsk. There's nothing wrong with graphic novels.
David Bilek
>
>
>LOL - I work in a large civil service office - most of my fellow
>employees left school with minimum O grades, none are
>what one would call "literary" - I'm normally considered the
>"odd-bod"........ but even they know Gunter Grass and Mario
>Vargas Llosa (we were having a conversation about favourite
>writers and books just before Xmas, so I know this)(most
>of them haven't *read* said authors and could barely spell
>their names, but they do *know of* them)
>
>Very few of them have read Tolkien (to be honest I'm the only
>one - though several say their kids are big fans) but they
>all enjoyed the movies enough to *want to think about*
>reading his work.
You know more people that have read Mario Vargas Llosa than Tolkien
and you're not absolutely convinced you're unrepresentative?
-David
Jette Goldie
"Matt Austern" <aus...@well.com> wrote in message
news:dilisx3...@mattlinux.localdomain...
Absolutely nothing wrong with "mental chewing gum" books
- as my old English teacher, Miss Lithgow used to say, when
folks derided many popular books as *mental chewing gum*
"it may be chewing gum - but it keeps the mental teeth in
shape for the mental steak pie".
:-)
She taught several successful British authors in her
time.
the softrat
<j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
>
><g> To a child of the late 70s or later Cat Stevens would
>come across as a "minor" songwriter. Only us aging
>hippies remember how much influence he had on music
>of the time.
>
young Cat Stevens is merely the caterwauling of puling infants.
Telemann and Vivaldi Forever!!
(or even Frank Sinatra)
David Bilek
>On Sun, 05 Jan 2003 15:22:55 -0500, Sean O'Hara <darkerthenightth...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>"Jeffrey C. Dege" wrote:
>>>
>>> Shakespeare, Dumas, and Dickens were all of them disdained by the
>>> literary critics of their day. Shakespeare pandered to the groundlings,
>>
>>No, Shakespeare was well liked by the English critics of his day
>>with only one or two exceptions. The major attacks on him came
>>much later from the French who disliked his disregard for the
>>Aristotlian Unities.
>
>Dumas, on the other hand, ran a pulp-fiction factory, that churned out
>popular pot-boilers by the thousand.
Dumas = Tom Clancy, to an almost one to one equivalence.
Will "The Hunt for Red October" be the _Three Musketeers_ of the 20th
Century?
-David
David Bilek
You, on the other hand, reveal yourself to be a priggish snob.
-David
the softrat
wrote:
>
>"What they say" is stupid. The vast majority of people don't have a
>single book in them. And most of those who have a book have more than
>one.
>
the softrat "Wannabe orcodentist"
==>Bakshi is Better!<==
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
After things go from bad to worse, the cycle will repeat itself.
Jeffrey C. Dege
Quite possibly. Dumas wrote a handful of moderately interesting books,
for all of the turgid crap that was most of his output. Clancy has done
the same.
(When the last movie version of "The Man in the Iron Mask" was released,
I went looking for the Musketeer trilogy. Of the five books (the third
book is always published as three separate parts) two of them were out
of print.)
--
And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted
so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should
have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty, for liberty
is an acknowledgement of faith in God and His works.
- Frederic Bastiat
Matthew Bladen
news:sibh1vo9t08bsm0bp...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 05 Jan 2003 19:34:45 GMT, David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >"What they say" is stupid. The vast majority of people don't have a
> >single book in them. And most of those who have a book have more than
> >one.
> >
> Hey! Even *I* have a book in me. I ate it for Thanksgiving!
*sigh* When the reviewer said the book was a turkey, what he MEANT
was...
--
Matthew
Jette Goldie
"David Bilek" <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote
> You know more people that have read Mario Vargas Llosa than Tolkien
> and you're not absolutely convinced you're unrepresentative?
>
> -David
I suppose it depends on where you are and what you
expect to be *representative* of ;-)
David Bilek
>"David Bilek" <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote
>> You know more people that have read Mario Vargas Llosa than Tolkien
>> and you're not absolutely convinced you're unrepresentative?
>>
>
>expect to be *representative* of ;-)
One would presume you to be in the UK from your e-mail address, and
representative tends to refer to "the general populace".
Which is the only pool that matters for the word "famous".
Unless... when polled, nearly 80% of my friends recognized my name,
does that make me famous?
-David
Jette Goldie
"David Bilek" <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:vadh1vo3lftb4egdj...@4ax.com...
Probably more like "infamous" <g>
It's embarrassing when complete strangers walk up to you
at SF conventions and say "oh YOU'RE the famous Jette
Goldie we've all heard about" (and I think "oh sh*t - what
have you heard about me?")
Öjevind Lång
> Jereeza wrote:
> >
> > Once upon a time, more precisely on Sun, 05 Jan 2003
> > 05:23:39 GMT, David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net>
> > decided to release into cyberspace:
> >
> > >> He was a famous writer - like Mario Vargas Llosa, Günter Grass or
John
> > >> Ashbery.
> > >
> > >Cool. So you're saying that he was as famous as three guys I've never
> > >heard of? I am impressed.
> >
> > Errrrrrrrrr... I think you should have kept quiet about
> > this.
>
> Why? Are they household names? Has everyone heard of them
> except me?
All *educated* people have.
Öjevind
Jeffrey C. Dege
>"David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
>> except me?
>
>All *educated* people have.
Only for strictly limited values of "educated".
--
Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he
is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not
make messes in the house.
-- Robert Heinlein
coyotes morgan mair fheal
<ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote:
you mean like dijkstra or backus or wirth or van wijngarten or knuth
or the rice university optimizer crowd or mhelhorn or richie
or tanebaum or or or
Brian
Who is Gordon Moore? Joseph Henry? Sidney Darlington?
What is a z-transform?
Not all people get educated in the same field of study.
CleV
<j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
>"Pradera" <pra...@pradera.prv.pl> wrote in message
>news:Xns92FA95957CE18p...@130.133.1.4...
>> On 04 sty 2003, "wamccabe" <wamc...@ic24.net> scribbled loosely:
>> > The same
>> > could be said of Cat Stevens - a minor songwriter of the late 60s - who
>> > offered a bounty for anyone who would accomplish the fatwa on Rushdie.
>> Minor Songwriter? MINOR SONGWRITER ???
>> *falls into Cat Stevens fan's frenzy*
><g> To a child of the late 70s or later Cat Stevens would
>come across as a "minor" songwriter. Only us aging
>hippies remember how much influence he had on music
>of the time.
>(well, I suppose the young "wish-we-had-been-hippies"
>might feel the same)
Since Father and Son was revived by Boyzone, surely he's still
relevant in the present? :-)
David Tate
> John Ashbery is probably the most famous living American poet.
Oh, dear Jesus, I hope not.
(Almost certainly not true, though. Isn't Allen Ginsburg still
alive?)
> Certainly,
> anyone studying literature at an American college or university is supposed
> to know his name. And he too is a constant candidate for the Nobel Prize.
Alas, the Emperor has no clothes. I'm a sympathetic reader, when it
comes to poetry, but I have yet to find anything in Ashbery worth
remembering, much less praising. There's no there there.
David Tate
David Tate
> Value judgements can't really be wrong.
Sure they can. They just can't be *proven* wrong.
David Tate
Joe Mason
>> > Why? Are they household names? Has everyone heard of them
>> > except me?
>>
>> All *educated* people have.
>
> you mean like dijkstra or backus or wirth or van wijngarten or knuth
> or the rice university optimizer crowd or mhelhorn or richie
I don't think they count unless you name them.
Joe
coyotes morgan mair fheal
<j...@notcharles.ca> wrote:
you mean kennedy and cooper and their progeny?
Matt Austern
I think it's hard to tell the difference between "mental chewing gum"
and "real literature" without a fair amount of perspective. It's
certainly easy to think of a fair number of works from the 16th
through 18th centuries that we would put in the latter category but
that contemporaries would have put in the former (if they'd ever heard
of chewing gum).
I'm just trying to be descriptive and neutral, regardless of my own
opinions.
the softrat
wrote:
>
>You, on the other hand, reveal yourself to be a priggish snob.
>
an 'ignorant moron'.
the softrat "Wannabe orcodentist"
==>Bakshi is Better!<==
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of
horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating
dance.