Tom's comments

Tom's comments from the The Next Best Book Club group.

Note: Tom is no longer a member of this group.

Newspapers are cutting back on staff. The senior reporters and editors are leaving in mass buyouts and being replaced by less expensive and much younger people who do not have the experience or the skills that come with experience.

You get what you pay for.

Hayes wrote: "Tom wrote: "...It's not just e-mailing of course, but all of the new technologies that are impacting usage. ..."

And here's a perfect example of language that changes (not at all a criticism, Tom..."

Glad that's not a criticism. :-)

You're right. Lanaguage does change and even though I am a purist in terms of grammar and usage, I have no problem with words morphing (how about that one!).

It's what makes it a living language. And it's why it's so dynamic. You don't see Latin usage changing much over the past couple of thousand years. But as long as English - which is becoming the global lingua franca (there I go again) it must remain elastic to accommodate a changing world.

It's why we can accommodate Shakespeare and Joyce.

Susanna wrote: "I predict a hot mess. But I'm a pessimist."

At least you're a pessimist with a sense of humor.

How much do all of you think that e-mail contributes to what you are accurately describing as a pervasive problem?

Advertising, of course, has historically assaulted proper usage, most famously is the slogan, Winston Takes Good Like A Cigarette Should.

It's not just e-mailing of course, but all of the new technologies that are impacting usage.

This isn't the first time our language has been drastically changed because of its collision with a new technology.

When the telegraph first emerged, and gained widespread use during the Civil War, newspaper correspondents filing from battlefields in subsequent wars began tightening up their prose. If you're charged by the word, you tend to writer shorter. But, if you're Dickens and you're paid by the word, you go on and on and on and ...

Instead of flowery descriptions, short and brief ruled the day for American journalism.

Consider this: many of the major American writers of the early 20th century began as newspaper reporters, so their shorter writing styles, forged in telegraphed news accounts, stayed with them as they began writing novels.

So the influential stylists held sway over novels for most of the 20th century.

But with the rise of the Internet, are we witnessing multiple results: the infinite space of the Internet is permitting people to write longer and longer while at the same time the instant messaging and texting is resulting in many people abandoning all pretense of proper grammar and usage rules while writing shorter and shorter?

What are your predictions for the future of our language?

(Also, proof-readers are viewed as wasted overhead so publishers aren't paying to police their books.)

You give a very fair appraisal, one which has made up my mind to attempt IJ. However, not this summer as I've already begun a Steinbeck Summer with East of Eden. Thanks for the review. If I ever get to it, I'll get back to you.

Dan wrote: "I've always felt that one of the benefits of being well-read and widely-read is the ability to develop, and intelligently express, your own opinions of the value of a piece of writing. That's why ..."

Yeah, there's no point in going to school or even bothering with college. I mean, what do they know!

There is an established recognized body of literature that has created and articulates Western culture. It continues to grow - fortunately - but it is defined and worth respecting and trying to understand because it is rewarding.

I take the view that if I don't appreciate one of these works, then the problem is not with the book, but with me because of my failure to understand it. It just means I've missed something and should try harder.

Why is this concept so upsetting to people?

All I can say is that I am sorry you missed out on what I consider to be one of the most extraordinary reading experiences I have ever had - three times, actually since I think it's the only book I've read 3 times and I'm not a rereader.

Fiona wrote: "Tom wrote: "Lori wrote: "Tom wrote:Everyone is obviously entitled to his or her opinion, but how can you presume to moderate a discussion about books and not appreciate the perceptive towering geni..."

When I encounter a book that is considered a classic, and find that I do not appreciate it, my reaction is not that there's a problem with the book - but the problem is with me.

Why didn't I like it or get it or understand it? What am I missing?

I admit I have trouble with Henry James. I can't read most of his novels. I consider that a failing on my part - not his.


The fault is not in the writer but in the reader.

That's always keeping an open mind and wanting to always learn something new and discover new writers. My greatest joy is the belief that around the next corner is another great book to be read and I'm willing to give it a try - or try again. That's being alive.

So when I encounter people who blithely or arbitrarily dismiss classics without giving them their due consideration or their proper respect, then I have to question that response - particularly those who have set themselves up as some sort of arbiter or moderator.

I respect a book that has withstood the test of time and the judgment of millions of readers who have come before me.

If that, as I'm being accused, makes me an intellectual or an elitist, then GUILTY AS CHARGED.

Lori wrote: "Tom wrote:Everyone is obviously entitled to his or her opinion, but how can you presume to moderate a discussion about books and not appreciate the perceptive towering genius of Heart of Darkness -..."

You said you disliked it. Not that it was painful. It was extremely painful. That was the point of it.

Heart of Darkness is one of the best books in our literature. If you poll authors writing during the last century, I bet an overwhelming percentage will cite it as influential.

I was responding to your blithely dismissing one of the most important books in our language. That's why I'm questioning you.

I'm respectful of books. I would hope that you would share my respect for them.

Lori wrote: "Lori,
I strongly disliked Heart of Darkness as well.
Except I wasnt made to read it in school.... I read it because it was on the Lost Lit List.... and I forced myself to finish all 90+ pages of ..."

Everyone is obviously entitled to his or her opinion, but how can you presume to moderate a discussion about books and not appreciate the perceptive towering genius of Heart of Darkness - perhaps one of the most important books ever written?

Perhaps you should read up on why this book is so good and the profound effect it continues to have on literature, writers and culture.

Given how many writers have been deeply affected and influenced by Heart of Darkness, it is perhaps one of the most influential books in our language. It is iconic.

You don't necessarily have to "like" or "enjoy" a book to be able to appreciate it.

Jamie wrote: "I'm reading this right now and I'd LOVE to discuss it with anyone who has read it.

I'm loving it so far!

"

I read it years ago but it stays with me. What struck me was the strange twists and turns the characters' personalities take as they go through their lives. I also loved the way she evoked that world. Great descriptions.

What do you think of the main character?

I've only read 52. Who put the list together? There are duplications, as someone mentioned. Not just Narnia and Lion, Witch. How is Hamlet separate from the complete works of Shakespeare?

El wrote: "Mary wrote: "I've read 52 and may be the only person who read the unabridged version of Les Miserables! Anyone else?

http://www.cynthiasattic.blogspot.com
http://www.marycunninghambooks.com"
..."

Yes. It was worth every word. Absolutely loved it.

Fortunately, I live 5 minutes from the best used book store in the US, if not the world. Mass market paperbacks, most in excellent condition, cost 50 cents. Trade paperbacks cost $1 to $2. Hardbacks in brand new condition cost $3 to $7 with most $4 or $5. Books I can't find at either BN or Borders I find at the used store. And nothing beats the fun of browsing to see what's just come in.

Joanna wrote: "Well, the only ones I can think of off the top of my head are

1. The Old Man and the Sea (I just can not get into Hemingway in general, but this one in particular makes me cringe!)

2. The Red P..."

You should try Steinbeck's Winter of Our Disconent or In Dubious Battle. They are not as juvenile or melodramatic.

Mosca wrote: "My God! "Zombies" is leading the race for fiction!

The barbarians are assailing the basic values of Christendom!

Are no classic values to be left unviolated?

Is there no sanctuary left f..."

Mosca, can we really vote often or are you being a tad tongue in cheeky?

Cat 2 - Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck

Several months ago, when my beloved dog got cancer, I stopped reading the newspaper and started reading the first Pulitzer Prize winners from the early 1900s. Combined with the ones I've already read over the years, my count is now at 20. Since 1917, when the prize was created, there were 10 years when no award was given for Novel/Fiction. Some of the early ones are hard to get ahold of. There's a bunch I've started and didn't finish. Here's my list of winners I've read:
2003 Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides
1995 The Stone Diaries by Carol Shields
1988 Beloved by Toni Morrison
1987 A Summons to Memphis by Peter Taylor
1985 Foreign Affairs by Alison Lurie
1979 The Stories of John Cheever by John Cheever
1975 The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara
1973 The Optimist's Daughter by Eudora Welty
1967 The Fixer by Bernard Malamud (Farrar)
1961 To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee
1960 Advise and Consent by Allen Drury (Doubleday)
1958 A Death In The Family by the late James Agee
1953 The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemingway
1945 A Bell for Adano by John Hersey
1939 The Yearling by Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings
1937 Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
1925 So Big by Edna Ferber
1921 The Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton
1919 The Magnificent Ambersons by Booth Tarkington

The Magus by John Fowles is a great read.

I was reading The Blind Assassin by Margaret Atwood and I stupidly looked up The New York Times review, which gave away key plot points. How arrogant and rude is that?!