Comments on Best Books Ever - page 26

well, i guess the Book of Mormon and the Bible are fiction...

Lizzy wrote: "...don't say that when there are Mormons around or Christians.
not that i am one, but I'm just saying."

well, i guess they'll just have to respect my right to hold that opinion, won't they ;D

Clive wrote: "I would be ashamed to admit I had most of those books on my shelf. You've got genre mixed up with literary, and even crackpot religions in there, which is, oh, I guess it might be genre."

Isn't the division between "genre" and "literature" an entirely arbitrary one? Surely what is literature can only be determined in retrospect - the vast majority of world literature was written for entertainment rather than improvement. Shakespeare and Dickens spring to mind.

The modern concept of 'genre' is, while useful from a marketing point of view and possibly in winnowing through the huge choice with which we're faced, also harmful in that it ghettoises much, to the extent that genre writers often have to distance themselves from the ghetto. Margaret Attwood is undoubtedly a writer of huge skill and worldwide importance, and has a great deal of trouble admitting that what she writes is science fiction, although to claim otherwise is absurd. Just staying within this genre, there are many writers who, i believe, will retrospectively become part of the canon of literature, while the likes of Martin Amis will quickly be forgotten by history.

You want to put Twilight, Harry Potter, Wuthering Heights and The Bible together on this list? Wtf?

I love HP and Twilight but man, this is a messed up list at most.

This list was created by fourteen-year-old girls and mourned over by everyone else.

Warning: opinions expressed below.

Dickens definitely had an agenda when it came to writing. Things like A Christmas Carol blatantly have a moral point to them, and most (if not all) his novels have a very obvious air of social criticism about them. Why will the likes of Martin Amis be forgotten by history? There are many talented writers, him and others, that tackle today's issues in a thoughtful way, just as Dickens, Gaskell et al. wrote of the important things in Victorian society. Of course, just because something is deemed "literary" either now or in hindsight doesn't necessarily mean it is good or even deserves to be remembered, like Pride and Prejudice, which I maintain is one of the most tedious, dull novels ever written.

I do agree, though, that the line between "genre" and "literature" is an entirely arbitrary idea. After all, doesn't everything have a genre in one way or another? The winner of last year's Booker Prize for "literary fiction" was really just a (bad) historical fiction, for instance, and I see no reason why something like Lavinia by Ursula le Guin couldn't win a literary award, drawing as it does on The Aeneid, which if written now might be considered an epic fantasy rather than a work of utter brilliance.

Sorry about the lack of sense in most (maybe all) of that.

Peter,

I didn't mean to imply "just" entertainment (in fact i believe that the best entertainment always has more to it).

I was taught that the definition of 'literature' was that it expresses something about the human condition, and seeks to raise the readers' consciousness in some way. That it do this 'well' is always taken for granted.

My dig at Amis is simply that, IMHO, he is symptomatic of over-rated writers who have very little to say and very little talent with which to say it.

I am braced for flaming...

Oh I'm not going to flame you. Not intentionally at any rate. We have a difference of opinion and that's fine really. Perhaps I'll come to understand your views as I get around to reading more of his work, but for now the only one I've actually read is Time's Arrow and I thought it was a somewhat unique take on a rather dangerous subject, sensitively dealt with.

And in honesty, I knew you seemed too intelligent to treat Dickens just as entertainment, but I thought I'd pick you up on that just for the hell of it. Dickens was probably a little more entertaining than many Victorian writers, what with his obsession with larger-than-life caricatures and tricky, evocative prose.

Just out of interest, who would you consider among the top writers in English literature these days?

It is absolutely all subjective, of course, which is partly what is so wonderful about it! I may well be completely off the mark about what will endure - only time will tell, after all - but I feel that the work that will last is that with the power of great language and that connects deeply with the readers. After all, what we love about Shakespeare and Marlowe is the beauty of the language. Dickens' ability to draw memorable characters, Proust's evocation of the power of memory and experience - all the "important" writers persist because of the language, its beauty and power.

Writers that I think do this today? Gene Wolfe, definitely. David Mitchell - still early days, but very, very good so far. Rupert Thomson. Louis de Berniere is brilliant, but so easy to read I think he's taken to be a little light. Sebastian Faulks. Michael Ondaatje (In The Skin of a Lion is one of the best books I've ever read; like de Berniere he began as a poet and has a wonderful command of language). Like Wolfe, I think there are a lot on great writers in genre fiction (or like Thomson, straddling the boundaries) - Charles de Lint, Sheri S. Tepper, Ursula le Guin who you already mentioned. Lots of old American guys - Saul Bellow, Philip Roth, the late Joseph Heller and Kurt Vonnegut

(I'm writing this pretty much off the top of my head, so will probably think of loads of others right after...)

I think it is true that if something is too firmly ensconced in its genre that limits it - I think all of Iain Banks best work is in his SF, but it is very space opera, and i think this will date it.

I probably am unfair to Amis, et al, but it's easy to kick against the establishment, and they're so often treated as though they're already part of the pantheon. I remember the discussion with my Lit tutor, the late Archie Markham, about whether some people write a 'literature' that is as much a genre as SF, crime, or teeny vampire romance. I think Amis, Graham Swift, Ian McEwan, William Boyd, and many others, do just this not to say some of their work isn't brilliant.

I appear to have written an essay (I prefer to think of it that way, rather than a rant). Damn, i wish I could get paid for this...

I'd like to be good enough at this to get paid to write about books too...

Anyway I'll start from the bottom and work up, as usual. You probably are a little harsh on them, after all lashing out at the establishment is as legitimate an expression as everything else, yes? You're right that there is a certain conformity in certain "literary" writers that would hint at a genre beyond the usual genres, but as with the other genres those who excel at it surely deserve to be remembered, and in my opinion a writer like McEwan would place quite highly amongst others of that sort. Others would call him clinical, detached, but I have essentially the opposite opinion; his characters seem psychologically to be very well developed, and I find it interesting to see how his characters interact and their mental state degrades throughout the course of a novel like Enduring Love. I've never read Swift or Boyd though, strangely enough.

Having read a mere 13 pages of David Mitchell's latest novel, I can't say that I'm too sure on him being one of the important writers of the age, but it's a fairly explosive change of pace from Ishiguro who, in my opinion at least, has a very beautiful way with words and never seems to put a single one out of place.

Faulks, I'll agree, is a fantastic writer from what I've read. That being Birdsong and Pistache (in which he near-flawlessly captures many different authors and puts their characters or writing styles to uniquely comical situations). Birdsong was a long time ago though, I just remember it being a brilliant reprieve from the boredom of Pat Barker's Regeneration, which captured none of the poetry of her characters or their delicate psychologies.

Thanks for the list. I'll be keeping a lookout for Ondaatje and de Berniere, among others, next time I get a chance to visit a bookshop.

Ah yes, subjectivity's the thing. How does one write a novel about a minute or particular detail and connect to its audience on as universal a scale as possible throughout time? It's always seemed to me that the best writers--Shakespeare, Keats, Blake, Shelley, Woolf, Joyce, many others who I've failed to remember, to my shame--are way ahead of their time. There are things in all of those writers that continue to surprise, and I feel that as we develop new ideas, we'll look back and find they're still ahead.

... And while I'm here, have you read any Richard Milward? I'd say he was one to watch based on his first two novels -- very vivid, very bright imagery and at times a startlingly complex array of characters to keep track of, if sometimes a little artsy-fartsy for the sake of it (a section from the perspective of a butterfly... hmm.)

Greg wrote: "Wow, some of these folks need to read more. Or age more. Or go to school, or something. I mean, really."

QFT.

Go Harry Potter!! fingers crossed! (if HP doesnt win, the Giving Tree better ;D)

the bible and book of mormon need to go.

How did Twilight and the book of mormon make higher than THE LORD OF THE RINGS?! Seriously?? This is a whacked up list. And BTW the reason Twilight is higher than LOTR is probably because Stephenie Meyer is a MORMON! uurrgghhh.

Becca wrote: "I agree. I think every fair-minded reader here will agree that you have to actually read something before deciding on its merit. And no one would argue with someone esteeming The Bible or The Quran..."
uh Becca that doesn't even make sense. If I an a Chrisian then why would I want to read the Qur'an??

Ivy wrote: ...Stephenie Meyer is a MORMON!...

Hah, that certainly helps explain some.

uh Becca that doesn't even make sense. If I an a Chrisian then why would I want to read the Qur'an??

To seek truth, I would hope. Regardless of what anyone believes they owe it to themselves to understand what else is out there. Those that go along with unshaken faith, never able to question it or put it against a challenge, are hard to consider a believer of anything.

I'd like to see another one of these lists in two or three years. It'd be interesting to see where books like 'Twilight' and 'The Da Vinci Code' will be then. Not to rip on them, but this is clearly a product of the times.

GSGS wrote: "'Who really wants a complicated plot anyway?' Er, me...
Ooh, exerting effort! How horrible! OK, so I'll just go home and read "The Hungry Caterpillar". More interesting than Twilight anyway."

ok you are just completely taking my words out of context here, I don't mean THAT uncomplicated I just mean really when you have to struggle with a book a bit like for instance I was reading this book once and it took a while to get into it but I read it anyway and then by the end I had finally understood the plot...only to realise it was the biggest pile of crap I had ever read in my entire life! I had wasted unneccessary time trying to follow somethig which I didn't even like. With Twilight, the plot carries you along, it isn't meant to be a really good piece of literary writing it is escapism and as far as escapism goes it does the job that it promises. For a little while it distracts you from your own life, and that is why people like it.

you repeated a bunch of points then. plus u said Edward wasn't realistic coz he doesnt have any flaws but then you said he was possesive and border line abusive which are in fact actually flaws....so that argument is invalid. jesus, all I am saying is if you don't like it then fine keep it to urself but don't make other people feel bad about themselves because they do like it. by saying that the book is at a seven year olds reading ability you are implying that every person who has ever read it cannot comprehend above a third grade level. it's insulting! plus really if you wrote like that when u wer twelve then why don't you have a hit book series>?< that is just bullshit right there. and why do people compare it to Harry Potter>?< THEY ARE NOTHING ALIKE! they are completely different stories with completely different writing styles and thus any sort of comparison between them is going to have a tenuous link at best. i'm just saying that if u think it is shit well then dont tell me about it coz u know the old saying "if you don't have anything good to say don't say anything at all", so just don't Talk about Twilight. if u hate it so much anyway then really u r just wasting valuable minutes ov ur lifetime, plus the fans will never agree with u so u r arguing for no reason, its just a completely fruitless effort. I bet it took u ages to type all that, and really what was the point>?< but then i suppose what is the point in me typing this in response>?< except that I have done it now so I may as well post it...i'm just rationalising.

and come on an, everybody in the world has a smidge of a crush on a ficticious character somewhere.

i mean my english teacher used to fancy Atticus Finch!

and im sorry but most of ur arguments are just wrong, i mean like actually from what is written in the book it is wrong...have you even read the books>?< like properly>?< thoroughly>?< coz u say stuff like Bella allows Edward to control her and take care of all of her problems. No she doesn't...she tries to take care of them herself. All the way through the books she is like "I want to help, let me do something" which is why she runs off on her own in the first book to meet James, why she races off to Italy at risk of her own life, why she volunteers to stay close to the fight in eclipse, and stabs herself with a rock to distract Victoria and Riley from the fight, and why she works to control her power as a shield in the last book so she can protect everyone from Jane and Alec. Plus Bella never tries to commit suicide, Edward does! Bella is just jumping off a cliff for recreational purposes! Also the vampires don't HAVE fangs, so of course there is no reference to them! Annnnnd Carlisle does not only convert teenagers, he turned his wife Esme who is in fact older than he is!

I just realised how many exclamation marks I used right there....I probably sound like one of those hard core fans but actually I just like it when people get their facts right. If you are going to criticise a book you should at least make sure your arguments are concise, cogent and most importantly actually correct.

I'm a stickler for accuracy. Plus also just to say you mentioned grammatical errors, but the books are written in a first person narrative, so you would expect them to be written the way a person would speak, or at the very least the way that a person would internally express their thoughts, which quite frankly would not be grammatically correct anyway. Also to say that the grammar is "incorrect" is strictly speaking not right, as there is no such thing as general "correct" or "incorrect" grammar, unless you define the perimeters. If you had said "as an example of the Queen's English it is not grammatically correct" then you would be right, but otherwise you are taking quite a prescriptivist view.

I agrred with Lizzyyy! :3 meow.

GREY IS OUT YO! XD
until ppl need meh help! BAI!

sophie twilight is useful for nothing but kindling I mean what the heck sparkly vampires, vegetarian vampires thats just idiotic

stephanie meyers is an idiot

oh well still that makes it worse

http://ninjashatebadgrammar.catch22de...

I did not mean to post that i deleted it lol

http://c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/im...

this is very true

also if hes 100 something what the heck is he still doing in high school is he really that dumb

You guys are worse than the "twihards", you know. You're quite possibly even more obsessed with Twilight than even the most rabid fan.

thats ridiculous why doesnt he just not go to school and hide underground coming out at night to feast like really freaking vampires and how the heck does something dead even have emotions of love towards bella dead things dont love.

A real vampire is a body possessed by a demon who stays alive through drinking blood they are things full of hatred and care for nothing but staying alive.

Peter wrote: "You guys are worse than the "twihards", you know. You're quite possibly even more obsessed with Twilight than even the most rabid fan."

how i have never read the books or seen the movies but there is enough people who talk about it in my school that i know way to much about it.

I dont think i could read the books without having a very great urge to start a fire with it

lol i hope so

Regardless of whether you're arguing for or against or whether or not you've read it, you're still talking about it. It's got you obsessed. The first step to recovery is to admit you've got a problem. And seriously, why do you all seem to think Harry Potter is some remarkable and inspired work of fiction? Hell it's enjoyable enough if you like that sort of thing but it's not as though there's never been anything about schools for wizards/magi/whatever before.

Im not obsessed i enjoy making fun of it because the vampires are well not vampires

and harry potter is good and it is one of the first that i know of that was about that


LORD OF THE RINGS ARE THE BEST BOOKS IN THE WORLD

http://www.lostrepublic.us/Graphics/D...

Well look out for the Earthsea series by Ursula le Guin. It starts out with Ged, a young'un with magical potential who eventually gets schooled in the arts of magic. It's very, very different to Harry Potter, but absolutely brilliant in its own way.


And yeah, I enjoy Lord of the Rings. Films were kinda... meh... though.

the films changed alot but they also kept alot i like them both

Wait seriously, how can u criticise something u haven't read....>?< Man i hate that. Like my friend she was all like "oh no i don't like lemon meringue pie" and I said why and she said "well I have never had it before but it doesn't look very nice" so I was really confused so I made her a lemon meringue pie and I was like ok just have a mouthful, and she did and she liked it so much she ate the whole thing (which actually kinda bugged me coz I wanted some, so all I am saying is you can't really pass judgement on something u have never even experienced. Read it first and THEN criticise it. Btw that was not directed at Lizzy who has already said she has read the books and didn't like them, which is fair enough but seriously it is such a waste of time complaining about it coz right now u r probably talking about the books more than the actual fans....

no, well the whole "lemon meringue pie" anecdote wasn't.

OMG Twilight and Book of Mormon?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

*faints*

First subliminal self-help book! "Read Me - I Am Magical" is available on amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1451...

don lose hope im a teen and i totally disliked twilight

I could not sincerely vote for much of the books on this list. There are definite classics here, as well as recent classics. Twilight, I'm sorry, will never be one of them for me.

It is ironic that the book of Mormon shows up on a list of best books. Books, are generally thought to be works of fiction. So those of you that voted for this book, keep it up. It is probably good work of FICTION. Where's the bible, that other great work of fiction??

oh come on why is twilight before Gone with the Wind?!

Honestly, there are some much better books out there, like Romeo & Juliet, or Gone With the Wind that are really classics, and I'm very disappointed that they aren't higher on the list!