The Catcher in the Rye
discussion
The Most Overrated Books
Fijke wrote: "Rachel wrote: "I agree that great books are still being written today. I disagree that "genre" fiction is somehow inferior to "literary" fiction. There are some brilliant genre novels, and some poo..."
The primary aim of most novels, including "literary" fiction, is to entertain the reader. A book can be as philosophical as you want, but if it's so boring the reader doesn't want to read on past page 20, then the philosophical ideas really don't matter. Of course, there are some authors, such as James Joyce, who really don't care about entertaining the reader - and it shows.
But does the fact some novels are analysed more than others really affect their overall quality that much? Can't a novel be great even if it isn't analysed by English Literature classes every day?
I often find "deliberate message to society" novels annoying for that reason haha. I hate being preached to, especially by authors who haven't thought through their ideas very well (which is most). Some authors - such as Dickens - were so good at other things that I forgive them for this, however, so it isn't guaranteed to kill a book for me.
The primary aim of most novels, including "literary" fiction, is to entertain the reader. A book can be as philosophical as you want, but if it's so boring the reader doesn't want to read on past page 20, then the philosophical ideas really don't matter. Of course, there are some authors, such as James Joyce, who really don't care about entertaining the reader - and it shows.
But does the fact some novels are analysed more than others really affect their overall quality that much? Can't a novel be great even if it isn't analysed by English Literature classes every day?
I often find "deliberate message to society" novels annoying for that reason haha. I hate being preached to, especially by authors who haven't thought through their ideas very well (which is most). Some authors - such as Dickens - were so good at other things that I forgive them for this, however, so it isn't guaranteed to kill a book for me.
Rachel wrote: "Fijke wrote: "Rachel wrote: "I often find "deliberate message to society" novels annoying for that reason haha. I hate being preached to, especially by authors who haven't thought through their ideas very well (which is most). "Well, who doesn't hate being preached to? I don't think the novels people discuss so much on this thread do that. Sure, there is a 'message' but it emerges rather being telegraphed. I'd see what you are saying more if you gave some examples of novels that are preachy and annoying but considered worth analyzing. I usually don't read genre fiction because it hews to genre, which makes it more of a product that satisfies consumer tastes than a real novel, or that is my experience. There are contemporary novels that are thoughtful but that I really enjoy as entertainment, usually because the writer is so good at developing character and has a unique voice. But I also agree with Fijke: entertainment value isn't enough to make a book worth analyzing, except as an expression of popular culture maybe; then you get more into cultural studies than literary studies.
All those who listed Catcher in the Rye... I agree... didn't get it.I do like the Girl with The Dragon Tattoo... if you don't recognize my name, it is the main character of the book. It may not be a "classic" but it was a read I could not put down... As long as Catcher is there.
Kallie wrote: "Rachel wrote: "Fijke wrote: "Rachel wrote: "I often find "deliberate message to society" novels annoying for that reason haha. I hate being preached to, especially by authors who haven't thought th..."
I'm intrigued... People keep saying how important it is to "analyse" novels, but what exactly do you mean by this? How much of this analysis do you do on average after reading a novel? What kinds of things do you think about after reading a novel, for how long, and what do you do with these analytical conclusions afterwards?
I'm intrigued... People keep saying how important it is to "analyse" novels, but what exactly do you mean by this? How much of this analysis do you do on average after reading a novel? What kinds of things do you think about after reading a novel, for how long, and what do you do with these analytical conclusions afterwards?
Rachel wrote: "People keep saying how important it is to "analyse" novels, but what exactly do you mean by this? How much of this analysis do you do on average after reading a novel? What kinds of things do you think about after reading a novel, for how long, and what do you do with these analytical conclusions afterwards?"I can only speak for myself and I don't pretend to know what works for others, or should. I think it is an individual thing. Either it comes to you or not. And don't worry if it hasn't. We can enjoy literature without digging it to pieces.
But for me..., until I read East of Eden in 1989 at age 45 I had always read novels at a pretty superficial level. I had seen the miniseries with Jane Seymour in 1987-ish, and perhaps that started something. Anyway, I had a strong compulsion to read EE, feeling that there was some message in there that was important to me. I devoured the book, underlining heavily, backtracking, renting the film, synching it with my reading and paying the late fees. Until I had it: free will trumps genetic or social determinism.
Life has never been the same since.
I don't read near as many books. I select what I read carefully and read them two or three times, underlining, researching the author, reviews, biographies. I select books by authors that speak to something deep inside me. Or I read books that are wildly popular to discover what makes society tick. Why waste my time with anything else?
When I discovered Raymond Carver, I read a newly published biography of him and read his ex-wife's memoir while reading his stories. Most of his stories were about their relationship. I read articles and literary discussions about him. I visited towns where he lived (Sacramento, San Francisco, Palo Alto.)
I've visited Eugene O'Neill's and John Steinbeck's houses several times. And Jack London's. I've done a drive-by of the Fred Finch orphanage in Oakland where William Saroyan lived. It's my way of getting into the heads of authors of works I relate to.
I don't know what works for other people, but I am driven to understand writing at a deep level. It is a hunger to know more, to truly understand. And it never goes away.
Rachel wrote: "How much of this analysis do you do on average after reading a novel? " Usually if I enjoy a book I want to think about why; isn't that a form of analyzation? For example there is a Goodreads discussion group about 'Stoner'; I wanted to communicate in the discussion how Stoner resonated with me. People in this forum discuss why they like particular novels. (Now I'll probably read it 'Of Mice and Men.') The best novels stick with me; I re-read them and find that it's as though some other person read them the first time. I guess that's what makes a great novel, to me; I can read and re-read it and new thoughts emerge about what I like (or don't like). Analytical conclusions can change or at least find a different emphasis; they're not written in stone.
The study of literature by analysing it serves another purpose, and anyone reading READING LOLITA IN TEHRAN will get my point. Analysing lit is bringing to the forefront psychology, sociology, philosophy and even political science and especially morality. We discuss them, rack our brains as to the intent of the author, meditate as to what we have learned about life through our readings, refine our thinking and ultimately challenged to sharpen our life philosophy. It is not just about the nice, entertaining story.A good literature course, (and our following the best of GOODREADS) challenges us to think in different ways, to broaden our horizon, to ascertain our judgments and insights and challenge them to either discard them or modify them. A good literature course with a questioning teacher serves for good character development of the reader.
Two things to chime in here about. First, "The primary aim of most novels, including "literary" fiction, is to entertain the reader. The primary aim of literature is not to entertain. The book may entertain, but that is not the purpose. Consider the book All Quiet on the Western Front. The book is a blatantly anti war book, but not one that preaches. It personalized the enemy and we are left with our own conclusions. When the German soldier kills another soldier in a fox hole and then has to stay there, the enemy becomes a Frenchman who has pictures of his family in his wallet. Remarque definitely did not write to entertain.
"A book can be as philosophical as you want, but if it's so boring the reader doesn't want to read on past page 20, then the philosophical ideas really don't matter. Of course, there are some authors, such as James Joyce, who really don't care about entertaining the reader - and it shows."
People slog through Proust, Dante, Camus and Joyce because of those "philosophical ideas." We read to expand our minds, to add meaning to life, to challenges us to think and then to observe our day to day actions to see if what we do matches what we say we value in life.
We also read to understand others; to try on a different reality and learn from the experience. We read books about slavery, the holocaust, war, and the depression in an attempt to understand what caused these terrible things and to see the signs before it is too late.
I read books for enjoyment, but that is not all I read and even when I read books for enjoyment, I expect the writing to be of a high standard.
Anne Hawn wrote: "People slog through Proust, Dante, Camus and Joyce because of those "philosophical ideas." We read to expand our minds, to add meaning to life, to challenges us to think and then to observe our day to day actions to see if what we do matches what we say we value in life. "This is so true. But I don't think all books are for all seasons. If you are older reading Proust may not be as hard to enjoy because you have a lot of material built in to add to the experience. You are at a different place and time in your life. So if a book doesn't work for you the first time maybe you should pick it up ten years later. Don't judge a book you haven't read twice.
It is the nuggets of wisdom in the context of the story, with the emotional tempering of the soul that makes me seek out the classics! I find too that the classics have been my psychologist, getting under my psychic skin.
There is going to be a Buddy Reads on Ulysses by James Joyce in the group 2014 Reading Challenge. I hope some of you will want to give it a try. I have joined the group. It starts in May.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Geoffrey wrote: "A good literature course, (and our following the best of GOODREADS) challenges us to think in different ways, to broaden our horizon, to ascertain our judgments and insights and challenge them to either discard them or modify them. A good literature course with a questioning teacher serves for good character development of the reader."Agreed.
And entering this realm poses a risk for people with closed minds who are afraid of seeing the world in different ways than they are accustomed. This is threatening and frightening to fixed-minded people who have been conditioned since childhood to understand the world in a rigid way.
A rigid Fundamentalist-creationist, for example, might feel very uncomfortable with a book that delves deeply into Evolutionary principles.
Anne Hawn wrote: "Two things to chime in here about. First, "The primary aim of most novels, including "literary" fiction, is to entertain the reader.
The primary aim of literature is not to entertain. The book ..."
If literary fiction's primary goal is to educate (or persuade?), as you seem to imply, and not to entertain, then why not just read non-fiction (science, history, philosophy)? Non-fiction is almost always better than fiction for this because:
(a) the writer is more likely to be an expert on his subject,
(b) the writing is often clearer ("poetic" description is often used in literary fiction, and it clouds the meaning - bad for educating people if your "students" don't know what you're talking about),
(c) it will normally be better researched, as the author is only trying to educate rather than tell a story at the same time...
And that's just three reasons. To get most of your information about how the world works by reading novels is, well, dumb, to say the least. And if you don't get most of your worldview from novels, but from other sources, then doesn't that make literary fiction rather superfluous, given it's goal is to educate?
The primary aim of literature is not to entertain. The book ..."
If literary fiction's primary goal is to educate (or persuade?), as you seem to imply, and not to entertain, then why not just read non-fiction (science, history, philosophy)? Non-fiction is almost always better than fiction for this because:
(a) the writer is more likely to be an expert on his subject,
(b) the writing is often clearer ("poetic" description is often used in literary fiction, and it clouds the meaning - bad for educating people if your "students" don't know what you're talking about),
(c) it will normally be better researched, as the author is only trying to educate rather than tell a story at the same time...
And that's just three reasons. To get most of your information about how the world works by reading novels is, well, dumb, to say the least. And if you don't get most of your worldview from novels, but from other sources, then doesn't that make literary fiction rather superfluous, given it's goal is to educate?
Kallie wrote: "Rachel wrote: "How much of this analysis do you do on average after reading a novel? "
Usually if I enjoy a book I want to think about why; isn't that a form of analyzation? For example there i..."
I do this too - when I finish a novel, or watch a film, I carefully pick it apart and see which parts worked for me and which parts didn't. I think that where I differ from most people in this thread is that I think that the quality of the plot, structure, characters, and world of a story are far more important than writing style (unless it's brilliant or terrible) or the themes. I don't have any real interest in carefully finding and thinking about the themes of a story at all - this is the least important component of a story, as far a I'm concerned.
Usually if I enjoy a book I want to think about why; isn't that a form of analyzation? For example there i..."
I do this too - when I finish a novel, or watch a film, I carefully pick it apart and see which parts worked for me and which parts didn't. I think that where I differ from most people in this thread is that I think that the quality of the plot, structure, characters, and world of a story are far more important than writing style (unless it's brilliant or terrible) or the themes. I don't have any real interest in carefully finding and thinking about the themes of a story at all - this is the least important component of a story, as far a I'm concerned.
Rachel doesn't seem to understand the difference between a tweener's bit of entertaining fluff along the lines of Twilight and a novel of literary merit, yes, a great book, like Frankenstein. And no, we don't turn to a treatise on anatomy to learn the powerful lessons about the world around us that Mary Shelley gives us in Frankenstein. The great novel both teaches and entertains, and that's been the message of all great story telling since Chaucer and before...but he's the first guy who lays it out so clearly in English. If you don't learn about life from the great books you're reading, if you don't carry those books with you in your mind and imagination for years, dwelling on their ideas and pondering their messages, if you don't spend time as a thoughtful reader looking for patterns and motifs and slowly coming to an understanding of the author's craft, then you might as well just be watching TV.
Rachel wrote: "And that's just three reasons. To get most of your information about how the world works by reading novels is, well, dumb, to say the least. And if you don't get most of your worldview from novels, but from other sources, then doesn't that make literary fiction rather superfluous, given it's goal is to educate? "Naw, it's "dumb" to post such a dimwitted pronouncement on a J.D. Salinger thread on a website called "Goodreads." In Catcher, there's a conversation among the Caulfield brothers about war writing. And D.B. (who's landed at Normandy, as the author did) says that Emily Dickinson (a writer who had never been near war) has much more to tell us about war than someone like Rupert Brooke who was in WWI.
As Ezra Pound said, "Literature is news that stays news," and I know most of us have probably heard that before and I know that Pound prolly isn't anyone's darling anymore, but it's true. I may be dumb, but in fact most of my "worldview" has come from novels.
Newspapers, magazines, essays, works of nonfiction...I read those too, and I've gained tremendous knowledge from them, but a "worldview" comes from the realm of art and literature.
Rachel wrote: "Maybe I should convert to radical Islam and read The Satanic Verses... :D "That's a great idea - let me know how it goes...!
Anne Hawn wrote: "Two things to chime in here about. First, "The primary aim of most novels, including "literary" fiction, is to entertain the reader. The primary aim of literature is not to entertain. The book ..."
Great post.
Rachel wrote: "To get most of your information about how the world works by reading novels is, well, dumb, to say the least. And if you don't get most of your worldview from novels, but from other sources, then doesn't that make literary fiction rather superfluous, given it's goal is to educate? "This comment is loaded with assumptions, number one being that something is dumb because you don't understand it. I read literary fiction to see the world from another point of view, that of a character who comes alive through the writer's skill. I am seeing the world through that writer as well, yet through the fictional character that has emerged through his or her peculiar subconscious (which is why preaching doesn't actually work in literary fiction since preaching comes from the conscious mind; that is why I don't like reading Ayn Rand's 'novels'). It's not just about information, but information through a character whom I can actually imagine in living outside the novel. This doesn't happen when I read a genre novel that is written to entertain with the current entertainment flavor: vampires, say, wizards. And I challenge you to name one non-fiction book that will immerse me in Proust's world so completely as he does, once I can focus my flighty, 20th century American attention enough to absorb his densely detailed imagery.
I think literature is like archaeology of human thought. I worked on a 17th century Spanish dig and we combed through the middens to understand what these people ate, how hard they worked, how they made pots, and how and where they lived, but we couldn't tell much about what they thought. There are people however, who are skilled enough to go through the historical and archaeological record to recreate their lives in a way that we understand. Good literature doesn't tell us, it shows us. It makes characters that we can understand and identify with and then compels us to follow that character through life thinking the way he or she thinks and learning the lessons the character learns, or doesn't learn.
I can tell you that war is stupid, that it is unproductive, but Remarque lets you live inside the young German soldier who is not so different from a young American or English soldier. You find yourself identifying with the boy and forgetting that he is the enemy. It is hard to kill someone you know...that is why we have propaganda that depersonalizes. We have to teach soldiers to hate the enemy. Remarque confronts us with an enemy we'd like for a friend.
Great literature is often so full of transforming ideas that we want to go further than just a simple reading of the text can take us. As Monty J says, we find ourselves, "devour[ing] the book, underlining heavily, backtracking, renting the film, synching it with my reading and paying the late fees. Until I had it: free will trumps genetic or social determinism."
If we are in school, the teacher helps us by providing background, challenging our assumptions, and asking insightful questions. If we are adults, we do what Monty does, or we join a book group at the library or on Goodreads and we explore the book with others.
No one would go to all that trouble if the ideas in the book were just entertaining. If we take apart a character from a book by someone like Dan Brown or Clive Cussler we are apt to find that there is too much contradiction to identify with the main character. People don't really act like that and get by with it. If we look at the plot, there is nothing to study; it's too improbable to learn much from. The book is just meant to entertain. It isn't literature...just a story.
then why not just read non-fiction?Because a skilled artist can convey a message in an entirely differenty way than a fact-based expert.
This isn't only true about writing, but also other art forms.
Why does The Scream by Edvard Munch convey desperate horror more accurately than an actual picture?
How can a stage version of The Diary of a Young Girl or The Boy in the Striped Pajamas make more impact on an audience than a general lecture on the horrors of The Holocaust?
How can the movie adaption of The Brothers Lionheart portray pure brotherly love more effectively than a psychological report on the relationship of siblings?
(b) the writing is often clearer ("poetic" description is often used in literary fiction, and it clouds the meaning - bad for educating people if your "students" don't know what you're talking about)
Reading literary fiction isn't (to me, at least) as much about acquiring knowledge as it is about increasing my insight in human nature - and this is where I find literary fiction to be superior to non-fiction.
Anthony Beevor's Stalingrad gave me everything I needed to know about the battle of Stalingrad, if we are strictly speaking of facts. Does this mean that I can now genuinely relate to or understand the misery of those wretched people who had to endure it? Of course not. Would a well-written work of fiction, with a "poetic" writing that appeals to me, increase my empathy and insight? Definitely.
I can't be certain of course, but I suspect that this is also what Petergiaquinta meant when he said that most of his worldview comes from literary fiction. The point isn't that literary fiction can replace facts, but rather that facts alone are meaningless without the context that literary fiction can provide.
This will vary from person to person, obviously. Not being affected this way by literary fiction does not make you less of a person, but it's invaluable to me (and many others, I'm sure), so I have to admit it saddens me that you think it's dumb.
Cosmic wrote: " I find too that the classics have been my psychologist, getting under my psychic skin."Cosmic, you are so right! At one point in my life, in my early 30's, I thought, "I've got everything I ever wanted, so why am I not happy? Is this all there is to life?" I didn't figure I'd get very far if I went to a psychologist and told him "I'm here because I am unhappy that I am happy."
I started reading books on the meaning of life and began to sort myself out. I also found out I was at a perfectly normal developmental stage...getting ready to move into "self-actualization."
Rachel wrote: "And if you don't get most of your worldview from novels, but from other sources, then doesn't that make literary fiction rather superfluous, given it's goal is to educate?"Maybe Rachel is a stealth provocateur urging us to articulate the value of fiction (I think this might be a less loaded term than lit-rhet-chure--please imagine Leonard Pith Garnell saying that last word).
Rachel is also, I'm assuming from her profile photos, very young relative to me (I'm 51). I'm not trying to pull a "I am older and therefore wiser" bit here. It's just that the older I get the more I think I can deeply understand how truly dumb I've been in the past. This might be a good working definition of the wisdom that comes with age. Thirty years ago I held opinions and made passionate pronouncements similar to Rachel's, uhm, aesthetic fatalism, (maybe?) that would make today's Mark Laskowski absolutely cringe.
But I would challenge all of the passionate defenders, and Rachel as the (sole?) denouncer, of the merits of literature with this question: what do we mean when we use the word "entertainment" and why do we think of it as something different than using our time for a more worthwhile purpose?
I think Anne Hawn's post above is a good one. And one of the most memorable sentences in Naked Lunch is when Burroughs, writing about writing, baldly states: "I am not an entertainer." So I get it. But notice that toward the end of her post Anne begins to use the term "enjoyment" to describe why she reads what she reads.
And this (I'm all over the place here, I know, but hang with me) is what I have trouble with when I encounter the word "entertainment." We seem to set up this dichotomy where there are activities that are an enjoyable use of our time but on some level not as worthwhile or as meaningful as we sense they could be AND activities that are an enjoyable use of our time but attain that level of worthiness and meaning that we know is out there. The former describes entertainment, mere entertainment.
Well, you know, I don't think I find entertainment all that entertaining. My current "slog" through Ulysses is me spending time on something I enjoy. I can see where others might not. I don't like to get on the rides at amusement parks and it can be very easy for me to ponder what in the devil people who ride roller coasters are getting out of it.
And as for message, meh, you can go overboard with that sort of thing. Cue Alan Watts from The Tao of Philosophy:
"Do you know what scholarship means or what a school means? The original meaning of schola is leisure. We spoke of a "scholar and a gentleman" because a gentleman was a person who had a private income and could afford to be a scholar. He did not have to earn a living and therefore could study the classics and poetry. Today nothing is more busy than a school. They make you work, work, work because you have to get through on schedule. There are expedited courses, and you go to school to get a Ph.D. in order to earn a living. So, on the whole, this is a contradiction of scholarship. Scholarship is to study everything that in unimportant and not necessary for survival, including all the charming irrelevancies of life. The reason for this is that if you do not have room in your life for the playful, life is not worth living. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy, but if the only reason Jack plays is so that he can work better afterwards, he is not really playing. He is playing because it's good for him, and that's not playing at all. To be able to be true scholars we have to cultivate an attitude in life in which we are not trying to get anything out of it.
If you pick up a pebble on the beach and look at it, it is beautiful, but do not try and get a sermon out of it. Sermons-in-stones and God-in-everything be damned--just enjoy it. Do not feel that you've got to salve your conscience by saying that this is for the advancement of your aesthetic understanding. Enjoy the pebble. If you do that, you become healthy. You do not have to do anything, but it is a great idea and it is a great experience if you can learn what the Chinese call "purposelessness." They think that nature is quite purposeless. However, when we say something is purposeless, it is a put-down. To us this means there is no future in it and it is a washout, but when the Chinese Taoists hear the word purposeless they think that is just great. It is like the waves washing against the shore, going on and on, with no meaning."
And, of course, Watts goes on and on as well. I find him to be a quite compelling translator of some of the tenants of Eastern Philosophy into idioms easily absorbed by a mind inculcated by Western culture.
Full lecture if you're interested:
http://youtu.be/bE6mRYypmJY
And, so, why read literature to get a better understanding of the world when non-fiction would be a more direct route? Well, isn't the real question: why try to get a better understanding of the world? Just go about your day doing the things you must and when you don't have anything you must do, do whatever you wish; do something you enjoy.
What more is there to understand?
Mark wrote: "But I would challenge all of the passionate defenders, and Rachel as the (sole?) denouncer, of the merits of literature with this question: what do we mean when we use the word "entertainment" and why do we think of it as something different than using our time for a more worthwhile purpose?"I don't think of it as different, though the process is different because literary fiction requires more reader participation and attention and these are not skills readily developed in a culture that favors passive consumption of action and snappy dialogue rather than active imagination. Effort is involved, initially; the effort of engaging with the writer's voice and imagery. Once I've made that initial effort, a literary work entertains me.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Rachel doesn't seem to understand the difference between a tweener's bit of entertaining fluff along the lines of Twilight and a novel of literary merit, yes, a great book, like Frankenstein. And n..."
1) Frankenstein is one of my favourite books actually. I liked it a lot. However, I wouldn't say that it was so far out of sight of Twilight that we cannot compare the two, as Twilight is a good novel too (yes, I'm prepared to say that haha - although Meyer's other novel, The Host, is better). I actually strongly disagree with the "message" of Frankenstein - I think it's anti-science, anti-reason, and anti-progress - but that's the physicist in me I guess.
2) Yes, I agree that fiction can teach us things (have I said anywhere that it can't?). However, it's primary purpose is to entertain - at least, that's my view.
3) Haha I'm trying to come to an understanding of the author's craft, as I'd like to be an author myself. And what's wrong with television? Television and movies have some big advantages over books, and books have some big advantages over TV and movies; neither is inherently better.
4) It may be a JD Salinger thread, technically, but it isn't really about him. I don't dislike Catcher in the Rye, I just don't think there is anything very special about it.
5) I disagree - a worldview comes from science, philosophy, art, literature, history, personal experience, religion, our social contacts, television, comedy, the passage of time... everywhere.
1) Frankenstein is one of my favourite books actually. I liked it a lot. However, I wouldn't say that it was so far out of sight of Twilight that we cannot compare the two, as Twilight is a good novel too (yes, I'm prepared to say that haha - although Meyer's other novel, The Host, is better). I actually strongly disagree with the "message" of Frankenstein - I think it's anti-science, anti-reason, and anti-progress - but that's the physicist in me I guess.
2) Yes, I agree that fiction can teach us things (have I said anywhere that it can't?). However, it's primary purpose is to entertain - at least, that's my view.
3) Haha I'm trying to come to an understanding of the author's craft, as I'd like to be an author myself. And what's wrong with television? Television and movies have some big advantages over books, and books have some big advantages over TV and movies; neither is inherently better.
4) It may be a JD Salinger thread, technically, but it isn't really about him. I don't dislike Catcher in the Rye, I just don't think there is anything very special about it.
5) I disagree - a worldview comes from science, philosophy, art, literature, history, personal experience, religion, our social contacts, television, comedy, the passage of time... everywhere.
Rachel wrote: "Yes, I agree that fiction can teach us things (have I said anywhere that it can't?)."Well you did say "To get most of your information about how the world works by reading novels is, well, dumb, to say the least," which might not be a twin to fiction can't teach us things, but it's certainly a sister.
So you're a physicist! Or, perhaps, that's your academic pursuit at the moment? That would explain a lot. I don't know about folks like Monty and Petergiaquinta, but I could never quite get the hang of mathematics. I'll bet there's a lot like me in this thread.
Yes a worldview comes from all of those things you mention, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that reading great fiction (or, if we're all more comfortable with "literature" then that) and taking in great art refines one's worldview, confirms one's world view, puts one in accord with one's worldview.
And I think Petergiaquinta's comments about worldview were made in the context of your assertion (or was it a question?) that non-fiction makes more sense as a way to understand the world than does fiction. He was responding (I think) to the kettle of fish that you initially set down in the middle of the room, y'know?
Anne Hawn wrote: "I think literature is like archaeology of human thought. I worked on a 17th century Spanish dig and we combed through the middens to understand what these people ate, how hard they worked, how the..."
Anne Hawn wrote: "I think literature is like archaeology of human thought. I worked on a 17th century Spanish dig and we combed through the middens to understand what these people ate, how hard they worked, how the..."
I liked this post. You make some good points. :)
Anne Hawn wrote: "I think literature is like archaeology of human thought. I worked on a 17th century Spanish dig and we combed through the middens to understand what these people ate, how hard they worked, how the..."
I liked this post. You make some good points. :)
Paul Martin wrote: "then why not just read non-fiction?
Because a skilled artist can convey a message in an entirely differenty way than a fact-based expert.
This isn't only true about writing, but also other art fo..."
Yes, another good post. You and Anne Hawn bring up some good points...
I hate to admit it, but I think I'm going to have to put my hands up and say I was wrong about non-fiction vs. fiction - there are indeed things that are more effectively communicated from a fictional perspective. :D
Because a skilled artist can convey a message in an entirely differenty way than a fact-based expert.
This isn't only true about writing, but also other art fo..."
Yes, another good post. You and Anne Hawn bring up some good points...
I hate to admit it, but I think I'm going to have to put my hands up and say I was wrong about non-fiction vs. fiction - there are indeed things that are more effectively communicated from a fictional perspective. :D
Mark wrote: "Rachel wrote: "Yes, I agree that fiction can teach us things (have I said anywhere that it can't?)."
Well you did say "To get most of your information about how the world works by reading novels ..."
Yes, to get MOST of your information about the way the world works from novels is dumb - I stand by that haha. Don't believe wizards and dragons exist just because you've read Harry Potter! The word "most" is very important there. Do you see what I mean?
I study Physics at university, and I plan to be an astronomer (I've been interested in space since I was six).
I think a lot of the problems I'm having with this discussion may be due to differing personality types (MBTI is fascinating, and has taught me a lot about how other people think). People seem to be coming from a vastly different perspective to me, and it's difficult (but fun) to work out why they are coming from there haha.
Well you did say "To get most of your information about how the world works by reading novels ..."
Yes, to get MOST of your information about the way the world works from novels is dumb - I stand by that haha. Don't believe wizards and dragons exist just because you've read Harry Potter! The word "most" is very important there. Do you see what I mean?
I study Physics at university, and I plan to be an astronomer (I've been interested in space since I was six).
I think a lot of the problems I'm having with this discussion may be due to differing personality types (MBTI is fascinating, and has taught me a lot about how other people think). People seem to be coming from a vastly different perspective to me, and it's difficult (but fun) to work out why they are coming from there haha.
Rachel wrote: "I disagree - a worldview comes from science, philosophy, art, literature, history, personal experience, religion, our social contacts, television, comedy, the passage of time... everywhere. "I haven't read any comments that suggest people get their entire worldview from novels. Where are you getting that idea? You don't understand why some prefer what is called literature over what is called genre fiction. You have no respect for the art and craft of lit as anything special. Fine. Can you entertain the idea that peoples' minds may be differently wired but that doesn't make them or what they respond to 'dumb'? (Btw, if 'dumb' is supposed to be a scientific observation you should provide evidence.)
Kallie wrote: "I haven't read any comments that suggest people get their entire worldview from novels. Where are you getting that idea?"
From post 974: "Newspapers, magazines, essays, works of nonfiction...I read those too, and I've gained tremendous knowledge from them, but a "worldview" comes from the realm of art and literature."
Isn't this what I've been saying all along, that people's likes and dislikes are all basically equal? It's you and the others who say that literary fiction is superior to genre - I say they're both equal.
From post 974: "Newspapers, magazines, essays, works of nonfiction...I read those too, and I've gained tremendous knowledge from them, but a "worldview" comes from the realm of art and literature."
Isn't this what I've been saying all along, that people's likes and dislikes are all basically equal? It's you and the others who say that literary fiction is superior to genre - I say they're both equal.
Rachel wrote: "MOST"Yep. I thought for a moment or two about addressing your use of "most." I knew that was an operative word in your statement.
But I suspect that most of the people (I include myself in this) who are saying you can glean insight about the way the world works from reading fiction aren't talking about literally believing Hobbits exist after reading Lord of the Rings.
More along the lines of things like in Catch 22 when Major —— de Coverley in the mess tent swept aside ("with mighty displeasure") the loyalty oath he was given to sign in lieu of actual dinner and said ("in a clear, full-bodied voice that was gruff with age and resonant with ancient eminence and authority"): "gimme eat." That's only one example of many from that book.
Or when Ma Joad protests Casy offering to help salt the pork because it's women's work and he says "It's all work. They's too much of it to split it up to men's or women's work." in Grapes of Wrath. The final scene in that same book helps you understand a great deal about how the world works (or how it should).
I think most discerning and non-psychotic readers can make the distinction between flights of sheer fantasy (I didn't believe the dragon in John Gardner's Grendel actually existed, but I gained some insight about the way the world works from him) and actual, authentic moments that reflect the human condition.
Extolling the virtues of fiction doesn't mean that you've lost the ability to distinguish between it and non-fiction.
What type did your own MBTI reveal you to be?
Mark wrote: "Rachel wrote: "MOST"
Yep. I thought for a moment or two about addressing your use of "most." I knew that was an operative word in your statement.
But I suspect that most of the people (I include..."
Yes, they would, but only if their worldview was at least as based on the realities of the external world than the imaginary worlds of fiction. In fact, literature should play only a relatively small part in our perspectives.
I agree that literature (and I'd add movies too) can give insight into the "human condition".
INTP. I'm guessing most people in this discussion are NF types, as this reminds me of discussions I've had with my sister (an INFP). :D
Yep. I thought for a moment or two about addressing your use of "most." I knew that was an operative word in your statement.
But I suspect that most of the people (I include..."
Yes, they would, but only if their worldview was at least as based on the realities of the external world than the imaginary worlds of fiction. In fact, literature should play only a relatively small part in our perspectives.
I agree that literature (and I'd add movies too) can give insight into the "human condition".
INTP. I'm guessing most people in this discussion are NF types, as this reminds me of discussions I've had with my sister (an INFP). :D
Rachel wrote: "most people in this are NF types ..."And, as I said in an earlier post, most are, I suspect, a bit older than you are. I think MBTI is interesting but limiting. I can't remember what I quartet of letters I came out to be, but I think that "thinking" and "feeling" are two modalities that people switch back and forth two or are capable of combining at any given moment.
Whether you're INTP or whatever, you have a quality about your thinking (at least what I'm seeing of it in these posts) that has always puzzled me a bit and can sometimes peeve me, too. Let's call it: unabashed certainty. I mean, consider: "In fact, literature should play only a relatively small part in our perspectives." Does that mean you know the ideal mix of what should go into all of our perspectives. Don't hold back. Heal us. Show us the pie chart so we can begin to develop a more balanced diet for a better formed perspective.
I snark here, obviously, and I don't seek to be mean, but c'mon. You have no better angle on the world than anyone else in here. It's hubris to speak as if you do.
Rachel wrote: "In fact, literature should play only a relatively small part in our perspectives."Whaaaa..? This is practical world vs. unpractical world, an argument I've had over 100 times and which always boils down to this: do you think this "external world" of yours is un-influenced by literature and art? Think carefully.
And for the literary fiction vs. genre fiction thing, most people on this thread seem to prefer literary fiction not because they (we) can't enjoy genre fiction, but because literary fiction works in a much wider and varied set of values, thoughts and feelings. Each branch of genre fiction works within a certain scope that makes its message easily digestible; that's why it's called genre fiction —it doesn't leave that comfort zone. Literary fiction, to me at least, means that the scope of ideas the author works with is much wider, and his stylistic resources can be much more complex.
Rachel wrote: "In fact, literature should play only a relatively small part in our perspectives."Jeese, where do I start? Where do you get this rigid perspective?
East of Eden
Lord of the Flies
Atlas Shrugged
One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich
All Quiet on the Western Front
The Grapes of Wrath
If you can read any of these and not be significantly affected by the experience you are either made of stone, stubborn as hell or are some kind of genius.
Atlas Shrugged is the most (IMHO) toxic books ever written. It has become the bible for the narcissistic Extreme Right that has torn America apart. If Lenin had dropped an A-bomb on Washington he couldn't have done a more effective job of hobbling democracy.
You may love the toxic principles espoused by Ayn Rand, wrapped in candy-coated anticommunist rhetoric. Or you may see their toxicity. Or somewhere in between. But you can't read it and not be forced to think about America's socio-economic future. Or you may not want to be bothered with such complications and throw it away. But you dismiss what is between those covers at your peril and the peril of your progenity.
Signed, ENFP "on steroids."
Mark wrote: "Rachel wrote: "most people in this are NF types ..."
And, as I said in an earlier post, most are, I suspect, a bit older than you are. I think MBTI is interesting but limiting. I can't remember wh..."
Personality type stays the same across your lifetime, though people tend to APPEAR to change closer to their opposite as time goes on (this is due to the development of opposing functions, not an actual changing of type - but this isn't the thread to talk about this haha). It isn't intended to tell you EVERYTHING about a person - rather, to get an understanding of the underlying patterns that human thinking processes fall into. It gives you the "skeleton" of a person, not the "flesh," you could say. :) Many people new to MBTI seem to think Thinkers are more intelligent than Feelers, but that's simply not the case - intellectual ability has nothing to do with it, it's more a question of where you use your intelligence. Also, it isn't about "letters" at all - everyone is an S and an N, a T and an F - it's more a question of the order you unconsciously/consciously value them.
Haha that must be something to do with my writing style, because nothing could be further from the truth. I'm not CERTAIN about anything.
"In fact, literature should play only a relatively small part in our perspectives."
I feel there's a hidden "if" here:
"In fact, literature should play only a relatively small part in our perspectives, IF our worldview is going to reflect reality."
I guess it all depends on what your goal is - what do you want to achieve with your perspective? If your goal isn't to gain an objective working understanding of the universe and have your worldview reflect that reality, then of course you can develop yours in whatever way achieves the other goals you're aiming for (such as making life better for people, serving God, or trying to find a way to have two-way conversations with goldfish). It's up to you.
And, as I said in an earlier post, most are, I suspect, a bit older than you are. I think MBTI is interesting but limiting. I can't remember wh..."
Personality type stays the same across your lifetime, though people tend to APPEAR to change closer to their opposite as time goes on (this is due to the development of opposing functions, not an actual changing of type - but this isn't the thread to talk about this haha). It isn't intended to tell you EVERYTHING about a person - rather, to get an understanding of the underlying patterns that human thinking processes fall into. It gives you the "skeleton" of a person, not the "flesh," you could say. :) Many people new to MBTI seem to think Thinkers are more intelligent than Feelers, but that's simply not the case - intellectual ability has nothing to do with it, it's more a question of where you use your intelligence. Also, it isn't about "letters" at all - everyone is an S and an N, a T and an F - it's more a question of the order you unconsciously/consciously value them.
Haha that must be something to do with my writing style, because nothing could be further from the truth. I'm not CERTAIN about anything.
"In fact, literature should play only a relatively small part in our perspectives."
I feel there's a hidden "if" here:
"In fact, literature should play only a relatively small part in our perspectives, IF our worldview is going to reflect reality."
I guess it all depends on what your goal is - what do you want to achieve with your perspective? If your goal isn't to gain an objective working understanding of the universe and have your worldview reflect that reality, then of course you can develop yours in whatever way achieves the other goals you're aiming for (such as making life better for people, serving God, or trying to find a way to have two-way conversations with goldfish). It's up to you.
Rachel wrote: "...Personality type stays the same across your lifetime,"Not true, at least for those who go through a nervous breakdown, to which I can attest.
In 1980 I was an INTJ (and a right-wing Republican.) In 2008 after extensive therapy I was an ENFP (and a left-wing Democrat.) Should test again to see where I am now.
I doubt you can convince me that PTSD doesn't affect a Meyers-Briggs score. Effective treatment of PTSD can't help but affect personality.
Daniel wrote: "Rachel wrote: "In fact, literature should play only a relatively small part in our perspectives."
Whaaaa..? This is practical world vs. unpractical world, an argument I've had over 100 times and w..."
I think people are misunderstanding my quote to mean that I hate literature or whatever.
"In fact, literature should play only a relatively small part in our perspectives."
The word "relatively" is where the problem lies, I think. I mean it should play a small part relative to things like science. And by "perspectives" I mean beliefs about what is true. Just clarifying. I'm not saying that you should be more interested in science than fiction or anything.
***
As for genre vs. literary, I'm tired of arguing the topic. If you think "Cather in the Rye" and "Catch-22" are more "profound" (or whatever word you wish to use) than "A Game of Thrones" or "Nation" - or even "The Hunger Games" - then that's fair enough. But I disagree.
Whaaaa..? This is practical world vs. unpractical world, an argument I've had over 100 times and w..."
I think people are misunderstanding my quote to mean that I hate literature or whatever.
"In fact, literature should play only a relatively small part in our perspectives."
The word "relatively" is where the problem lies, I think. I mean it should play a small part relative to things like science. And by "perspectives" I mean beliefs about what is true. Just clarifying. I'm not saying that you should be more interested in science than fiction or anything.
***
As for genre vs. literary, I'm tired of arguing the topic. If you think "Cather in the Rye" and "Catch-22" are more "profound" (or whatever word you wish to use) than "A Game of Thrones" or "Nation" - or even "The Hunger Games" - then that's fair enough. But I disagree.
Monty J wrote: "Rachel wrote: "In fact, literature should play only a relatively small part in our perspectives."
Jeese, where do I start? Where do you get this rigid perspective?
East of Eden
Lord of the Flies
..."
I didn't like Atlas Shrugged either. But my problems are more to do with characterization and plot. I disagree with her philosophical opinions, but someone had to think them eventually. I wouldn't say they were "toxic" just because I disagree with her.
Jeese, where do I start? Where do you get this rigid perspective?
East of Eden
Lord of the Flies
..."
I didn't like Atlas Shrugged either. But my problems are more to do with characterization and plot. I disagree with her philosophical opinions, but someone had to think them eventually. I wouldn't say they were "toxic" just because I disagree with her.
Rachel wrote: "As for genre vs. literary, I'm tired of arguing the topic. If you think "Cather in the Rye" and "Catch-22" are more "profound" (or whatever word you wish to use) than "A Game of Thrones" or "Nation" - or even "The Hunger Games" - then that's fair enough. But I disagree. "But as a young scientist, an aspiring astronomer, certainly you understand that calculus is more "profound" than simple addition and subtraction, right? Or the study of quantum mechanics (which is being practiced as we speak just over my backyard fence at the Fermi Lab) goes well beyond tenth grade biology (which is where my own study of the sciences ended, sadly). Why don't you get it for books?
Daniel wrote: "This is practical world vs. unpractical world, an argument I've had over 100 times and which always boils down to this: do you think this "external world" of yours is un-influenced by literature and art? Think carefully."
Yes. Have you ever seen an asteroid cry over poetry? The universe was here long before literature, and will be here long after literature's all rotted away.
Yes. Have you ever seen an asteroid cry over poetry? The universe was here long before literature, and will be here long after literature's all rotted away.
Whoops, since we're all self-labeling now, I meant to sign off there as an HFS (highly functioning sociopath).
Monty J wrote: "Rachel wrote: "...Personality type stays the same across your lifetime,"
Not true, at least for those who go through a nervous breakdown, to which I can attest.
In 1980 I was an INTJ (and a right..."
It isn't a "score". MBTI is a theory, not a test. The tests are just to give you an idea. It's all about cognitive functions and their order (an ENFP's functions are Ne-Fi-Te-Si).
But yes, mental instability makes it almost impossible to "type" a person, as the theory depends on normal brain functioning. And in extreme cases, it may indeed change.
Not true, at least for those who go through a nervous breakdown, to which I can attest.
In 1980 I was an INTJ (and a right..."
It isn't a "score". MBTI is a theory, not a test. The tests are just to give you an idea. It's all about cognitive functions and their order (an ENFP's functions are Ne-Fi-Te-Si).
But yes, mental instability makes it almost impossible to "type" a person, as the theory depends on normal brain functioning. And in extreme cases, it may indeed change.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Rachel wrote: "As for genre vs. literary, I'm tired of arguing the topic. If you think "Cather in the Rye" and "Catch-22" are more "profound" (or whatever word you wish to use) than "A Game of Thro..."
I agree that there are differing levels of complexity in things. My question should be phrased like this - in what way is The Catcher in the Rye more complex than A Game of Thrones?
EDIT: I've never read a super-complicated novel. Any suggestions? :) What's the literary equivalent of quantum mechanics?
I agree that there are differing levels of complexity in things. My question should be phrased like this - in what way is The Catcher in the Rye more complex than A Game of Thrones?
EDIT: I've never read a super-complicated novel. Any suggestions? :) What's the literary equivalent of quantum mechanics?
Rachel wrote: "What's the literary equivalent of quantum mechanics?"Now there's a great question...Finnegan's Wake by Joyce, perhaps?
The poetry of Wallace Stevens?The short stories of Borges?
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Rachel wrote: "What's the literary equivalent of quantum mechanics?"
Now there's a great question...Finnegan's Wake by Joyce, perhaps?"
Haha I've never read it. If it's anything like Ulysses then I have no intention to. Worst. Book. Ever. :D
Now there's a great question...Finnegan's Wake by Joyce, perhaps?"
Haha I've never read it. If it's anything like Ulysses then I have no intention to. Worst. Book. Ever. :D
Rachel wrote: "I agree that there are differing levels of complexity in things. My question should be phrased like this - in what way is The Catcher in the Rye more complex than A Game of Thrones?"I'd love to keep thinking about literature in terms of its equivalence to quantum mechanics, but let me just begin to respond to your question about Catcher versus Game of Thrones. Unlike Mark, I'm a big fan of the Song of Ice and Fire, but I recognize its limitations as a work of literary complexity. Having a thousand or more named characters interacting throughout the seven kingdoms and over the Narrow Sea in a massive work that runs around five thousand pages doesn't make for "complex" literature in and of itself. I would in fact suggest that Catcher is more complex and more profound than Game of Thrones and the next four books all put together.
For starters, Holden is a far more intricately created character than any of Martin's characters, even Tyrion. How can I say that? Well, for starters, no matter how brilliantly Martin sketches these figures, and I am very fond of them, we don't have the same depth of psychological detail in Tyrion or Jon Snow or Jaime that we get in Holden, Salinger's first-person narrator. Martin gets my attention with his shifts in third-person perspective, but the voice stays the same. He isn't Faulkner actually getting into the heads of his various characters. The third person is filtered or limited through these figures (with Martin), but that is very different from what Salinger does with Holden. Salinger gives us the voice (maintains it with perfection from start to finish) and provides us with the thoughts of this fascinating and frustrating character to bring him to life in a way that does not happen with the same authenticity in Martin.
Here's a second idea: Martin does some interesting things as an author, especially with patterns and motifs. I'm fascinated by the way he shifted things and took a "female" view of things in Feast for Crows, for example. And, think of all the hand imagery/motifs: Jon Snow's burnt hand, Catelyn Stark's cut hand, the missing fingers from the hand of Davos Seaworth he carries in the bag around his neck, the Hand of the King, Qorin Halfhand, and more...but what is Martin really doing here other than creating an interesting recurring motif?
Consider, however, what Salinger does in Catcher. Holden wants to catch the children before they fall off the cliff. James Castle fell from the window with no one to catch him. Holden hears the boy on the curb singing the song incorrectly. Holden has Allie's baseball glove. Holden wears his hat backward like a catcher. Holden is told by Mr. Antolini that he is in danger of a fall...and there's more, there's so much more, and it's all working together seamlessly to tell this story that Salinger has labored over with every word in just the right place. It's art. What Martin does is great, but it's not the same thing.
Mark, can you ever forgive me for loving Game of Thrones as much as I do?
Rachel wrote: "I mean it should play a small part relative to things like science. ." I see no evidence of scientific thinking in any of your posts.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Rachel wrote: "I agree that there are differing levels of complexity in things. My question should be phrased like this - in what way is The Catcher in the Rye more complex than A Game of Thrones?"..."
I completely disagree with the idea that Holden is more complex and interesting than any character in A Game of Thrones. It's a while since I read it, so I can't give any specific examples, but I rate characterization on a few different levels (are they interesting? complex/3D? do they develop? do I like them, and am I meant to? to name a few) whenever I review a novel. I found the characterization of Holden to be barely above average (meaning the average novel I read, not the average novel published). The idea of him being a more complex and interesting character than Tyrion is laughable! And Catcher suffers from it's first-person viewpoint when it comes to secondary characters - it is VERY difficult to show depth of secondary characters in a first-person single viewpoint novel because you can only see them through the perspective of the protagonist, which may be biased or not very perceptive. So it loses out, in my opinion, greatly not only in primary characters, but secondary characters, and certainly in terms of society as a whole! Salinger can not dream of competing with the complex shifting dynamics of the large scale society in Martin's books.
I agree that Holden has a more distinctive voice (though not to the level of genius achieved in "Huckleberry Finn" and "A Clockwork Orange") but that is to be expected in first-person - first is beautiful for that. Martin could have done better with developing more of a hint of character voices but the story is complicated enough as it is, what with the foreign names and odd phrasings, so I think adding more complexity to the prose would have thrown the readers out.
Add to this the fascinating world of George RR Martin, and that's another easy tick for A Game of Thrones. Add also the fact AGoT has an interesting plot, and it starts to swing massively towards George RR Martin.
It isn't even close really.
I completely disagree with the idea that Holden is more complex and interesting than any character in A Game of Thrones. It's a while since I read it, so I can't give any specific examples, but I rate characterization on a few different levels (are they interesting? complex/3D? do they develop? do I like them, and am I meant to? to name a few) whenever I review a novel. I found the characterization of Holden to be barely above average (meaning the average novel I read, not the average novel published). The idea of him being a more complex and interesting character than Tyrion is laughable! And Catcher suffers from it's first-person viewpoint when it comes to secondary characters - it is VERY difficult to show depth of secondary characters in a first-person single viewpoint novel because you can only see them through the perspective of the protagonist, which may be biased or not very perceptive. So it loses out, in my opinion, greatly not only in primary characters, but secondary characters, and certainly in terms of society as a whole! Salinger can not dream of competing with the complex shifting dynamics of the large scale society in Martin's books.
I agree that Holden has a more distinctive voice (though not to the level of genius achieved in "Huckleberry Finn" and "A Clockwork Orange") but that is to be expected in first-person - first is beautiful for that. Martin could have done better with developing more of a hint of character voices but the story is complicated enough as it is, what with the foreign names and odd phrasings, so I think adding more complexity to the prose would have thrown the readers out.
Add to this the fascinating world of George RR Martin, and that's another easy tick for A Game of Thrones. Add also the fact AGoT has an interesting plot, and it starts to swing massively towards George RR Martin.
It isn't even close really.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
High Fidelity (other topics)
Less Than Zero (other topics)
Adam Bede (other topics)
The Scarlet Letter (other topics)
More...
George R.R. Martin (other topics)
Allan Bloom (other topics)
Richard Dawkins (other topics)
Richard Dawkins (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
War and Peace (other topics)High Fidelity (other topics)
Less Than Zero (other topics)
Adam Bede (other topics)
The Scarlet Letter (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Leo Tolstoy (other topics)George R.R. Martin (other topics)
Allan Bloom (other topics)
Richard Dawkins (other topics)
Richard Dawkins (other topics)
More...
Agreed.
It's like comparing a poodl..."
Exactly.
On a related note... I think the romance genre may well be the most difficult to really stand out in because of it's limitations. That's especially true for "traditional" romance (as opposed to supernatural romance, etc. where if it gets boring you can just send in Scary-but-Sexy Ghost #4 or whatever). The level of characterisation needs to be very high to make these books stand out from the crowd.