The Catcher in the Rye
discussion
The Most Overrated Books
Rachel wrote: "It isn't even close really. "Okay, fair enough, I'm not sure you "really" understand what we're discussing here about literary depth and complexity of character. And I fear that we're possibly at the end of our fascinating discussion. But in response to your last sentence there, here's something maybe you do understand: lolololo.
Kallie wrote: "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."
You wouldn't, because we aren't actually talking about science. We're discussing fiction, which comes down, at base level, to emotional evaluations. Unless you can think of a scientific method to evaluate stories? :)
I'm not really sure why you always use such a confrontational tone with me. I don't know you, and as far as I can tell I've never said anything to offend you. If I have, then it was unintended and I apologise. Sorry.
I see no evidence of scientific thinking in any of your posts."
You wouldn't, because we aren't actually talking about science. We're discussing fiction, which comes down, at base level, to emotional evaluations. Unless you can think of a scientific method to evaluate stories? :)
I'm not really sure why you always use such a confrontational tone with me. I don't know you, and as far as I can tell I've never said anything to offend you. If I have, then it was unintended and I apologise. Sorry.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Rachel wrote: "Haha I've never read it. If it's anything like Ulysses then I have no intention to. Worst. Book. Ever. :D"
See, now that's what we call a "tell."
It shows your age, it shows your l..."
I thought the :D made it clear I wasn't being entirely serious. Obviously not. I don't believe there's any such thing as the "worst" or "best" book ever. All books would be equally worthless if there were nobody around to read them.
See, now that's what we call a "tell."
It shows your age, it shows your l..."
I thought the :D made it clear I wasn't being entirely serious. Obviously not. I don't believe there's any such thing as the "worst" or "best" book ever. All books would be equally worthless if there were nobody around to read them.
OK, because my acerbic (and that may be putting in mildly) persona on Goodreads often has people misunderstanding me and assuming I'm something I'm not, I've been trying to be kinder and gentler as of late (and Kallie knows what I'm talking about), but I can't hold back any longer and have to say that ...01. I do have one or possibly two of the George R.R. Martin books on my "to read" list precisely because of Petergiaquinta's advocacy for them.
02. I'm sorry Martin (bald headed guy facing away on your profile pic) but you're a bit of a dick. There are the creators and the destroyers in this world. Each of whom I can respect for their complimentary roles. And then there are the hecklers. Hecklers get no respect from me. Create. Destroy. But don't fucking heckle.
03. Rachel, you're young, vibrant, full of yourself and confident. Enjoy the hell out of it and make all the bombastic mistakes others have. But don't be surprised when it smacks of youthful inexperience to those of us who have been on spaceship earth for more trips around the sun than you have. Twenty or thirty years from now (if you're lucky), you'll look back on the things you're thinking and saying now and say, "gawd, what an ass I was capable of being."
04. There is no such thing as "science" that stands alone without anything else. "Science" without morality, or a point a view, or a goal in mind ... is what? Box cutters can be tools that are useful to cut open boxes or used to threaten human beings on an airplane in a devious plot to bring down the Twin Towers, damage the Pentagon and ... well, you know what I'm talking about. So until you decide what you're going to mix it with and what you're going to use it for, "science" in and of itself is like a box cutter. It can be banal and benevolent. It can be the catalyst for terror felt around the world.
05. What Salinger was doing with CitR was so specifically symbolic that it flirted with allegory. You can't expect depth of character in such works, imho.
06. Shantih. Shantih. Shantih.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Rachel wrote: "It isn't even close really. "
Okay, fair enough, I'm not sure you "really" understand what we're discussing here about literary depth and complexity of character. And I fear that we..."
You could explain?
It's difficult to have a discussion without understanding the terms people are using, and you appear to use a different definition of "complexity" to the one I do.
Okay, fair enough, I'm not sure you "really" understand what we're discussing here about literary depth and complexity of character. And I fear that we..."
You could explain?
It's difficult to have a discussion without understanding the terms people are using, and you appear to use a different definition of "complexity" to the one I do.
Mark wrote: "OK, because my acerbic (and that may be putting in mildly) persona on Goodreads often has people misunderstanding me and assuming I'm something I'm not, I've been trying to be kinder and gentler as..."*slow clap*
Rachel wrote: "Petergiaquinta wrote: "Rachel wrote: "It isn't even close really. "Okay, fair enough, I'm not sure you "really" understand what we're discussing here about literary depth and complexity of charac..."
Then please share your definition of complexity.
Mark wrote: "...aren't talking about literally believing Hobbits exist after reading Lord of the Rings." Speak for yourself!
Mark wrote: "OK, because my acerbic (and that may be putting in mildly) persona on Goodreads often has people misunderstanding me and assuming I'm something I'm not, I've been trying to be kinder and gentler as..."
Why the insults (the poorly hidden assumption that I'm unwise, and that I'm making terrible mistakes, etc.)? The annoying thing is that you've given no reasons for your opinion of me. :D
In my view, science should try to remain aloof from moral opinions - they often fly in the face of reason, and are situation-dependent. Science is evidence based and objective, and there is no evidence suggesting that any kind of objective morality exists. The job of science is not to make the world a better place for people (though it can be used for that), but to be curious and develop our understanding of how the universe works. Does science need to be anything more in order to be worthwhile?
Why the insults (the poorly hidden assumption that I'm unwise, and that I'm making terrible mistakes, etc.)? The annoying thing is that you've given no reasons for your opinion of me. :D
In my view, science should try to remain aloof from moral opinions - they often fly in the face of reason, and are situation-dependent. Science is evidence based and objective, and there is no evidence suggesting that any kind of objective morality exists. The job of science is not to make the world a better place for people (though it can be used for that), but to be curious and develop our understanding of how the universe works. Does science need to be anything more in order to be worthwhile?
Rachel wrote: "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."The breakthrough to True Self lies through the mental breakdown. The great mass of humanity who think they are "stable" simply have not yet been accorded the opportunity.
I wonder where the fixed-personality theory comes from. Smock-draped eggheads tormenting monkeys and extrapolating to humans?
Rachel, thank you for the compliment and for letting us know that you may rethink some things. It gives me great faith in your intelligence. You've made some good points and gotten hammered with more. Just take what we have said and think about it. Read another classic like 1984, Brave New World or Animal Farm (since you have a scientific mind)and think about what we have said while you read it. None of those books are what you would read for fun, but see if you can find a better way to caution people about politics and giving away freedoms.
Anne Hawn wrote: "Rachel, thank you for the compliment and for letting us know that you may rethink some things. It gives me great faith in your intelligence. You've made some good points and gotten hammered with ..."
I'm willing to re-think anything if people give me a reason to.
I've read all three of those books (a good half of what I read are "classics") and I think they're all great - very entertaining, contrary to your opinion - especially Brave New World. I'd class 1984 and Brave New World as "dystopian sci-fi" genre fiction rather than literary fiction, which is probably why they resonate with me more than strict literary novels like "Catcher in the Rye" and "On The Road". Same with "The Time Machine" by HG Wells.
However, some literary novels are great: A Tale of Two Cities (my favourite book), Atonement, Crime and Punishment, Lolita...
Overall, I don't see genre fiction or literary fiction being dominant.
I'm willing to re-think anything if people give me a reason to.
I've read all three of those books (a good half of what I read are "classics") and I think they're all great - very entertaining, contrary to your opinion - especially Brave New World. I'd class 1984 and Brave New World as "dystopian sci-fi" genre fiction rather than literary fiction, which is probably why they resonate with me more than strict literary novels like "Catcher in the Rye" and "On The Road". Same with "The Time Machine" by HG Wells.
However, some literary novels are great: A Tale of Two Cities (my favourite book), Atonement, Crime and Punishment, Lolita...
Overall, I don't see genre fiction or literary fiction being dominant.
Rachel wrote: Yes, another good post. You and Anne Hawn bring up some good points...Well, thanks - that's nice of you. You don't often see people "put their hands down" in an online debate.
Although I've never done science beyond high school (I'm a law student) your remarks about science staying aloof and confronting morality resonates well with me (I devoured The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values). After losing (or, throwing away?)a rather pietist protestant faith, I turned to science in order to fill the gap. It didn't quite work though, and I've had to turn more and more to literary fiction in order to refrain from becoming an intolerable cynic. I suspect that maybe others on this thread feel the same way, which obviously explains some of the poison and aggressiveness in some of the replies.
You're bashing things that are very dear to a lot of people, but I think you knew that when you started commenting in the first place, and I'm guessing you're not too surprised by the way people are responding.
As a irremediable contrarian I admire the effort, though. You seriously lit up this thread.
Martin wrote: "Mark wrote: "OK, because my acerbic (and that may be putting in mildly) persona on Goodreads often has people misunderstanding me and assuming I'm something I'm not, I've been trying to be kinder a..."Congratulations on contributing with...absolutely nothing. I'm sure Rachel can fend for herself without you asking people to suck your dick.
Mark wrote: Twenty or thirty years from now (if you're lucky), you'll look back on the things you're thinking and saying now and say, "gawd, what an ass I was capable of being."I'm starting to realize this already at the age of 24. I suppose I'll loathe myself at 50, if I ever get there.
Paul Martin wrote: "Rachel wrote: Yes, another good post. You and Anne Hawn bring up some good points...
Well, thanks - that's nice of you. You don't often see people "put their hands down" in an online debate.
Alth..."
Haha thanks.
I'm not the one "bashing" - it's almost everyone else! :D People are basically suggesting that genre fiction is inferior fiction for the brainless masses. Is genre fiction not "very dear to a lot of people" too? (More people, in fact.) I don't see how sticking up for genre fic and saying that it's on an equal footing with literary fic is "bashing". :D
Well, thanks - that's nice of you. You don't often see people "put their hands down" in an online debate.
Alth..."
Haha thanks.
I'm not the one "bashing" - it's almost everyone else! :D People are basically suggesting that genre fiction is inferior fiction for the brainless masses. Is genre fiction not "very dear to a lot of people" too? (More people, in fact.) I don't see how sticking up for genre fic and saying that it's on an equal footing with literary fic is "bashing". :D
Rachel wrote: Is genre fiction not "very dear to a lot of people" too?I'll ceed that point the day I see numerous in-depth analyses on the discussion boards of Twilight and The Da Vinci Code. And by that I don't mean threads like "did u liek when he caught the bad guy?"
I don't see how sticking up for genre fic and saying that it's on an equal footing with literary fic is "bashing"
Well, in your terms I suppose it would be like turning up at a science fair and advocating that astronomy and medicine are not superior to to astrology and homeopathy, but that they are in fact equal.
I'm no literary critic in any way, but to people who have perhaps spent their entire lives on literature, surely you can see why it's provoking when you just blatantly discard the position that one form of literature has more intrinsic quality than the other.
I'm not offended in any way by your comments, but I would be if you were to claim, say, that The Famous Grouse stands on equal footing with Glengoyne 17 yo!
Paul Martin wrote: "Rachel wrote: Is genre fiction not "very dear to a lot of people" too?
I'll ceed that point the day I see numerous in-depth analyses on the discussion boards of Twilight and The Da Vinci Code. And..."
Well, the difference is evidence. We have plenty of evidence that homeopathy and astrology don't work. We have no evidence to suggest a certain novel is "intrinsically more valuable" than another. Objectively, it's all just ink on paper (or words on a screen). The "worth" factor is something that only exists inside the minds of human beings, and it's based on emotional reactions to external stimuli. Personal opinions, in summary.
I'll ceed that point the day I see numerous in-depth analyses on the discussion boards of Twilight and The Da Vinci Code. And..."
Well, the difference is evidence. We have plenty of evidence that homeopathy and astrology don't work. We have no evidence to suggest a certain novel is "intrinsically more valuable" than another. Objectively, it's all just ink on paper (or words on a screen). The "worth" factor is something that only exists inside the minds of human beings, and it's based on emotional reactions to external stimuli. Personal opinions, in summary.
I have been a teacher and librarian and I have only recently come across the concept of genre fiction and literary fiction. I did a little research and found this on Huffington Post:"In essence, the best Genre Fiction contains great writing, with the goal of telling a captivating story to escape from reality. Literary Fiction is comprised of the heart and soul of a writer's being, and is experienced as an emotional journey through the symphony of words, leading to a stronger grasp of the universe and of ourselves."
To me that sounds like a big difference.
None of the three novels I mentioned were written to be "fun" which is what I said about them. "Orwell stated in "Why I Write" (1946): "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it."
He wasn't writing to entertain. I just finished Of Human Bondage and I loved it, but, even with friends studying together, it couldn't be called fun. I like to be challenged by someone whose intellect and understanding are greater than mine. I like to encounter new ideas that make me reorder my thinking. It's satisfying, but when I want "fun" in my reading, I look for Bertie Wooster, not Maugham or Proust.
Paul Martin wrote: "
I'll ceed that point the day I see numerous in-depth analyses on the discussion boards of Twilight and The Da Vinci Code. And..."
Having more "in-depth analyses" does not mean "This novel is better." Instead, it means "This novel is generally more appealing to the kind of reader who likes to write in-depth analyses about books."
I'll ceed that point the day I see numerous in-depth analyses on the discussion boards of Twilight and The Da Vinci Code. And..."
Having more "in-depth analyses" does not mean "This novel is better." Instead, it means "This novel is generally more appealing to the kind of reader who likes to write in-depth analyses about books."
Anne Hawn wrote: "I have been a teacher and librarian and I have only recently come across the concept of genre fiction and literary fiction. I did a little research and found this on Huffington Post:
"In essence,..."
As far as I'm concerned, the best novels tend to meet at a kind of halfway point between "genre" and "literary". They're entertaining enough to be an enjoyable read, but thought-provoking enough to linger in the mind for a while after finishing. To go too far either way (eg. James Joyce and most "Mills and Boon" romances) ruins the book.
"In essence,..."
As far as I'm concerned, the best novels tend to meet at a kind of halfway point between "genre" and "literary". They're entertaining enough to be an enjoyable read, but thought-provoking enough to linger in the mind for a while after finishing. To go too far either way (eg. James Joyce and most "Mills and Boon" romances) ruins the book.
Anne Hawn wrote: "I have been a teacher and librarian and I have only recently come across the concept of genre fiction and literary fiction. I did a little research and found this on Huffington Post:
"In essence,..."
You say that they didn't set out to "entertain" - but I'm sure they didn't set out to intentionally "bore" the reader either?
"In essence,..."
You say that they didn't set out to "entertain" - but I'm sure they didn't set out to intentionally "bore" the reader either?
Rachel wrote: "Paul Martin wrote: "Rachel wrote: Is genre fiction not "very dear to a lot of people" too?I'll ceed that point the day I see numerous in-depth analyses on the discussion boards of Twilight and Th..."
Yes, but as I think you very well know, I was talking about the way people have been replying to you, not the evidential basis of literary analysis.
But of course, literary analysis is based on certain man-made parameters that have stuck with us through time.
If we are to assume a reductionist stance on everything, what's left? Goodreads as a whole seems completely pointless if "it's all just ink on paper".
The "worth" factor is something that only exists inside the minds of human beings
Well, we are human beings. What else is there to discuss if not what's in our heads? The universe, you might say? Sure, but the scientific method is also in a way "emotional reactions to external stimuli", as it is a product of our rationality in an attempt to satisfy our curiosity and understand our surroundings.
Is it the best we have? Yes, I believe so. Is it applicable on every aspect of human nature? Not yet, I think. Someday, perhaps, but not yet.
Rachel wrote: Having more "in-depth analyses" does not mean "This novel is better." Instead, it means "This novel is generally more appealing to the kind of reader who likes to write in-depth analyses about books."And you think it impossible that there is any kind of link between a)the impact a book has made on a person, and b)the need/urge that person has to analyse and further understand what he or she just read?
After researching the difference between genre and literary fiction, I have become concerned about what I see as a creeping trend in literature. As a matter of fact, it could even be called Orwellian.The College Boards or SAT has been dumbed down again. If scores are not high enough, lower the bar. On the evening news, I listened to the vocabulary words which were eliminated and I'm appalled. I use those words on a weekly basis! They are not obscure. But that is not the problem. Kids can hardly read the classics already. They don't have the vocabulary or the ability to read complex sentences.
People complain about Ulysses and other classics because they are too complicated to read. They are too complicated because schools aren't equipping kids to read them. The ideas of John Locke and John Stuart Mill are too difficult, so they get left out also.
A while back we had a teacher who was posting and she said that kids should read what was relevant and in the language that the kids actually spoke. In return, someone said why teach them at all if that is what they read naturally.
Now we are redefining what literature is and putting it on the same level of recreational reading. Our kids are less and less prepared to read the philosophies that define and articulate our concept of freedom. When the government takes away more and more of our freedom through taxes and regulations we feel that there is some reason why we shouldn't allow it, but we can't articulate it. A slick talking politician tells us that it is the only way and we feel uneasy, but can't make a good argument as to why not.
I read Ulysses years ago along with all the major classics and philosophers. I had been given the skills to read all those books because that was the goal of the English Department...to prepare me to read anything I needed to.
I can see why Ulysses or Finnegan's Wake is overwhelming to today's students. In fact, it is probably impossible to many. But when most of us were in school, the philosophy was to bring the student's up to the necessary level, not to pick easier books.
Rachel wrote: "Kallie wrote: "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."
You wouldn't, because we are..."
But you imply that your scientific p.o.v. is more objective and world-embracing than any great novelist's p.o.v. could ever be; so prove it. You are blowing a lot of hot air so far, but bring nothing substantive to back it up; not even the imaginary pie chart that Mark suggested. If you are bored by literary fiction, perhaps the lack resides within you, just as it does within me when I feel bored by algebra. Or let's be more honest: baffled; I'm beginning to wonder if you can admit to being baffled. The difference is, I don't feel a need to dismiss what I don't understand as 'dumb.' If I am confrontational with you, it is because of your rude dismissals of what you don't appreciate. Being young is no excuse for bad manners.
Martin wrote: "Here! Here!"Maybe you should consider going back to drinking. At least that provided you with an excuse for your behavior.
Kallie wrote: "But you imply that your scientific p.o.v. is more objective and world-embracing than any great novelist's p.o.v. could ever be; so prove it. You are blowing a lot of hot air so far, but bring nothing substantive to back it up;"Thumps the floor with his pool cue...
Maybe we should dub her Rachel Spock.
I have an old college buddy I nicknamed Spock because of his left-brained orientation. Actually he's bordering on Asperger syndrome. Wicked smart. He refused to read fiction because it "isn't true."
I keep telling him fiction doesn't mean fantasy. Some of the best literary fiction is based on real life events and people. The Sun Also Rises was a roman a clef novel (i.e., it was a true story, with names changed, a group of rowdies Hem paled around in Paris and went to Pamplona with.) For Whom the Bell Tolls was based on Hem's experience covering the Spanish Civil War as a newsman.
A chunk of East of Eden was actually biography (the Hamiltons were his mother's clan.)
A lot of fiction is life experience rearranged.
But I can't seem to get this through to my Spock buddy.
Welcome to the "adult" table, Rachel! Aint it fun? It looks like the Inquision has cornered a heretic---but should one take a moment and read some of Rachel's reviews, it's obvious that she deserves to be taken seriously. Science and literature are not mutually exclusive and each gives valuable insights into our existence. Both are necessary in a true Rennaissance free thinker. I am still baffled by the genre "literary fiction." Who is the audience? What is the intention? Is it where books get shelved when they don't fit a specific book store genre? Is it fiction written without hope of commercial success? Is it writing that places style, technique and novelty above entertainment? Is it when the writer writes in a selfishly abstract fashion without any concern for the limitations of the audience? I understand that literary fiction tends to make more use of allusion and usually is more character driven, but it still must connect on an emotional level with the reader. Eliot's Silas Marner connected with me but so did Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows. HaHa ;D
Monty J wrote:"The breakthrough to True Self lies through the mental breakdown. The great mass of humanity who think they are 'stable' simply have not yet been accorded the opportunity."Monty, there has been much I did not quite get about some of your posts, although I've enjoyed many of them. But I have to say that it's finally getting through my thick head that you are a guy who has paid some serious dues. And you have the cajones to honestly mention it when it makes sense without making it front and center. Mucho respect, señor J.
Kallie wrote: "Rachel wrote: "Kallie wrote: "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."
You wouldn't,..."
The genre fiction fan: "I like this book because the characters are really great, the plot is awesome, and it really moved me. Oh, you're a Harry Potter fan? Cool, me too! Who's your favourite character?"
The literary fiction fan: "I like this book because it makes me look intelligent when I'm talking to people who haven't. If you were as clever as me, you'd like this book too. But you don't so you're not."
I know which I'd rather be.
I see no evidence of scientific thinking in any of your posts."
You wouldn't,..."
The genre fiction fan: "I like this book because the characters are really great, the plot is awesome, and it really moved me. Oh, you're a Harry Potter fan? Cool, me too! Who's your favourite character?"
The literary fiction fan: "I like this book because it makes me look intelligent when I'm talking to people who haven't. If you were as clever as me, you'd like this book too. But you don't so you're not."
I know which I'd rather be.
S.W. wrote: "Welcome to the "adult" table, Rachel! Aint it fun? It looks like the Inquision has cornered a heretic---but should one take a moment and read some of Rachel's reviews, it's obvious that she deser..."
You mean the "pseudo-intellectual snob" table? :D
I knew the Inquisition would get me sooner or later!
That's exactly right. Science gives us insight into the objective areas of life. The arts into the subjective areas of life. And religion, if you're into that kind of thing, is a blending of the two.
Yeah, a great book is a great book, no matter what the genre. But what's a great novel to one person will suck to another. That's life. :)
You mean the "pseudo-intellectual snob" table? :D
I knew the Inquisition would get me sooner or later!
That's exactly right. Science gives us insight into the objective areas of life. The arts into the subjective areas of life. And religion, if you're into that kind of thing, is a blending of the two.
Yeah, a great book is a great book, no matter what the genre. But what's a great novel to one person will suck to another. That's life. :)
Paul Martin wrote: "Rachel wrote: "Paul Martin wrote: "Rachel wrote: Is genre fiction not "very dear to a lot of people" too?
I'll ceed that point the day I see numerous in-depth analyses on the discussion boards of ..."
I'm not saying we should give up on fiction because it's subjective. I'm just saying we should accept it's subjective nature, tolerate other people's subjective opinions, and stop bickering about this genre of books being truly, objectively, unquestionably better than another.
Whether you like a novel or not, tells you more about you than the book itself.
I'll ceed that point the day I see numerous in-depth analyses on the discussion boards of ..."
I'm not saying we should give up on fiction because it's subjective. I'm just saying we should accept it's subjective nature, tolerate other people's subjective opinions, and stop bickering about this genre of books being truly, objectively, unquestionably better than another.
Whether you like a novel or not, tells you more about you than the book itself.
You can't fool me, Rach, you're obviously both---just like yours truly. No one has a monopoly on the truth. It spills out from many sources and an open mind is a best "catcher" in this rye field.
Mark wrote: "...a guy who has paid some serious dues."Yeah. Marine Corps boot camp was pretty much a walk in the park.
Thanks :)
Rachel wrote:"Why the insults (the poorly hidden assumption that I'm unwise, and that I'm making terrible mistakes, etc.)? The annoying thing is that you've given no reasons for your opinion of me. :DIn my view, science should try to remain aloof from moral opinions - they often fly in the face of reason, and are situation-dependent. Science is evidence based and objective, and there is no evidence suggesting that any kind of objective morality exists. The job of science is not to make the world a better place for people (though it can be used for that), but to be curious and develop our understanding of how the universe works. Does science need to be anything more in order to be worthwhile?"
It was never my intention to insult you. I mean, I flat out called this Martin cat "a bit of a dick," so if I'm motivated to insult someone, I just do it. I don't think you're "unwise," but I do think that, overall, you are possibly not yet wise. I don't think I'm all that wise myself. Terrible mistakes? Seems to me you've pretty much got your shit together. Go!
The sort of veneration you have for what you call "science" and "reason" I don't quite get, frankly. It strikes me as what I hear when a pious person talks about God. It's your version of an airtight argument ender: "Science is always right so scientifically speaking your non-scientific opinions are not sciencey enough to be scientifically sound. Hail science!"
What a bag of donuts and a bunch of bullshit that seems to be to me.
And "moral opinions" versus "morality"? Could I fix you a nice filet of innocent infant sandwich? Would you care to have sex with one of your siblings? Tell me more about this world where the purity of human curiosity trumps morality.
"Oh, yes, yesterday I restrained grandma to the kitchen table and cut off her fingers one by one with the garden shears because I was curious about what her reaction might be."
"Well, that's fine, dear, as long as you're developing a better understanding of how the universe works. Grandma was always so bloody subjective anyway. With any luck she'll bleed out as a result of your noble experiment."
Name the planet you are from if you dare!
Meanwhile, you might want to read Descartes Error by Antonio D'Amasio (might have the title not quite right; might have spelled the author's name wrong). He uses SCIENCE to cast some doubt on the opinions derived from whatever weird ass Kool-Ade you've been drinking.
As for genre fiction versus literary fiction, I agree with some of your points. Take Isaac Asimov's Caves of Steel. It's a detective story. And it's science fiction. But it's a better read than a lot of arty-farty examples of literature. The book A Readers' Manifesto makes some great observations about literature versus genre fiction that I think you'd connect with.
Just as Asimov had his three laws of robotics, science has it's own laws against human experimentation. An IRB would never allow us to torture Granny. But if you leave out a single comma, literature could harm Granny as well. Note the sentence: Let's eat Grandma. Commas save lives. And your favorite author Cormac McCarthy field dressed an infant and had it cooking on a skewer in The Road. I ask you, who harmed more people: nuclear weapons or Ayn Rand? :-) (I'm really way too old to be using emoticons)
Ah, the block feature. It's the best.
Mark wrote: "Ah, the block feature. It's the best."Block user? How?
Paul Martin wrote: "How?"To block a user:
1) Navigate to that user's profile page.
2) Scroll down to the bottom of the page.
3) Click "block this member".
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
It is so interesting to me how two people read the same book and come away with such opposite reviews. Obviously, in this case, political bias has much to do with it on both sides, but I respectfully disagree with your statements about Atlas Shrugged. This story is obviously very extreme to make her point. And, for me, she made her points so well, she has inspired me to pick up books on economics. I feel this book is more apropos now in our economic fiasco here in America than ever!
..."
S.W. wrote: "You can't fool me, Rach, you're obviously both---just like yours truly. No one has a monopoly on the truth. It spills out from many sources and an open mind is a best "catcher" in this rye field."
I don't understand the context of this post. What are you replying to?
I don't understand the context of this post. What are you replying to?
Martin wrote: "Here! Here!
Who does this "Rachel" think she is... actually enjoying something which was obviously intended to be slogged through like a three-toed sloth in quicksand.
Some people just don't get literature. "
Haha!
I'd like to take this opportunity to apologise deeply for any offense I may have caused by suggesting some classics are entertaining to read.
If there is one thing I have learned from this discussion, it is this: the more entertaining a story is to read, the less merit it has as a work of fiction.
I wouldn't have been able to figure this great truth out without you guys, so thanks a bunch!
Who does this "Rachel" think she is... actually enjoying something which was obviously intended to be slogged through like a three-toed sloth in quicksand.
Some people just don't get literature. "
Haha!
I'd like to take this opportunity to apologise deeply for any offense I may have caused by suggesting some classics are entertaining to read.
If there is one thing I have learned from this discussion, it is this: the more entertaining a story is to read, the less merit it has as a work of fiction.
I wouldn't have been able to figure this great truth out without you guys, so thanks a bunch!
Mark wrote: "Rachel wrote:"Why the insults (the poorly hidden assumption that I'm unwise, and that I'm making terrible mistakes, etc.)? The annoying thing is that you've given no reasons for your opinion of me...."
Is anyone wise? I've never claimed to be, nor will I.
Science is limited by the available evidence. Perfect knowledge is impossible, as Socrates implied. No need to enlighten me on the limitations of science. But it's the only way we have of consistently coming to objective (as objective as it's humanly possible to achieve) "truths" (which may turn out to be false later) about the external world. I think science is very beautiful for this reason.
Morality is subjective. There is no purely objective reason not to rape your entire family if you wish. But objectivity isn't everything. Human beings live in a subjective interpersonal realm, and this means we add value to things that have none, and make decisions that make no sense scientifically. Is this a bad thing? Not as far as I'm concerned - the subjective realm is every bit as important as the objective one to humans, but I don't think that means we shouldn't be critical of it and try to understand it.
Is anyone wise? I've never claimed to be, nor will I.
Science is limited by the available evidence. Perfect knowledge is impossible, as Socrates implied. No need to enlighten me on the limitations of science. But it's the only way we have of consistently coming to objective (as objective as it's humanly possible to achieve) "truths" (which may turn out to be false later) about the external world. I think science is very beautiful for this reason.
Morality is subjective. There is no purely objective reason not to rape your entire family if you wish. But objectivity isn't everything. Human beings live in a subjective interpersonal realm, and this means we add value to things that have none, and make decisions that make no sense scientifically. Is this a bad thing? Not as far as I'm concerned - the subjective realm is every bit as important as the objective one to humans, but I don't think that means we shouldn't be critical of it and try to understand it.
S.W. wrote: "Just as Asimov had his three laws of robotics, science has it's own laws against human experimentation. An IRB would never allow us to torture Granny. But if you leave out a single comma, literat..."
The ethical rules of science have nothing to do with science. They are human ethical rules, not scientific ones: without people (for example, in a world solely inhabited by robot scientists) science wouldn't have them.
The ethical rules of science have nothing to do with science. They are human ethical rules, not scientific ones: without people (for example, in a world solely inhabited by robot scientists) science wouldn't have them.
I don't understand why there are so many classics on these kinds of lists. It's frankly upsetting that they're classified as "overrated".Yes some aspects of them may no longer fit in with the current society, but I still believe everyone should read them - it gives us an alternate perspective and you can see how the language/stories have evolved!
Fijke wrote: "Rachel wrote: "Salinger can not dream of competing with the complex shifting dynamics of the large scale society in Martin's books."
That's a really weird comparison. You keep saying we shouldn't ..."
I wasn't arguing that A Game of Thrones was "better" than The Catcher in the Rye. I was arguing it was more "complex". I think complexity - left at that, with no value attached to it - can be discussed and debated to some degree.
The difference between the sciences and the arts, is that in science there are actual answers out there that are true, untrue, or somewhere in between. In the arts, there are no objective answers as regards "value" (at least, I don't see any kind of consistent process for finding them) and so there is no "progress" to be made by these kinds of debates - other than realising that everyone's opinion on value is as valid as any other, so long as they've put the same amount of effort into reading the story.
That's a really weird comparison. You keep saying we shouldn't ..."
I wasn't arguing that A Game of Thrones was "better" than The Catcher in the Rye. I was arguing it was more "complex". I think complexity - left at that, with no value attached to it - can be discussed and debated to some degree.
The difference between the sciences and the arts, is that in science there are actual answers out there that are true, untrue, or somewhere in between. In the arts, there are no objective answers as regards "value" (at least, I don't see any kind of consistent process for finding them) and so there is no "progress" to be made by these kinds of debates - other than realising that everyone's opinion on value is as valid as any other, so long as they've put the same amount of effort into reading the story.
DLS wrote: "I don't understand why there are so many classics on these kinds of lists. It's frankly upsetting that they're classified as "overrated".
Yes some aspects of them may no longer fit in with the curr..."
I think it's because books tend to grow a kind of mythic status with the passing of time, and so are seen as masterpieces purely because they were quite popular a hundred years ago.
Newer stories haven't had the chance to gain this mythic super-status, and so tend not to be as "highly rated".
In a hundred years time, Harry Potter and The Hunger Games will also be hailed as "classic" literature. And why not? They are far more entertaining - and even philosophically more "profound" - than 95% of the "classics" I've read (most classics really aren't that profound - Tess of the D'Urbervilles, anyone?).
In short, I think it comes down to tradition. People have been brought up to believe old stories are better by default, and are unwilling to question these beliefs that they were taught at school, even if they personally enjoy modern novels just as much.
Yes some aspects of them may no longer fit in with the curr..."
I think it's because books tend to grow a kind of mythic status with the passing of time, and so are seen as masterpieces purely because they were quite popular a hundred years ago.
Newer stories haven't had the chance to gain this mythic super-status, and so tend not to be as "highly rated".
In a hundred years time, Harry Potter and The Hunger Games will also be hailed as "classic" literature. And why not? They are far more entertaining - and even philosophically more "profound" - than 95% of the "classics" I've read (most classics really aren't that profound - Tess of the D'Urbervilles, anyone?).
In short, I think it comes down to tradition. People have been brought up to believe old stories are better by default, and are unwilling to question these beliefs that they were taught at school, even if they personally enjoy modern novels just as much.
Mark wrote: "The sort of veneration you have for what you call "science" and "reason" I don't quite get, frankly. It strikes me as what I hear when a pious person talks about God. It's your version of an airtight argument ender: "Science is always right so scientifically speaking your non-scientific opinions are not sciencey enough to be scientifically sound. Hail science!" "
'STRAW MAN' TO THE RESCUE!! :D
'STRAW MAN' TO THE RESCUE!! :D
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...
See, now that's what we call a "tell."
It shows your age, it shows your level of maturity and it shows your level of intolerance for things that are difficult...
I haven't been able to finish Ulysses so far in my life, but I started as a senior in my high school English class by reading the Molly section (Yes!), and I've made a few attempts over the years, each time getting more and more out of it but not finishing it. One day when I'm ready I'll read it all the way through.
But I don't blame the book for all that. Maybe Ulysses instead of being the worst book ever is the best book ever and you just don't get it. Or maybe it's not. But be patient for crying out loud. You like The Hunger Games. Is it possible that you just aren't ready for the hard stuff? Don't call it the worst book ever. That's just not what thoughtful people do...
But Finnegan's Wake makes Ulysses look like child's play.