The Most Overrated Books Showing 1,001-1,050 of 5,680

[Paul Martin]

Rachel wrote: "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."

Nobody would disagree with you on that, but that is not what you've been doing. You've been blatantly dismissing the importance (to some, or many) of adding value to things that have none. It's all well and good of you to now say that they are "every bit as important", but that hasn't been the premise for your previous comments. As an aspiring scientist I assume you see the difference between critical and irrational criticism.

They are far more entertaining - and even philosophically more "profound" - than 95% of the "classics" I've read

You're constantly shifting between constructive criticism and fractious assumptions. A scientific way of arguing loses all credibility if it's inconsequent. Whether it's intentional intellectual dishonesty or not, I don't know, but you would have a much greater chance of driving your point home if you assumed a more subtle rhetoric - if you did, I think you'd realize that the disagreement in question is not all that big.

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.

Do you not see how lame it is to make such a comment and then accuse Mark of the "Straw Man" fallacy?

[Paul Martin]

Martin wrote: "Being blocked sends the member into an alternate reality where everyone smiles, reads Roald Dahl and Stephen King, subsists on Moosetracks ice cream, and dances among the effigies of David Foster Wallace and J.D. Salinger which hang from every tree.
"

You're like a 13 year old who's just discovered the use of sarcasm. I'll tell you a secret: it's not that cool if you do it all the time.

[[deleted user]]

S.W. wrote: "I ask you, who harmed more people: nuclear weapons or Ayn Rand?
"

Nuclear weapons haven't killed many people at all in comparison with other methods, mainly because the only country who is cruel enough to intentionally use them on other people is the USA. In fact they've saved many lives, due to big countries being unwilling to get into serious wars with other big countries these days - they are in many ways a vaccine against major world conflicts haha.

As for Ayn Rand - well, it didn't harm me, but reading Atlas Shrugged certainly bored me! :)

You make a good point. Literature has done people lots of harm in history. Just look at the ideas contained in "Mein Kampf" by Adolf Hitler (an interesting book, well-written, but crazy) for an example. I don't think fiction, especially genre fiction, has done much harm however (other than giving people unrealistic expectations of what to expect in relationships haha).

[Paul Martin]

I thought you blocked me, Oh Wise Beyond His Years

I will, now.

You're about as interesting and productive as the Greek economy anno 2008.

Farewell.

[Kallie]

Rachel wrote: "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."

Again, presumptuous and rude. People respond (as I did at first) as though you really want to know what they think; you do not respond with real thoughts but keep regurgitating the same flatly stated opinions and adolescent insults. This is not about a 'monoply on truth' with regard to genre vs. literary fiction so much as people wanting a real discussion. I don't believe you want to engage in a real discussion, or ever did. You're playing a bait and switch game.

[[deleted user]]

Paul Martin wrote: "Rachel wrote: "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."

Nobody would di..."

Where have I said that the objective perspective should be given more weight in general life than the subjective? Nobody ever asked me to explain this until now. We are discussing "value" in literature, and all I said was that it isn't something found in the objective world, not that "therefore it's unimportant."

***

I disagree. I was giving my own personal opinion about what I've read. I accept that I didn't make that clear though, so I can see why you would say that.

[[deleted user]]

Kallie wrote: "Rachel wrote: "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 yo..."

It's ironic that you call me rude, when I'm probably the one who's given the smallest number of personal insults in this discussion (that post is the only one, to my knowledge, and was an attempt at humour rather than a serious comment - I'm sure not all literary fans are like that, only the ones in this thread). People like yourself should learn to discuss the topic in hand and not the person behind the opinions. I've been nothing if not respectful in this thread.

Small question: Have you actually read any of my posts? It appears not, from this post.

[[deleted user]]

Kallie wrote: "Rachel wrote: "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 yo..."

I'd like to present the people who say I'm being offensive with a challenge.

I arrived in this thread in post 913. Read through all my posts, and pick out all of the insults I've given (there won't be many - I counted two - one was an attempt at humour, and one was just because I was sick of being insulted for no reason at all and my annoyance bled into the post haha, which I regret now). Then, take a look at others making derogatory comments about me (when they don't even know me) and add those insults up too.

If you are honest with yourselves, you'll see that I'm the least offensive and most respectful person in this conversation - or near the top, anyway.

Until you do this, refrain from making these kinds of comments, please, or I won't reply. I'm not interested in getting into emotional disputes with random people online.

[Mark]

Rachel wrote: "People like yourself should learn to discuss the topic in hand and not the person behind the opinions. I've been nothing if not respectful in this thread."

Overused exaggerated accusation of Ad Hominem argument to the rescue!

And I can't bring myself to use emoticons.

And I disagree that when I said your line of reasoning reminded me of piety that I was resorting to straw man tactics. So you're versed on the top ten logical fallacies in critical thinking. We get it. Teach a kid to use a hammer and everything looks like a nail.

So allow me to remove my alleged straw man and state my inability to understand your way of thinking as a question: how can "reason" and "science" be considered, executed or even exist in a vacuum apart from human perceptions and behavior which are by definition subjective to varying degrees. This is what I don't understand. It seems to require the same kind of leap of faith that religions require (oh, darn, my alleged straw-man rears his ugly head).

I am not as, I don't know how to put it, rigid and impermeable in my modes of thought as you, but isn't there a form of Gödel's incompleteness theorems writ large that must be applied to the much ballyhooed sanctity of science and reason? Any given system cannot be used to prove all the truths within that system and a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency sort of thing.

Maybe you can claim God was my straw-man, but Gödel? Meet me halfway. I'm trying to be all sciencey here.

[Mark]

Rachel wrote: "Until you do this..."

All my insults here and elsewhere are attempts at humor. Some even succeed. Except for any I directed at Martin. I believe he is truly a turd.

[[deleted user]]

Mark wrote: "Rachel wrote: "People like yourself should learn to discuss the topic in hand and not the person behind the opinions. I've been nothing if not respectful in this thread."

Overused exaggerated accu..."

Have you read what people have written about me, including yourself? It isn't an exaggeration.

***

Presenting someone's arguments in a false way, or an absurd way, is an intellectually dishonest way of refuting them. I stand by this.

***

Yes, I agree - Kurt Godel was one of my favourite philosophers, by the way (always nice to hear him mentioned haha). I don't think this is the thread for an in-depth discussion on logic (feel free to PM me), but I will say that of course science is founded on numerous unverifiable assumptions - the existence of the external world for one - and is indeed inherently subjective (it relies on "curiosity" for example). And yes, I'm willing to say that science, like any philosophical perspective, requires a "leap of faith".

However, there isn't any real alternative to science, so we can't just dismiss it for not being perfect.

[[deleted user]]

Mark wrote: "Rachel wrote: "Until you do this..."

All my insults here and elsewhere are attempts at humor. Some even succeed. "

I disagree: it appears you truly do believe the derogatory things you say about me, without any attempt to get to know me. You make me out to be a misguided closed-minded idiot unwilling to change her mind. This may be true, for all I know, but I don't think you know me well enough to reach this conclusion.

[[deleted user]]

Mark wrote: "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!" "

This is when you made your Straw Man misrepresentation of my view.

[Paul Martin]

Rachel wrote: "If you are honest with yourselves, you'll see that I'm the least offensive and most respectful person in this conversation - or near the top, anyway."

True, you've made very few personal insults. What you've been doing, as far as I can see, is challenge the idea that "the classics" are more "valuable" than contemporary genre fiction, which is fine and great - I love fantasy and I agree on many things. But when you reason that you haven't made any personal insults and therefore have not behaved offensively, you do not take into consideration the patronizing and assumptious tone in some of your posts. I'll use a fresh example:

In short, I think it comes down to tradition. People have been brought up to believe old stories are better by default

In that statement you infantilize everyone who feels that literary fiction, and especially "the classics", are more valuable than genre fiction. Is this the same thing that literary snobs do when they dismiss the value of genre fiction entirely? Of course, but that hardly justifies an equally unfair retaliation. Claiming that you haven't made any direct insults is meaningless, as it is your general claims that have caused the antagonzing comments against you.

I'm sorry if I have offended you, and my intention has never been to make assumptions about you as a person (if your last post was directed at me), but I strongly disagree that personal insults is the only way to be offensive.

[S.W.]

Rachel, I was referring to post #1047. I think you're a breath of fresh air; an aspiring free thinker who's not intimidated by traditional opinions; a rational, objective scientist with an appreciation for the subjective arts as well; a Renaissance woman. Where would we be if Galileo had not challenged the geocentric model of Ptolemy?

Like Mark, many of my remarks were meant to be humorous, anecdotal jests. I agree with many of your points. I did not learn to be a surgeon from reading Dr. Zhivago. That doesn't mean literature has no value. My literary pursuits have kept me grounded, open minded and sane (I think Monty J expressed this much better in his posts).

I too was bored to tears by Ms. Rand, despite my Libertarian leanings. But Ayn helped frame the major economic questions of our time.

Maybe you'll be the next Isaac Asimov: a biochemist who was one of the most prolific writers of our time? I was an English/biochem major but that's as close as I got to the Master of Sci-Fi. Interestingly, the university would not allow me to receive a BA in English and a BS in Biochem---is the establishment programmed to separate the Arts and Sciences? Keep fighting, Rach! :=] (that's my Voldemort emoticon)

[Petergiaquinta]

Rachel wrote: "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?)."

Mark is being so diplomatic these days; I'm really proud of him. But look, we've talked some "science" here; we've talked "wisdom"; we've thrown around some loose generalizations and mean names, and that's just part of banter on a discussion thread. But something like the above I pasted there is just nonsense, and if you're really the young scientist you think you are, you should be a lot more thoughtful about things. You don't offer much in the way of specifics to support yourself, and "science" needs evidence, doesn't it. And so if some of your fellow posters seem a bit hostile, it's because you're talking a lot of crap.

Wisdom begins with the acknowledgement of one's own ignorance, and you just haven't read enough books or lived long enough to say some of the things you say. And then you don't offer anything concrete in support of what you say. In fact, I'd say (and yes, I've read everything you've posted) that your use of 95% and "100 years" are your first attempts at offering anything in the way of concrete specifics, but no, you're just throwing silly numbers around, and that's not scientific at all.

No, Harry Potter and the Hunger Games won't be considered classics in 100 years. Harry Potter is a lot of fun. I've read most of the books two or three times, although I've only read the last one once. It's the weakest of the series. However, I can speak to the series at great length and discuss it with you point by point if you like. I get why you love it; you grew up with it. But here's the thing, sweety, it's not much different from many another story of child hero fights evil. It's good, no doubt about it, but what will endure from Harry Potter to make it a "classic" that will be read and studied and analyzed at the college level? Nothing. Let's go back 100 years...how well do you know Edith Nesbit? Maybe you've read her books? Maybe not. How much do her books get read today by anyone? They certainly aren't studied at the college level. Nesbit could have been called the J.K. Rowling of her day. And she's just one of many authors whose works have not held up all that well over the years...No one reads Ballantyne anymore or even mentions him except in contrast to Lord of the Flies. We all know Tinkerbell, but no one reads Barrie anymore. Heck, Robert Louis Stevenson isn't holding up all that well himself, and he's probably the author that can best lay hold to the term "classic" writer.

And, despite how much I enjoy Harry Potter, I recognize its limitations. How many of the characters in HP are just retreads of flat, stereotypical characters we've seen over the ages? Spunky smart gal pal, doofus best friend, mean stepmother (yeah, I know the Durselys aren't step-parents, but you get it, right?), eccentric old man with boocoo smarts and a secret past, and I could go on and on and on and on. Harry is the most developed. But really, compare him to Holden Caulfield again, and what exactly is Harry? Pretty damn flat. So he has a sad back story. How much real emotional, psychology depth does he have? Not much because he doesn't need it. You love him; I get it. Me, too. But I have a context for reading his books and viewing his character that allows me to see Harry Potter books for what they are: great story telling and not much else.

So, 100 years from now I assume folks will still be reading Harry Potter, maybe even a tad more than they do the Edith Nesbit books because Harry Potter is better than Five Children and It. But HP won't be studied as a classic. Why would it be?

And Hunger Games? I'm embarrassed for you to even drop it into the discussion. It's crap even next to Harry Potter. Poor writing, poor plotting, terrible character development, just not good...again, I get it. You love it because you grew up with it, but it's just the flavor of the day and no more. Once the movies are done, it will pale and fade. It's already fading in the bright light of Divergent (and frankly, that almost makes Hunger Games look good). But don't confuse good literature with writers who are just cranking out the newest thing like clockwork, and right now the newest thing is a spunky gal who fights like a boss. Go look at the shelves of your local chain bookstore and it's shocking how much of that is out there. Not only will Hunger Games not be read in 100 years, I doubt it will be read in 20...

And really? Katniss has more to offer than Tess? Hunger Games is more profound than Thomas Hardy? Do you think before you type? Tess is about the roles of men and women, about poverty, about hypocrisy, about the crushing way fate works to destroy us no matter what we do. What is the Hunger Games about?

For all your tossing about of the word "science," don't you think there is a science behind the study of literature? You think it's just bearded, bespectacled groovy profs getting in touch with their subjective sides? You're so full of crap and you don't even know it. Of course there is a science to studying the arts. Go let all those Oxford dons over the centuries know their literary scholarship has been nothing but sitting in a circle holding hands and singing Kumbaya...

But grow up a little first and do some broader reading and maybe you'll see these books in a wider context.

[[deleted user]]

Paul Martin wrote: "Rachel wrote: "If you are honest with yourselves, you'll see that I'm the least offensive and most respectful person in this conversation - or near the top, anyway."

True, you've made very few per..."

Thank you for admitting that.

I love to read literary fiction too - or what many people on here would call "literary" - I'm neither a genre nor a literary "fan". I'm not saying genre fiction is better than literary fiction, but that literary fiction ISN'T better than genre fiction (and that classics aren't better than contemporary novels).

***

I can see why you might read that as an insult, but I think it was a fair point. The reason many people rate classics as "great literature" is because their society has taught them to - an example of this is the people who say that "Great Expectations" is great literature when they have never read the book themselves. I happen to agree that it's a wonderful book, but the difference is I went and read the book and made my own decision.

If you handed people a modern literary novel, and a classic literary novel, both great but unheard of, and didn't tell them which was written when, or what influence it's had in literature, then I think it will be about 50/50 in terms of which they preferred.

I think it's better to review a book as a thing-in-itself. You aren't rating how much you like the era it was written in, or it's impact on society and "literature", but the content of the story itself.

[S.W.]

Turd?! Dick?! I think Mark and Martin are having on online love affair. And there's nothing wrong with that! Maybe you two should rent a room?

Rachel doesn't need anyone to defend her; she's doing an excellent job by herself. But she's been incredibly patronized and talked down to in previous posts. Why should anyone be offended if she didn't get anything out of reading a classic book? At least she read it! At least she's trying to see what the big deal is all about! I accept her opinions and value them no less than Monty J's opinions---and that's saying a lot.

[David]

I have actually read MOBY DICK; it starts out well with the head hunter harpoonist, but then degenerates into encyclopedic information about whales, at least endless parts of it. ULYSSES is an acquired taste. I got to page 142 before I gave up; it wasn't the stream of consciousness stuff that got to me; I just hated Bloom. I've heard excerpts since then that were excellent; I wish I had the guts to give it another try. Considering all the experimentation Joyce was doing, he's got to be considered the greatest writer of the 20th century. He certainly wasn't writing for the hoi polloi. He even influenced Faulkner. Take a look at THE SOUND AND THE FURY. If you want entertainment and literary merit, THE DUBLINERS definitely qualifies.

[Michael]

Everyone has the right to hold and express his or her opinion, but all opinions are not of equal value. As Dennis Lehane writes in today's Boston Globe:

The Internet has led us down a wholly illusory rabbit hole in which all opinions exist in a kind of egalitarian dystopia — all are equal, so none may flourish. But opinions come in different shapes and flavors. The birther who believes global warming is a hoax because she still feels cold in February holds an opinion substantially less worthy than the scientist with the PhD in environmental science. And we used to know that. As a country, we used to respect knowledge that was earned over knowledge that was cherry picked. Now we watch Fox News, MSNBC, and TMZ.

[Gary]

Michael wrote: "Everyone has the right to hold and express his or her opinion, but all opinions are not of equal value."

Hear, hear.

The "every opinion is as valid as the next" opinion has always struck me as a silly, self-nullifying concept. Can't one just say, "Well, I disagree with that opinion" and the speaker must, at the very least, acknowledge the value of that "opinion" automatically? "I guess your opinion that not all opinions are worthwhile is as important as my opinion that they are...."

Plus, there's an apparently immediate and inevitable desire to reduce everything to opinion, regardless of supporting evidence and experience. Facts become opinions, expertise becomes opinion, truth isn't just relative, it's an opinion.

It is, literally, nonsensical. Every opinion is as valuable as every other opinion is to remove value from any opinion. At this point, I don't even see the sense in expressing that opinion. I think it's really a covert way of saying "be nice to me" but it's really a perversion of the Golden Rule. After all, under the new standard of "opinion" even the Golden Rule is just an opinion....

[[deleted user]]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "No, Harry Potter and the Hunger Games won't be considered classics in 100 years. "

We will see in 100 years time who is right about this. I'm quite confident however. Harry Potter almost has the mythic "classic" status already, and Rowling is probably the most popular children's novelist of all time.

***

Erm... Am I missing something? "The Railway Children" and "Five Children and It" are regarded as classic children's books. And they're very good - I much prefer them to "Tess of the D'Urbervilles," "On the Road," and "Treasure Island" (to name some examples).

Robert Louis Stevenson's fiction doesn't hold up because it simply isn't very well-written. Lewis Carroll is an example of a better children's author of the same-ish period.

***

"Hero vs. Antagonist" plot is the foundation for almost all fiction - including most literary books. The main problems plot-wise of the Harry Potter series is not the story archetype, but Rowling's use of "deus ex machina" events to get Harry out of trouble.

***

As for stereotypical characters, you could say the same about Dickens. However, though Dickens and Rowling start with archetypal characters, they quickly develop them to the point where they are some of the most well-rounded and well-loved characters in history.

To the contrary, Harry is one of the least developed - and least interesting - characters in the series. He's the "everyman" protagonist. Ron is more interesting, and Hermione is more interesting.

Are you saying you truly find the characters in Catcher more interesting and likable than the characters in Potter? I found them very boring, but each to their own. Where is the Luna Lovegood/Albus Dumbledore/Severus Snape of Catcher?

***

"Great storytelling and not much else."

That's pretty much everything a novel needs. I'd settle for that.

***

Haha have you actually read Hunger Games, or just seen the movie? I'd love to know what a good novel looks like if The Hunger Games is "crap".

The Hunger Games is about "freedom", "politics", "survival", "deception", "trust", and "love", (if you want to get all "literary" about it) and makes its thematic points much more intelligently - not to mention entertainingly - than Thomas Hardy ever did in Tess.

[S.W.]

Michael wrote: "Everyone has the right to hold and express his or her opinion, but all opinions are not of equal value. As Dennis Lehane writes in today's Boston Globe:

The Internet has led us down a wholly illus..."

And yet the idiotic birther may turn out to be correct on the hoax of global warning. Do not judge a book by it's cover. At one time in our Nation's dark past, many learned people believed that slaves were unintelligent animals incapable of advanced thinking. Do we disregard Thomas Jefferson's achievements because he was a slave owner. The creationists are still combating Darwin's theory of Natural Selection and Evolution. I suppose Frederick Douglas's opinions were "cherry picked" since he did not earn his knowledge in the traditional ways? Context is important but sometimes too much knowledge can obfuscate the truth.

Lehane's belief that "none may flourish" is tripe, IMHO. Maybe Lehane should read Francis Bacon and learn about the River of Time Analogy?

[[deleted user]]

Michael wrote: "Everyone has the right to hold and express his or her opinion, but all opinions are not of equal value..."

I could agree with you or not, depending on the "content" of the opinion.

In some fields, such as science, not all opinions are equal, because they can be tested against reality.

But in areas like literature/movie criticism, the opinions cancel each other out - everyone is essentially saying "I like/dislike this". They are simply expressing their own emotional reactions.

[Petergiaquinta]

Rachel wrote: "Haha have you actually read Hunger Games, or just seen the movie? I'd love to know what a good novel looks like if The Hunger Games is "crap"."

Of course I've read it. I'm not like you, talking out my ass about books online. It's not a good book, it's not well written, and it's certainly not about any of those things you say it is. It's not even that good of a story. It is a good cashcow for its author and others. And if you think it makes those "thematic points much more intelligently," or even entertainingly, "than Thomas Hardy ever did in Tess," you, my dear, are an idiot.

[S.W.]

I too was bothered by the "deus ex machina" nature of Harry's seeming invincibility but Rowling won me over in the last book with the "Harry as Horcrux" explanation. It was almost a "Sixth Sense" moment---you know, when you suddenly realized Bruce Willis's character was a ghost.

BTW Petergiaquinta, Harry Potter has been discussed and parsed ad nauseum in colleges and universities across America. Many professors have been so overwhelmed that they specifically request that students NOT write papers on Mr. Potter's exploits.

[[deleted user]]

S.W. wrote: "I too was bothered by the "deus ex machine" nature of Harry's seeming invincibility but Rowling won me over in the last book with the "Harry as Horcrux" explanation. It was almost a "Sixth Sense" ..."

Oh, I agree - it's nowhere near a big enough problem to "break" the books, and she does provide some "explanations". In the earlier books, for example, it was "LOVE MAGIC" that stopped Voldemort killing Harry (which made me giggle a lot, I'm sad to say, because it's so cheesy).

However, overall, the books are brilliant.

[Petergiaquinta]

S.W. wrote: "I too was bothered by the "deus ex machine" nature of Harry's seeming invincibility but Rowling won me over in the last book with the "Harry as Horcrux" explanation. It was almost a "Sixth Sense" ..."

I have no doubt HP is being discussed in popular culture classes, but do you think it is being appended to the end of the study of the Brit Lit canon: the Victorians, Modernism, Post-Modernism, Wizardry? I'll crack open my newest edition of Norton's to find: Eliot, Woolf, Joyce, Lawrence, Larkin, Rowling?!?

[[deleted user]]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Rachel wrote: "Haha have you actually read Hunger Games, or just seen the movie? I'd love to know what a good novel looks like if The Hunger Games is "crap"."

Of course I've read it. I'm not like ..."

What is it about then, thematically speaking? You claim to "analyse" literature, so you should be able to see how The Hunger Games trilogy is discussing all those themes - Mockingjay in particular goes into "politics" and "freedom" and "collectivism vs. individualism" in quite some depth. To be honest, the series is very close to "literary" fiction - it's certainly as "literary" as Brave New World or 1984, if not more so as it takes into account more than just Orwell's viewpoint (Collins can see both sides of the coin).

[[deleted user]]

Fijke wrote: "Rachel wrote: "In some fields, such as science, not all opinions are equal, because they can be tested against reality.

But in areas like literature/movie criticism, the opinions cancel each other..."

That's where I differ from Literature students and professors - in my view, the most important things to look at when reviewing a story are the actual content of that story (characters, plot, structure, setting, viewpoint, description, etc...).

Focusing on the influence the novel has had on society tells us nothing about the novel. Salinger still continued to write after Catcher, but didn't publish. Does this mean all his non-published books are not as good, as they had no effect on literature or society? "Influence" and "authorial intent" are irrelevant when reviewing a story.

[S.W.]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "S.W. wrote: "I too was bothered by the "deus ex machine" nature of Harry's seeming invincibility but Rowling won me over in the last book with the "Harry as Horcrux" explanation. It was almost a "..."

It won't be Norton's Anthology you'll be cracking open; it will be Rachel's Anthology (or Fijke's, or my daughter's)---if we live that long. Oh, BTW, you split your infinitive there buddy…not to be picky. LOL

[Geoffrey]

"CatcEDIT: I've never read a super-complicated novel. Any suggestions? :) What's the literary equivalent of quantum mechanics?
h-22" are more "profound" (or whatever word you wish to us..."

James Joyce ULYSSES comes to mind. You need Stuart Gilberts book as a literary companion to understand all the verbal puns Joyce commits. Gilbert`s book in itself runs hundreds of pages.

[[deleted user]]

Geoffrey wrote: ""CatcEDIT: I've never read a super-complicated novel. Any suggestions? :) What's the literary equivalent of quantum mechanics?
h-22" are more "profound" (or whatever word you wish to us..."

James..."

I've read Ulysses, and I think you may be correct. I've heard Finnegan's Wake is even more complex though.

Are there any books like this that are actually entertaining? If not, why not?

[Geoffrey]

Anne Hawn wrote: "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 Orwell..."

I would not give ULYSSES to a non-literature university student. It only discourages them from further reading of the other classics. It is not necessary that one have to slug through Gilbert`s book to understand Ulysses. There are so many other classics to study.


By making a non lit college major read ULYSSES is equivalent to making a non-economics major slog through a course on econometrics, a non-biology student studying organic chemistry or a non physics student take quantum mechanics.

[Geoffrey]

Rachel wrote: "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 ..."

Agreed. I am sometimes annoyed by an actor who blew his lines, the camera angle that was not the most judicious, the holes in the plot....all these detract from my enjoyment of the film. I don`t consciously seek these out but when they are the most glaring...I just groan and feel like kicking the director or someone in the butt.

[Paul Martin]

Rachel wrote: Are there any books like this that are actually entertaining? If not, why not?

I like to compare it with running a marathon. Is it entertaining? No. Does it hurt? Yes.

When finished, is it extremely rewarding and worthwhile? Absolutely.

[[deleted user]]

Paul Martin wrote: "Rachel wrote: Are there any books like this that are actually entertaining? If not, why not?

I like to compare it with running a marathon. Is it entertaining? No. Does it hurt? Yes.

When finished..."

Reading Ulysses wasn't "rewarding" or "worthwhile" for me. I wish I'd never bothered.

PS: I've actually ran two marathons before - it isn't easy haha. I also won an ITF junior tennis tournament once (back when I was young enough to think I could be a professional like Maria Sharapova haha), which I am still very proud about - though it was nothing major like Wimbledon, it was more rewarding and worthwhile (for me) than reading ANY novel. I'm not sure how you can compare that kind of thing to merely sitting down and reading a book...

[Petergiaquinta]

Ian Graye recently posted a review of Finnegan's Wake:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

This might be the closest most of us get to actually reading the book, so take a look. For you genre fic enthusiasts, there's even an allusion to Game of Thrones worked into the multiverse of it all...

[Petergiaquinta]

S.W. wrote: "Oh, BTW, you split your infinitive there buddy…not to be picky. LOL "

Boy, tough crowd...this must be what it feels like to be Rachel in here. It wasn't exactly an infinitive I was splitting there, but I've fixed it up, hopefully to your level of satisfaction. No more Norton's? Sigh, no wonder folks think a thin read like Mockingjay is as literary as Brave New World or 1984.

Syme would be so pleased with our devaluation and devolution of words and writing.

Doubleplusnotgood!

[[deleted user]]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Ian Graye recently posted a review of Finnegan's Wake:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

This might be the closest most of us get to actually reading the book, so take a look. For y..."

Haha! That is the PERFECT textbook example of a LitFic fanatic!

It is very Joyceian. Lots of style(?), no substance.

[[deleted user]]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "S.W. wrote: "Oh, BTW, you split your infinitive there buddy…not to be picky. LOL "

Boy, tough crowd...this must be what it feels like to be Rachel in here. It wasn't exactly an infinitive I was sp..."

Brave New World, 1984, Mockingjay. What are the differences? (Other than Mockingjay being more entertaining than the others.) All three are part of the sci-fi genre. All three make statements about the world and the "human condition". I like all three.

What is the magical element that makes 1984 and Brave New World "literary" fiction, if it isn't intellectual development of themes?

[Paul Martin]

Rachel wrote: Reading Ulysses wasn't "rewarding" or "worthwhile" for me. I wish I'd never bothered.

I haven't read Ulysses, so I wouldn't know!

I'm not sure how you can compare that kind of thing to merely sitting down and reading a book

Well, maybe I should have made it more clear, but I think you know that I'm not comparing the activities in themselves, but the point is that what's comfortable isn't always what's best for us, ie; in my experience there isn't necessarily any correlation between what's entertaining and what's rewarding.

But that's just me. I suppose that in the spirit of this thread, your duty/role is to vehemently disagree!

[[deleted user]]

Paul Martin wrote: "Rachel wrote: Reading Ulysses wasn't "rewarding" or "worthwhile" for me. I wish I'd never bothered.

I haven't read Ulysses, so I wouldn't know!

I'm not sure how you can compare that kind of thin..."

Then what book were you talking about?

When I read a novel, one of the big ways I like to be "rewarded" is by being entertained. And I'm a little confused by that comment - usually, I find, "comfortable" fiction leads to very boring novels - you need some excitement, in some form, to be entertained.

In fact, that's one of the weaknesses of the "literary" genre: Little happens. It's too much of a "comfortable" experience.

[[deleted user]]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "
Boy, tough crowd...this must be what it feels like to be Rachel in here."

Meaning what exactly?

[Paul Martin]

Rachel wrote: "Then what book were you talking about"

No book in particular. It was just a general remark on your question: "Are there any books like this that are actually entertaining? If not, why not?"

I don't mean comfortable in the way that the plot is dull and slow, but that everything is easily understandable. Excitement is needed, I agree, but reading something that requires a lot of concentration and thought can be exciting in its own way, hence my comparison with a marathon.

I suppose what I'm saying is: the plot isn't the only available ingredient in writing an "entertaining" novel.

[[deleted user]]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "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 find it interesting how you people can dismiss a person's views because of their age (I'm 19) and be perfectly fine with that, but if I was to dismiss your views because you were black, or Jewish, you'd have a problem with me. A person's age shouldn't even have a place in the discussion, and it should make you question your prejudices.

As for having an "intolerance for things that are difficult" I completely agree with you. I much prefer to study simple things like the Dirac equation, Russian history, and tennis matches than anything difficult. I can't help that.

I think I'm going to have to stop commenting on threads if this is the kind of discussion to be had - I expected fans of so-called "intellectual" fiction to be capable of a reasonably intelligent discussion, but it appears not. But then nobody cares about that so I don't know why I'm even mentioning it! :D

[[deleted user]]

Paul Martin wrote: "I suppose what I'm saying is: the plot isn't the only available ingredient in writing an "entertaining" novel"

I agree - characters play a big part too.

I've never read a novel that made me radically reassess my worldview. Literary fiction tends to say not-very-complicated things in the most complicated way the author can think of. It's silly. All style and no substance. In genre fiction, the author tends to make complicated ideas sound simple (or rather, explains them in a more direct way) - which is a more effective and rational way of using theme.

I've read lots of classics and 'literary' works, so which would you say are not "easily understandable" and why is this a good thing? (I always like to hear examples.)

[Paul Martin]

Rachel wrote: I expected fans of so-called "intellectual" fiction to be capable of a reasonably intelligent discussion, but it appears not

See, there's that offensive behaviour again. If interpreted antithetically your comment above suggests that not a single person who is a fan of literary fiction on this thread is capable of intelligent discussion.

[[deleted user]]

Paul Martin wrote: "Rachel wrote: I expected fans of so-called "intellectual" fiction to be capable of a reasonably intelligent discussion, but it appears not

See, there's that offensive behaviour again. If interpret..."

This thread hasn't yet proved otherwise.

[Paul Martin]

Rachel wrote: This thread hasn't yet proved otherwise.

Well, thanks a lot. I'm glad we got that sorted out - not a single comment on this thread, except yours, have been worthy of the label "intelligent discussion".

Quite unbelievable.