The Most Overrated Books Showing 1,151-1,200 of 5,680

[Daniel]

That's not an argument, that's just your stating of an arbitrary classification you found somewhere. There's no binding thread between something like Perks and something like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory besides the theme of growth, and that's not enough. Besides, if they were somehow classified "in publishing" under the same umbrella genre, why would they be so far apart in the bookstore? Why would each genre have its own publishing houses 90% of the time?

[[deleted user]]

Daniel wrote: "That's not an argument, that's just your stating of an arbitrary classification you found somewhere. There's no binding thread between something like Perks and something like Charlie and the Chocol..."

You're just showing your ignorance of how publishing works here.

[[deleted user]]

Fijke wrote: "Rachel wrote: "Daniel wrote: "That's not an argument, that's just your stating of an arbitrary classification you found somewhere. There's no binding thread between something like Perks and somethi..."

Yes, the publisher's job is to sell novels (obviously).

Yes, the classifications exist to help readers find the kinds of books they assume they will enjoy.

But teen/YA novels are carefully targeted towards an audience of that age (vaguely 13-17) - and that age is not adult. They are WRITTEN with this age group in mind.

There are occasionally "YA" novels that are popular with general adult readers too - "crossover" fiction.

[Petergiaquinta]

Fijke wrote: "The label is basically a sales strategy."

Ah yes, and thus a book like Catcher gets marketed to teenage readers who may not be best equipped to understand and appreciate it, and in response we get a thread like this one filled with crybabies and whatnot complaining about how much they hated Catcher in high school because they weren't ready for it.

Too many of these so-called genre fic books are just written to make money, and publishing houses pick up on a hot theme and the books just get cranked out like those machines in the Ministry of Truth where Julia works (that's from 1984 again), and that's obviously not the basis for good literature. Of course every author wants to make money, but if that's the sole driving force then what we get is drivel like Divergent and Hunger Games.

Maybe part of the reason why I enjoy Catcher so much is I didn't read it in high school. I didn't have the experience of being forced to read it for an English teacher, although I may very well have enjoyed it then. In fact, I first encountered the novel as a young kid on my parents' bookshelves, gave it a spin and didn't find much to hold my interest besides a real curiosity about what that mysterious word was dashed out two or three times near the end of my edition. But I really read the book for the first time as a young adult (after my degree) and I was better prepared for its complexities. Catcher, after all, is not YA; it's not written specifically for teenagers, although I don't think Salinger minded that it was read by them. The foundation for Catcher was published in the New Yorker, not a very teen-friendly publication.

Sorry, every now and then I yearn to steer the thread back to a discussion of Catcher...

[[deleted user]]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Fijke wrote: "The label is basically a sales strategy."

Ah yes, and thus a book like Catcher gets marketed to teenage readers who may not be best equipped to understand and appreciate it, and in r..."


I agree - Catcher in the Rye is NOT YA/teen fiction. I've never heard of it being marketed as such - it seems weird to me - and it would be a big mistake to do so.

Just because a novel is written about a teenage protagonist, or set in a school, does not mean it is written for a teenage age group.

[[deleted user]]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Of course every author wants to make money, but if that's the sole driving force then what we get is drivel like Divergent and Hunger Games."

Haha! Do you realise how little the average professional author earns? Nobody would do it just for the money alone, unless they KNEW it would be successful (by already being a celebrity or something).

[Cosmic]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Maybe part of the reason why I enjoy Catcher so much is I didn't read it in high school. I didn't have the experience of being forced to read it for an English teacher, although I may very well have enjoyed it then..... gave it a spin and didn't find much to hold my interest besides a real curiosity about what that mysterious word.... But I really read the book for the first time as a young adult (after my degree) and I was better prepared for its complexities. Catcher, after all, is not YA; it's not written specifically for teenagers, although I don't think Salinger minded that it was read by them. The foundation for Catcher was published in the New Yorker, not a very teen-friendly publication...."


I sometimes wonder if they are not force feeding it to teens so that they will reject its message out right. I talked to a student that had just gotten through reading the book for his high school class. I asked him if they played "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes" at the end of the book? He said "No." He didn't know the song of course either. The Catcher in the Rye is dated by the songs and movies and books that it mentions. Most children do not automatically possess this collection of literary/cinema/musical history, so they just skip it. You can't understand the Catcher at the same level the author wrote it if you don't give it at least the same amount of time to study it. If you do you will see something more than just a drive by that most people expound on as what the book is about.

For example what does Out Of Africa have to do with the Catcher? Or why wouldn't Holden want to sit down with Somerset Maugham? Did you know that he worked for the British Secret Service and may have been instrumental in getting us into WW1? Since he made multiple trips to the U.S. during WW1.

I believe that The Catcher is an Allegory about war. A war protest because it talks about how war is manipulated on the people through the secret channels. Which of course we all know, because we all read The Thirty-Nine Steps and watched the movie. Right? Because it was mentioned in the Catcher. Holden remember took his sister to see it 10 times? So of course you would make your student or you, yourself would have already watched it before commenting on this thread about how overrated The Catcher in the Rye is.

[mkfs]

Wow. Deleted her user account, too.

Good job, guys.

[Petergiaquinta]

deleted user wrote: "I've never heard of it being marketed as such"

Yeah, maybe I used the wrong terminology there, but almost every teen in America buys (or is bought) a copy of Catcher in the Rye at some point in their high school education. And that's added up to a ton of money for Little, Brown over the past 60+ years.

Don't get me wrong; I'm glad they're reading it, even if they aren't always prepared for it. I think they benefit, even if they don't realize it at the time. And again, that lack of readiness goes to the novel's complexities, and there's that word that keeps popping up here...one valuable characteristic distinguishing great literature from mere good (or even great) story telling.

It's fascinating to consider the allusions to other literature that Salinger works into Catcher. Cosmic has mentioned Isaak Dinesen and Maugham and The Thirty-Nine Steps. To that, I'd add even more significantly (at least from the angle I approach the novel and I know that Cosmic and I differ in our respective focuses [focii?] on the book despite our common love for it) what Holden says about Gatsby, Mercutio, and Hamlet. Again, if we're talking Divergent, Hunger Games, Twilight or whatever the flavor of the month is, do any of these books have the same richness, the same artistic density? Do these books offer Cosmic and me the same ability to talk at length about them? Sure there are Hunger Games discussion threads, but what do they offer in way of discussion beyond ad nauseum, "Dude, can you believe Prim died...That fricken sucked!"?

[Monty J]

deleted user wrote: "Genre fiction is every bit as capable of showing negative aspects of our world and "facing reality" as literary fiction is. In fact, sometimes the line between the two is very blurred."

Stating a thesis is not proving it. I cited a string of examples from the classics. You've yet to cite one from genre lit.

[Daniel]

That's the most infuriating thing about her, Monty: all generalization, no examples.

[Anne Hawn]

Was she for real, or just a troll?

[Mark]

Anne Hawn wrote: "Was she for real, or just a troll?"

Wow, I'm not sure. But she deleted her account? I sense an agitated, perhaps even disturbed person. There was a manic quality to many of her posts.

I hope she gets on OK.

Whew!

[Daniel]

I think she was for real, there were some of her posts where I thought I could sense a modicum of a real argument struggling to get through. Sadly, they were all strangled by her arrogance and misguidedness (is that a real word? Not a native speaker, sorry).

Anyway, let's talk books or something.

[Anne Hawn]

As for the YA label, as a librarian, I used it in the children's section to point out books for kids 12-14 that dealt with things like divorce, death of someone close or books with more sophisticated language like The Golden Compass. Then I used it again in the Adult section to point out high school and college themed books. It's subjective, but it does help kids make better selections.

The Harry Potter books were in the juvenile section with books 5-7 marked YA. I would have put The Hunger Games series in juvenile with a YA tag. They are good books for kids even though the third book in the Humger Games, The Mockingjay, was disappointing for a lot of people. The same was true for the Golden Compass series. A lot of people were disappointed in the third book. The Hunger Games series could also have gone in the adult section with a YA label.

Actually, when I took over my library there was a dearth of YA books and we were losing a lot of young readers. I spent several years going on YA book groups, checking award winning YA books, and getting suggestions from any kid I could find to build up a good selection. In the professional magazines, Publisher's Weekly, Booklist, & ALA Journal, there was a lot of complaints about the lack of suitable books, but the publishing industry has really stepped up and there are a lot more books now that fall into that YA/Adult category than 10 years ago.

[Mark]

Anne Hawn wrote: "As for the YA label, as a librarian, I used it in the children's section to point out books for kids 12-14 that dealt with things like divorce, death of someone close or books with more sophisticat..."

It's refreshing and interesting to hear the perspectives of an obviously engaged and enthusiastic librarian. Thanks!

[Monty J]

Anne Hawn wrote: " I spent several years going on YA book groups, checking award winning YA books, and getting suggestions from any kid I could find to build up a good selection."

Here, here. Bless our librarians, for they are guardians of truth and knowledge.

[Anne Hawn]

Daniel, I was looking at Danielewski's House of Leaves. Can you tell us more about it?

[Cosmic]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "what Holden says about Gatsby, Mercutio, and Hamlet...."

I have wondered about the illusion to Hamlet. I would be very interested in your view of these works in relation to the Catcher in the Rye. Please elaborate. Please include some text or page number so I can put it in context. Thank you.

[Daniel]

Anne Hawn wrote: "Daniel, I was looking at Danielewski's House of Leaves. Can you tell us more about it?"

Yes, I can, and yes, it's the one by Mark Z. Danielewski. Ostensibly, here it is: A guy finds a messy manuscript in the apartment of a dead man; manuscript possesses some sort of magnetic power for him, so he decides to edit it although he doesn't have any experience in this as far as the reader can tell. The manuscript itself is a sort of academic essay exploring a documentary film called The Navidson Report, which is about this filmmaker (Navidson) and his family moving into a house that somehow behins to grow dark rooms of its own accord, violating all laws of physics since they can only be seen from the inside of the house. Navidson and his family proceed to go nuts as they try to find the truth. The thing is, the documentary doesn't exist, as far as the editor can tell. Some bibliographic quotes are also false, or come from false books altogether. Also, since the author died the manuscript is incomplete, leading the editor (and the reader) into all sorts of dead ends and false turns. So the editor begins to go nuts too.

And then there's the other Editors (the publishing house to which the editor delivered the work). They find it fit to include some extra appendixes, like the letters the editor's mother wrote from the insane asylum (which illuminate the troubled psyche he reveals in his footnotes to the manuscript), and some mysterious stillshots which could prove the documentary's existence.

Sooo, yeah, it's a romp. Tough read, but one of the most interesting things this side of 1990.

[Petergiaquinta]

Cosmic wrote: "I have wondered about the illusion to Hamlet."

I'd suggest that Holden sees all three characters (Hamlet, Mercutio, Gatsby) as kindred spirits. And there's more...Eustacia Vye comes to mind as another...Lemme ramble a bit about Hamlet, and I'll say more about Gatsby and Mercutio tomorrow.

Anyway, on page 117 Holden talks about how he has seen Laurence Olivier play Hamlet; Holden went with his siblings, and he tells us about Olivier's performance, which he didn't like. He says that Olivier played Hamlet "too much like a goddam general, instead of a sad, screwed-up type guy." And right there you can see the kinship Holden feels for Hamlet because Holden himself is a "sad, screwed-up type guy."

Holden relates to Hamlet on a number of levels. First, someone he venerates has died, and while it seems to him as if the whole world has moved on, Holden is still grieving and finds himself trapped in a depressive state that he can't seem to free himself from; this is exactly what we find in Hamlet in the beginning of the play. Holden hates the "phony" world around him much like what Hamlet sees around himself in Elsinore; Hamlet uses the word "seems," but it's the same thing, and the liars and dissemblers like Claudius, Polonius and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern aren't all that different from Headmaster Thurmer, Ossenburger and Stradlater. And despite their disgust with that phoniness and seeming all around them, both are guilty of their own phony behavior. Both are wracked with insecurity and self-doubt. Both tend to over think. And both are on their way to, as Mr. Antolini says, a terrible fall. Hamlet could probably have benefited from Antolini's talk himself...

Somewhere out there is a critical essay called "Holden and Hamlet." I'll see if I can find a link to it.

[Anne Hawn]

Mark wrote: "Anne Hawn wrote: "Daniel, I was looking at Danielewski's House of Leaves. Can you tell us more about it?"

And do you mean the one by Mark Z. Danielewski?"

Yes, It's hard to imagine what it is like. I was intrigued by the description of lots of papers, footnotes, stories within stories.

Also, because I was thinking about YA books, I went to the "Best Young Adult Novels" site where 75,220 kids voted on the best books. Catcher in the Rye is #6 There are also a lot more classics on the list.

1. Harry Potter
2. The Hunger Games
3. To Kill a Mockingbird
4. The Fault in Our Stars
5. The Hobbit
6. Catcher in the Rye
7. Lord of the Rings
8. Farenheit 451
9. Looking for Alaska
10. The Book Thief

Here's the website if you are interested:

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/07/1577953...

So, it looks like there are enough kids still reading and liking Catcher. The Outsider and Lord of the Flies are also on the list.

[Petergiaquinta]

Try this--"Holden and Hamlet" by Clinton Trowbridge:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307...

At least you can see the first page...maybe someone can find a better link.

[Paul Martin]

Martha wrote: but I see you were "bragging" about your "C" term

Where did I brag? You're welcome to show me. I explained why I did it. If that's "bragging", then so be it. I could have edited or deleted it, but that would be rather dishonest. What's done is done.

Sounds like you may use it regularly when a female agitates you.

No, it was a first actually. I've never "encountered" another person to whom I've wished to say it (is that even a correct sentence?), and I don't expect I will any time soon.

That really offended me, if it matters to anyone out here

Yes, it matters to me. I did not mean to offend you, but I do not discriminate between insulting a male or a female. If she'd been a guy, I suppose I would have called her a dick.

But I'll cede - I guess I should have used a gender-neutral description, like "arrogant asshole".

Hmmm, well you've lost all credibility with me seeing posts from you in the future.

That's alright. Unlike her, I'm not on a crusade to agitate and antagonize others while trying to impose my meanings on them.

[Mark]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "one valuable characteristic distinguishing great literature from mere good (or even great) story telling."

In a word, intertextuality. That's the high falutin' word for the kind of allusive richness you're citing.

It's of course a prominent feature of American poetry too. And good lyrics (Skynyrd's put-down of Neil Young is an example I was discussing the other day with a friend).

You're on to something there. I would suspect there just isn't much of that to be found in most genre fiction.

Although we've been sort of using The Hunger Games, Divergent and the books on which Game of Thrones is based as shorthand for genre fiction. There must be a whole world there that I'm not all that familiar with. That's, upon reflection, one of the saddest and most perplexing things about Rachel's now self destructed screed. She was such an impassioned advocate and defender of genre literature but gave very few examples of titles of specific merit.

I once did some crowd sourcing with my Facebook account to ask friends who read Mysteries/Detective genre books if they'd recommend any that a finicky literary snob like me might cotton to. I have a handful of titles on my "to read" list as a result.

Further reflections on Rachel's presence in this thread. Several came to her defense at times and others decidedly did not. Being a flawed person myself, I often slip into or even begin from a hostile attack perspective in these forums. Other times I begin from a desire to share what I think might be new and of interest information. All too often I start in the latter mode and find my way to the former. As they say, it's a process. And whether any of us are in those modes deliberately or subconsciously and in ways more subtle than overt, it can be detected by most of the people reading the posts.

There was never a sharing of information mode to any of Rachel's posts. I think that's what brought out so much negativity toward her.

Yes, we are here first and foremost to talk about the books, but let's face it, the people can be pretty darned interesting, too.

[Paul Martin]

Mark wrote: There must be a whole world there that I'm not all that familiar with.

Absolutely, I do think most "literary fiction" fans would agree on that. That's the weirdest thing about the recent...conversation in here - I almost found myself arguing for and against things that I hardly meant, just as a reaction to her behaviour. Scary.

I agree with much of what she said, especially on Harry Potter (I do believe it will be a children's/YA classic in a hundred years) and the the fact that older doesn't in any way necessarily mean "better" (I can't recall anyone actually claiming that, although I suppose I can see how some of Monty's and Petergiaquinta's post could be interpreted that way).

...friends who read Mysteries/Detective genre books if they'd recommend any that a finicky literary snob like me might cotton to.

I did the same with fantasy. I felt until recently that other than LOTR, there wasn't any "serious" fantasy worth reading. A friend whos taste I trust recommended The Name of the Wind. And, I'm completely hooked. I (almost) can't remember ever being this excited about a new release.

[Petergiaquinta]

Mark wrote: "There must be a whole world there that I'm not all that familiar with."

Right now that world seems to be spinning on the axis that is John Green. The Fault in Our Stars may be the biggest read at the moment, but there are others catching the attention of the YA crowd: Will Grayson, Will Grayson, Looking for Alaska, Paper Towns. I intend to read him this summer; some folks I trust say he's the best right now in that genre, so I want to have a read at him myself.

He's also a rather interesting Internet personality on Youtube with over 100 videos on books and history directed toward a teenage audience, but I've watched a few of his book talks and there's a lot to be gained by the adult viewer as well.

[Anne Hawn]

There was never a sharing of information mode to any of Rachel's posts. I think that's what brought out so much negativity toward her.

One of the things that frustrated me was the lack of logic, and I mean that in a formal sense. I'm homeschooling my granddaughter who just turned 12 and one of the things we have started talking about is logic statements. One of my main emphasizes as she begins to think abstractly is the very type of argument we have just been involved in.

I believe that most children need to be taught to make logical arguments and to recognize when one statement does not follow another. Interestingly, one of the types of literature I am using is mysteries. We are sticking to Christie and Doyle right now because their logic is very sound. The red herrings are a wonderful example of invalid arguments. The authors tempt you to reach an erroneous conclusion by making a wrong inference.

Rachel asked pointed questions and most of us tried to answer logically. Unfortunately, she took our answers as preaching to her. She also made sweeping generalizations with no facts to back them up, which was frustrating to try to respond to.

When I was a teen, my dad would always allow us to make arguments if we wanted him to change an opinion about where we could go, with whom and when we came in. If you could put forth a valid argument then some of the time he would change his mind. If he didn't, he would always give reasons why. It was kind of like arguing before the Supreme Court :>)

My middle sister was never very good at this. She used the kind of argument we have recently been engaged in and it never worked. Loud volume, stomping feet, verbal attacks and irrational statements never got her anywhere, but my younger sister and I learned to think logically and cover all the bases. Later, when I was in college, a number of times, I answered an essay question wrong, but gave a solid argument for my opinion and it was almost always accepted as correct.

I'm afraid that permissive parents and teaching to the test are depriving our young people to hone their skills at rational arguments, but that is just my opinion.

[Emma]

God, you people make me sick. You single-handedly run off a teenage girl who had been an active member of goodreads since 2012. Then you just say "oh, well, she was a troll" and move on. You don't even stop and say, "well, maybe we should change the way we speak to others". You have completely commandeered this thread. You don't even talk about the original topic, and you run anyone off who doesn't say what you think they should. "Get off my bridge!" None of you are even the original poster! Who's the real trolls?

Look, I understand that the reason you are this way is because you feel inadequate in your real life and have to use the internet to find validation. Insulting someone you disagree with gives you the power you lack in your real life. Just like any bully. But making yourself feel better at another person's expense is not okay. And I shouldn't have to be telling "grown-ups" this. In my opinion you all behaved far more immaturely than Rachel, and she had an excuse. What excuse is there for a bunch of middle-aged people attacking a young girl who is just trying to figure out what she thinks about literature and find a way to voice her opinions? You people are just sad and pathetic. I feel sorry for you and the people who have to be around you.

[Paul Martin]

Emma wrote: Look, I understand that the reason you are this way is because you feel inadequate in your real life and have to use the internet to find validation.


Insulting someone you disagree with gives you the power you lack in your real life

Do you not see the irony in you telling "us" (as if this is some homogeneous group. I've only been here for a short time) this?

[mkfs]

Anne Hawn wrote: "Was she for real, or just a troll?"

I know it's tough for the regulars in this thread to appreciate, but "troll" does not mean "somebody who doesn't think Catcher In The Rye is a great book".

I haven't been following this thread since I was accused of trolling it (when I pointed out that supporters of Catcher prefer to discredit those who dislike it, rather than argue intelligently on its merits and faults), but the girl was quite reasonable and intelligent in other threads. Not easy to place the blame on her for this one.

Anyways, congrats on driving yet another person away from your discussion (and in this case, all of goodreads). Over and out.

[Cosmic]

Emma wrote: "Insulting someone you disagree with gives you the power you lack in your real life. Just like any bully. But making yourself feel better at another person's expense is not okay...."

I don't think that the thread began on an insult. We tried to convince a girl against her will. We honestly attempted to educate her. Give her a different point of view. We didn't demand that she believe it but her dismissal of everything was antagonistic. In the end she was seeking to be a victim, so that she could cry "poor me." She wasn't acting like a teenager so no one here treated her like one. We are not into cuddling babies.

[Paul Martin]

I haven't been following this thread since I was accused of trolling

I remember that, and I thought what you said was reasonable and not disrespectful or insulting in any way. The way people replied and accused you of trolling was completely uncalled for, IMHO.

What she did was completely different.

[Cosmic]

Anne Hawn wrote: "There was never a sharing of information mode to any of Rachel's posts. I think that's what brought out so much negativity toward her.

One of the things that frustrated me was the lack of logic, ..."

I love the idea of teaching your grandchildren logic with detective classics. When I was a teenager my father told me how important geometry was in teaching logic. He was a computer programmer.

I really felt that Rachel just wanted to create some chaos. It was becoming a bit obsessive. I don't think that she was put off by the insults. Seem to make her feel in control of the group. I think mentioning something about how many astronomy jobs in the world there are probably nixed her. You see you have to go to school for 6-8 years or more and there are only a hand full of positions and out of those even less that will come up during your life time.

But as we all know. "You aren't suppose to tell the children reaching for the gold ring that they might fall off. If they fall you just have to let them." Holden Caulfield.

[Mark]

Petergiaquinta, Paul Martin and Anne Hawn (and really anyone else who might be interested):

I recently finished Jagannath.

I found the book to be enjoyable and at times oddly moving.

This book proudly proclaims itself to be "speculative fiction." This is what we are now supposed to say instead of "science fiction and fantasy," I take it. Yet to me Tidbeck consistently reached beyond what some might fear is the typical limited grasp of the genre.

Some of her sparse stories suggest more than assert ideas about the unpredictability of human (or, technically, humanoid) emotions unfolding, as they always must, within the context of biological inevitability.

Other stories depict realms unknown or hidden from view of those of us in the workaday world. Her characters, and us as readers, are never permitted too far within these realms, so they remain all the more mysterious.

Odd. Unique. Striking. These are the words that come to mind when I think of the short stories I read in this collection. The prose is not a challenge to read at all. Even though I finished the book a day or two ago I find myself still pondering--maybe that's too heavy a word--more like still dwelling on or--even better--occasionally daydreaming about these stories. She's supposedly at work on her first novel. I hope someone translates it from Swedish. Or perhaps she'll write it in English. If I'm recollecting from her afterword, she writes in both (I think). I recommended the book to bunch of people in my Goodreads network without all of this contexts. Worthwhile, I thought.

Also (and this was one of the things I was going to say to Monty in my earlier posts about LotR), I had extreme difficulty learning to read as a child. In the second grade, I was definitely in the "dumb-bell" section. The apparently favored method of instruction separated the students into three, maybe four, reading groups. The teacher assigned each group a colorful name. There were the red birds, the blue birds and so on. I was at least smart enough to understand this approach relegated me to the dumb-bell section, regardless of what color bird they used to name the group. American public education at its finest, I suppose.

My mom worked with me for long hours at home with books designed to build up and improve basic reading skills. I think I was (maybe am?) a shade dyslexic because I can vividly remember how hard and time consuming it was to get these little shapes dancing across the page to yield up their meaning. Then at some point in the middle of my second grade school year, it all somehow clicked. By the time I was at the end of second grade, I was one of the most advanced readers in the smart bird set (I forget the specific color).

But for the next three or four years, I still didn't care all that much about reading on my own, for my own enjoyment (unless you count liner notes on albums). I did well with the language arts courses in third, fourth and fifth grade (unless you count penmanship), but that's about it. I had figured out this reading thing, but it held no allure for me whatsoever. Saturday morning cartoons and music had much more sway over my culture consumption preferences.

Then in the middle of fifth grade, I can't remember how, I discovered Marvel comic books. For the next two years or so, nothing seemed as important to me as getting my hands on the next issue of The Fantastic Four, Spiderman and at least twenty other titles, if not more. Looking back, I'd have to say that Man-Thing and Howard the Duck introduced me to postmodernism's themes long before the denizens of Interzone such as Bradley the Buyer and Dr. Benway did.

Since Conan the Barbarian was one of the Marvel titles I regularly read (Barry Smith's artwork early on was beautiful), I began to read Robert E. Howard's pulp paperbacks about Conan's adventures (which preceded the comic book versions)

That led somehow to Edgar Rice Burroughs's Pellucidar series, Tarzan, all the books about John Carter's exploits on Barsoom (that's Mars to you uninformed earthlings). The initial rush began to wear off and the formulas fueling these books became more evident to me. This gave way to science fiction books written with a social commentary angle. I still maintain that one of the greatest short stories I have ever read (I'd put it right up there with Joyce's The Dead to this day) is Theodore Sturgeon's And Now the News .... Still relevant, too. I don't know if it's still in print.

And I went through my aforementioned Tolkien phase. At about this time in school they were trying to force Romeo and Juliet down my throat. I could not have possibly cared less. A love story written in what seemed to me to verge on a foreign language! What was the point?

Then one day I was gobbling my way through H.G. Wells's The Food of the Gods and How It Came to Earth. In a eureka moment, the realization struck me that the book wasn't simply an adventure of animals and humans transformed into giants by consuming Herakleophorbia IV. The book was making a point about when technological innovation (for those inclined to see them as such) intersects with human biology, the ecosystem and society in a disruptive manner. And that set me off on a whole new direction.

Long story brought to a merciful conclusion (sorry for my self indulgence here). Were it not for the exploits and travails of the likes of the ever lovin' blue eyed Benjamin Grimm,Tanar of Pellucidar and Lewis Padgett's drunkard inventor Gallegher, I probably wouldn't give a tinker's damn about reading Ulysess, attempting to write my own fiction and a dozen other readerly and writerly activities that have made me the person I am today.

Many (John Gardner comes to mind) would see those comic books and pulps as junk literature (a term I think Gardner uses in The Art of Fiction, but they were my rungs on a ladder that took to me an appreciation of literature wide enough that I read Gardner's stuff and so much more.

Despite the notion embodied in Corinthians 13:11, I can't now kick away those early reading experiences with scorn. If I am now (debatable) a farseeing and thoughtful reader, it is because, in a weird but real way, those comic books and pulps comprise the giants on whose shoulders I now stand.

So there, Monty, is an argument in favor of your so-called low culture reading material.

The question is: will works such as The Hunger Games and Harry Potter provide those kind of stepping stones to others? Since I see the works I mentioned through the scrim of my own experience, I of course fancy them as superior to works like Divergent and the Game of Thrones series.

[Cosmic]

Emma wrote: "Insulting someone you disagree with gives you the power you lack in your real life. Just like any bully. But making yourself feel better at another person's expense is not okay. ..."

When I was a child I was taught to respect my elders. Rachel had no respect for us and as a result she didn't get any. I think she was enjoying stirring the pot pretty good. No one asked her to leave. Considering everything that she did and said I don't believe she left because she was offended. In fact I think she enjoyed looking like the victim. She played herself into this role when it was obvious that she couldn't come out on top. She provoked the responses that she got. I thought she held her own very well.

Our mistake was trying to :"convince a man against his will."

The beginning of her thread had something to do with finding truth in science and entertainment in fiction. I just pointed out to her that there were only a handful (fingers) of jobs she was going to via for after she got her PhD in astronomy. Very true. I think this is where it hurt.

I erased my post but that was the end.

I have seen this type of woman in the workforce. They are very pretty and extremely articulate.. they have been able to be successful at manipulating people especially when they were young and beautiful. Then along comes age. It doesn't work anymore.

So with this argument. She claimed to know a lot about publishing books and being an author. But she need to stop escaping into fiction and deal with the hard cold facts. It is easier to become a writer than to make money as a astronomer.

When they are reaching for the ring ..."You aren't suppose to tell them that they might fall off, you just have to let them fall." Holden Caulfield

If anything that was our sin.

[Mark]

Am I the only one who chuckles confused but amused by peoples' behavior yet again when people archly announce they are leaving the conversation and Goodreads as well because of something the great and apparently collective "we" have said?

Are we supposed to say, "oh please, no, for gosh sake, stay. Please let us find some way to make it up to you!"?

I don't get it.

[Anne Hawn]

Daniel wrote: "Anne Hawn wrote: "Daniel, I was looking at Danielewski's House of Leaves. Can you tell us more about it?"

Yes, I can, and yes, it's the one by Mark Z. Danielewski. Ostensibly, here it is: A guy ..."

Thanks, Daniel. My library has the book, so I think I am going to get it out and give it a try. It does sound intriguing.

[Monty J]

Mark wrote: "So there, Monty, is an argument in favor of your so-called low culture reading material."

Hey, I learned to read from comic books.

As I have said repeatedly, literature is a smorgasbord. People will read whatever blows their hair back. I'm not going to apologize because I can't read books about boys flying around on brooms waving a magic wand. I just can't.

[I should clarify that I'm not saying there aren't great messages in Harry Potter or any other genre of literature. I'm just saying that if an author wants ME to get those messages, boys on brooms with magic wands isn't the way to reach me.]

But if a literary neophyte wants to come here preaching that the Harry Potter series is better than Steinbeck's or Solzhenitsyn's, canon at examining social order, they better present some evidence. And with a tone respect. I bent over backward coddling "Rachel," if that's really her name, only to be kicked in the shins. She did this repeatedly with other posters. It is no surprise to me that a few posters retaliated.

Good God, her whining reminds me of Holden, now that I think about it.

I still think she was a troll.

If not, she was an adult, not a kid. She reminds me of Monica Lewinski, with her "poor me" victim pose. The term "Drama Queen" comes to mind. I agree with Cosmic. This is behavior we have seen before. I suspect a personality disorder.

This is why I called her out with my, "Are you that starved for attention?" comment. Apparently that made her think, because a few minutes later she deleted. I hope the experience made "her" rethink the way she presents herself.

[Mark]

Monty J wrote: "Hey, I learned to read from comic books."

Great! And I hope you know I didn't mean "argument" as in let's go endless, fruitless rounds of circular debate like in the whirlpool now ended but still being discussed.

I just wanted to howl at the moon and pick out a guitar solo with all those specific examples from my youth. I get carried away but I like to think that more often than not I get carried away in a good way.

I've encountered a pattern very similar to her "communication" style in the forums of a MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) I recently experimented with.

[Paul Martin]

Mark wrote: I just wanted to howl at the moon and pick out a guitar solo with all those specific examples from my youth. I get carried away but I like to think that more often than not I get carried away in a good way.

Well, I had to google almost all of those names in that wall of text (I mean that kindly and you know it "haha"), but it's definitely interesting.

I have trouble believing that you are (or ever were - can dyslexia disappear?) dyslexic though, if you can read and write normally at the age of 50(?).

**

Despite the notion embodied in Corinthians 13:11, I can't now kick away those early reading experiences with scorn. If I am now (debatable) a farseeing and thoughtful reader, it is because, in a weird but real way, those comic books and pulps comprise the giants on whom shoulders I now stand.

I think this is a good point, which is why I think it's a good idea not to be too condescending when talking about for example child lit that have had no importance in your own life, while knowing that it's been important for others.

So, I don't think it's a good idea to make a statement that implies that there is nothing more to the Harry Potter series than "boys flying around on brooms waving a magic wand". That's not really much better than stating something like "I just don't see what's so great about a weird teen sitting in a taxi talking about ducks". That is not a critique of Monty, because the comment has to be read in the context of the recent activity here and that makes it completely understandable, but in general I try to refrain from doing it, although I've surely sinned plenty.

[Monty J]

Paul Martin wrote: "...a statement that implies that there is nothing more to the Harry Potter series than "boys flying around on brooms waving a magic wand".


Right, I should have made that more clear. I'm not saying there aren't great messages in Harry Potter or any other genre of literature. I'm just saying that if an author wants ME to get those messages, boys on brooms with magic wands isn't the way to reach me.

(I'll post an addendum.)

[Paul Martin]

Monty J wrote: "Paul Martin wrote: "...a statement that implies that there is nothing more to the Harry Potter series than "boys flying around on brooms waving a magic wand"./i>


Right, I should have made that mo..."

I know, I know. As I said, it wasn't a critique - just an example at hand.

[Anne Hawn]

Mkfs wrote: (when I pointed out that supporters of Catcher prefer to discredit those who dislike it, rather than argue intelligently on its merits and faults),

OK, I don't want to fuel this fire any more, but perhaps I can gently point out that there is a fallacy in logic in this statement and it, not you in particular, is part of the confusion. This was the main difficulty with Rachel.

According to your statement, "people on this thread who like Catcher in the Rye prefer to discredit those who dislike it, rather than argue intelligently on its merits and faults."

I like Catcher in the Rye therefore, (since you haven't excluded anyone) I prefer to discredit (all) those who dislike it, rather than argue intelligently on its merits and faults.

I haven't done anything or said anything about it, but I am tarred with the brush of your sweeping statement. So, I can just sit back and take it...being insulted or try, however gently, as I am trying to now, to respond.

Then Emma tells me "Look, I understand that the reason you are this way is because you feel inadequate in your real life and have to use the internet to find validation. Insulting someone you disagree with gives you the power you lack in your real life."

I spent a lot of time looking up sources and editing my post to try to respond to the things Rachel saying without hurting her feelings, just as I am with you. I found it extremely frustrating.

Yes, there were some comments that were totally out of line. There is no excuse for that, but most of us were just trying to explain and defend our point of view. It's what I am trying to do now. Several times I have done a "ctrl x" on this post, but the teacher and librarian in me wants to make things better.

[Monty J]

Paul Martin wrote: "I know, I know. As I said, it wasn't a critique - just an example at hand. "

No, you made an important point. I'm glad you brought it up. People reading my comments out of context might have gotten the wrong impression.

[Mark]

Anne Hawn wrote: " ... the teacher and librarian in me wants to make things better."

Yes, but according to his most recent post, he has left in, as Frank Zappa would say, "a petulant frenzy." So much like Richard Nixon, we won't have Mkfs to kick around anymore.

That's all tongue in cheek, btw. And not meant to damage anyone's dainty nervous system. I hope Mkfs does come back to the conversation.

[Geoffrey]

I believe the previous message thread to be highly significantly important. Getting kids to read is a high priority. I teach in Mexico and experience an uphill battle. Even well educated professional Mexicans are insubstantial readers at a national average of 1.5 books annually.

[S.W.]

I was at a writer's conference and bragged that I'd read a lot of the classics. The literary agent laughed at me and asked, "What for? None of that stuff would ever get published in today's market." I said, "The classics represent the height of literary achievement. Who doesn't want to write the next Great American Novel?" The literary agent got serious and stuck a finger in my face. "Look, you can write whatever floats your boat," she said. "But if you want to get published, then you'd better know your audience and respect the publishing industry."

Rachel is a published author struggling with this dilemma: how can the classics help me improve my writing when the industry tells me to ignore them? She came to this thread looking for answers and she played the devil's advocate on behalf of the publishing industry. We let her down, chased her off the site and away from the classics we all claim to love. When she writes the next best-seller, it will be our fault it doesn't contain more literary elements and allusions to the classics.

(Emma, I apologize about mentioning "split infinitives." I will not boldly go there again) ;D Haha!

[Monty J]

S.W. wrote: "We let her down, chased her off the site and away from the classics we all claim to love."

She came to this site bullying and insulting people. Hemingway had rotten manners too. So maybe that's a good sign.

If she is or isn't "successful" it won't be because of anything we said. It will be because she has what it takes--vision, grit, talent and energy.

BTW, that was just one agent's opinion, and if she stuck her finger in your face she's an insecure ass. I've been to a multitude of conferences and workshops where agents and instructors have recommended reading whatever books are similar to what you want to write, classics included but contemporary as well. That's how you "get to know your audience."

Respect for the publishing industry is a given.

Heres' a recommended reading list from the first NYC lit-agency I pulled up: http://www.jdlit.com/recread.html

Note the prevalence of classics.

[Mark]

S.W. wrote: "Rachel is a published author . . . "

What the what? I recall her saying she might some day want to write something and attempt to have it published, but not that she was ever published.

Also: she decided to leave and delete her account. No one chased her off. She could have stuck around.

And as I think Paul mentioned earlier, there is no "we" here in the sense of more than one person acting is premeditated consort.

There was nothing about the way that she acted in this forum that made me think she was "looking for answers."

And how could you be so certain about all of this?