The Catcher in the Rye
discussion
The Most Overrated Books
If it is actually true that the industry tells aspiring authors to ignore the classics, then why do so many of the very popular contemporary novels of the moment contain direct references or indirect allusions to other classic novels? Even some popular contemporary novels that most view as "complete trash" like Fifty Shades of Grey contained direct references to classic novels.
Sure, sure ... good points all. I wanna know more about S.W.'s assertion that Rachel was a published author. That confuses me greatly.
With this topic I learned that, more than TV, videogames or internet, what can scary readers off classics the most is something called "literary snobs". After all, who wants to be over 30 or 40 with such a narrow and prejudiced vision on this form of art we love so much? I sure don't.Good job, guys. Good job.
Amanda wrote: "Good job, guys. Good job.Who the f*c* are these literary snobs that some of you people see? Name names. Get specific.
Amanda wrote: "With this topic I learned that, more than TV, videogames or internet, what can scary readers off classics the most is something called "literary snobs". After all, who wants to be over 30 or 40 wit..."Doesn't this really depend on your individual mindset? I've re-read "Wuthering Heights" 3 times because of goodreads discussions with people whom I believed to be "literary snobs" and have since come to some very interesting realizations about what my original aversion to it stemmed from. I re-read "Tess of the D'ubervilles" twice. Once because it was referenced in Fifty Shades of Grey and then a second time because of a goodreads discussion over whether Tess was raped or simply succumbed to seduction.
I'm thinking of re-visiting 1984 for the first time since HS because of this thread and it's comparisons to "The Hunger Games".
Look out, Mocha! The Lit/Fic Crowd has already determined that Genre/Fic does NOT have significant literary merit. I hope they don't run you off too. Or worse, make you write lines with Dolores Umbridge's torture pen: I will not defend popular contemporary novels.My example was intentionally hyperbolic and fictional. Despite MontyJ's complete misrepresentation of Rachel's posts, his recipe for success is correct---especially if you want to be a writer. Don't let anyone talk you out of developing an awareness and appreciation of the classics, but pay attention to the contemporary titles (I know I'm preaching to the choir).
Excellent list MontyJ---now that's the type of terrific advice I have come to expect from you.
S.W. wrote: "The Lit/Fic Nazi's . . ."Who are you calling a Nazi? No one here has really taken on the character you're assuming exists and are warning people about. You sound like Rachel all over again.
And, I suspect, you engage in this chicanery because you get some sort of twisted kick out of it. I don't care if you are being fictional and hyperbolic. You also don't make much sense.
I'd give Mocha different advice than "Don't let anyone talk you out of developing an awareness and appreciation of the classics, but pay attention to the contemporary titles," and it would be this: do whatever you want to do. And I know you don't need me, or anyone else, to give you that permission.
Hey Mark, Rachel told me, "We all have a blind spot when it comes to ourselves." It's a good thing you and I have thicker skin and can laugh at ourselves. I'm sorry Amanda, us "adults" can be quite childish at times but Mocha has it right. I've learned so much from the diverse POV's on Goodreads. It's like a daily literary conference.
S.W. wrote: "Hey Mark, Rachel told me, "We all have a blind spot when it comes to ourselves." It's a good thing you and I have thicker skin and can laugh at ourselves. I'm sorry Amanda, us "adults" can be qui..."I really have don't have a good sense of what it is you're attempting to convey. And I fail to see where I've been childish (if that's what you're I implying, I can't tell that either). And I don't really care to know what Rachel told you. She was balmy, it seemed to me, and not what I would consider a source of sage advice. And even if that's what you might think, the notion of all of us having a blind spot about ourselves is pretty banal and pedestrian stuff as far as insights go. No less true for all of that, but I don't know why you're telling me like it's front page news.
Nazis? Really?That's worse than calling someone a c*nt, innit? Holy cow...
Where's Emma now, playing the mom and telling you to behave?
What I really want to know is why do the palladins of popular fiction act like Hunger Games or even HP are the modern equivalent of Ulysses and Of Human Bondage and we're just too blind to see it. As I explained to Rachel, we're talking about different genres, with completely different conventions. At least I never said that genre fiction had no merit (just look at LotR, for god's sake), but if Hunger Games and Divergent and all these novels are to be measured up to something, it's to books that at least were going for a semblance of the same aesthetic effect as them (what did teenagers read in 1900? 1880?). And dystopias like 1984 or BNW, closer as they are to teen dystopias, are not truly the same either: they're allegorical and heavy. That's why we need a label called Dystopian Romance.That said, I'm glad that Mocha's been inspired by these novels to pick up some classics too.
S.W. wrote: "Look out, Mocha! The Lit/Fic Nazi's have already determined that Genre/Fic does NOT have significant literary merit. I hope they don't run you off too. Or worse, make you write lines with Dolore..."Well, clearly they would be wrong. The literary merit just may not necessarily be in the more traditional areas that they are used to looking for it in. For example, if you are of the mindset that things like the traditional Western Canon can and should be challenged, you can find literary merit in many contemporary novels.
S.W. wrote:"The Lit/Fic Nazi's have already determined that Genre/Fic does NOT have significant literary merit."Please quote an example where anyone said anything close to: "...Genre/Fic does NOT have significant literary merit."
Also, the term "literary snobs" has been tossed around on this thread quite a bit. I think someone should define what they mean by it.
Putting people down because their reading preferences are different from yours is a form of bullying and could discourage young readers from taking on more challenging material. It's the equivalent of me calling Harry Potter readers literary idiots.
Man up or shut up, everybody, and quote an example on this thread of literary snobbery. We can't do anything about something we can't see.
For those who missed it, here's a suggested reading list from the first NYC literary agency I pulled up: http://www.jdlit.com/recread.html
Note the prevalence of classics and the conspicuous absence of anything by JK Rowling.
Daniel wrote: "What I really want to know is why do the palladins of popular fiction act like Hunger Games or even HP are the modern equivalent of Ulysses and Of Human Bondage and we're just too blind to see it. ..."There was plenty of heavy allegory in The Hunger Games, though. To be honest, the entire series was an allegory for our current society. Our fascination with reality television....the divide that exists between the haves and the have nots of our society....the people of the Capital and their obsession with outlandish fashions and lavish lifestyles.....the mockingjay and it's arising as a symbol of rebellion (...much of it very reminiscent of Cesar Chavez's fight for the rights of migrant workers.) I think these concepts are just as profound and "heavy" as what was present in 1984 and Brave New World. I think that to today's young people a phrase like "May the odds be forever in your favor" is equally as resonant and profound as "Big Brother is watching you" was to earlier generations.
I'm talking heavy in terms of language and detail. Yes, those things are all in Hunger Games, and they represent a noble effort to characterize. It didn't work for me; it did for you; that's alright. However, are those details the utmost focus of the story? Are they the most popular quotes of the book? Is there a lengthy passage(I'm talking more than 5-7 pages; probably 20+ pages in the typeset Hunger Games is printed on) that's nothing but a conversation on politics? Not really; the driving forces and the use of language are different even if the dystopian background is not as shabby as in other YA sagas. The very focalization of Katniss as narrator makes that dystopia take the backseat to her own internal life and feelings, which, again, did not work for me at all.It's great to talk about this with someone who's willing to give examples, though :)
Oh, and I'd forgotten: if you want to know what I mean by a recent novel that handles similar topics in a heavy way, check out Infinite Jest. So heavy I couldn't get through it on my first go. Also Franzen's The Corrections, though that's not dystopian at all, just realistic.
I agree...I've been waiting for some specifics.For me, the most interesting aspect of the book is the way it explores the blight on our culture that is "reality TV," our fascination with and exploitation of the hardships of the poor and desperate as a form of entertainment. But even there, Collins doesn't do much. The book is thin; any "issues" it raises are secondary to the story, and it's a thin story at best.
Daniel wrote: "I'm talking heavy in terms of language and detail. Yes, those things are all in Hunger Games, and they represent a noble effort to characterize. It didn't work for me; it did for you; that's alrigh..."Well, this I will agree and disagree with you on at the same time. The language or prose was rather simplistic, however, I attributed that more to the intended audience of The Hunger Games. 1984 and Brave New World were not originally written for tweens, grades 7 and up. While I like the series, I do think that one of The Hunger Games' flaws is how the politics of Panem takes a back seat to other aspects of the novel. However, I technically do think the that politics of Panem was thoroughly addressed. It was just not done explicitly via 20 page discussions/rants/soliloquies/speeches etc. It was something that was shown to the reader in several instances throughout the story. Sometimes, it's subtle and something that the reader would have to notice and infer. The fact that the districts are enclosed in an electrified fence and people are not allowed to travel freely between them. The fact that Katniss hides her bow and arrow because the mere possession of a weapon means that you could be publicly executed for inciting a rebellion. The fact that people in District 12 are starving to death. The fact that people are not allowed to speak against the government. The rationale behind holding the games in the first place. The fact that life in the Capital is so vastly different from life in the districts. There were tons of other things, too. I also disagree that the dystopia takes a back seat to Katniss' life and feelings. The Hunger Games is the dystopia and she is narrating her life and feelings as she is being forced to participate in the games. Imo, that gives the dystopia a decidedly more humanizing element. It's more than just an abstract political concept that is being talked about. At least, that's how I see it.
S.W. wrote: "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...."I think Rachel was going to school to be an astronomer. Her big argument was that truth should be gotten from non fiction sources. She argued that fiction should be for entertainment. Just one of many of her naive point of views that she was having trouble shedding on this group.
I suggested that she might make more money as a writer than she will ever make as an astronomer. There are not that many observatories in the world and of those only a few astronomer jobs.
But she writes fiction pretty good, she might have a chance.
I just came by to apologize for my recent tirade and then I will leave. I let my anger get the best of me and that is not okay. This thread is obviously too hostile for my taste, so I will stay away. But first, if you care to listen, I would like to explain my veiwpoint of the recent (and past) behavior on this thread. When I was in the fourth grade I had a friend named Cindy. There's no way around it, she was a completely spoiled brat. If someone said something she didn't like, no matter how small, she would slap them. She had cerebral palsy and I was her only friend. During recess she only ever wanted to ride the merry-go-round. No matter how much I begged her to play something else, she refused. One day she even slapped me. I was so angry that I stalked away and played with my other friends for the rest of recess. But when the bell rang and I saw her fall down while struggling to walk across the gravel I let go of my anger and helped her back to the classroom. I decided that it didn't matter what she did. I wanted to be the kind of person that helped others no matter what, not the kind that took pleasure in watching another person suffer because of my hurt feelings.
One day while Cindy and I were riding the merry-go-round, some boys told her to push, which she always wanted to do but was not fast enough to keep up with the other kids. I was very wary of them so walked along with them in case they tried something. After awhile I was satisfied that they weren't being jerks so I got back on. But right after I settled in the boys started running as fast as they could. I screamed and tried to stop them, but they had knocked Cindy down and were running on top of her. I tried to pull her out, but they were too fast. Fortunately, my screaming brought the teachers over and Cindy was physically okay. Afterwards she ended up being the one to comfort me. She was used to being treated like this and had learned how to cope. I was forever changed. I vowed that I would always do my best to speak up when someone/thing is being mistreated.
Cindy may have been a total brat at times, but she could also be a great friend. I learned far more from her than anyone else in my life, aside from my parents. This is a girl who was bullied every day of her life, who was literally knocked down and trampled over. She had every reason to throw in the towel, but she kept fighting and she always stood up for herself. I was painfully shy and never stood up for myself, she taught me how to do that. She also taught me patience, how to stand up for others, that your feelings are not more important than anyone else's and that everyone has something to teach you, no matter how insignificant or annoying they may seem to you. If I had let her bad behavior chase me away I would have missed out on so much. If you just brush off everyone who says/does something you don't like you are potentially missing out on a great opportunity for growth. Maybe instead of antagonizing others or insisting they concede to your opinion you could try listening to what they are saying and you might learn something and have a great interchange of ideas. And you always have a choice in how you treat others even if the other person treats you badly.
Honestly, when I saw the way some of you were talking to Rachel it was like I was transported back to fourth grade and seeing the bullies pushing Cindy down all over again. Cindy's behavior did not excuse theirs and didn't change the fact that it was bullying. In the same way, if someone is disrespectful of your opinion on the internet, it doesn't take away your ability to be the better person and treat them with respect. It is still bullying even if you think they deserve it (they don't any more than you do). Anyway, that is where I am coming from. And again, I apologize for my own petty behavior.
Emma wrote: " Cindy's behavior did not excuse theirs and didn't change the fact that it was bullying. In the same way, if someone is disrespectful of your opinion on the internet, it doesn't take away your ability to be the better person and treat them with respect."Well done, Emma. Bravo! And thanks.
Now for my confession.
I woke up at 3:30 this morning thinking about Harry Potter and couldn't go back to sleep until it came to me why I have such a visceral dislike for him, what little I know about the character from the one page I read and the fifteen minutes I saw of a DVD and what people have said.
Harry Potter is supposed to be an orphan, yet he has this magically wonderful life, gets to go to a witch's boarding school, ride a broom and solve his problems with a magic wand. That blatantly manipulative pose is so unlike the real world of orphans and foster kids that it's painful to even think about.
Harry Potter is an insult to me and all the other real orphans in the world. Ninety-eight percent of the kids in Americanorphanages and foster care were taken from their parents for neglect and/or abuse. He's an insult to Charles Dickens, who did a marvelous job of bringing attention to the plight of orphaned, abandoned and exploited children.
I grew up in an orphanage along with a lot of my friends today. Most of us were physically abuse, some sexually. Some were tortured and struggle with PTSD from childhood trauma.
It isn't fair to us for the world to be misled by JK Rowling about the plight of orphans. Her millions feel like just another form of exploitation.
Harry Potter has given the British Aristocracy a free pass, papering over their monumental transgressions.
Picture an orphan's real parents, having recovered from financial difficulty, returning to a nineteenth-century British orphanage only to find their children were sent to Australia as slave labor. This really happened and the British Crown condoned it, while the queen sat in her castle wearing a million-dollar necklace eating roast pheasant.
Here's a Wiki article about the above: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-sty...
The problem with fantasy is it allows an author to distort history without being held accountable. If we can't see what is real, how can we do anything to change society for the better?
Before Harry Potter, when we thought about British orphans it was Oliver Twist that came to mind. Now it's boys on brooms waving magic wands, having fun. The collective unconscious has been insidiously warped.
Poverty is a major factor in parental neglect and other social ills. If anybody ever deserved knighthood it was Charles Dickens for calling attention to the plight of the poor in Britain. The fact that he never became "Sir" Charles Dickens is an appalling condemnation of the British aristocracy. He shamed them, and they'll never forget it.
Harper Lee shamed White America into facing its bigotry and racism. She received a Pulitzer Prize and the highest civilian award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
If I sound a little strident about Harry Potter, the reasons should be evident. I am truly sorry if any feelings were hurt.
I don't want to lurk here. I needed to stay away because Rachel's gratuitously rude, illogical comments really pushed my buttons. Becoming an adult can be difficult and some of us need professional help along the way (I did). But all this kerfuffle has led to some very enlightening posts from everyone, about why what we read plays such an important part in our lives, for one thing. So I want to express my thanks for that.
Monty J wrote: "Harry Potter is supposed to be an orphan, yet he has this magically wonderful life, gets to go to a witch's boarding school, ride a broom and solve his problems with a magic wand. That's so unlike the real world for orphans and foster kids that it's painful to even think about. "Monty, I can't imagine what a rough start that would be, or a clearer illustration of how fiction can insult reality.
Monty J wrote: "Emma wrote: " Cindy's behavior did not excuse theirs and didn't change the fact that it was bullying. In the same way, if someone is disrespectful of your opinion on the internet, it doesn't take a..."I'd like to make a reply, but you've both given me much to think about. It will have to wait.
Harry Potter did not have a "magical, wonderful life." His parents were murdered right in front of him and he was scarred for life (externally and internally). He was sent to live with the awful Dursleys who kept him locked in a closet under the stairs until he was 11. They treated him like a pariah. When he escapes to Hogwarts, he is again treated like an outcast and ridiculed by several teachers and students. Throughout his adventures he is beaten, drowned, tortured, imprisoned and in constant fear for his life. He suffers terrible, incapacitating headaches during which he witnesses horrible crimes. In the end, he is killed by Voldemort. When he enters a weigh station to the underworld (Kings Crossing Tube Station), he speaks with the dead Dumbledore (ie Tiresias in the Odyssey) and chooses to go back and destroy Voldemort.Most of the time when riding a broom, Harry was dodging bludgers, getting chased by a dragon, getting assaulted by Deatheaters, or clinging for his life to a hexed broom.
All Harry's suffering was fictitious of course unlike the true suffering of real orphans, but Rowling did not demean or undermine the plight of orphans as you purport. I refer you to Jess Walter's short story "Anything Helps" in the collection "We live in Water" and see how a wayward father begs in the streets so that he can buy a Harry Potter Book for his son who lives in a strict foster home. These books are part of our culture. I hate to see them unfairly maligned by someone who hasn't read them.
I can appreciate your abhorrence of these books if just thinking about reading them makes you feel that way. I take back my previous suggestion to read them to the grand kids---they've probably read them all anyway.
Mark wrote: "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 p..."
The book sounds interesting. I'll see if the library has it.
My son had problems learning to read too, and I taught him every day also. I let him read into a tape recorder, which he loved. Finally, he read Mouse on the Motorcycle and he was off and running.
Kallie wrote: "led to some very enlightening posts from everyone, about why what we read plays such an important part in our lives, for one thing. So I want to express my thanks for that. ..."I thought that this thread was very alive with discussion. I enjoyed the different point of views, because it gave me more of a view of the different "characters" that we have on this discussion board. That is what literature does, creates conflict and then we get to see what the characters are going to do.
Emma said, "...If I had let her bad behavior chase me away I would have missed out on so much....
I agree that if Rachel had been willing to learn something there were plenty of people like yourself that would have helped her. In fact everyone that took TIME out of their lives to read this thread and write her tried to reach out to her. Maybe not perfectly, but note felt that they were talking to a child. She was very intelligent. She could express herself quite effectively. This is how she played ball. Poke people till they react them pretend you are the victim.
Everyone's different and this is one of the reasons we like literature is to explore these differences without having to show ourselves in public.
It was very unfortunate that Rachel choose to alienate herself in this discussion. But unlike school she didn't have to come into the playground throwing rocks. She is the one that started the debate. She was able to take care of herself very well. She was articulate and from everything I could see enjoyed the debate, even getting to be a victim. She had the choice to agree to disagree. She didn't do that. She had the choice to remain quiet. She didn't choose to do that either. She worked at pushing people's buttons and didn't work very hard at trying to understand what people were saying.
She choose to delete her account on Goodreads probably a professional decision since she has probably mentioned other places that she is working on becoming an astronomer,... a life long dream, and didn't feel this conversation would help her in the future, professionally. I think she made a wise choice.
Stop trying to guilt everyone.
"Life is a game, boy. Life is a game that one plays according to the rules."
"Yes, sir. I know it is. I know it."
Game my ass. Some game. If you get on the side where all hot-shots are, then it's a game, all right- I'll admit that. But if you get on the other side, where there aren't any hot-shots, then what's a game about it? Nothing. No game.
Catcher In The Rye page 8
So since she read this book and she is an adult, she knew or should have known what she was getting into. And if she didn't know this before she joined this group well I guess she got a life lesson. And if she had been listening to us in the very beginning she could have saved herself and others a lot of grief. We told her there was a lot of truth in literature and that is why some of us don't read just for entertainment value.
Emma wrote: "I just came by to apologize for my recent tirade and then I will leave. I let my anger get the best of me and that is not okay. This thread is obviously too hostile for my taste, so I will stay awa..."Good point, Emma, well said! But I don't think you should stay away.
S.W. wrote: "Harry Potter did not have a "magical, wonderful life." His parents were murdered right in front of him and he was scarred for life (externally and internally). He was sent to live with the awful ..."I've tried Rowling, but I don't read anything in H.P. that couldn't be shown just as well in a movie. It's nothing to do with genre. Though he supposedly wrote for children, H.C. Andersen still disturbs and evokes empathy and enchantment in me . . . it's impossible to say how he does that except through his voice and style. Anyway, how much of a book must I read to 'fairly' realize that the writer is not going to take me where I want to go?
As Mocha expressed earlier, the classics sometimes take several reads at different times in one's life to begin to fully appreciate them. I'm still on my first go around. As for HP, it takes some time to get used to the notion that there's a secret magical world that all us muggles are blind to. As in theater, we have to suspend our disbelief. My mother was an English major and is an Anglophile who adores the British comedies on BBC but she can't get into the HP books or movies either. I recall it took about 50 pages before I was solidly hooked.I recently slogged through Ayn Rand's Anthem, Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead. I never got comfortable with her writing style. The Gault radio speech was pure torture. Please don't anyone ever recommend another Rand book to me. If they do, I swear I'll read the Cliff's Notes.
I'm on my fourth Cormac McCarthy book and I'm slowly acquiring a taste for his unique mishmash of styles: flowery descriptions of the scenery followed by minimalist action sequences a la Hemingway then florid poetic almost stream of consciousness moments. I'm still processing it.
S.W. wrote: "Harry Potter did not have a "magical, wonderful life." His parents were murdered right in front of him and he was scarred for life (externally and internally). He was sent to live with the awful ..."I'm not exactly the biggest fan of Harry Potter, but you do raise some very good and more importantly, some very accurate points about the series. No disrespect is intended toward Monty, but this is exactly how an opinion that is formed based on misconceptions or biased information can lead someone to form some faulty conclusions about a book. A journalist for a reputable newspaper is not immune from this and neither is his or her editor. His or her faulty and biased review can and does get published. Highly intelligent people read it and are influenced by it. It happens all the time and these are faulty conclusions that one would go through life believing UNLESS they read for themselves and are active participants in discussions such as the ones that happen in places like Goodreads. Discussions that offer many different points of views. This is exactly why discussions of literature are so important and why people need to be willing to be open minded. Monty should not feel offended or bullied simply because SW pointed out how his impressions of HP were wrong. Conversely, Rachel should not have felt like that either. Yes, she had some valid points about contemporary genre fiction that people should have been more open to but some her impressions of classic literature were faulty and she should have also been open to listening to others as well.
S.W. wrote:Rachel is a published author struggling with this dilemmaThis isn't really very interesting but you're really confusing. She said she was 19 and never claimed to be a published author,as far I remember. What is true?
Well, from your experiences, Monty, I hardly think it's my place to tell you to "get over it", or anything like that. I had a very happy childhood, and I'll never know anything about what it's like to be an orphan. I would like to adress some of the things you wrote though.Harry Potter is supposed to be an orphan, yet he has this magically wonderful life, gets to go to a witch's boarding school, ride a broom and solve his problems with a magic wand.
I think SW's reply to this was very good.
It isn't fair to us for the world to be misled by JK Rowling about the plight of orphans. Her millions feel like just another form of exploitation.
I see your point, but I haven't got the impression that Rowlings purpose was to tell the world about the "plight of the orphans", as she saw it. The fact that he's an orphan (and not a very happy one, at times) is more of a premise for the plot than it is a goal in itself. Of course, him being an orphan is a recurring theme, and his loneliness is often described. Also, you can't really blame Rowling for writing a successful book, especially when it is well-known that the circumstances under which she wrote weren't exactly luxurious.
The problem with fantasy is it allows an author to distort history without being held accountable. If we can't see what is real, how can we do anything to change society for the better?
I can see how one could argue for that in the case of Harry Potter, as it is supposed to be in the "same" world as ours, but I hardly think that it's a fair assessment of "fantasy" in general - most fantasy takes place in a world that doesn't resemble our own.
Before Harry Potter, when we thought about British orphans it was Oliver Twist that came to mind. Now it's boys on brooms waving magic wands, having fun.
I don't think this is true. I certainly remember that he's an orphan, but I have difficulties believing that the term "orphan" is now linked to "Harry Potter", for the very same reasons you mention: I think people in general understand that practically no orphans have a large inheritance and tons of loyal friends waiting for them when they reach a certain age.
Harry Potter has given the British Aristocracy a free pass, papering over their monumental transgressions.
I hope you'll forgive me if I say that I think this is a huge overstatement. Class (and also the price/vanity of trying to climb the social ladder, as is the case with the oldest of the Weasley sons) is also a recurring theme in the series, constantly portraying the Weasleys in a favourable way, and they are (as far as I can see) meant to represent the typical working-class family.
As for the deportation of children, I can't really see how the series in any way gives the British Aristocracy a "free pass"? The series is generally rather critical of what can be seen as the nobility, and the arrogance that comes with it.
Not trying to undermine your experiences here, just my thoughts.
S.W. wrote: "Harry Potter did not have a "magical, wonderful life." His parents were murdered right in front of him and he was scarred for life (externally and internally). He was sent to live with the awful ..."These books are part of our culture.
Yes they are. So are game shows such as The Price Is Right and Wheel of Fortune, "reality" television series such as The Bachelor and Jersey Shore as well as social activities that run the gamut from book groups to bowling nights and potluck dinners to strip clubs.
How is the statement that any book has managed to become part of our culture an argument for its aesthetic merit or its intrinsic value as literature that says something substantive about the human condition? To put it more simply, isn't there all kinds of stuff you yourself, S.W., find trite, banal or even evil that is also "part of our culture"? It's a low bar. Don't you imagine it's the popularity of the Harry Potter books as much as, if not more than, anything else that motivated Walters to use it as an element in one of his short stories? I've not read the short story you mention, but are you suggesting Walters reference to it confers his opinion that the Potter books have literary merit?
So all Dumbledore had to do to earn a comparison to Tiresias from you was speak with reason and gravitas to Harry from beyond the grave? Isn't the ghost a well established trope? Why not compare Dumbledore to the specter of King Hamlet or Dickens' Jacob Marley or Casper the Friendly?
I don't say this as a raving soldier of the "The Lit/Fic Crowd" (that) has already determined that Genre/Fic does NOT have significant literary merit" as you, S.W., said earlier. I think one of the weirdest and most Rachelesque things about your posts is that you insist there is such an us/them dichotomy in this thread (and that you must warn Mocha of its evil might) when people tend to be all over the map rather than squarely in one faction or another. And genre fiction is a damned big tent. Just because someone doesn't think there's all that much heft to Harry Potter doesn't make them anti-genre fiction.
If you, or anyone else, decide you've seen the timeless issues of the human condition reflected in Harry Potter, congratulations! Does that mean other people must to?
For the record, I think Monty at times uses some debatable or imprecise illustrations to make his points too (in between Oliver Twist and Harry Potter there are lots of orphans with lots of variation, Li'l Orphan Annie, for example).
And the more interesting discussion, imho, to have in the wake of Monty's most recent post is over the statement: "The problem with fantasy is it allows an author to distort history without being held accountable. If we can't see what is real, how can we do anything to change society for the better?"
First of all, often one of the points of fantasy (lower-case "f" here, I'm not necessarily speaking of the established fiction genre but more generically) is to be free of the constraints of any recorded history rather than to distort it. That doesn't always equate to a desire to escape making insightful observations about society, the human condition, etc.
Obviously 1984, Brave New World, Waiting for Godot, Naked Lunch (it might be fun to go on) are only loosely, if at all, tethered to any real history. Does that mean they have nothing of depth to say? And I'm sure there might be genre fiction examples too (although I personally wouldn't count Potter and Hunger Games as such).
But wasn't Monty explaining his own "visceral reaction"? Was he saying the experience you derived, S.W., from reading Harry Potter is actually less valuable than you believe it to be?
I also think the argument of "haven't even read it so how can you judge" can be overused. Sometimes it's spot on. For a long time, as a reader, I disdained the idea of reading Puzo's The Godfather because I assumed it was pot boiler fluff. Once I actually began to read the book, I was at first surprised and then delighted at how much meat was there. But do I really need to read a Harlequin Romance the whole way through before I make some fairly accurate assumptions about its content?
Moby DickTwilight
The vampire diaries
Vampire academy
I forget...Were there vampires in Moby Dick?
It was Queequeeg and he turned Ishmael. That must be how Ishmael survived the sinking of the Pequod. Didn't Queequeeg shimmer in the sunlight?I read Pride & Predjudice & Zombies a couple years ago. It was good for a couple of laughs. Supposedly, it contained all the original text (I didn't check).
A contemporary author who writes passionately about the plight of the poor and the down-trodden use a HP book as a symbol in a short story. The wayward father tries to connect with his son by means of this bridge. My point was that HP is being used by literary writers as a literary element.
Daniel, who has made several insightful observations about dystopian lit, may like Walter's story "Don't Eat Cat."
I loved The Great Gatsby, though I understand why people consider it overrated. I firmly disagree with The Stranger and Waiting for Godot, those books are classics.
S.W. wrote: "It was Queequeeg and he turned Ishmael."Better to sleep with a sober vampire than a drunken Christian, eh?
And "turned"? Perhaps we could get a thread going here about the wifely embrace Ishmael finds himself in that morning when he awakes....our discussion on Nick seems to be on hiatus right now!
S.W. said "My point was that HP is being used by literary writers as a literary element."Which means what? Fitzgerald used a Hopalong Cassidy book as a reference in TGG. Do you think he was trying to tell us there were depths we might not suspect in Hopalong Cassidy books?
In the story, why did Walter's choose to use a HP book instead of Catcher & The Rye or Oliver Twist? The wayward Dad didn't read the classics but he knew his boy loved HP. They bonded over it in the past at a happier time in both their lives. It was a symbolic bridge. But we're beating a dead horse, here. There are other threads for HP. Likewise, let's get beyond The Rachel Event and back to the books.
S.W. wrote: "Likewise, let's get beyond The Rachel Event and back to the books."True dat.
Allow me to attempt to guide the discussion in a new direction. But if anyone cares to give the horse corpse another kick, who am I to be critical?
Here's a partial list of the books B.R. Meyers cites as overrated in his book A Readers' Manifesto.
If you frequently read my posts and reviews, you're no doubt a touch sick of me mentioning this book. I found his arguments to be compelling. And you, S.W., as well as others in this thread may be interested to know that a large part of his premise is a defense of some genre authors (Stephen King comes to mind) and an attack on some of the book reviewers' darlings who write literary fiction instead of genre fiction. He posits that because they are writing "literature" as something that has become a genre in and of itself, they are able to get away with lapses in aesthetic judgement and prose that no decent storyteller would commit.
01. The Shipping News by Annie Proulx
02. Snow Falling on Cedars by David Guterson
03. White Noise by Don DeLillo
04. The Crossing by Cormac McCarthy
05. Timbuktu by Paul Auster
Let the howls of outrage commence! Or maybe not.
Meyers takes on more titles by each of the above five authors above. I found his argument persuasive when I read it. But, as counter-intuitive as this might sound, I didn't want to be won over by his spirited, chockablock full of detailed examples and, to my mind, thoroughly thought out arguments alone. I wanted to see for myself.
That's what started me reading Cormac McCarthy's novels (other than No Country for Old Men, which I had first decided to read when I learned the Coen Brothers had a movie version in the works).
I have to say (as I think you already know, S.W.), I find McCarthy to be overrated by a lot of reviewers and, to this reader, pretentious as all get out.
And as I've repeated so many times in Goodreads forums that I'm starting to wish I had a dollar for every time I've said it, so many McCarthy devotees speak in near breathless reverence about his (spoken slowly in hushed tones of awe) "masterful prose" and "poetic writing," but ...
no. one. cites. examples. from. the. texts. ever.
I intend to keep on reading McCarthy, however. And get to the other writers that Myers slams in his brief and highly engaging (whether you agree with him or not) book.
I have already read and enjoyed some of Paul Auster's works. I enjoyed The Book of Illusions, particularly the fiction within the fiction created by all the details of Hector Mann's career as a silent movie comedian. I read Oracle Night but don't remember a damned thing about it. Timbuktu was a buzz for me, too, but probably not something I'll read again.
Mark wrote: "How is the statement that any book has managed to become part of our culture an argument for its aesthetic merit or its intrinsic value as literature that says something substantive about the human condition?"Well said.
Remember, what we are talking about is perception. No one can think for someone else. I presented my perception, my reaction to a character/genre that I sampled. No one can invalidate someone else's perception, nor have they the right to. People have different tastes for good reason. You don't have to eat an entire bowl of chili to know you don't like it. One spoonful, or less, is enough.
For the record, I think Monty at times uses some debatable or imprecise illustrations to make his points too (in between Oliver Twist and Harry Potter there are lots of orphans with lots of variation, Li'l Orphan Annie, for example).
Good god, don't get me started on L'l Orphan Annie. That comic strip was written as political commentary. It was pure pandering capitalist propaganda trumpeting the benevolent generosity of the wealthy. While there may be such a person as Daddy Warbucks (war-bucks = arms merchant), it is laughably far from reality in today's America.
I have found nothing to indicate the strip's creator, Harold Gray, ever set foot in an orphanage. He just exploited the orphan concept for profit, the same as Rowling. Here's a Wiki-blurb about him: "Gray reported in 1952 that Annie's origin lay in a chance meeting he had with a ragamuffin while wandering the streets of Chicago looking for cartooning ideas. 'I talked to this little kid and liked her right away,' Gray said, 'She had common sense, knew how to take care of herself. She had to. Her name was Annie. At the time some 40 strips were using boys as the main characters; only three were using girls. I chose Annie for mine, and made her an orphan, so she'd have no family, no tangling alliances, but freedom to go where she pleased.'"
My major concern is that fantasies like HP, Annie and Batman have an effect on the collective unconscious, distorting reality in a way that can be detrimental. Over time, the unreal becomes perceived as real.
In America, the vast majority (80+%) of kids who grew up in foster care an orphanages end up incarcerated by their mid-thirties. We are a prime recruiting ground for prostitution and crime. I escaped those statistics because of some small heroic individuals and a Juvenile Court judge who bet on me and saw that I had a scholarship. THESE are the people who deserve recognition and "a place in our culture," for unlike these fantasy figures, they have earned it.
It's fine to have entertaining stories, but we need to be aware of the subliminal messages they carry. My people don't become superheroes or geniuses like Will Hunting.* It's nice to imagine we can and to have an ideal, but I'm here to remind people it's not reality.
I watched the full initial episode of HP last night. My perception didn't change. I can see where kids can be entertained by it, but I wouldn't have shown it to mine without telling them the truth.
*Incidentally, I give Affleck and Damon credit for showing attachment disorder and fear of abandonment with such depth of understanding, especially considering how young they were when they wrote the script.
Maria wrote: "Which books do you think are overrated? I think just about anything on a major "new" weekly or monthly list...these are bestsellers, but I really wonder how many readers actually think they are really just overrated.
I certainly do. I'm almost always disappointed when I reserve one of these at my library and then read it...
I read so many good books that "find" me instead of insinuating themselves onto my "to read" list via popularity.
Monty J wrote: "Over time, the unreal becomes perceived as real ..."Monty: This is unconventional audio storytelling, surreal and without context at times, but within this episode is a very interesting piece about Li'l Orphan Annie that you might enjoy:
http://www.wfmu.org/playlists/shows/3...
The piece of Li'l Orphan Annie starts @ about 26:58 in to the episode. And if you use the pop up player function on the site, you can go directly to the story. You may not have much patience for the piece (now that I'm listening to it again) since you have, for every good reason, some very ... uhm, rigid views on orphans in fiction.
As far as the unreal being perceived as the real (and vice versa), I think both literary and genre fiction are outgrowths of human mythology (in the Jungian and Joseph Campbellian). The hubris of Icarus, the suffering of Job, the at times spacy love and peace vibes of Jesus of Nazareth, what Beatrice guided Dante to see and know ... these are all, strictly speaking, fantasies, too.
I suppose what I'm struggling with is that, for me, the borderline between fiction and fantasy is not a hard, fast one and there's an undulating border of gray (but, god forbid, not shades of!) in between the black of the one and the white of the other (if the B&W of the two even exists).
Now that I think a little bit more about it, I think what you're referring to as "fantasy" with an ultimately negative outcome is a fiction whose storyline progresses toward nothing but wish fulfillment for the reader, rather than actually giving the reader something that might help them better deal with life. Eh?
I'm reminded of Gardner's On Moral Fiction, which is, like a lot of John Gardner's literary criticism, at times insightful and at times pompous and so dense as to be self-contradictory. Have you read it?
Mark wrote: "S.W. wrote: "Likewise, let's get beyond The Rachel Event and back to the books."True dat.
Allow me to attempt to guide the discussion in a new direction.
() posits that because they are writing "literature" as something that has become a genre in and of itself, they are able to get away with lapses in aesthetic judgement and prose that no decent storyteller would commit"
I've read all these so I'd be interesting in reading Meyer's arguments, especially about White Noise and Timbuktu. The former made me laugh; the latter made me cry (as a sucker for animals I would rather read a very harsh review than go through that again). The rest left me cold though I thought them well-written. McCarthy's mannered style annoyed me after a few books. I would try Blood Meridian again but only because it's been a while and I've since learned a lot about the Southwest.
Monty J wrote: "Harry Potter is supposed to be an orphan, yet he has this magically wonderful life, gets to go to a witch's boarding school, ride a broom and solve his problems with a magic wand. That blatantly manipulative pose is so unlike the real world of orphans and foster kids that it's painful to even think about."Monty, I am not recommending Harry Potter to you. I understand that different genres just don't work for someone, but you ought to know that Harry's life in the series is abysmal. His aunt and uncle are abusive by anyone's standards. The antagonist in the series, Lord Voldemort, grew up in an orphanage and his life was twisted by it.
Harry is abused by Professor Snape through the entire series. His treatment of him would get him fired and probably never hired anywhere again. Harry faces terrible things , even for an adult, and from book 4 on, they are twisted and evil. He is vilified in "The Daily Prophet," the "New York Times" of the wizarding world, turned on by virtually the whole school, misunderstood by even his friends, hunted down by the most evil wizard of the time, and made our equivalent of "Public Enemy #1" by his government.
You know how I feel about classics, and I have little patience with poorly constructed books. I feel this series will take its place along side of The Wizard of Oz , Alice in Wonderland , Anne of Green Gables , Kim and all the other classical children's literature. It will be read by young and old for centuries because it is simply a wonderful story.
I don't mean that you have to read it or that I disagree with most of what you say...I just want you to know that there is a whole lot more to this series than it appears from the beginning of the first book.
Mark wrote: "I'm reminded of Gardner's On Moral Fiction, which is, like a lot of John Gardner's literary criticism, at times insightful and at times pompous and so dense as to be self-contradictory. Have you read it?"I am a big fan of Gardner, despite his arrogance and his warped views on John Steinbeck. Sad we lost him so prematurely.
I picked up a small paperback by him as was astounded by his prose. The entire book was in verse.
Thanks for bring OMF to my attention. I will definitely put it high on my list.
Mark wrote: "The piece of Li'l Orphan Annie starts @ about 26:58 in to the episode. And if you use the pop up player function on the site, you can go directly to the story. You may not have much patience for the piece (now that I'm listening to it again) since you have, for every good reason, some very ... uhm, rigid views on orphans in fiction."I found it pretty accurate and insightful, especially the way it dealt with how she was used politically. The Depression years were when the threat of communism in America was at its high, and she was an effective propaganda tool. I'm sure she sold a lot of newspapers.
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...
That's true, but as a mexican who knows a lot of kids that read YA books, I can tell you they're not helping as much as they should. They're creating more perennial, narrow YA consumers than readers of substance.