THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Fun Stuff => ENJOY => Topic started by: a pack of wolves on 04 Aug 2009, 18:47

Title: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: a pack of wolves on 04 Aug 2009, 18:47
I was going to post this as a reply in the remakes thread but it was getting too long and becoming far too much of a derailment. Hence, a thread for discussing those novelists who have a significant reputation and why you think they're awful. And yes I realise this doesn't make for the greatest thread but it would have been a worse reply in an existing thread and I just couldn't resist.

He's definitely written some poor things, but 'Money' and 'Time's Arrow' are quite excellent.  He doesn't attempt to play around with grand ideas, but his style definitely works wonders in a few cases.

I never read Time's Arrow. Money I got bored with after a while and didn't finish but I seem to remember it being at least better than London Fields. I've never finished that either, but the sickening level of hatred towards the British working class he spits out in that novel genuinely appalls me and I wonder at how few people comment on his bigotry. And unlike TS Eliot for example where there is truly superb writing to be appreciated along with the small-minded hate Amis is terrible. He writes turgid prose, overblown sentences that bludgeon you with their clumsiness and tedium. Just try reading the first few pages of London Fields, they basically sum up everything that's wrong with British fiction. Basically, the man hates me, my family and most of the people I know and dear god would I love to do serious physical harm to him.

Which book do you think is his best?  I can't recall which is his shortest, but I'll guess at 'Cosmopolis', which I haven't read.  But you really don't think that 'White Noise' offers anything of value?  And though 'Underworld' is something of an overwhelming mess at times, there are passages which are engulfing and rather incredible.  Certainly though, he tends towards being a tad overobvious with his ideas, especially in his plays.

I was thinking of The Body Artist. A ghost story where the artistic and intellectual petite bourgeoisie are haunted by the spectre of the working classes, even having their own dead consumed and projected back at them through the lower class? Now that's interesting. Thing is, I'm not at all convinced that's the novel Delillo attempted to write. It's in there so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but I suspect it might have been something more along the lines of White Noise that he was intending to produce.

For me, White Noise suffers from the same problem as a lot of American fiction: it is labouring under the delusion that Nabokov's Pale Fire wasn't utter crap. It's a bit comic and there are middle class American academics... by this point due to the collected efforts of Delillo, Auster, Nabokov and their ilk dear god do I never want to hear about American academics having issues ever again. Will the book be a bit absurdist and maybe have an occasional nod to magic realism but in a very postmodernist way? Oh it will what a shock. American academics whose wives cheat on them and who are always obsessed with death and invariably have vast amounts of time to very unrealistically sit around the house (the body artist's protagonist appears to be the world's richest performance artist) and who live lives curiously divorced from things like work and class. There are things of value in reading white noise but they're mostly points of attack against self-indulgent middle class navel gazing. As for Underworld I very possibly never got to the well written bits because, well, it's massive and uninteresting (not unlike nearly everything Salman Rushdie's written in the past twenty years).
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: scarred on 04 Aug 2009, 21:30
I feel like this thread is gonna start some blood feuds. That being said:

Ernest Hemingway.

He's not absolutely terrible, he did write some good shit ("The Short and Happy Life of Frances Macomber," "The Snows of Kilimanjaro"), but all of his "renowned" works are really, really poorly written. "All Along the Western Front" is basically one giant run-on sentence. I mean, really? Semi-colons don't count, you hack.

John Irving.

I've only read "A Prayer for Owen Meany," but it put me off reading any more Irving ever. It would have an interesting, moving, well-written chapter, and then it would leap 30 years into the future where the narrator would lament about how pointless his life is for 30-odd pages before he had another flashback to his childhood with Owen. And none of it would relate to the larger themes of the book. Ugh. "Prayer" is one of those books that's around 600 pages, and should be 200. At most.

That's all I've got. I'll wait for someone else to start the Ayn Rand discussion.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Ikrik on 05 Aug 2009, 00:44
Christopher Moore

If I have one more person tell me that his stuff is the most hilarious thing they've ever read I might have an aneurism.  I tried reading Lamb and I believe something about vampires. It was absolutely horrible and not even all that witty.  A comedy about jesus' brother is something that a really funny novel could be written about.  Unfortunately Christopher Moore doesn't seem to use any of that concept to any potential.

->scarred

We might have a blood feud if you don't put Old Man and the Sea in the good shit that he wrote.  That book broke my heart.

And I believe it was Officer Barbrady who summed up Ayn Rand the best

"Yes, at first I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical, but then I read this: Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word, and because of this shit, I am never reading again."
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: JD on 05 Aug 2009, 00:49
Stephenie Meyer: 'Nuff said
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: scarred on 05 Aug 2009, 01:07
->scarred

We might have a blood feud if you don't put Old Man and the Sea in the good shit that he wrote.  That book broke my heart.

I don't feel like I have the authority to make official comment on the Old Man and the Sea, seeing as how the last time I read it, I was A) in 7th grade and B) hated it on principle for being a required book. That being said, I don't really have a desire to revisit it. It's definitely not a work I would use to showcase his deficiencies.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Joseph on 05 Aug 2009, 04:03
"All Along the Western Front" is basically one giant run-on sentence. I mean, really? Semi-colons don't count, you hack.

I don't like Hemingway much either, but I don't think that this is the best way to critique him, as then you would have to apply the same logic to 'Ulysses', and you would be wrong to do so.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Surgoshan on 05 Aug 2009, 08:53
Stephenie Meyer: 'Nuff said

A thousand times this.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Dazed on 05 Aug 2009, 09:58
John Steinbeck, mostly because I had to read The Red Pony in 3rd grade.

Fuck that guy.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: scarred on 05 Aug 2009, 10:36
NOOOoooo

"Grapes of Wrath" and "East of Eden" are two of my faveys :X
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: JD on 05 Aug 2009, 10:38
Also, screw Tolkien, his books took far too long to read.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: MadassAlex on 05 Aug 2009, 10:40
Really? I don't think they are really that long.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: ackblom12 on 05 Aug 2009, 10:42
Well, as much as I love the books I cannot deny that his writing is not all it's cracked up to be. His story however was amazing.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: scarred on 05 Aug 2009, 10:43
Yeh, J.R.R. lost some credit with me after Bilbo's 60-page monologue in Fellowship, but I still love the story so much that I can't resist rereading the series every now and again.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Be My Head on 05 Aug 2009, 13:14
The Fellowship of The Ring is my favourite book. It's not hard to read. You're all doing it wrong I'm afraid.

Maybe it's the fact that I've read the trilogy half a dozen times, but it wouldn't take me more than a week or two to re-read all 3 books.

Also, 60 page monologue? Where?
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: ackblom12 on 05 Aug 2009, 13:22
I've read the books several times, it doesn't change the fact that he spends far too much time on mundane unimportant descriptions and the pacing is terrible in a lot of places. I still find it very enjoyable and I'm unsure if it would have had the impact it did if it was written any other way.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Alex C on 05 Aug 2009, 13:32
Tolkein gives me the impression that he loved language more than he loved telling stories. I came away from his stuff mildly dissatisfied, but with hindsight being what it is, I can't honestly claim to know whether a preference of form over narrative is really the issue or simply whether my perceptions are now colored by the fact that I now know more about his background.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: mberan42 on 05 Aug 2009, 14:09
Tom Clancy
Dan Brown
J.K. Rawling
John Grisham
Stephen King
Dean Koontz
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Joseph on 05 Aug 2009, 14:13
I think there is some confusion in this thread between popular and renowned novelists.  I'm pretty sure (though maybe I'm wrong) that the thread was more pointed towards authors who had been critically aclaimed.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Be My Head on 05 Aug 2009, 14:15
I've read the books several times, it doesn't change the fact that he spends far too much time on mundane unimportant descriptions and the pacing is terrible in a lot of places. I still find it very enjoyable and I'm unsure if it would have had the impact it did if it was written any other way.

In that case we might as well include Charles Dickens and William Shakespeare. Hamlet does pretty much nothing for the first 4 acts of Hamlet, therefore it's a boring story right?
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Alex C on 05 Aug 2009, 14:18
Hamlet never took time out to break into a song about the glories of bathing.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: mberan42 on 05 Aug 2009, 14:19
I think there is some confusion in this thread between popular and renowned novelists.  I'm pretty sure (though maybe I'm wrong) that the thread was more pointed towards authors who had been critically aclaimed.

Tom Clancy = renowned for his military/war thrillers
Dan Brown = renowned for his mystery/religious controvertial/whatever thrillers
J.K. Rawling = renowned for her fantasy
John Grisham = renowned for his whodunnits/mystery thrillers
Stephen King = renowned for his horror stories
Dean Koontz = renowned for whatever the hell he writes (it was a stretch to think of more people after King)

I think what you're getting at is popular <> renowned, when in fact I believe popular == renowned. Being renowned in your case doesn't mean they write high-falutin' literature.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: ackblom12 on 05 Aug 2009, 14:27
I was wondering how long it would take for Stephen King to get mentioned.

R.S. Salvatore
Terry Goodkind
Robert Jordan (the latter half of WoT specifically)
Anne Rice
Anthony Burgess

Anthony Burgess is a complicated one for me. I loved A Clockwork Orange so much, but his entire ending kind of ruined it for me. I much prefer the version the publishers originally released without his consent. Admittedly it was a dick move, but it just made so much more sense.

I've read the books several times, it doesn't change the fact that he spends far too much time on mundane unimportant descriptions and the pacing is terrible in a lot of places. I still find it very enjoyable and I'm unsure if it would have had the impact it did if it was written any other way.


In that case we might as well include Charles Dickens and William Shakespeare. Hamlet does pretty much nothing for the first 4 acts of Hamlet, therefore it's a boring story right?

When did I say that Tolkien was shit or boring? I said the writing is not as well done in a technical sense as many folks seem to believe.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: KharBevNor on 05 Aug 2009, 15:08
Tolkien's writing is technically incredible, it's just that he's employing the style and structure of 10th century Norse and German rather than 20th century English literature. Anyone who's ever read Heimskringla or Beowulf will see where Tolkien is taking his narrative ideas from. Also, it's worth noting that Tolkien essentially wrote Lord of the Rings as something to do on Sunday evenings after a couple of pints with C.S. Lewis., to relax after a hard week deconstructing the philological roots of kennings in proto-germanic bears son folk-tales. The incredible levels of detail are excusable because it was basically his own private fantasy world; that it was such a phenomenal success says a lot about how incredibly clever Tolkien's use of language and mythic narrative actually was. I find the supposed flaws in Tolkien's work particularly intriguing, actually, because it is a work of such obvious eccentricity, crafted with only the authors amusement in mind. When I compare this with, say, a tedious shite-spewing fuckhead like Stephen King, a man who has seemingly been trying for years to see if he can reach some unholy nadir of absolute awfulness in literature by striking a perfect balance between pretension, populism, condecension, lack of technical skill and sheer fucking ball-crushing stupidity, well.

Back on to the darlings of the literati, Virginia Woolfe. Orlando is ok, everything else is pretty much awful. She would almost certainly never have got a word published if she hadn't been busy exploring the genitals of half of Londons literary elite. Most of her work was glorified vanity projects but, in the complete opposite of Tolkien, of such obvious and tedious pretension that reading her work is basically tiring. When she does produce a good passage (I do remember a few diamonds in the awful rough that is To The Lighthouse) she always manages to fuck them up by doing something utterly stupid, like making a sentence that runs for two pages strung together with forty semi-colons.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: rynne on 05 Aug 2009, 15:12
Tolkein gives me the impression that he loved language more than he loved telling stories.

Well, yeah.  He's so much as said that Middle Earth was invented as a framework for his imaginary languages; something to the effect of "I wanted to create a world where 'A Star shines on the hour of our meeting' is a common greeting."  He wasn't so much writing stories as writing histories.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: elizaknowswhatshesfor on 05 Aug 2009, 16:01
KharBevNor your answer is so right and wonderful it makes me feel a little sexy.

I would like to add On The Road. It makes me so cross I can barely be literate about why I dislike it, apart from dul dull dull.

I like so many other writers in this vein. But it leaves me cold. Cold & bored. These are not things I want from a book.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Alex C on 05 Aug 2009, 16:14
I don't know much about Tolkein, so I figured there was a decent chance that I was merely being presumptuous. I knew that he dedicated his life to the study of literature and as such he likely loved language for language's sake, but in general I try to avoid buying too heavily into any one pat explanation. All I have to go on was my experience with the series, a glance at the "About the Author" tab and a few magazine blurbs explaining why the fantasy nerd bible is going to be the newest hot film franchise. If there's anything I've learned about myself (and perhaps people in general), it's that sometimes we buy into ideas before we even realize it simply because it seems so obvious but then only gather supporting evidence after the fact, often ignoring mounds of contradictory information on the way. I've been going through my old journals and writing experiments from high school lately and the fact that I did that very thing all the freaking time has become rather painfully obvious. It's going to be real fun going through my stuff again 10 years from now only to find out that I'm doing the same shit now too.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: a pack of wolves on 05 Aug 2009, 20:35
I think there is some confusion in this thread between popular and renowned novelists.  I'm pretty sure (though maybe I'm wrong) that the thread was more pointed towards authors who had been critically aclaimed.

That was what I was thinking but it's a tricky line isn't it? From mberan's list I'd say Rowling does actually have a very high critical regard, at least when considered as a children's author. King, Koontz, Brown, Grisham and Clancy though, these writers are bywords for poor quality fiction so calling them out for it does seem a little redundant. But what I mainly wanted was why people hate the authors others put on a pedestal since that's the fun part, so if anyone wants to wax lyrical about the particular aspect of Grisham et al that rubs them up the wrong way then I hope they let fly.

I would like to add On The Road. It makes me so cross I can barely be literate about why I dislike it, apart from dul dull dull.

I like so many other writers in this vein. But it leaves me cold. Cold & bored. These are not things I want from a book.

Part of me really wants to defend On The Road since I do like that book. Or did anyway, I read it at the perfect age when I was about 13 or thereabouts. But... it is poorly structured, the pacing is downright awful, the events aren't nearly as interesting as the book seems to imply they should be to the reader and despite some good points (the love of movement, a eulogy to a less monitored and controlled society, presenting the protagonist/author as a real twat) it really isn't a great book in the end so I find myself without much of a leg to stand on.

Back on to the darlings of the literati, Virginia Woolfe. Orlando is ok, everything else is pretty much awful. She would almost certainly never have got a word published if she hadn't been busy exploring the genitals of half of Londons literary elite. Most of her work was glorified vanity projects but, in the complete opposite of Tolkien, of such obvious and tedious pretension that reading her work is basically tiring. When she does produce a good passage (I do remember a few diamonds in the awful rough that is To The Lighthouse) she always manages to fuck them up by doing something utterly stupid, like making a sentence that runs for two pages strung together with forty semi-colons.

Oh come on, I wouldn't say Woolf was without her problems but her work was at least reasonably novel so I think it was deserving of publishing. Sections of Mrs Dalloway seem to be quintessential modernism since they utilise the inner life of character's minds and then sweep between them with what are almost tracking shots of London, the city and the compression of humanity that it brings being absolutely key (and absolutely modernist). Like most modernist writers she's useless at dealing with anyone but the upper classes but there's still plenty to recommend her.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Be My Head on 05 Aug 2009, 20:41

When did I say that Tolkien was shit or boring? I said the writing is not as well done in a technical sense as many folks seem to believe.

Well, I'm going to have to agree with Khar on this one; there's nothing technically wrong or stylistically wrong with his prose. For some people he might be too slow at points, or seem to wander from the main plot, but that's why I like it. You still like it anyway though, so whatever.

I agree with the other fantasy authors you listed. I like Salvatore's novels, or liked them when I was in 8th grade, and they're pretty good for easy reading that doesn't require much concentration or analysis.

Maybe not Burgess though, but I've only read A Clockwork Orange, so I can't make any judgments on his writing.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Surgoshan on 05 Aug 2009, 21:50
I would call Koontz, Clancy, Grisham, and King not poor quality but beach quality.  It's not poorly written; in fact, it's quite well written for what it is.  It's the sort of book you take with you on vacation.  You read it at the beach.  It's the equivalent of prime time television in book form.  You shut your brain down and enjoy.  It has no critical acclaim, but it's not trash.

I reserve that title for Paolini and Meyer.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Joseph on 06 Aug 2009, 01:31
Don't make your statements apply to me, Surgoshan.  I'm on vacation right now, and I've been reading Raymond Queneau, Jane Austen, Marcel Proust, W.G. Sebald, Virginia Woolf (fuck you Khar), and Jean Baudrillard, amongst other authors.

Anyhow, I adore Virginia Woolf.  She was an incredibly imaginative author, constantly experimenting with form and style, but in a way which obviously will not appeal to everyone, so I can understand some of the hate directed towards her.  Her lyrical ability is outstanding, and though her work can get quite dense, I find that it's reflection of the interior lives of people is quite powerful.  She's obviously quite indebted to Charlotte Bronte, and if someone didn't enjoy those authors, I could understand it if they (yes I'm using this in the singular) didn't enjoy Woolf.  As far as modernist writers go, easily my favourite, with the exception of Joyce.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Ikrik on 06 Aug 2009, 02:59
Ahhhhhh I totally just remembered one just now

Paulo Coelho.

I had over 15 people tell me that The Alchemist is an absolutely amazing novel(la).  So I bought it at chapters for 50% off and finished it in a single afternoon.  Everything was so convenient and absolutely absurd.  The kid would encounter a problem, think about it or do something and then solve it. This happens for the entire book.  He gets totally conned by this one guy and pretty much just goes "well, that was a terrible experience, but I guess I've learned a valuable lesson."
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: look out! Ninjas! on 06 Aug 2009, 06:19
Man, all Shakespeare did was string a bunch of well-known quotes together into some clichéd mess of a story.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Surgoshan on 06 Aug 2009, 06:46
Well, what do you expect?  He was the Michael Bay of the 17th century.

Okay, that's not fair.  He was more of a John Woo.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Inlander on 06 Aug 2009, 07:36
Even though you're only joking, this always bears reading:

Quote from: Hamlet, Act II, scene II
I will tell you why; so shall my anticipation prevent your discovery, and your secrecy to the king and queen moult no feather. I have of late, - but wherefore I know not, - lost all my mirth, forgone all custom of exercises; and, indeed, it goes so heavily with my disposition that this goodly frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory; this most excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave o'erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire, - why, it appears no other thing to me than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours. What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in action, how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? man delights not me; no, nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Alex C on 06 Aug 2009, 08:24
It's the equivalent of prime time television in book form.

So it IS trash.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: KharBevNor on 06 Aug 2009, 08:35
Maybe I just don't like Virginia Woolfe because I haven't got a vagina.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Blyss on 06 Aug 2009, 10:55
Emily Dickinson always seemed a bit overrated to me.  I don't like poetry much to begin with, but hers in particular makes my head start to pound almost immediately - perhaps from banging it so hard on the desk as I read...  Not sure.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Nodaisho on 06 Aug 2009, 11:37
Okay, that's not fair.  He was more of a John Woo.

Where are the dual-wielded crossbows again? I must have missed that part in English class.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Joseph on 06 Aug 2009, 12:36
Emily Dickinson always seemed a bit overrated to me.  I don't like poetry much to begin with, but hers in particular makes my head start to pound almost immediately - perhaps from banging it so hard on the desk as I read...  Not sure.

What poetry do you like?

Oh and Khar, I was meaning to ask, does your hatred extend to 'A Room Of One's Own' as well?
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: KharBevNor on 06 Aug 2009, 13:19
That's an essay, not a novel? A rather dated essay now also. Give me Germaine Greer anyday, I prefer being punched in the balls to being subjected to unbelievably tedious drivel, sorry, fascinating experiments with form.

I really don't want to throw stones at any particular people, but something I notice with a lot of people, this applies to painting as well, is people seem to like anything just because it's avant-garde. Being unusual and being good are not one and the same thing. To continue this theme, large amounts of everything William Burroughs wrote is utter tosh.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Surgoshan on 06 Aug 2009, 18:24
Okay, that's not fair.  He was more of a John Woo.

Where are the dual-wielded crossbows again? I must have missed that part in English class.

Hamlet killed and died with a poison sword.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Nodaisho on 06 Aug 2009, 19:11
Without slow motion and jazz music, it still isn't as cool.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Surgoshan on 06 Aug 2009, 21:25
Have you ever tried falling in slow motion without the aid of a camera?  It is hard.

And you can't fault Shakespeare for the lack of jazz any more than you can fault him for the lack of cheaply available flocks of doves.

Seriously.  Woo loves flocks of doves.  Possibly literally.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: JD on 06 Aug 2009, 21:43
I reserve that title for Paolini and Meyer.

I can't imagine people would read twilight on the beach. Too much sunlight.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: a pack of wolves on 06 Aug 2009, 22:52
I really don't want to throw stones at any particular people, but something I notice with a lot of people, this applies to painting as well, is people seem to like anything just because it's avant-garde. Being unusual and being good are not one and the same thing. To continue this theme, large amounts of everything William Burroughs wrote is utter tosh.

Being unusual and being good may not be the same thing but being unusual and being interesting frequently are, and if you're interesting then you're halfway there to being good anyway. Some fiction I enjoy simply because it's a good story well told but a lot of the time I want works that will present the world to me in new ways and that's where the avant-garde comes in. Novelty for its own sake is of course pointless but in the new and different work of any period is usually where you'll find most of the really great artists.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Ikrik on 06 Aug 2009, 23:25
I reserve that title for Paolini and Meyer.

I can't imagine people would read twilight on the beach. Too much sunlight.

Man, I think every 14 year old girl read the sequels on the beach.  Think about it.  What does Edward do in the sun?  He sparkles. Where do you find a lot of sun? At the beach.  So how do you meet your sexy vampire lover? At the beach, just look for the shiny boys.

I saw a girl a couple weeks ago with a shirt that said "Looking for a Prince Charming." Only Prince Charming was crossed out and above it was scrawled "Vampire."  The first thing that flashed through my head was Max Shrek as Nosferatu, my girlfriend noticed my perplexed expression and told me "Twilight."  I hate how sexualized vampires have become. 
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: a pack of wolves on 06 Aug 2009, 23:37
Not exactly new is it? Vampires have long been about sex, STI's and fear of corruption. One of the fears that Nosferatu plays on is the idea of Orlok getting his Semitic hands on nice Christian women, and with Dracula he's the sexual predator from the East corrupting and destroying upstanding English ladies. Vampires are pretty much the most sexualised monster going.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Ikrik on 06 Aug 2009, 23:50
Not exactly new is it? Vampires have long been about sex, STI's and fear of corruption. One of the fears that Nosferatu plays on is the idea of Orlok getting his Semitic hands on nice Christian women, and with Dracula he's the sexual predator from the East corrupting and destroying upstanding English ladies. Vampires are pretty much the most sexualised monster going.

maybe sexualized is the wrong word....i hate how they've been turned into a sex symbol.  I hate how this monster kind of monster, who used to be about disease and terror, as you've beautifully described, has become more about being this misunderstood sex symbol. I'd blame Anne Rice but at least she targeted an older audience, they don't scream nearly as loud. 
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: ackblom12 on 07 Aug 2009, 07:12
You could thank Bram Stoker, Dracula was probably the first in line there.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: KharBevNor on 07 Aug 2009, 07:39
The problem is that vampires basically are just sexy as fuck.

Sorry.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Jimmy the Squid on 07 Aug 2009, 07:58
Pretty much. Vampires didn't just play on the diseasey side of sex but it was a lot about, like a pack of wolves said, corruption. Vampires are the suppository of all our sexual hang ups. Sadism, blood-play, domination, intoxication etc... You want to get bitten by a vampire which is part of what makes them scary. That's why Twilight is such a hit with pre-teens. They have all this anti-sex propaganda shoved down their throats and then there is a book about the sexiest monsters ever that have totally lost their teeth. Edward is such a fucking bitch.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: KharBevNor on 07 Aug 2009, 08:09
It is a sad day when our teenagers desperately need nothing more than a dose of Lestat.

I wonder if there is any LestatxEdward slashfic. Wait, of course there is.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Surgoshan on 07 Aug 2009, 09:45
Khar, fuck is often not very sexy.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: phooey on 07 Aug 2009, 09:55
I don't want to turn this thread into another TWILIGHT IS SO AWFUL circlejerk, but I've got to say that it takes some real talent to make a book simultaneously so anti-feminist and so emasculating.  Give it up for Stephenie Meyers.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Commodore on 07 Aug 2009, 10:56
Paolini

You aren't screaming this loud enough.  I don't see how so many of my friends can like the plot of Star Wars with bastardized Lord of the Rings nomenclature glued on top of everything.  Paolini being considered an author makes me cringe me in the same way I do when I see Wal-Mart commercials and beer bellies.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: nurgles_herald on 07 Aug 2009, 18:28
But he was only... oh, wait.  He wasn't in middle school any more.

People lauding him as a great young author is retarded.  Anyone who plays more than 100 hours of DnD before they turn 8 could produce a giant pile of shit akin to Eragon, but the issue is that the rest of us *know* that it's shit, and refuse to let it see the light of day.  I mean, really?  George Lucas, sue his bitch ass, please.  Make yourself useful, now that you've officially ruined Star Wars, you fat old man.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: KvP on 09 Aug 2009, 12:27
In celebration of its 50th anniversary, the National Review republished its review of Atlas Shrugged (http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback200501050715.asp). It makes you wistful for the halcyon days when Bill Kristol did not exist.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: NeverQuiteGoth on 20 Aug 2009, 17:32
Terry Brooks, the "quantity over quality" fantasy novelist.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: KharBevNor on 20 Aug 2009, 17:57
Not Terry, "This book is exactly the same as Lord of the Rings but with robot spiders" Brooks?

I'm really quite surprised the Tolkien estate hasn't considered sueing over The Sword of Shannara.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Surgoshan on 20 Aug 2009, 19:45
Not Terry, "This book is exactly the same as Lord of the Rings but with robot spiders" Brooks?

I'm really quite surprised the Tolkien estate hasn't considered sueing over The Sword of Shannara.

I read a few of his books.

I then stopped.

This was over a decade ago and I've never regretted it.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: karkaputto on 20 Aug 2009, 23:48
mark twain

just because his stuff was clever 100 years ago doesn't mean it's clever now
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Vendetagainst on 21 Aug 2009, 00:02
I am pretty sure that is not how that works.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: TheMooseOfDeath on 21 Aug 2009, 00:54
I've found that I really, really hate most of 19th century literature (with most exceptions coming from about the last quarter of the century and some American authors).  This mostly stems from the fact that they often write in 5 pages what could be written in a few paragraphs.

Also, I think it's just a language thing.  I can zip through just about any contemporary novel, but I always trudge through any work from Dickens or Bronte, etc., books that were, in their day, usually read in about a week or less.  That sort of verse was just normal for its contemporary readers, just like how Nick Hornby takes me a week to read, or a 2-hour Shakespearean play would have been crystal-clear to its Elizabethan audience.

Or maybe I'm just trying to find a good excuse to hate Pride & Prejudice.  Seriously, Elizabeth Bennet has to be the first Mary Sue in literature AMIRITE?
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: BeoPuppy on 21 Aug 2009, 02:21
Overrated writers ... hmmm ...

Personally, I have always thought of Lord Of The Rings and The Hobbit as children's literature. I read them wehen I was 14 and loved them but whenever I tried to re-read them it just doesn't work anymore. It's ... kid's stuff.

I really despise Narnia and it's sequels. Barely concealed bible re-tellings written badly. And that whole ... Lucy and lipstick and boys thing is just too offensive. (I think it was Lucy. Not sure.)

Never have I finished a book by Charles Dickens. And I never intend to. It's ... dreary and bleak and no fun. Probably a consequence of time but still, it's just not for me.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: scarred on 21 Aug 2009, 02:24
Terry Brooks, the "quantity over quality" fantasy novelist.

In that same vein: Terry Goodkind.

Good lord that man cannot write
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: a pack of wolves on 21 Aug 2009, 06:32
I've found that I really, really hate most of 19th century literature (with most exceptions coming from about the last quarter of the century and some American authors).  This mostly stems from the fact that they often write in 5 pages what could be written in a few paragraphs.

Also, I think it's just a language thing.  I can zip through just about any contemporary novel, but I always trudge through any work from Dickens or Bronte, etc., books that were, in their day, usually read in about a week or less.  That sort of verse was just normal for its contemporary readers, just like how Nick Hornby takes me a week to read, or a 2-hour Shakespearean play would have been crystal-clear to its Elizabethan audience.

Or maybe I'm just trying to find a good excuse to hate Pride & Prejudice.  Seriously, Elizabeth Bennet has to be the first Mary Sue in literature AMIRITE?

No. At least I think not, I've never come across the term before but wikipedia tells me a Mary Sue is a wish fulfilment character who's overly idealised and has no major flaws. Considering the fact that a fair chunk of the novel is Elizabeth Bennet realising her flaws it's really not applicable. Fanny Hill would make more sense actually, my word is that girl plucky.

I'll admit that I've never read a whole book by Nick Hornby but I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that there's a bit less going on in his novels compared to Austen's work. Is there anything in what he's done that matches the importance of landscape gardening to good character in Mansfield Park or the analysis of the relationship between economics and marriage for women in Pride And Prejudice?

I really despise Narnia and it's sequels. Barely concealed bible re-tellings written badly. And that whole ... Lucy and lipstick and boys thing is just too offensive. (I think it was Lucy. Not sure.)

This is why I've never read them. The misogyny and Christianity pissed my Mum off so much when she was a kid that she didn't think they were really appropriate so we never had them in the house. I got Terry Pratchett instead.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: BeoPuppy on 21 Aug 2009, 07:25
That's one huggable mom you have there.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: TheMooseOfDeath on 21 Aug 2009, 13:01
I'll admit that I've never read a whole book by Nick Hornby but I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that there's a bit less going on in his novels compared to Austen's work. Is there anything in what he's done that matches the importance of landscape gardening to good character in Mansfield Park or the analysis of the relationship between economics and marriage for women in Pride And Prejudice?


True, Hornby hasn't exactly turned the idea of a rigid, patriarchal structure on its head (though the impact of Austen's work does have a nearly two century advantage over Hornby's), but I would say he does go at great lengths to really flesh out his characters and have them grow as you read about them with, in my opinion, a very entertaining and innovative style of writing (I'm mostly referring to High Fidelity and A Long Way Down).  I mean, in High Fidelity, the protagonist Rob sets himself up to be this know-it-all hipster who's always the victim in his failed relationships, but eventually realizes that he's been a complete asshole the whole time (....kinda like Pride & Prejudice now that I think about it...).

To be fair to Austen, I've only read P&P once, but am currently re-reading it (now that I'm older and, hopefully, a little wiser).  But again, 19th century prose still drives me nuts. 

If I may ask, which book(s) by Hornby did you pick up and, I assume, read through a bit?
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: variable_star on 21 Aug 2009, 13:51
Terry Brooks, the "quantity over quality" fantasy novelist.

He's definitely bad, but in the shameless hack variety. I absolutely despise Mercedes Lackey, who is simply a godawful writer. I tried reading one of her novels and laughed through the entire first chaper. I didn't finish it, instead I tossed it into the garbage can in my garage filled with oil-soaked rags and threw the nearest incendiary device along with it as I ran.

It was worth losing the garage.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Surgoshan on 21 Aug 2009, 16:00
To be fair to Austen, I've only read P&P once, but am currently re-reading it (now that I'm older and, hopefully, a little wiser).  But again, 19th century prose still drives me nuts.

Why would you say that a house burned down when one can tearfully confess that a magnificent edifice was woefully, wholly, and tragically consumed in an holocaustic conflagration?
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: JD on 21 Aug 2009, 16:45
I never really noticed any christian undertones in Narnia when I read it as a kid. Really
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: onewheelwizzard on 21 Aug 2009, 19:44
I'm going to go ahead and take a dump on Joseph Conrad real quick, because Heart of Darkness straight up put me to sleep within 5 pages, no matter where in the book I tried to read it from.  I haven't read anything else by him but goddamn is that book overrated.

I don't know what it was about it, maybe I'll revisit it sometime and find out that he's actually worth reading for some reason, but seriously, that book sucked ass.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Dimmukane on 21 Aug 2009, 20:29
I know his name came up already, but R.A. Salvatore.  A descriptive phrase of his: 'tooth-filled maw.'  This is equivalent to 'mouth mouth.'
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: jimbunny on 21 Aug 2009, 20:52
Actually...

I blame television, and Heart of Darkness is amazing.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: AanAllein on 21 Aug 2009, 21:15
I've found that I really, really hate most of 19th century literature (with most exceptions coming from about the last quarter of the century and some American authors).  This mostly stems from the fact that they often write in 5 pages what could be written in a few paragraphs.

Also, I think it's just a language thing.  I can zip through just about any contemporary novel, but I always trudge through any work from Dickens or Bronte, etc., books that were, in their day, usually read in about a week or less.  That sort of verse was just normal for its contemporary readers, just like how Nick Hornby takes me a week to read, or a 2-hour Shakespearean play would have been crystal-clear to its Elizabethan audience.

Or maybe I'm just trying to find a good excuse to hate Pride & Prejudice.  Seriously, Elizabeth Bennet has to be the first Mary Sue in literature AMIRITE?

I am generally in agreement with what you're saying here - often, it can be worth fighting through the prose (for example, it took me forever to attack Tale of Two Cities, but I'm glad I did), but sometimes it's really hard to justify it when they take 2 pages to talk about anything.

This sounds kind of blasphemous to anyone at all interested in literature, but what they really need are "translations" of older English novels. I'm not talking simplified Cliff-notes sorta thing here, but rather an attempt to modernize the language while maintaining the strengths of the novels in question. I say this because some of my favourite novels are by Russian novelists - and yet I have no doubt that they would have similar flaws to the aforementioned English novels if I was to learn Russian and read the original manuscript. Translation forces the language, pacing etc to be updated while maintaining what makes the prose work.

Just a thought. Can't really ever see it happening though - purists would vomit at the thought, and everyone else would probably just prefer really dumbed-down versions.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Inlander on 22 Aug 2009, 00:04
I never really noticed any christian undertones in Narnia when I read it as a kid. Really

Of course you didn't. I didn't either, and I'm willing to bet that 90% of the kids who read it or had it read to them by their parents didn't. The problem with the "Narnia as Christian propaganda" argument is that it only works if the child reading the Narnia books is familiar with the Bible in the first place (and I'm not talking about children and not adults because they're children's books and most people read them first when they're children). If you don't know anything about Christianity or the Bible then the Narnia series is just a bunch of stories about a talking Lion and a bunch of kids who turn out to be Princes and Princesses in a fantasy land with an evil witch and fauns and dwarves and stuff. Let's not forget, kids tend to take things pretty much at face value and of their own accord they don't generally seek out deeper meanings or moral lessons in stories.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: TheMooseOfDeath on 22 Aug 2009, 16:51
To be fair to Austen, I've only read P&P once, but am currently re-reading it (now that I'm older and, hopefully, a little wiser).  But again, 19th century prose still drives me nuts.

Why would you say that a house burned down when one can tearfully confess that a magnificent edifice was woefully, wholly, and tragically consumed in an holocaustic conflagration?

Hey, I'm still trying, aren't I?  I just might love it the second time around.  That's what happened to me with Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises

I've found that I really, really hate most of 19th century literature (with most exceptions coming from about the last quarter of the century and some American authors).  This mostly stems from the fact that they often write in 5 pages what could be written in a few paragraphs.

Also, I think it's just a language thing.  I can zip through just about any contemporary novel, but I always trudge through any work from Dickens or Bronte, etc., books that were, in their day, usually read in about a week or less.  That sort of verse was just normal for its contemporary readers, just like how Nick Hornby takes me a week to read, or a 2-hour Shakespearean play would have been crystal-clear to its Elizabethan audience.

Or maybe I'm just trying to find a good excuse to hate Pride & Prejudice.  Seriously, Elizabeth Bennet has to be the first Mary Sue in literature AMIRITE?

I am generally in agreement with what you're saying here - often, it can be worth fighting through the prose (for example, it took me forever to attack Tale of Two Cities, but I'm glad I did), but sometimes it's really hard to justify it when they take 2 pages to talk about anything.

This sounds kind of blasphemous to anyone at all interested in literature, but what they really need are "translations" of older English novels. I'm not talking simplified Cliff-notes sorta thing here, but rather an attempt to modernize the language while maintaining the strengths of the novels in question. I say this because some of my favourite novels are by Russian novelists - and yet I have no doubt that they would have similar flaws to the aforementioned English novels if I was to learn Russian and read the original manuscript. Translation forces the language, pacing etc to be updated while maintaining what makes the prose work.

Just a thought. Can't really ever see it happening though - purists would vomit at the thought, and everyone else would probably just prefer really dumbed-down versions.

Making modern "translations" of older English texts is a generally good, though I would have some qualms with it.  It would certainly help younger generations to read classic texts and thus more likely keep those stories in public memory, but at the same time original texts do have their charm and use words in ways that would only be restricted in their original meaning and usage if "translated" (I'm mostly thinking of The Canterbury Tales).  Then again, that's why we have "abridged" and "unabridged" versions of texts.

But I definitely agree about translations from other languages.  I have two translations of The Brothers Karamazov, with one that is horribly bland and the other I can zip through, thoroughly enjoying it while also soaking in the deeper meanings.  Also, there's definitely a much different feel between long-form poems that are translated into verse and prose versions.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: onewheelwizzard on 24 Aug 2009, 13:20
Actually...

I blame television, and Heart of Darkness is amazing.

Blame TV for what?  I've never actually owned one, nor has my family.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: jimbunny on 24 Aug 2009, 15:37
Sorry, that shouldn't have been one sentence. And I was being a little flippant (I should have said, "I blame television and bad English teachers.")

I had to read Heart of Darkness my third year of college, and I found it probably the most powerful book I read all that year. There are some stunning passages in there, not to mention the moral dilemmas surrounding imperialism and the narrator as an individual. Plus, it's a pretty fucking concise book for being so popularly hated. I mean, I can understand being bored by Milton, George Eliot, even Mark Twain - but if you can't make it through Heart of Darkness, I'm not sure you can fairly call it boredom that's keeping you back.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: a pack of wolves on 24 Aug 2009, 16:19
I am generally in agreement with what you're saying here - often, it can be worth fighting through the prose (for example, it took me forever to attack Tale of Two Cities, but I'm glad I did), but sometimes it's really hard to justify it when they take 2 pages to talk about anything.

This sounds kind of blasphemous to anyone at all interested in literature, but what they really need are "translations" of older English novels. I'm not talking simplified Cliff-notes sorta thing here, but rather an attempt to modernize the language while maintaining the strengths of the novels in question. I say this because some of my favourite novels are by Russian novelists - and yet I have no doubt that they would have similar flaws to the aforementioned English novels if I was to learn Russian and read the original manuscript. Translation forces the language, pacing etc to be updated while maintaining what makes the prose work.

Just a thought. Can't really ever see it happening though - purists would vomit at the thought, and everyone else would probably just prefer really dumbed-down versions.

Problem is, all you could ever produce would be simplified versions. It's not comparable to texts written in Old or Middle English where you have to translate as you go because so many words have changed or fallen out of usage entirely. You might find the prose style unappealing in novels from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries but the language is perfectly comprehensible for the most part, so why change it? True, some people might prefer a different pacing but you can say that about any novel and you couldn't simply make them faster paced because there are plenty of contemporary novels that move slowly.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: AanAllein on 24 Aug 2009, 17:46
True, true. Maybe Dostoevsky and Tolstoy are just better writers than those English hacks.  :evil:
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: jimbunny on 24 Aug 2009, 18:48
I think his point is that translation is inherently second best and should be avoided when possible. It is a testament to the great Russian writers that their books are still great in English, but they are almost definitely made even better by the native idiom and cultural history. People say that when reading Dostoevsky in the Russian, you can tell almost immediately which character is speaking because their voices are so distinct. Whatever the character of his literary mastery, it is to some degree inextricable from his native language.

The real problem, as I see it, with re-writing English works into the most current vernacular, is that it's just not worth it. If you want something made more accessible, you probably want it a)for some perceived value carried by the text (e.g. character improvement) or b)to look smart by "knowing" a classic work/being able to catch references. The second is a superficial kind of education, practiced by uninteresting people, and the first - while it is an accepted approach to art - can be attained by reading good works by more recent authors.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Merrick on 24 Aug 2009, 18:52
What I don't get is why all you people kick the metaphorical shit out of Twilight WHEN IT'S NOT AIMED AT YOU OR YOUR AGE GROUP.  :-P


It's like calling Where's Wally? a poor book for it's lack of depth and decent literature.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: scarred on 24 Aug 2009, 19:57
Isn't it Waldo? Or are all the American books changed?

It's like Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Sorcerer's Stone all over again.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: phooey on 24 Aug 2009, 20:14
What I don't get is why all you people kick the metaphorical shit out of Twilight WHEN IT'S NOT AIMED AT YOU OR YOUR AGE GROUP.  :-P

This is a shit excuse.  A book can still be a children's book or even a young adult's book and not subscribe to myriad flaws and intellectual pitfalls that I don't need to repeat on account of their being everywhere on the internet.  In fact, I would argue that the target audience is reason to specifically attack the book, because it lampoons such terrible and harmful ideas to such an impressionable and traditionally self-conscious demographic.

That said, Twimoms.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: elizaknowswhatshesfor on 25 Aug 2009, 11:49
I was about to write what what's been said above me almost exactly. But I will just agree. Whole heartedly.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Alex C on 25 Aug 2009, 12:20
What I don't get is why all you people kick the metaphorical shit out of Twilight WHEN IT'S NOT AIMED AT YOU OR YOUR AGE GROUP.  :-P


It's like calling Where's Wally? a poor book for it's lack of depth and decent literature.


It's aimed at teenagers. Teenagers are perfectly capable of doing better. I did better and like many people I routinely made poor decisions back then.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Ikrik on 26 Aug 2009, 00:05
What I don't get is why all you people kick the metaphorical shit out of Twilight WHEN IT'S NOT AIMED AT YOU OR YOUR AGE GROUP.  :-P


It's aimed at 14-16 year olds.  At that age I was reading Kurt Vonnegut, Ray Bradbury, and was probably reading Dune.

That's not even really the issue thought, but at that age kids can be reading some really amazing stuff and Twilight is the exact opposite of that.  Just because you're 20, 30, or 40 doesn't mean you can't say a book is a piece of crap because it isn't aimed for your age group.  The Giver is aimed at kids 10-12 and I still think that it's an incredible book.  The Redwall series has some really incredible books in it.

I liked A Prayer for Owen Meany, and I'm probably going to check out some of Irvings other books.

And know who's awesome AND well renowned....Oscar Wilde.  The Picture of Dorian Grey is AMAZING.  Now will someone please explain what it meant in the Victorian age to me?
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Hat on 26 Aug 2009, 01:39
basically ripping on 19th century social mannerisms  but OW also wore a lot of cravats so a lot of it is kind of a lot sly nods and gross exaggerations
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: WriterofAllWrongs on 30 Aug 2009, 08:59
(http://www.harkavagrant.com/history/brontessm.png)
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Theriandros on 03 Sep 2009, 08:45
Somehow, I never got the memo why Kurt Vonnegut was great. I've read maybe a half-dozen books by him and it was like pulling teeth to get through the last couple.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: WriterofAllWrongs on 03 Sep 2009, 10:41
Well, which ones did you read?  Because a few of his books are pretty slow (Galapagos), but they are generally really quality books all the same.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: phooey on 03 Sep 2009, 23:07
Tonight I described Atlas Shrugged as misanthropic multimillionaires enslaved by society finding freedom through the magics of laissez faire capitalism.   This makes it sound like a better book than it actually is, because it's a great deal shorter and also because it includes magic!
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: TheMooseOfDeath on 04 Sep 2009, 12:50

Maybe it is just a language thing for you, but damn... you hate most of 19th century literature? Tolstoy? Dostoevsky? Poe? Hugo? Dickens?  Eliot? Nietzsche? Pushkin? Doyle? Chekhov? Dumas? Gogol? The translations of many writers might be holding you back, and it's always your call, but I think you're missing out on a lot of beautiful literature if you ignore them!


When it comes to non-English 19th century lit, it certainly does depend on the translation.  I have two copies of Brothers Karamazov, one good and one bad.  Out of the authors you mention who wrote in English, Poe is hit and miss for me (maybe it's because I'm just not scared as I'm supposed to be), I hate trudging through a Dickens novel (which I've thrice had to do), and I actually haven't read any George Eliot, though I wouldn't mind going through her poetry for a taste.

I find I often enjoy 19th century poetry (especially from the Romantics), but usually not the prose.  That's not to say I won't bother.

I dunno, maybe I just don't like Victorian prose?
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Mr. Doctor on 04 Sep 2009, 16:17
Poe is hit and miss for me (maybe it's because I'm just not scared as I'm supposed to be)

Emmm... It's not like you should be scared. It would surprise me if anyone here was scared with Poe's stuff. It was scary at that time, but not now.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Surgoshan on 04 Sep 2009, 18:07
Poe was never meant to be scary.

He always meant to be really, really creepy.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Vendetagainst on 04 Sep 2009, 20:56
Yeah, Poe was supposed to be psychologically disturbing. Things like being buried alive or strapped down and cut open by a swinging blade weren't supposed to make you jump, they were meant to make your gut churn and your mind reel. And, at least for me, they do that very well. I love Poe to death.

Plus, he wasn't just creepy story guy. His poetry is absolutely beautiful. Alone in particular is among my most favorite poems.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Tom on 05 Sep 2009, 03:24
I totally agree, Vendetagainst although I must admit, some of his poems are still fearfully disturbing yet hauntingly beautiful.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: TheMooseOfDeath on 06 Sep 2009, 14:43
Well if we're going for creepiness rather scariness, then by all means I'll give him that
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Ozymandias on 08 Sep 2009, 12:06
I never really noticed any christian undertones in Narnia when I read it as a kid. Really

Of course you didn't. I didn't either, and I'm willing to bet that 90% of the kids who read it or had it read to them by their parents didn't. The problem with the "Narnia as Christian propaganda" argument is that it only works if the child reading the Narnia books is familiar with the Bible in the first place (and I'm not talking about children and not adults because they're children's books and most people read them first when they're children). If you don't know anything about Christianity or the Bible then the Narnia series is just a bunch of stories about a talking Lion and a bunch of kids who turn out to be Princes and Princesses in a fantasy land with an evil witch and fauns and dwarves and stuff. Let's not forget, kids tend to take things pretty much at face value and of their own accord they don't generally seek out deeper meanings or moral lessons in stories.

This is exactly right. I have lots of problems with the Narnia books and I think I've ranted about them many times in Meebo but I'd still be totally fine with my kids reading them because they'd never notice or absorb the problems I had with the books. They're just neat little fantastical stories for a kid.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: jimbunny on 08 Sep 2009, 18:14
Yeah, actually all the smart kids cracked the code. So...  :roll:

Actually, I still don't get it.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: BeoPuppy on 09 Sep 2009, 00:57
Just trust us when we say that it's badly written dross intended to make kids into weak little god fearing spineless twats. With a lion.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: jimbunny on 09 Sep 2009, 19:25
And if the kids turn out not to be twats, what happens to the intent, I wonder?
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: WriterofAllWrongs on 09 Sep 2009, 19:57
Just trust us when we say that it's badly written dross intended to make kids into weak little god fearing spineless twats. With a lion.

Actually, considering that C.S Lewis was just writing a story with a biblical allegory and not an actual Christian agenda, it was probably written with the intent of C.S Lewis writing a story that had parallels to something he cared about and believed in but also was quality and a good fantasy novel in general.  I mean, I'm not the biggest fan or anything, but that sort of statement is a bit silly. 
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: David_Dovey on 10 Sep 2009, 00:16
I wonder if people would be as butthurt about the allegorical aspects of the Narnia series if Lewis didn't write all those apologist tracts as well? I mean, Narnia is hardly unique in it's religious content, yet nobody seems to bitch out, say, The Matrix.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: a pack of wolves on 10 Sep 2009, 03:02
The Matrix isn't a kids film. For a lot of people the problem isn't the Christianity, it's Christianity aimed at children. And remember that in some places Christianity is a lot more institutionalised than others. When my Mum was avoiding giving me Lewis to read it was when I was going to a Church of England primary school and singing prayers every day. Also there's the whole misogyny thing, something Philip Pullman picked out as part of his criticism and has bothered a lot of other people.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: BeoPuppy on 10 Sep 2009, 05:16
... besides, I'd bitch about the Matrix and it's messiah complex if this was a thread fit for that.

And I stand by my previous statement.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Zingoleb on 10 Sep 2009, 21:14
I wonder if people would be as butthurt about the allegorical aspects of the Narnia series if Lewis didn't write all those apologist tracts as well? I mean, Narnia is hardly unique in it's religious content, yet nobody seems to bitch out, say, The Lord of the Rings.

Seems to fit better.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: WriterofAllWrongs on 10 Sep 2009, 21:57
Lord of The Rings wasn't aimed at children either, you know.  I mean, I'd be impressed with a kid if s/he could get through and fully comprehend a chapter of that book, because it is just so rich and so incredibly verbose.  Plus, there's only Christian sentiment in that book.  No allegory (Tolkein hated the stuff), which makes it even fuzzier than Narnia in regards to sending a Christian message.  I don't mean to be all sorts of contrary and rude, but The Matrix was probably a much better fit.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: JD on 10 Sep 2009, 22:08
In retrospect, Narnia seems a bit like The Power Rangers. A bunch of kids fighting X thing.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: elizaknowswhatshesfor on 24 Sep 2009, 14:09
I grew up reading those books & only really noticed the blantent references when I saw the film. which is weird as I was I was brought up to question everything from science to religion, in everything I read and watched.

I liked fighting bears & badgers. I liked the talking mouse. These were my agendas as a child, talking animals.

I think they are pretty well written, but I'd need to go back & re-read them now. I haven't for maybe 10 years?
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Be My Head on 24 Sep 2009, 14:36
I noticed the Christian allegorical aspects of Narnia when I read them as a child, but only because I was told that Aslan is supposed to be like Jesus (I didn't really understand what allegory meant).
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Theriandros on 25 Sep 2009, 12:14
Well, which ones did you read?  Because a few of his books are pretty slow (Galapagos), but they are generally really quality books all the same.

The Sirens of Titan, Cat's Cradle, Breakfast of Champions, Slaughter-House Five, and Timequake. His ideas are ok, but I can't stand his rambling style.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: kraemandrummer on 07 Oct 2009, 16:43
I'm going to go ahead and take a dump on Joseph Conrad real quick, because Heart of Darkness straight up put me to sleep within 5 pages, no matter where in the book I tried to read it from.  I haven't read anything else by him but goddamn is that book overrated.

I don't know what it was about it, maybe I'll revisit it sometime and find out that he's actually worth reading for some reason, but seriously, that book sucked ass.

I enjoyed that book. Surprisingly.
It was a slough though. I admit.

an author I loathe with a passion is Ayn fucking Rand.
a) because Objectivism is retarded
b) her novels were only written to push that retarded philosophy
c) Due to this she doesn't develop her characters really. They're just representative of things she hates - flat characters. And her prose is friggin awful.

How her books attained their status, I have no idea.

One book I thought was just a mess was Slaughter-House 5.  Now, I found the idea interesting. And some of it did stick with me. But god, it felt like the author wrote a linear story, and then cut and pasted random bits back and forth until it was a convoluted knot. maybe that is how he approached it. I don't know. I won't say Vonnegut is a bad author though, I need to read at least one more of his to make that decision.

a lot of people find Les Miserables by Hugo a hard read. I friggin loved it.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: kraemandrummer on 07 Oct 2009, 16:45
Lord of The Rings wasn't aimed at children either, you know.  I mean, I'd be impressed with a kid if s/he could get through and fully comprehend a chapter of that book, because it is just so rich and so incredibly verbose.  Plus, there's only Christian sentiment in that book.  No allegory (Tolkein hated the stuff), which makes it even fuzzier than Narnia in regards to sending a Christian message.  I don't mean to be all sorts of contrary and rude, but The Matrix was probably a much better fit.

does our parents reading it to us count?
My dad read every book from start to finish to my sister and I when we were like 6 years old
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: kraemandrummer on 07 Oct 2009, 17:09
another author that I find overrated is H.P. Lovecraft. (NOOOO NOT THE CTHULHU MYTHOS)
well to be honest, I haven't read any of the cthulhu mythos yet. Nor have I read any of his poetry.
I read The Lurking Fear and other Stories

I found his "horror" stories to be awful. Mainly because he relied on such repetitive description. I cannot remember exactly what the exact examples are, but it annoyed the hell out of me. At the beginning of every "scary story" his character (first person) says that they are on the brink of insanity and describes what they have seen as some unfathomable, indescribable, impenetrable horror.
EVERY
BLOODY
TIME.
it's friggin ridiculous. "Horror that no man should see", and other such phrases are littered about like used candy wrappers when he should be throwing them in the garbage bin.

On the other hand, I found his stuff based less on horror and more science fiction/fantasy to be quite excellent. "Beyond the Wall of Sleep" is a beautiful story and a favourite.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: KharBevNor on 07 Oct 2009, 19:22
So you read pulp short stories HP Lovecraft wrote when he was like 20 and you think he's a shit novelist.

Okay whatever works for you I guess.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: KharBevNor on 07 Oct 2009, 19:23
Also he never even wrote any novels.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: Jace on 07 Oct 2009, 19:28
Shakespeare was a terrible novelist.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: look out! Ninjas! on 08 Oct 2009, 18:41
Homer never wrote a good screenplay in his life.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: WriterofAllWrongs on 08 Oct 2009, 22:19
That joke was pretty cornea.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: kraemandrummer on 14 Oct 2009, 04:45
So you read pulp short stories HP Lovecraft wrote when he was like 20 and you think he's a shit novelist.

Okay whatever works for you I guess.

Also he never even wrote any novels.

kay I'm sorry I mentioned a short story writer. I never claimed he was a novelist. I apologize for thinking that we could branch out to other forms of writing (also I kinda forgot that it was novelists, I was going for writers in general :P)
and The Shadow over Innsmouth was one of the last stories he wrote (age 41), it was included in the collection. So it isn't just his early stuff. I admit that a large amount of the stuff in this collection is, but not all of it. And the date really has nothing to do with it, I like "The White Ship", it's an early release.
AND I said I found his horror to be rather repetitive. I also said that I enjoyed his other stuff immensely. I never said that he was a completely awful writer. I just didn't like the way he approached his horror stories. It seemed kinda like a cut and paste job.

As I said with Slaughter-house 5, I plan on reading more Lovecraft before I make a final judgement. Maybe my first impression is wrong.

So please, don't get angry or insulting because I disagree with you about an author.


Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: rynne on 14 Oct 2009, 14:43
kay I'm sorry I mentioned a short story writer. I never claimed he was a novelist. I apologize for thinking that we could branch out to other forms of writing (also I kinda forgot that it was novelists, I was going for writers in general :P)
and The Shadow over Innsmouth was one of the last stories he wrote (age 41), it was included in the collection. So it isn't just his early stuff. I admit that a large amount of the stuff in this collection is, but not all of it. And the date really has nothing to do with it, I like "The White Ship", it's an early release.
AND I said I found his horror to be rather repetitive. I also said that I enjoyed his other stuff immensely. I never said that he was a completely awful writer. I just didn't like the way he approached his horror stories. It seemed kinda like a cut and paste job.

Man, see, the thing about Lovecraft is that the horror isn't meant to be scary in the sense of, Oh there are evil monsters who want to kill us AAHHHHHH!  It's more nihilistic than that.  The point of his later stories is that what we think of as the world is an insignificant speck in the cosmos, and there are forces out there (which he depicts as his Great Old Ones) that could blindly and arbitrarily destroy the entire history of humanity at any moment.  His protagonists can no more comprehend or oppose the beings they come across than they could comprehend or oppose, say, our sun's eventual engulfment of the earth.

Incidentally, if you like "The White Ship," you'll probably like the early works of Lord Dunsany, particularly The Gods of Pegana (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/8395).  Others: link 1 (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/8183) link 2 (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/10806) link 3 (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/8129)
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: kraemandrummer on 14 Oct 2009, 15:19

Man, see, the thing about Lovecraft is that the horror isn't meant to be scary in the sense of, Oh there are evil monsters who want to kill us AAHHHHHH!  It's more nihilistic than that.  The point of his later stories is that what we think of as the world is an insignificant speck in the cosmos, and there are forces out there (which he depicts as his Great Old Ones) that could blindly and arbitrarily destroy the entire history of humanity at any moment.  His protagonists can no more comprehend or oppose the beings they come across than they could comprehend or oppose, say, our sun's eventual engulfment of the earth.

Incidentally, if you like "The White Ship," you'll probably like the early works of Lord Dunsany, particularly The Gods of Pegana (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/8395).  Others: link 1 (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/8183) link 2 (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/10806) link 3 (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/8129)

I understood the implications of his stories. From Beyond made that extremely obvious. It's not the stories themselves, or their message I have a problem with. It's the way they were written. He certainly created some astounding ideas. But it takes more than a good idea to make a good writer.

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll take a look. I also bought another Lovecraft short story collection recently, we'll see if I change my mind.
Title: Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
Post by: rynne on 16 Oct 2009, 15:42
Fair enough.  I will not argue that his prose is not exactly the most readable thing in the world.