THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

  • 28 Mar 2024, 04:22
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Terrible, well renowned novelists  (Read 47342 times)

Jimmy the Squid

  • Vulcan 3-D Chess Master
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,543
  • Feminist Killjoy
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #50 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.
Logged
Once I got drunk and threw up in the vegetable drawer of an old disused fridge while dressed as a cat

KharBevNor

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,456
  • broadly tolerated
    • http://mirkgard.blogspot.com/
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #51 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.
Logged
[22:25] Dovey: i don't get sigquoted much
[22:26] Dovey: like, maybe, 4 or 5 times that i know of?
[22:26] Dovey: and at least one of those was a blatant ploy at getting sigquoted

http://panzerdivisio

Surgoshan

  • Duck attack survivor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,801
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #52 on: 07 Aug 2009, 09:45 »

Khar, fuck is often not very sexy.
Logged

phooey

  • FIGHT YOU
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
  • prisencolinensinainciusol
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #53 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.
Logged

Commodore

  • Plantmonster
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #54 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.
Logged

nurgles_herald

  • Plantmonster
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 45
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #55 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.
Logged

KvP

  • WoW gold miner on break
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,599
  • COME DOWN NOW
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #56 on: 09 Aug 2009, 12:27 »

In celebration of its 50th anniversary, the National Review republished its review of Atlas Shrugged. It makes you wistful for the halcyon days when Bill Kristol did not exist.
Logged
I review, sometimes.
Quote from: Andy
I love this vagina store!
Quote from: Andy
SNEAKY
I sneak that shit
And liek
OMG DICK JERK

NeverQuiteGoth

  • Curry sauce
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 263
    • The Raiden Saga
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #57 on: 20 Aug 2009, 17:32 »

Terry Brooks, the "quantity over quality" fantasy novelist.
Logged
Quote
Yes, thank goodness we live in an enlightened society where we're horribly sexist to both men and woman in equal measure. >.<

KharBevNor

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,456
  • broadly tolerated
    • http://mirkgard.blogspot.com/
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #58 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.
Logged
[22:25] Dovey: i don't get sigquoted much
[22:26] Dovey: like, maybe, 4 or 5 times that i know of?
[22:26] Dovey: and at least one of those was a blatant ploy at getting sigquoted

http://panzerdivisio

Surgoshan

  • Duck attack survivor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,801
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #59 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.
Logged

karkaputto

  • Notorious N.U.R.R.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
    • A Break from Steak
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #60 on: 20 Aug 2009, 23:48 »

mark twain

just because his stuff was clever 100 years ago doesn't mean it's clever now

Vendetagainst

  • Scrabble hacker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,250
  • Too orangey for crows
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #61 on: 21 Aug 2009, 00:02 »

I am pretty sure that is not how that works.
Logged
Quote from: Sox
I think it's because your 'age' is really only determined by how exasperated you seem when you have to stand up.

Quote from: KharBevNor
PEW PEW PEW FUCK OFF SPACE

TheMooseOfDeath

  • Not quite a lurker
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
  • [witty comment]
    • A Bit Sketchy
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #62 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?
Logged
"I would never join a club that accepts people like me as members"

-Groucho Marx

BeoPuppy

  • ASDFSFAALYG8A@*& ^$%O
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,679
  • Scare a moose, will you do the fandango?
    • Me.
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #63 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.
Logged
My Art.
I was into Stumpy and the Cuntfarts before they sold out.

scarred

  • Older than Moses
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,440
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #64 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
Logged
tumblr | wordpress | last.fm

Quote from: De_El
nick is a dick so you don't have to be!

a pack of wolves

  • GET ON THE NIGHT TRAIN
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,604
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #65 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.
Logged
Quote from: De_El
Next time, on QC Forums: someone embarrassingly reveals that they are a homophobe! Stay tuned to find out who!

BeoPuppy

  • ASDFSFAALYG8A@*& ^$%O
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,679
  • Scare a moose, will you do the fandango?
    • Me.
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #66 on: 21 Aug 2009, 07:25 »

That's one huggable mom you have there.
Logged
My Art.
I was into Stumpy and the Cuntfarts before they sold out.

TheMooseOfDeath

  • Not quite a lurker
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
  • [witty comment]
    • A Bit Sketchy
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #67 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?
Logged
"I would never join a club that accepts people like me as members"

-Groucho Marx

variable_star

  • Furry furrier
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 162
    • BATTLE MASTERS!
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #68 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.
Logged

Surgoshan

  • Duck attack survivor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,801
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #69 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?
Logged

JD

  • coprophage
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7,803
  • The Phallussar
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #70 on: 21 Aug 2009, 16:45 »

I never really noticed any christian undertones in Narnia when I read it as a kid. Really
Logged
Quote from: Jimmy the Squid
Hey JD, I really like your penis, man.

Mein Tumblr

onewheelwizzard

  • GET ON THE NIGHT TRAIN
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,558
  • Ha! Fool ...
    • http://www.livejournal.com/users/onewheelwizzard
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #71 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.
Logged
also at one point mid-sex she asked me "what do you think about commercialism in art?"

Dimmukane

  • Vulcan 3-D Chess Master
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,683
  • juicer
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #72 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.'
Logged
Quote from: Johnny C
all clothes reflect identity constructs, destroy these constructs by shedding your clothes and sending pictures of the process to the e-mail address linked under my avatar

jimbunny

  • I'm Randy! I'm eternal!
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 662
  • I'll show you the life of the mind!
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #73 on: 21 Aug 2009, 20:52 »

Actually...

I blame television, and Heart of Darkness is amazing.
Logged

AanAllein

  • Furry furrier
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 161
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #74 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.
Logged

Inlander

  • coprophage
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7,152
  • Hug your local saintly donkey.
    • Instant Life Substitute
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #75 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.
Logged

TheMooseOfDeath

  • Not quite a lurker
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
  • [witty comment]
    • A Bit Sketchy
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #76 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.
« Last Edit: 22 Aug 2009, 16:53 by TheMooseOfDeath »
Logged
"I would never join a club that accepts people like me as members"

-Groucho Marx

onewheelwizzard

  • GET ON THE NIGHT TRAIN
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,558
  • Ha! Fool ...
    • http://www.livejournal.com/users/onewheelwizzard
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #77 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.
Logged
also at one point mid-sex she asked me "what do you think about commercialism in art?"

jimbunny

  • I'm Randy! I'm eternal!
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 662
  • I'll show you the life of the mind!
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #78 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.
Logged

a pack of wolves

  • GET ON THE NIGHT TRAIN
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,604
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #79 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.
Logged
Quote from: De_El
Next time, on QC Forums: someone embarrassingly reveals that they are a homophobe! Stay tuned to find out who!

AanAllein

  • Furry furrier
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 161
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #80 on: 24 Aug 2009, 17:46 »

True, true. Maybe Dostoevsky and Tolstoy are just better writers than those English hacks.  :evil:
Logged

jimbunny

  • I'm Randy! I'm eternal!
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 662
  • I'll show you the life of the mind!
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #81 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.
Logged

Merrick

  • Larger than most fish
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 120
  • Officially Awesome
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #82 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.
Logged
I am in desperate need of a life and common sense.

Quintessentially British.

scarred

  • Older than Moses
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,440
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #83 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.
Logged
tumblr | wordpress | last.fm

Quote from: De_El
nick is a dick so you don't have to be!

phooey

  • FIGHT YOU
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
  • prisencolinensinainciusol
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #84 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.
Logged

elizaknowswhatshesfor

  • Beyond Thunderdome
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 569
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #85 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.
Logged
You do. You need pants. Put on some fucking pants. Why aren't you wearing pants?

Alex C

  • comeback tour!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,915
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #86 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.
Logged
the ship has Dr. Pepper but not Mr. Pibb; it's an absolute goddamned travesty

Ikrik

  • Asleep in the boner patch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 765
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #87 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?
Logged

Hat

  • GET ON THE NIGHT TRAIN
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,536
  • bang bang a suckah MC shot me down
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #88 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
Logged
Quote from: Emilio
power metal set in the present is basically crunk

WriterofAllWrongs

  • Vagina Manifesto
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 685
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #89 on: 30 Aug 2009, 08:59 »

Logged

Theriandros

  • Pneumatic ratchet pants
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 345
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #90 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.
Logged

WriterofAllWrongs

  • Vagina Manifesto
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 685
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #91 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.
Logged

phooey

  • FIGHT YOU
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
  • prisencolinensinainciusol
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #92 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!
Logged

TheMooseOfDeath

  • Not quite a lurker
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
  • [witty comment]
    • A Bit Sketchy
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #93 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?
Logged
"I would never join a club that accepts people like me as members"

-Groucho Marx

Mr. Doctor

  • Scrabble hacker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,323
  • X-Ray Rod
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #94 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.
Logged

Surgoshan

  • Duck attack survivor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,801
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #95 on: 04 Sep 2009, 18:07 »

Poe was never meant to be scary.

He always meant to be really, really creepy.
Logged

Vendetagainst

  • Scrabble hacker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,250
  • Too orangey for crows
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #96 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.
« Last Edit: 04 Sep 2009, 21:09 by Vendetagainst »
Logged
Quote from: Sox
I think it's because your 'age' is really only determined by how exasperated you seem when you have to stand up.

Quote from: KharBevNor
PEW PEW PEW FUCK OFF SPACE

Tom

  • Older than Moses
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,037
  • 8==D(_(_(
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #97 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.
Logged

TheMooseOfDeath

  • Not quite a lurker
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
  • [witty comment]
    • A Bit Sketchy
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #98 on: 06 Sep 2009, 14:43 »

Well if we're going for creepiness rather scariness, then by all means I'll give him that
Logged
"I would never join a club that accepts people like me as members"

-Groucho Marx

Ozymandias

  • Older than Moses
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,497
Re: Terrible, well renowned novelists
« Reply #99 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.
Logged
You are 9/11.
You are the terrorist.
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up