The Books/Reading Thread

[Einherjar86]

I really want to write a paper on metal someday; one of these days I'll find a way to work it in...

It sounds like you have a good start going already. The sublime is such a tricky theme, especially because it changes throughout literary epochs (Edmund Burke's notion of the sublime, at work in texts like The Castle of Otranto, is different from the Romantic sublime, which we see in - as you mentioned- Kant, but also Hegel and the English Romantics); but I would think that it definitely has some role to play in Lovecraft, even if that role is to be annihilated by Lovecraft's rampant anti-humanism. The linguistic issues are of interest also; the other big theoretical idea that comes to my mind when you mention language is Lacan's notion of the Real, which cannot be appropriated by language. But Lacan is notorious for changing his ideas with every lecture, so he using him as a resource can be a bitch.

There might be something there though. I know we never use Wikipedia as a legitimate source, but it's often a good starting point, and in this case it may be onto something:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real

There are two sections, one on Lacan, and one on Žižek; read the bullet points under Žižek's section. They're interesting...

 

[wandering_taco]

Nice I'll check that out when I get home later. I can send you that Agalloch paper if you're interested in reading. And I'm glad you think my ideas are making sense haha, I was worried that they wouldn't. You should definitely read Jung's essay "Psychology and Literature", he outlines there a lot of the ideas I'll (tentatively) be working with. It's pretty short and it's a super interesting read.

 

[Einherjar86]

I would be interested in reading that paper; I'll message you my email address. Thank you for the Jung recommendation also, I'll be looking for it.

 

[wandering_taco]

I read those bullet points. After reading all the criticism I have, applying those modes of the real to an entity like Cthulhu almost doesn't work-- Cthulhu seems like all three at once. Any signifiers, like the word 'Cthulhu', are inherently inadequate and the language of Lovecraft is full of metaphors to try and get some understanding across. "A mountain walked or stumbled" comes to mind.

As a textual character, he also falls within the 'imaginary', and seeing as some supplementary characters die merely from beholding his form, I would say he conveys horror.

As for the 'real real', Cthulhu is certainly unfathomable.

 

[Einherjar86]

Yeah, applying those terms on a one-to-one basis like that almost never works. What I love about fiction (why I study it) is that it exposes theory for what it is: imperfect. Theory tries to pin down an exact form, or method, or interpretation. Fiction ruthlessly, time and time again, subverts interpretive methods, trips them up, and throws them down. We apply theoretical methods to fiction because they give us forms and figures with which to view fiction; but good literary analysis (in my opinion) always puts the fiction first. So when viewing fiction through a theoretical lens, we should always be aware of how the fiction is pushing back against any method that tries to interpret it.

Just finished this today:

Strange book, very good, and lauded by Zadie Smith; I'm not sure I agree with her assessment of it, but it's definitely worth further study. I'm hoping to finish Peter Watts's Starfish this week, and then start this:

 

[Cronopio]

A collection of slipstream stories.

 

[Blind Guardian]

I'm soon done with the first book of Malazan Book of the Fallen. I'm intent on continuing with the series, but so far I'm a bit irritated with Steven Erikson's fetish for esoteric character- and plot introductions. He gets a lot of praise for how intricately he builds his world, but to me it rather feels like he's addicted to continously confusing his readers, because he knows that it makes the story seem smart and interesting.

As I said, I'm just at book one so I'll continue reading to see if he can actually tie all these loose ends together. Has anyone come further than me?

 

[Einherjar86]

I read the first two, then quit. Too tedious.

Many people disagreed with me though; if I remember, some posters on this forum actually thought the series gets exponentially better after the first book. To me, it read like a video game.

 

[Vegard Pompey]

I quit after the third book but it was partially because his language is too difficult for me. I have every intention of giving the series another shot at some point in the future and Deadhouse Gates tops any fantasy I've read. His characterization improves a lot between books one and two so I wouldn't advise making a verdict based on GotM.

I doubt it ever gets not-confusing though.

 

[monoxide_child]

i understand the whole concept of "epic world-building"

but sometimes certain fantasy authors put way too much freaking effort into making the world way too extensively detailed

i really don't need to take an extensive history class of history of the fantasy world in order to enjoy a story written in that fantasy world

for example, i don't really need to know anything about Luke Skywalker's parents if i'm reading a story about Luke's decendant Cade Skywalker

sometimes the history of the universe takes up too much space and gets too confusing and slows down the pacing of a fantasy-world-type-story

it's actually a pretty common complaint within people complaining about books that are written in the fantasy genre

 

[monoxide_child]

http://media.npr.org/assets/artslif...268e7ef812b82370c53bb99c699fba8eb1-s6-c10.jpg

 

[Matt]

I read the first two, then quit. Too tedious.

Many people disagreed with me though; if I remember, some posters on this forum actually thought the series gets exponentially better after the first book. To me, it read like a video game.

Yeah, I only read the first book and it just wasn't an enjoyable read.

 

[monoxide_child]

i understand the whole concept of "epic world-building"

but sometimes certain fantasy authors put way too much freaking effort into making the world way too extensively detailed

i really don't need to take an extensive history class of history of the fantasy world in order to enjoy a story written in that fantasy world

for example, i don't really need to know anything about Luke Skywalker's parents if i'm reading a story about Luke's decendant Cade Skywalker

sometimes the history of the universe takes up too much space and gets too confusing and slows down the pacing of a fantasy-world-type-story

it's actually a pretty common complaint within people complaining about books that are written in the fantasy genre

i think this^^ is why you guys are having trouble with the Malazan series, but nobody really pays attention to my thoughts on stuff

 

[Einherjar86]

World-building is fine; I love world-building in R. Scott Bakker's and China Miéville's works, and those have just as much as Erikson's series. His writing style is what turns me off. I just feel like I'm reading a video game, as I said.

 

[Blind Guardian]

I must say that as a whole I don't really like this new wave of fantasy headed by authors such as Erikson and George R.R. Martin. Cynical and 'realistic' stories aren't more intelligent by default, but those qualities seem to be what people rave about. And yes it doesn't help that the realism is presented in a pace and fashion that reminds of a video game or a soap opera.

I appreciate three-dimensional characters, but when you go to such lengths as to even omitting basic heroes and villains from your medieval fantasy story you should ask yourself why you're using such a fantastical setting to begin with.

 

[Cronopio]

Maybe you want to pull the rug out from beneath the reader? Maybe you want to subvert his/her expectations? There are a lot of fantasy novels using those same old settings/backdrops. The very need for authors to try to find new angles and ways of exploring 'the same old' is invigorating for the language as well as the genre.

 

[monoxide_child]

I must say that as a whole I don't really like this new wave of fantasy headed by authors such as Erikson and George R.R. Martin. Cynical and 'realistic' stories aren't more intelligent by default, but those qualities seem to be what people rave about. And yes it doesn't help that the realism is presented in a pace and fashion that reminds of a video game or a soap opera.

I appreciate three-dimensional characters, but when you go to such lengths as to even omitting basic heroes and villains from your medieval fantasy story you should ask yourself why you're using such a fantastical setting to begin with.

i totally agree with this^^

why the fucking hell does ANYONE think fantasy actually "needs to be cynical"

what the fuck happened to fantasy novels that were not cynical??

"realism in a fantasy novel" kinda sounds like an oxymoron
also sounds lame
a "fantasy" novel by definition should be "fantastical" as in "not realistic"

i don't even care about the fantasy being "inteligent" i just want to see the "oldschool sword & sorcery" type novels make a comeback

i don't really get the whole "video game" reference, but i really do hate how George RR Martin's books feel more like a "soap opera" than "fantasy"

a novel in a "fantasy" setting should have your "basic hero vs villian" type story-arc like Drizzt Do'Urden vs Akar Kessel in the book "The Crystal Shard"

 

[Evil?]

You people are silly.

 

[monoxide_child]

You people are silly.

are you calling me silly because i prefer the Drizzt Do'Urden novels over the George RR Martin books??

 

[Einherjar86]

Ugh. Salvatore's work is such mass market crap.