The Books/Reading Thread
- Thread starter Matt
- Start date
Blind Guardian
Member
Stephen Donaldson - The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever
I'm a quarter through the first book so I can't say much other than that the premise is pretty interesting and Donaldson has some of the smoothest prose in fantasy.
I'm a quarter through the first book so I can't say much other than that the premise is pretty interesting and Donaldson has some of the smoothest prose in fantasy.
Cronopio
Glorious Imperator
Just finished reading Charles Yu's book of short stories called Sorry Please Thank You. Pretty good collection.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Not familiar with him. For some reason I seem to avoid short stories; not out of any intended malice or aversion toward them, I just always gravitate toward novels. Coincidentally, I'm teaching almost exclusively short stories for my class in the fall, but I've already read most of them.
Cronopio
Glorious Imperator
I'm the opposite, I prefer shorts. You should pick up Yu if you like "modern" science-fiction, whatever the hell that is.
He wrote a novel called How To Live Safely In A Science Fictional Universe. It features a character called Charles Yu who is a time travel technician. You get the gist.
He wrote a novel called How To Live Safely In A Science Fictional Universe. It features a character called Charles Yu who is a time travel technician. You get the gist.
unknown
fuck ftagn
I'm actually the same way. I gravitate more towards short stories. I haven't found any new novels that have come out recently which grabbed my attention.
Master_Yoda77
Juggalo
monoxide_child
New Metal Member
- Jul 30, 2008
- 6,210
- 4
- 0
unknown
fuck ftagn
basically this. Plus my particular interests in fiction (weird fiction namely) haven't generated any new talent recently except Thomas Ligotti and a handful of others
Anom@nder Rake
lives on the internet
check out China Mieville if you have not. i finished his Perdido Street Station a couple weeks ago and am currently reading The Scar which is set in the same universe as PSS. his world building is incredible and he has such a strange collection of races that inhabit his world. some races are based off mythology like the Khepri and Garuda but their are plenty of grotesque races as well. the weird cast of characters reminds me of Clive Barker's Imajica which is one of my favorite books. i'm about 150 pages into The Scar and it seems much more straightforward compared to PSS.
Einherjar86
Active Member
China Miéville is unlike any other contemporary speculative fiction writer; the Bas-Lag trilogy is fantastic, and his other novels are equally as good. Definitely check out The City and the City and Embassytown; the former is a fantastical detective novel, and the latter is a full-fledged Science fiction novel. Both are superb works.
Also, as far as contemporary authors go, Tom McCarthy has recently blown me away with Remainder.
Also, as far as contemporary authors go, Tom McCarthy has recently blown me away with Remainder.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Finished Dhalgren; review/blog post coming soon, and I promise it won't include spoilers on positive content. If anything, I might say a few things that the novel doesn't do.
A friend bought this for me; starting next:
A friend bought this for me; starting next:
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Ein, I'm curious, where do you stand on the "classics" (The Dialogues of Socrates, Aristotle's Ethics, Oedipus Rex, The City of God, Leviathan, Donte's Inferno, King Lear, Paradise Lost, War and Peace.)? Do you consider some outdated? Have you read a significant amount? etc.
Funerary_Doom
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
The Cloud Atlas movie got mixed reviews, but I thought it was really awesome. I doubt the book would disappoint.
Einherjar86
Active Member
As the individual texts themselves stand, I consider them of invaluable importance. As far as the academic status of them as "Classics" goes, and their respective position in the "Canon," I think it's a load of bullshit.
Put another way, I think that every text you listed (and several others, since the category of "the Classics" is extremely broad) warrants close textual and historical analysis; but I think that their elevation as texts that embody and communicate traditional Western cultural values is something to be questioned and challenged. Why should War and Peace be a Classic, but not Eliza Haywood's Love in Excess? Why is King Lear a Classic, but not Machiavelli's La Mandragola? Why is Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow a (postmodern) Classic, but not John Williams's Stoner?
I'm not saying that any of the texts I just mentioned shouldn't be studied; I'm merely questioning why some enter into history as "Classic" texts, and others don't. Usually it's a matter of either: a) ethnicity, b) gender, and c) finances. Very rarely does it have to do with any identifiable literary quality or status.
Dak
mentat
Einherjar86
Active Member
The more I study literature, the more I think that subjective opinions on texts are kind of a cop-out. Disliking the Classics and the Canon doesn't mean we should accept the premise that subjective opinions comprise the whole of what constitutes "good" literature. Once we are able to place thousands, or tens of thousands, of texts alongside one another, and study their historical and cultural contexts, I do honestly think that we can distinguish good texts from bad.
But people also study texts for different reasons. I don't think it's too controversial to claim that the aesthetic qualities of Joyce's Ulysses top those of M. John Harrison's SF novel Light. But Light has other things worth studying about it besides its less-than-average prose. We might study it for what it says about literary styles engaging with popular science, or how literary form adopts scientific models for representational ends. In short, while I believe that all texts can be worth studying, certain texts can be shown to be more aesthetic or artistic reflections of their cultural or historical conditions.
But people also study texts for different reasons. I don't think it's too controversial to claim that the aesthetic qualities of Joyce's Ulysses top those of M. John Harrison's SF novel Light. But Light has other things worth studying about it besides its less-than-average prose. We might study it for what it says about literary styles engaging with popular science, or how literary form adopts scientific models for representational ends. In short, while I believe that all texts can be worth studying, certain texts can be shown to be more aesthetic or artistic reflections of their cultural or historical conditions.
Dak
mentat
You can create a near infinite amount of metrics by which to judge texts on. Which metrics you find more important is where subjectivity makes a major show.
Blind Guardian
Member
I think this is pretty interesting. Wasn't Moby Dick considered reasonably forgettable in the 19th century before becoming a classic in the 20 century? I read the book in school and as I remember it deals mostly with existential themes; the book doesn't depend on social context in the same way as for example modernist novels like The Sun Also Rises or The Great Gatsby, so why the sudden change in status at a certain point in time?
Einherjar86
Active Member
Differentiation affords a measurable degree of identifiability, however. It isn't all entirely superfluous. Good writing isn't subjective. Proceeding from there, we can judge a good deal about texts based on the styles, forms, themes, etc. that they exhibit.
Melville wasn't considered a very important writer during his lifetime, if that's what you mean; but I wouldn't say that Moby-Dick doesn't rely on social context. In fact, much of its descriptions of whaling were inspired by Melville's own experience and research. It actually is very heavily engaged with the contemporary American mentality. Moby-Dick is a scathing critique of Western expansionism and American exceptionalism, and it wasn't lauded when it was published because it presented topics and themes that many critics found disturbing and/or offensive. Furthermore, many mainstream readers simply didn't want to read about lengthy descriptions of whale skeletons (which are, in fact, some of the best portions of the novel).
Melville gained literary recognition when the High Modernists and critics of the early twentieth century revisited his works. One of the big reasons for the Melville Revival was that Melville seemed to embody the modernist aesthetics and concerns well before its appearance in America. He was writing before his time, so to speak.
