...does it make me a bad person because I enjoy a story that involves an insane, murderous clown?
From the flapping jaws and clacking keyboards of a group of pointy-headed cultural commentators comes the not quite random musings on the topics of the day. (Or at least the topics brought up at the pointy-headed cultural commentators meetings).…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Mary K. Williams
yup! Heard your podcasts - and if I could quote that line from A Christmas Story...when the narrator is describing his dad's talent for swearing... I would.
Ya got flair !
27 - DJRadiohead
Mary, that might be the second or third greatest compliment I have ever been paid as a podcaster. It is sincerely appreciated and just know... I have listened to some demos for Episode 9: there is more where that came from! =)
28 - Mark Saleski
UPDATE: some text was lost in the ether between canada and mark is crankyland. thus, Bennett Dawson's response has been appended.
29 - Mat Brewster
Time certainly plays a factor in these things. Some artists who were originally considered masters, with time have been forgotten and frowned upon. While others who were ignored while alive have grown in recognition.
Admittedly I can see how people would be turned off by some of the new "literature" and its pretentiousness. Admittedly again I haven't read all that much of it.
Greag, I think Joey Ramone was libertarian, but he tried to keep it quiet. And I rather like Dickens, or what little Dickens I've read which ammounts to about two novels. While certainly isn't action packed, I found Tale of Two Cities to be quite enjoyable.
30 - Victor Lana
Okay, Mark, you really picked a good one here. My take is that literary fiction is like a foreign film with subtitles. You need to concentrate more, to be more involved, and really pay attention. Popular fiction is fine too, but it is more entertainment and less work.
Just my take on it. Thanks for a great post!
31 - Bennett
Mary - avoiding it like the devil! Even if I hadn't flung that bit of nonsense off to Mark days ago, I would have scratched something together tonight and faked it.
No lumps a fuck in my stocking!
Please!
32 - GoHah
Matt#29: Johnny Ramone was a Republican and he wasn't quiet about it, even going so far at an awards show--as the Ramones were getting honored--to yell out "God Bless George Bush!" in order to counteract the vitriol spouted by nearly everyone else. I'm not a big Bush supporter, but I must say it was a refreshing change.
On the matter at hand: I go back and forth between popular and literary, while staying away from the more extreme hazards of both--the sloppily-tossed together junk and the abstract, cold and experimental, um, junk. I wouldn't want to read now some of the the pretentious, experimental crap I had to read in college, but it did instill some critical, discretionary, and discriminating faculties so that I can be more judicious in my popular reading choices (mostly mysteries and police procedurals like Dennis Lehane, Michael Connelly, etc.). The best, and the hardest thing to do is find that middleground, where "popular and literary intersect" as DJ Radiohead put it. But it can be done: A novel like Ian McEwans "Atonemnt" only seems to be experimental--playing around with narrative styles and such--but it is still intriguinely compelling throughout up to the emotional didn't-see-that-coming wallop at the end, a surprise not for surprise's sake, but a twist that says, in this case, a lot about the power of imagination and the writer's craft. A year or so after having read it, that book still resonates--like the best of literature and the best of popular fiction.
So I won't belabor this any further than to say: the reason me or you or anybody should read--or scan--criticism or reviews is just to see what is being said about plot, themes, and characters. To at least get the gist of the book, a flavor or promise that you would find the book entertaining or enriching to you, and you alone.
I'm sorry, one more thing, practical advice, that touches upon the more fringe element of both the literary and popular aspects: Stay away from Martin Amis' "Yellow Dog"--worst piece of pretentious crap I've ever read. On the other hand--although I enjoy Stephen King, for chrissakes somebody force this man to use an editor! He probably thinks he's too established for that but "Dreamcatcher" is the biggest piece of kitchen-sink-and-all popular-fic crap I've ever read. Two hundred pages could've been slashed-and-burned for a better more suspenseful read. And a mention like "since the peanut farmer was president" was cute and amusing for one go-around, but when it pops up again 127 pages later as something newly-minted, well, that's just inexcusable.
33 - GoHah
sorry, but just a nit-picky non-imperative correction in my comment #33: I meant to say that the college Literature studies helped instill more judicious, discretionary faculties--not the reading of pretentious crap, which remains a lot of time I'll never get back.
34 - Mat Brewster
Um, my Joey Ramone is a libertarian was a joke. I don't have the slightest ideas what any of the Ramones political affiliation is or was, nor do I really care.
I guess it was a poor joke at that. But that's an interesting anecdote, GoHah.
35 - GoHah
#34-sorry, Mat--I've been spending too much time at the "Fatima" post with Mary the Reborn Literally, and I can no longer discern fantasy from reality.
36 - Aaman
Oh No - The virus is spreading into different threads!
37 - Mark Saleski
hey, did you all know that i created chex party mix?
no wait...i created literature. yea, that's it.
38 - Alisha Karabinus
I thought you invented the Internet, Senor Saleski.
39 - Mat Brewster
It is alright GoHah, it wasn't a good joke, and looking at it in context it seems quite literal.
Saleski hasn't invented crap. He did createDJRadiohead though.
40 - Mary K. Williams
Stephen King ripped off Dreamcatcher from me! I was eating Chex mix and reading Playboy at the time, so that's where the idea about the 'lusting in his heart' Peanut Farmer came from.
Oh and Jane Eyre was me.
41 - Mary K. Williams
Oh and btw - DJ stole 'lumps of fuck' from me! I invented that! I used to tell those brats back in the old, musty, depressing English manor house - that they'd get those lumps in their stockings. Then they'd rant some nonsense about their mommy being locked away on account of being a freakin' lunatic or something. Yeah right..BoofreakingHoo!
42 - gypsyman
Well I was thinking about saying something sorta smart like about the topic until I got to the end of the comments and watched them descend into a kind of freeform abstract realism based on some neo-postmodernists idea of classicaly oriented humour...don't we all miss decontstructionalists and their fun way with words.
No one writes for posterity, they write because they have a story to tell. It will last if people read it and it strikes a universal chord with people through out the ages. Critics can go and on about such and such being a clasic or literature, but if you have to force someone to read it, how good can it be.
Sure some of the older stories are written in a manner or a dialect that is alien to a contemporary audience, but realisticly that's never much of an impediment to a reader. That's just part of the charm of the book.
I personally don't like Stephen King or some of the other popular writers mentioned, but I also read books that others wouldn't consider literature either. I think literature is an arbitrary category created by academics to keep themselves in tenured positions, so they can write learned essays on the use of commas in Dickens unitl Oliver gets his second helping.
Who cares how a novel or story is desiganted? I don't. I'm writing a story in the hopes that people will read it, enjoy it, and maybe think about a few things. Anything else is really beyond my control as an author. I'm too busy writing to worry about shit like whether some academic will consider it literature, fiction, science fiction, fantasy or whatever.
Just send me the goddamd royalty checks and you can call it what you like.
gypsyman
43 - Mary K. Williams
Gypsyman says:
"Who cares how a novel or story is desiganted? I don't. I'm writing a story in the hopes that people will read it, enjoy it, and maybe think about a few things. Anything else is really beyond my control as an author. I'm too busy writing to worry about shit like whether some academic will consider it literature, fiction, science fiction, fantasy or whatever."
Gypsyman - I think this sums it up. And what you said about people who write, because they have a story to tell.
44 - DJRadiohead
If Saleski created DJRadiohead then he's got some 'splaining to do because the results are terrible.
45 - DJRadiohead
...and I have gotten "lumps of fuck" copyrighted. Mary, the RIAA will be contacting you soon. I have been infringed. INFRINGED, I tell you!
46 - Mark Saleski
sorry, i was hungover, tired and listening to Elliot Smith that day.
47 - DJRadiohead
Those are the reasons you got as much right as you dide, Saleski. We'll discuss my many flaws and your hand in them at a later date. There are ladies present. ;-)
48 - Mary K. Williams
yes, and while I do appreciate your sensitivity DJ, half the time I get treated like 'one of the guys' prolly cuz I'm either hanging out with guys from the dojo, or the guys from cubscouts. Thank God (no pun intended) for my church friends (nice polite ladies) they keep me in line. : )
49 - DJRadiohead
Heh. It was all just a sad attempt at dick humor. It's still early here. The jokes tend to get better as the day and week roll along. Check with me about 3pm and the material ought be at its peak.
50 - Mary K. Williams
"The jokes tend to get better as the day and week roll along"
Oh - they better get better young man! I'll be checking...
now..i'm going to take a page from MRL's book and demand that you all LEAVE ME ALONE!
51 - Rodney Welch
I have almost no concern whatsoever what people read, or even if they read. I think it's great if people enjoy reading, but I'm sure you can lead a happy life pursuing other interests. Having said that, personally I never read popular fiction because it's boring, and I never do it unless I absolutely have to. The way I look at it is there's so much stuff of literary value that I'll likely never get around to before my last breath, so why waste time with uninteresting mass-market shit? Why spend time with anyone who doesn't have an interesting literary style? Reading popular fiction also takes too long; it gets boring so very easily, and then I keep setting the book aside -- or just giving up on it altogether.
52 - JR
I love both kinds of fiction: Science Fiction and Fantasy.
53 - SFC SKI
Aye, there's the rub,"The way I look at it is there's so much stuff of literary value that I'll likely never get around to before my last breath, so why waste time with uninteresting mass-market shit? " I spend too much time reading the latter, too little on the former.
Popular fiction, Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Westerns, all of them are entertaining, but true literature, "the classics" really move you, and have a lasting almost inspirational quality.
I have read only one book that springs to my mind as a "moodern classic" that is, a book written in the last 20 years or so that could stand the test of time and stack up against those that have gone before. The book is "Soldier of the Great War", the writing is so good, I enjoy it more every time I read it.
54 - Shark
a few comments:
1) art "genre" & "categories" (literary, popular, sci-fi, etc) are arbitrary and meaningless;
2) I'm just kinda thrilled to know that some of my fellow domesticated primates actually READ;
3) Too much brain candy causes synapse cavities
4) Refusing to read [do] something just because it's "Difficult" is an excuse for being a lazy motard; sometimes 'difficult' is good for ya.
5) I'll dispense with "literary" and "popular" -- but I reserve the right to call *crap crap -- regardless.
*koontz, s. king, poe, faulkner, hemingway, et al?
6) Tomorrow's "classics can ONLY be derived from "Today's "pop".
7) re. music -- in the orchestral realm, tomorrow's "Mozarts" won't come from the standard classical music fare -- but rather from today's film composers <--(guantlet tossed at somebody's feet...?)
8) Nobody knows nuthin'.
xxoo
Shark
55 - DJRadiohead
And everything you know is wrong.
56 - GoHah
Shark's comment#6 that "sometimes difficult is good for you" is really valid. There are rewards if you push yourself a bit: Joyce's "Ulyseus" becomes enjoyable as an update on Homer's "Illiad" if follow the parallels.
And, though I didn't realize it much then, the time I spent as a teen independently delving into non-required and relatively difficult literature, really built up my vocabulary (especially from, oddly enough, the Russian Vladimir Nabkov, who seemed to write English much better than English-speaking writers).
57 - Mat Brewster
When is the street date for DJRadiohead 2.0 Saleski? The bugs on the original version are driving me mad.
58 - Eric Berlin
I'm sorry as hell for missing out on this week's edition, kids. (Takes his lumps like the double-plus half-man he purports to be...)
Great work as always -- I love this topic!
What boils down to me is this: story is story is story. It all comes down to story -- I don't care if it's literary or pop or what, so in that sense I agree with Senor Shark.
That said, I tend to gravitate toward pop fiction or genre simply because I smell more story and less belly gazing half-drivel meant to Amaze and Delight and Confound and Perplex the self-important schmucks down at the monthly Lit Circle.
59 - Mark Saleski
maybe it's because i'm more of a plain language speaker, but i've always enjoyed reading things that used sparse, plain language....a great example is when i discovered annie proulx. cripes, i blew through the shipping news and just loved it.
i'm sure that there are great things to be take away from things like ulysses, it's just not for me.
60 - Chris Evans
I personally enjoy both for what they are, but I agree that it's ridiculous how snotty some critics are, and not even just with novels, but when it comes to movies and music as well.
61 - GoHah
oh, hey--speaking of artsy-fartsy Literature with a capital la-di-da "L", I just heard about an exciting new debut work by someone named Mary Revisited Literally. Anyone ever heard of her?
62 - SFC SKI
I am not sure if I understand the meaning of this comment " {Literary fiction} by nature somewhat dry and emotionless".
As for Shark's "Sometime difficult is good for you" I 'd agree in along the lines of the nutritious meal/junk food analogy; the better written works are more difficult to take in because they have more substance. On the other hand, junk food tastes so good.
63 - Chris Evans
How can someone figure Literary Fiction is dry and emotionless? o__O If anything I would think someone would it's the other way around.
64 - Rodney Welch
the words "by nature' say more about the speaker than about literary fiction; that's just someonme who associates good books with eating gruel.
65 - Aaron, Duke De Mondo
i just found a lump of fuck in my stocking!!
owing to a buncha diabolical crap, i was unable to contribute to this most wonderful Hot Topic. I'll offer a response here and now, along the lines of Bennett done summed it up for me;
"If you learn something from the book, then it was worth reading. If the words capture your imagination and transport you to a different world, then it's a book worth owning. Nothing else matters."
This is undoubtably true. But in saying that, I gotta admit that a good story will not neccesarily hold my attention very long. Naked Lunch, for example, is one of my favourite books, an 89% of the time i ain't got a damn clue what way up the thing's suposed to be. but the language used, that brilliant imagery, the eyes don't ever wanna leave the page. Same goes for The Atrocity Exhibition by Ballard. Sir Fleming was kind enough to fling me a lend of it a while back, an it immediately became one of my favourites, but holy shit. plot-wise, i have a very very rough idea whats going on, but probably nothing that couldn't be summed up in the blurb on the back. For me the joy a that number, in particular, is the invention on display. the way the tale, whatever it might be, is related. the story unfolding in paragraph headings, for example, while the core prose is about something else entirely. it's magical. incantory, i think, is the word. as in "incantation", in case i used the wrong word entirely just now.
but one of my OTHER favourite books is Misery by Stephen King, which i guess counts as "popular fuction". far as i'm concerned if a book's good it's good, much like Bennett says. Everytime i think of this i wind myself in circles. if it has a story i can follow, it better be brilliant, and if not, the writing better be astounding. either way i'm happy. and if it manages both, as Chuck Palhuniuk and Will Self do of an occasion, then all the better. And i think Stephen King does too, most of the time. Misery is an incredibly intelligent novel, as is The Dark Half, which gets extra points by being brilliantly disgusting.
66 - Mat Brewster
That's a good point, Duke. You can have the best story in the world, but if you tell it poorly then you're really ruined it. But a great author can make a rather dull story, or in some cases no story at all, into something beautiful. Sometimes its not really what the author is saying, but how he/she is saying it.
Honestly, I don't always get Shakespeare, I'm no scholar and won't pretend I understand all the meanings and subthemes in his works, but the man could pen a phrase. The language is beautiful.
Although on an average day I'm more apt to pick up something easier to read like Palhuiuk's Fight Club than say A Winter's Tale.
67 - Aaron, Duke De Mondo
My thoughts exactly Mat. A good writer will carry a lousy story, a great one'll maybe even have you forgettin there was a story to begin with, so lost is a fella in the language.
And i was thinkin earlier, sometimes i tend to want somethin especially easy-going. For some odd reason, i find gettin all obsessed wi high-brow themes an so on to be an especially depressing experience after a while, i've never worked out why. Some things i just don't like dwelling on, and sometimes the whole "literature" tomfoolery has me feelin really cold or somethin. Then i need to go pig out on a couple weeks worth a trash. It's the same with any medium for me. I'll watch a loada Eisenstien an lap myself into a frenzy about the intellectual concerns and so on (and also the jaw-dropping beauty of something like October, for example) and then feel really really removed from any warmth or, i dunno, heart i supose. i need to spend a lot of time with some wonderfully vacant telly and a buncha fun but empty pop songs to come out of that detached feeling. maybe somethin for some sorta PHD to work out in the future, who knows? Or maybe as sure a sign as any that folks like me are suposed to be workin in factories where the workload is so crippling and the work itself so grindingly monotonous that i don't have time to dwell on the in's and out's of whatever trivial nonsense i'm frettin about this week. meh. who knows?
68 - Chris Evans
I don't like the idea that some suggest that something that is considered Popular Fiction can't be a great piece of work. Does something have to be bogged down with pretentiousness and gratuitous complexity in order to be considered an excellent novel?
69 - Eric Berlin
Reminds me that every story that it's possible to tell has already been told, you know? What do they say there are, seven plots or something?
It's all in the telling. The best writers will spin their web and have you entranced and whisked off even and especially when you absolutely know what's coming.
70 - Rodney Welch
Is that what great books are, Chris? "Bogged down with pretentiousness and gratuitous complexity"? Sounds to me like the opposite of great.
71 - Chris Evans
That's my entire point, Rodney.
72 - Rodney Welch
How many excellent novels have you read that are dull and pretentious?
73 - SFC SKI
Another coffe-spitter! "How many excellent novels have you read that are dull and pretentious?"
I have to admit, I have never successfully completed Dickens' "David Copperfield", it actually put me off most of Dickens' other works.
The biggest problem is that much of what becomes "Classic" does not do so immediately; wil Stephen King be taught in schools the way Shakespeare or Dickens was? Should he be?
A lot of it is subjective, and there is the fact that mass market fiction means fewer of the majority will read any one book; even a century ago most books were expensive with bookstores and libraries less readoily available, so more people had fewer books to read without going to greater expense. IN this way some of these works became recognized as great works and have stood the test of time.
74 - Chris Evans
...When did I use the word dull?
75 - Dave Nalle
Stephen King is popular but he is also crap, because his writing is awkward and unreadable and if extended to novel length it becomes tedious and overblown as well.
But there ARE mass market writers who are genuinely good writers. I think John Grisham is underrated as literature, though obviously not overlooked in the marketplace. Dean Koontz also has flashes of brilliance when he's not just being goofy and retarded or rewriting the same story over and over again.
What I suspect is that the great writers who will be lauded by future generations are the ones who straddle the line between enormous popularity and good writing. Ones who are straight forward enough to be readable, but creative enough to be literary as well. Contemporary writers who I think will stand the test of time:
Patrick O'Brien
Charles de Lint
Dan Simmons
James Herbert
Robert McCammon
Gregory Keyes
Tim Powers
Yes, I know I lean towards fantasy and horror, but each of these writers transcends genre classifications - except Patrick O'Brien who's just the best historical novelist since Sabatini, no more no less.
Dave