The MR Literary Society

[Andanzas]

Originally Posted by TGS

Perhaps I should give Bolaño another try - I expected to like him, perhaps my head was just not in the right place.

Perhaps you should... (do you like Latin American novels?) Or perhaps you shouldn't. When talking about "literary literature," it seems that certain writers become an obligation, a chore. Doesn't it happen to you sometimes? You read an important book, don't enjoy it, and feel like it's somewhat your fault? One of my pet peeves is being told "Oh, you have to understand it," after admitting I don't like certain book or movie. Of course. But in the imaginary world of fiction we understand because we enjoy, not the opposite.

By the way, I dislike Bloom partly because of this reason. He once said or wrote that Borges had a very poor taste. Of course, Borges' opinions were very eccentric; I disagree with him more times than not. But those weird opinions were an integral part of his world view. Without them, it wouldn't have been possible for him to write such unique and wonderful works. Bloom is like the police of good taste, always saying you have to like this or that, and I see those mandates as an attack against our personal creativity.

Sorry, I am just rambling on. I should definitely sleep more. Anyway, nothing wrong if you don't like Bolaño.

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

Hi Marc!
Never heard of Bernand Cornwell, i'll have to check him out...

Bernard Cornwell is a very good storyteller and his prose is quite effective, so I think his books do have some literary merit, but he is not what I would call a literary writer. I don't think he is the kind of writer you were thinking about when you opened this thread. He writes mostly epic fantasy and historical fiction. I just mentioned him as an example of what I am more likely to read these days of sleep deprivation: genre writers who know how to write.

It's interesting that the three of us had similar reactions with Blood Meridian.

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by Andanzas

One of my pet peeves is being told "Oh, you have to understand it," after admitting I don't like certain book or movie.

Oh, I know what you mean! I remember people telling me years ago that to enjoy the movie 2001, I had to read the book. At the time I thought, that's really stupid, if a movie can't stand up on its own, it's not worth watching, I don't need a goddamn user manual.

But I did not understand at the time just how misguided this comment was. Understanding a work has very little to do with enjoying it. Except maybe when the subject of the work is knowledge, i.e. in the case of non fiction.

At the time I saw 2001, I was seeing a lot of movies, some of them I understood nothing about. The movie that comes to my mind is Stalker, by Andrei Tarkovski. I have no idea what that movie was about, and I didn't even when I saw it, but I still loved it.

On the other hand, there is nothing that annoys me more, at least in fiction, than a book that lays out everything clearly before me, taking care to leave nothing to my interpretation or imagination. This kind of book is perfectly understandable, and very bad literature. Because literature, and any kind of art, requires two people, a writer and a reader, an artist and a spectator, and the spectator cannot be passive, he has to put some of his own life into the work, otherwise it will stay a dead thing: a bunch of printed pages, or a canvas with some color on it. There has to be some room for the reader/spectator to breathe, to invent the work.

[covingtoncat73]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

Oh, I know what you mean! I remember people telling me years ago that to enjoy the movie 2001, I had to read the book. At the time I thought, that's really stupid, if a movie can't stand up on its own, it's not worth watching, I don't need a goddamn user manual.

But I did not understand at the time just how misguided this comment was. Understanding a work has very little to do with enjoying it. Except maybe when the subject of the work is knowledge, i.e. in the case of non fiction.

At the time I saw 2001, I was seeing a lot of movies, some of them I understood nothing about. The movie that comes to my mind is Stalker, by Andrei Tarkovski. I have no idea what that movie was about, and I didn't even when I saw it, but I still loved it.

On the other hand, there is nothing that annoys me more, at least in fiction, than a book that lays out everything clearly before me, taking care to leave nothing to my interpretation or imagination. This kind of book is perfectly understandable, and very bad literature. Because literature, and any kind of art, requires two people, a writer and a reader, an artist and a spectator, and the spectator cannot be passive, he has to put some of his own life into the work, otherwise it will stay a dead thing: a bunch of printed pages, or a canvas with some color on it. There has to be some room for the reader/spectator to breathe, to invent the work.

Neil Gaiman kind of used a short story to explain this. I think it was in Fragile Things but I can't remember the title of the story itself and I am not home among my DTbooks, so I can't access it at this moment.

Anyway, it was about an Emperor who kept making a bigger and bigger map/model of his empire, until he threatened to make one that was a complete, full-scale replica and bankrupt the Empire, at which point his advisor quietly poisons him. The map is not the territory.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

On the other hand, there is nothing that annoys me more, at least in fiction, than a book that lays out everything clearly before me, taking care to leave nothing to my interpretation or imagination. This kind of book is perfectly understandable, and very bad literature. Because literature, and any kind of art, requires two people, a writer and a reader, an artist and a spectator, and the spectator cannot be passive, he has to put some of his own life into the work, otherwise it will stay a dead thing: a bunch of printed pages, or a canvas with some color on it. There has to be some room for the reader/spectator to breathe, to invent the work.

I recently wrote my MA thesis on the cognitive processes that might contribute to the reader's construction of a representation of a narrative - the text being seen as something analogous to a "diagram" for such a construction. One of the issues I didn't tackle but I think is really interesting is why we, some of us anyway, actually prefer texts in which the construction of such a representation is both facilitated and, at the same time, blocked or interrupted by the text. We like to have some imaginative work to do and often feel that texts that do not require such work of us are of less literary merit.

[Andanzas]

Originally Posted by TGS

I recently wrote my MA thesis on the cognitive processes that might contribute to the reader's construction of a representation of a narrative - the text being seen as something analogous to a "diagram" for such a construction.

Are you going to publish it as an ebook? Sounds very intriguing! And I see that you already have material for a sequel.

[GeoffC]

and only one mention of Ulysses ... and it wasn't from you Florenceart .... !

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Andanzas

And I see that you already have material for a sequel.

Indeed, but unfortunately I can't get anyone to fund the sequel by means of a PhD fellowship

[TGS]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

and only one mention of Ulysses ... and it wasn't from you Florenceart .... !

We were waiting for your analysis Geoff...

[GeoffC]

poetic, sometimes strained, sometimes with humour, occasionally bordering on the boring...whether I would venture another read of it, I don't know .....

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

poetic, sometimes strained, sometimes with humour, occasionally bordering on the boring...whether I would venture another read of it, I don't know .....

I think I'd be willing to re-read the first and last chapters. Though I've never re-read only parts of a book before...

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

On the other hand, there is nothing that annoys me more, at least in fiction, than a book that lays out everything clearly before me, taking care to leave nothing to my interpretation or imagination. This kind of book is perfectly understandable, and very bad literature. Because literature, and any kind of art, requires two people, a writer and a reader, an artist and a spectator, and the spectator cannot be passive, he has to put some of his own life into the work, otherwise it will stay a dead thing: a bunch of printed pages, or a canvas with some color on it. There has to be some room for the reader/spectator to breathe, to invent the work.

I'm not sure if I agree with that. Is there such a thing as a book that leaves nothing to interpretation or imagination? Maybe I'm not imaginative enough to picture a book where I could be completely passive even in the pulp spectrum of fiction.

That said, I'm slightly annoyed by 1984 by George Orwell for the very reason that his book requires very little active involvement from me. Not satisfied that I might be able to discern the message of the book, it's spelled out to me, spelled out again and, just when I think the lecture is over, it's spelled out again. This guy would have made an excellent Hollywood producer.

I do tend towards the Sci-Fi, Fantasy and Horror, but this year I've started trying to put some "literature" on my dance card. I do like discussing books with people and one of the aspects of this forum that I liked instantly was that I could discuss books with other readers and even authors.

Regards
Caleb

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by montsnmags

I have been long reading David Foster Wallace's Brief Interviews With Hideous Men and sitting him in my own personal pantheon of OMG!-I-SO-LIKE-TOTALLY-LOVE -THIS-AUTHOR-LIKE-OMG! Greats. The recently slowly-read short story within, Tri-Stan: I Sold Sissee Nar To Ecko was most amusing and confusing (thus slowly-read). I have not read any else of Foster Wallace's, though I have Infinite Jest in the TBR pile.

Anyone else read/love/hate any of his works?

I read and absolutely loved Infinite Jest, but it was long enough ago that the details are mostly gone. It's the only work by Wallace that I've read. Since there will obviously be no more... I'm in no hurry to "catch up."

I'm still waiting for a Vonnegut successor, as well. I thought for a while that Wallace might be a candidate to eventually fill those shoes. But alas, they're both gone and I'm alone.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by montsnmags

I have been long reading David Foster Wallace's Brief Interviews With Hideous Men and sitting him in my own personal pantheon of OMG!-I-SO-LIKE-TOTALLY-LOVE -THIS-AUTHOR-LIKE-OMG! Greats. The recently slowly-read short story within, Tri-Stan: I Sold Sissee Nar To Ecko was most amusing and confusing (thus slowly-read). I have not read any else of Foster Wallace's, though I have Infinite Jest in the TBR pile.

Anyone else read/love/hate any of his works?

I love David Foster Wallace' works. I started like you with the interviews. I think I have all of them. Then, as i do sometime with dead authors that I like, I postponed the pleasures to harder times of need.

Some time I posted something about him that might be interesting. Ridiculuous, but this is the link.


Last but not least. Thank you Florence, for this very attractive thread!

[beppe]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

poetic, sometimes strained, sometimes with humour, occasionally bordering on the boring...whether I would venture another read of it, I don't know .....

GeoffC, for a fat one liner or a skinny two liner, ... you are not doing bad. And for your standards that is quite an exploit.

But, a part from the plot (no plot), the message (any?) the structure (too much, although quite well tested by time), the quality of the prose is the highest. So refined, so polished, so musical, even for a poetry blind like the undersigned.
Ah ... that what you meant by poetic.

My third read is still underway.

[DMB]

Originally Posted by caleb72

I'm not sure if I agree with that. Is there such a thing as a book that leaves nothing to interpretation or imagination? Maybe I'm not imaginative enough to picture a book where I could be completely passive even in the pulp spectrum of fiction.

That said, I'm slightly annoyed by 1984 by George Orwell for the very reason that his book requires very little active involvement from me. Not satisfied that I might be able to discern the message of the book, it's spelled out to me, spelled out again and, just when I think the lecture is over, it's spelled out again. This guy would have made an excellent Hollywood producer.

I do tend towards the Sci-Fi, Fantasy and Horror, but this year I've started trying to put some "literature" on my dance card. I do like discussing books with people and one of the aspects of this forum that I liked instantly was that I could discuss books with other readers and even authors.

Regards
Caleb

Your experience of 1984 is very different from mine. It's a few decades since I read it, but it is a book that haunts me. I find it quite a difficult read, because I keep stopping to think about this or that bit and going into imaginative flights.

I have to say that until I was about 40, I was a voracious reader of classics and modern literary fiction, but with ageing my serious reading has turned much more to various sorts of non-fiction, with detective stories for light relief. I no longer find much literary fiction all that interesting. I'd rather read science, history, politics or philosophy.