Reader's Block

[BookCat]

Originally Posted by issybird

I admit I'm stymied. The other old friends I get, but the only Rochester I can think of is the one in Jane Eyre, a wife abuser, would-be bigamist, philanderer, possible father of an illegitimate daughter and all-around nasty fellow. That Rochester? With friends like that....

Are you sure this is from reading Jane Eyre and not Wide Sagasso Sea? Many of the details in the ensuing discussion seem to come from the latter novel.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by BookCat

Are you sure this is from reading Jane Eyre and not Wide Sagasso Sea? Many of the details in the ensuing discussion seem to come from the latter novel.

Positive. Most of this is from Rochester's self-serving explanation to Jane after the failed wedding and the rest from his general treatment of her and his masquerade as the gypsy. Jean Rhys used what was in the text as her springboard.

[Deskisamess]

Originally Posted by BookCat

Are you sure this is from reading Jane Eyre and not Wide Sagasso Sea? Many of the details in the ensuing discussion seem to come from the latter novel.

Not on my part...I've not read WSS.

[BookCat]

I must read Jane Eyre again, it's been a long time.

@Deskisamess: you might like Wide Sagasso Sea - and hate Rochester even more afterwards.

[Deskisamess]

Originally Posted by BookCat

I must read Jane Eyre again, it's been a long time.

@Deskisamess: you might like Wide Sagasso Sea - and hate Rochester even more afterwards.

He wouldn't be the same Rochester as he was written by Brontë. The Rochester in JE is the man the author wanted us to know about.

I've a resistance to fan-fiction, which this would fall under. For me anyway. I see it as a way to "ride on the coattails" of a successful novel.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Deskisamess

He wouldn't be the same Rochester as he was written by Brontë. The Rochester in JE is the man the author wanted us to know about.

I've a resistance to fan-fiction, which this would fall under. For me anyway. I see it as a way to "ride on the coattails" of a successful novel.

Wow.

A novel that made both the Time magazine's and Modern Library's lists of the best 100 novels is fan fiction?

You've pretty much written off much of the Western canon. No West Side Story. No Romeo and Juliet, for that matter. Shakespeare was yet another who "[rode] the coattails." You've also essentially disallowed feminist and racial and all "other" takes on established myths. So much for the marginalized!

By the time Rhys wrote Wide Sargasso Sea, Jane Eyre had been in the public domain for a long time. It's rather the point of public domain and it makes for a colossal difference from fan-fiction by definition.

I'd also argue that the Rochester presented in Jane Eyre contained the elements addressed by Rhys in her book. She wasn't just rewriting because she wanted something different. And if there's more in Jane Eyre than Brontë intended, I'd say that's true of all great works.

I'm gobsmacked. I don't get your resistance, especially as someone who loves Jane Eyre. You might find that Wide Sargasso Sea increased your appreciation of the original or gave you new perspectives. And if you hated it and thought it was off-base, even that would be interesting. But instead you dig in your heels and dismiss it without even looking at it. As I said up top: Wow.

[Deskisamess]

A novel that made both the Time magazine's and Modern Library's lists of the best 100 novels is fan fiction?

Fan fiction was a poor choice of phrase, I was going to edit that, but totally forgot.

You took my opinion way harsher than I intended, but my basic opinion doesn't change. Everyone has book topics they don't care for...it's not something I've dug my heels in over. Your reaction is way over the top in my opinion.

I've read some reviews of the book in question, as well as background on the author and the book itself. It doesn't interest me. That should be ok and need no strong defense. There are many books with high marks from reviews etc that I didn't like or don't care to read. I can't be unusual in that.

Gone With the Wind, Little Women, are two that spring to mind.

I do take small issue with being so trounced upon for sharing an opinion.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

On the rare occasion where I don't feel like reading I *SHOCK* do something else for a while!

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The issue isn't not feeling like reading, the issue is feeling like reading but none of the books in your to be read pile appeal to you.

For me if I don't feel like reading any of the available books, that means I need to take a break and do something else for a while (not that this happens very often )

I guess for some people it's more like going to your closet and not seeing anything you really want to wear, but you know you have to get dressed so you force yourself to pick something?

[BookCat]

I often don't feel like reading. Then I'll write, or draw, or paint, or - heavens forbid - go out!

But if I feel like reading and can't choose what to read, I'll either stick a pin in a list or come here for suggestions.

Years ago, I saw a youtube vid which suggested using a container, such as a salad box; writing the names of books that are on your ereader on paper; tearing/cutting into pieces with the names and placing, folded, into the box. Shake box. Pick out a paper. That's your next read.

I did this, but lost the box in a house move.
Might work for someone.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Deskisamess

Fan fiction was a poor choice of phrase, I was going to edit that, but totally forgot.

You took my opinion way harsher than I intended, but my basic opinion doesn't change. Everyone has book topics they don't care for...it's not something I've dug my heels in over. Your reaction is way over the top in my opinion.

I've read some reviews of the book in question, as well as background on the author and the book itself. It doesn't interest me. That should be ok and need no strong defense. There are many books with high marks from reviews etc that I didn't like or don't care to read. I can't be unusual in that.

Gone With the Wind, Little Women, are two that spring to mind.

I do take small issue with being so trounced upon for sharing an opinion.

Opinions should be defensible and open to discussion, and I am enjoying the discussion, even if it's just me.

The issue was the use of the disparaging term "fan-fiction" to apply to a highly-regarded book in particular, and by extension to any derivative fiction. As I said, that pretty much blows the Western canon out of the water and it's especially hard on marginalized groups who might want to apply shared myths to reflect their own reality.

There was also an element that Rhys could have had nothing interesting to say about Jane Eyre and if you extend that, then no one could. Are you so very sure you have the one "correct" interpretation of the book and of Rochester, the gospel according to Charlotte Brontë as it were? I do agree that one's first experience of a book should be between just you and the author, but after that, I don't see why you wouldn't be interested in other takes on it. It could expand your appreciation, your understanding, your enjoyment. Maybe it wouldn't, or maybe you'd be wrong at that, but you'll only know if you're willing to examine it. I think this is especially important in a book you're going to read and reread, and over years if not decades. Why codify your original understanding as the only possible one?

I couldn't know that you'd thought better of "fan-fiction," and that was my springboard. It was derogatory to both Wide Sargasso Sea and by implication to any book that employed myths and legends common to our culture. And then you backed that up by implying that you could interpret correctly Charlotte Brontë's intent, or at least that such a thing could be determined and determined for all time; moreover, that that was the only important thing, which seems very limiting to great literature. I disagree strongly with all of this. Obviously!

No one is going to read everything or can be expected to like everything. But you were painting with a really broad brush when specifics might have served you better.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

For me if I don't feel like reading any of the available books, that means I need to take a break and do something else for a while (not that this happens very often )

I guess for some people it's more like going to your closet and not seeing anything you really want to wear, but you know you have to get dressed so you force yourself to pick something?

I'm a retired programmer. The only diversity in my closet is warm weather wear verses cold weather wear.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by issybird

Spoiler:

Opinions should be defensible and open to discussion, and I am enjoying the discussion, even if it's just me.

The issue was the use of the disparaging term "fan-fiction" to apply to a highly-regarded book in particular, and by extension to any derivative fiction. As I said, that pretty much blows the Western canon out of the water and it's especially hard on marginalized groups who might want to apply shared myths to reflect their own reality.

There was also an element that Rhys could have had nothing interesting to say about Jane Eyre and if you extend that, then no one could. Are you so very sure you have the one "correct" interpretation of the book and of Rochester, the gospel according to Charlotte Brontë as it were? I do agree that one's first experience of a book should be between just you and the author, but after that, I don't see why you wouldn't be interested in other takes on it. It could expand your appreciation, your understanding, your enjoyment. Maybe it wouldn't, or maybe you'd be wrong at that, but you'll only know if you're willing to examine it. I think this is especially important in a book you're going to read and reread, and over years if not decades. Why codify your original understanding as the only possible one?

I couldn't know that you'd thought better of "fan-fiction," and that was my springboard. It was derogatory to both Wide Sargasso Sea and by implication to any book that employed myths and legends common to our culture. And then you backed that up by implying that you could interpret correctly Charlotte Brontë's intent, or at least that such a thing could be determined and determined for all time; moreover, that that was the only important thing, which seems very limiting to great literature. I disagree strongly with all of this. Obviously!

No one is going to read everything or can be expected to like everything. But you were painting with a really broad brush when specifics might have served you better.

Personally I agree with Deskisamess. I have no problems with derivative works, as in using a similar theme, plot, worldbuilding or characters, but I'm not interested in reading works by other authors who use the same characters as the original author. And it has never mattered to me in the least how many lists a book figures on, how many awards it has received or how much it's been praised. That goes for any and all books, not only the derivative ones.

Mind, not having read The Wide Sargasso Sea, I've no idea if it uses the original characters of Jane Eyre or merely similar ones. For me there is a difference, and not a small one.

[Deskisamess]

I'm somewhat at a disadvantage because I've not spent a great deal of time thinking about WHY I don't care for the type of book that WSS is, beyond the simple fact that I don't care for them.

I never said I have the only correct interpretation of Rochester. I said that the Rochester of WSS wouldn't be the same Rochester that was in JE. I guess I need a disclaimer here? It wouldn't be the same Rochester as I understood him.

Honestly, I shared my opinion of this type of work. Nothing less, nothing more. I wasn't looking for a Debate Class. I did feel somewhat talked down to.

[gmw]

I didn't think fan-fiction was limited to non-public-domain books? I had no problem with using fan-fiction to describe this sort of derivative (Wide Sagasso Sea). Books like this, and like Death Comes to Pemberley by P.D. James, are more than vaguely derivative, they attempt to extend the original story. And books like these cannot claim approval from the original creators, so "fan-fiction" fits, I think, especially if you allow that the term "fan-fiction" need carry no inherently derogatory associations. (Although, fan-fiction does cover much broader territory, so we probably do need a better term for this narrower sort of "story-extension" derivative.)

And, similar to Deskisamess, I'm not a big fan of story-extension/fan-fiction derivatives. (I have found a few exceptions over the years.) For me it is mostly about author voice.

I have favourite authors, from which the majority of my absolute favourite books are drawn, and it's because I like their voice. The stories may not all be perfect, but I enjoy them because I enjoy hearing that voice in my head.

So when someone else comes along and tries to take up the same story and extend it, they start at a disadvantage. They are taking settings and character voices that I am used to - and very much enjoy - hearing in one voice, and telling it in their own. As a result the place and people often start to sound like somewhere and someone different. Generally it sets up a sort of dissonance and greatly reduces my chances of enjoying the new book.

I tend to have less problem with books that step further away from the original in one way or another. Get far enough from the original to lose that worn in association (favourites tend to get re-read and so the paths are well worn) and I can start to enjoy the book for what it is rather than what I expect it to be.

None of which means there is anything inherently wrong with such story-extension derivatives. The reaction is a personal one.

[BookCat]

The reason I thought Deskisamess might like Wide Sargasso Sea is that it gives an alternative take on Rochester by telling of his 'real' relationship to Bertha. No, it's not Bronte, but interesting to read if you want a different view of the hero. It's like treating him as though he were a real person and someone, not Bronte, tells you about parts of his life missed from the original novel.

But reading this is by no means compulsory; just fun.