R.I.P. The English Novel 1485 - 2009

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by nomesque

I must admit, I'm with MoeJoe in getting irritated at one particular part of the equation - ghost-written fiction. WTF?

Good point. In a world of litigation and politically-correct openness, it's a wonder that it isn't illegal to conceal the real writer's name inside the book, and not require it to be right on the front cover... like a cigarette warning label...

[jinlo]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Does it annoy you though? Aren't you angry about it? Am I the only one shouting into the darkness for some light (I refuse to believe this)?

I'm right there with you, Moejoe. For me, this isn't about being an elitist or even about different tastes. I don’t even think it’s about a level of quality. In some ways, it’s about sincerity. It’s about honesty and integrity.

They are not really offering engrossing prose or an engaging story, the depths of someone’s imagination or the complexity of a writer’s logic. They have stooped to selling a package. The fact that the words do not even come from the promoted “author” simply exacerbates this travesty.

Where is the outrage when talent and substance goes unrewarded and overlooked while flash and celebrity is glorified beyond belief? What happened to honor – when a person did not take credit for someone else’s work. What happened to character - when people looked beyond the exterior?

This is not so much about “giving the drooling masses what they want” as it is about deceitfulness and fraud. All the marketing resources are utilized to make the public believe this is a “good thing” and they should want it with all their hearts. They are bombarded with messages to actually applaud such artificiality.

No, this is not an argument between trying to set standards or allowing the masses to have their mindless distractions, not to me it isn’t. To me, it’s about being truthful to yourself and those around you; it’s about treating certain things with a degree of respect. When the final product is nothing more than a trendy celebrity promotion, I am at a loss to find either truth or respect.

[Sparrow]

It's interesting to compare the discussion here with the disussion in the thread about "The Time Traveller's Wife".

Are authors too precious, or not precious enough?
I think there have always been, and there will always be, examples of both.

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Just to be "picky", "Morte d'Arthur" is generally not categorized as a "novel". The first English novelist is widely regarded as having been Samuel Richardson, with "Pamela", published in 1740. The earlier works, such as Morte d'Arthur, Robinson Crusoe, etc, are normally called "Romances", to distinguish them from novels.

Why are Romances distinguished from novels? The definition of a novel is: A fictional prose narrative of considerable length, typically having a plot that is unfolded by the actions, speech, and thoughts of the characters. How is a romance different from this?

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I read, write, and enjoy science fiction. The majority of the public already looks down on me for my choice of literature! <SNIP>

My choice of leisure reading is held in even more contempt than Science Fiction. Even here at MR. I like Romance novels. They, for me, are a great escape from every day life which, can even at the best of times, lack romance (I'm not talk about sex, but more: A mysterious or fascinating quality or appeal, as of something adventurous, heroic, or strangely beautiful). I don't make a big deal about my reading preferences, nor do I feel particularly drawn to discuss it. It is what it is. Liking to read romance novels does not mean I am lacking in intelligence nor does it mean that I am culturally barren. I read classic novels, too. Some I like, some I find incredibly dull. Just because one (or even many) people say a novel is classic and hold it in high regard, does not mean every one does (or even should). Reading material, like music, movies, indeed any form of entertainment, is highly personal.

Originally Posted by rhadin

It worries me but I see no way to do anything aobut it. Here in the U.S. the problem begins with parents who don't/can't read, who spend more time taking care of their employer's business than their children's business.

Then comes school and we entrust our children to teachers who can't distinguish a noun from a verb, who penalize their students for grammatically correct prose because they (the teachers) can't recognize a grammatically correct sentence, and whose only concern is higher pay for less work and lower skill set.

The saddest part of my business is editing books written by teachers for fellow teachers. It simply brings to the fore how poorly educated our teachers are.

(BTW, there was an excellent article in The Economist last week about poor teachers in Britain. Could easily have substituted U.S. for Britain in the article.)

I do not expect to see any turnaround in the U.S. in my lifetime.

As a teacher, I find your comments very stereotypical and a bit offensive, but sadly, quite common. I am sure there are teachers out there who are not up to the teaching level we would expect for our children, however, I happen to know many, many teachers who are exceptional at what they do. Are they perfect? Absolutely not, but they strive everyday to do a job who's parameters are continually expanding, thanks to the lack of parental involvement, and contracting, due to strictures set down by government officials who have little understanding of what actually happens on a day-to-day basis in the classroom.

What bothers me most about this book is that the ghost writer felt she needed to take the contract in the first place. It is very difficult to "get a break" in the publishing world. Was she having trouble getting published on her own? Did they promise her a chance to publish under her own name if she did these books? Before I condemn her, I would need to know more of the motivation behind her decision.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kazbates

Why are Romances distinguished from novels? The definition of a novel is: A fictional prose narrative of considerable length, typically having a plot that is unfolded by the actions, speech, and thoughts of the characters. How is a romance different from this?

The general viewpoint seems to be that it's about the portrayal of characters. Novels have "realistic" characters in them, while romances have characters, yes, but they are not portrayed in a realistic manner. Read Richardson's "Pamela" or Fielding's "Tom Jones" and you feel that real people are being described. There are no such "people" in Mallory's "Morte d'Arthur".

All this is a highly debatable issue, of course, but the definitions are not mine, but those of the academic world. All I know is that, when I recently did a course on "The English Novel", our lecturer said that Richardson's "Pamela" was widely considered to be the first "true" novel, and that earlier works, such as "Robinson Crusoe", were not.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by jinlo

All the marketing resources are utilized to make the public believe this is a “good thing” and they should want it with all their hearts. They are bombarded with messages to actually applaud such artificiality.

A better description of Madison Avenue, I've never heard. American advertising is, pure and simple, about using psychology (and often reverse-psychology) to con you into buying something. I recently read an article in which an advertiser praised Dos Equis' "Most Interesting Man in the World" campaign... for its transparency! Yeah, 'cause it's great to know that they know they're talking down to me...

I guess the overriding question here is, is mindless "pop literature" bad for mankind? I say "No"... at least these people, who may never bother to pick up Sense and Sensibilities, will buy and read something, and keep those little word-neurons properly tuned (the way I used to with Doc Savage novels). Then, someday, they'll maybe read something important, like a presidential bio, or a warning sign that says "How to recognize a tsunami."

So, let 'em read what they like. Just be glad they can read.

[Peverel]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I guess the overriding question here is, is mindless "pop literature" bad for mankind?

The only time I have an issue with it is when I hear children saying they want to be famous as if it was a career. I recently read a report on-line that outlined some statistics about the number of children aged 12 who said they wanted to be 'famous' when they grew up. I am kicking myself now as I can't find it so I can't quote the right figures but it was a decent size sample and the figures where around the 40% to 50% mark. Now that I can live with, they still have a lot of growing up to do, the bit I struggled with was that the number 1 reason for wanting to be famous was that you "got loads of money without having to work" (I paraphrase). That worries me..........

Mind you, I struggle with the fact a singer or footballer can earn more in a week than a doctor earns in a year so maybe it's me with the problem.........

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

A better description of Madison Avenue, I've never heard. American advertising is, pure and simple, about using psychology (and often reverse-psychology) to con you into buying something. I recently read an article in which an advertiser praised Dos Equis' "Most Interesting Man in the World" campaign... for its transparency! Yeah, 'cause it's great to know that they know they're talking down to me...

I guess the overriding question here is, is mindless "pop literature" bad for mankind? I say "No"... at least these people, who may never bother to pick up Sense and Sensibilities, will buy and read something, and keep those little word-neurons properly tuned (the way I used to with Doc Savage novels). Then, someday, they'll maybe read something important, like a presidential bio, or a warning sign that says "How to recognize a tsunami."

So, let 'em read what they like. Just be glad they can read.

Agreed!! Better that than sitting at home watching yet another brainless "reality" show.

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by Peverel

The only time I have an issue with it is when I hear children saying they want to be famous as if it was a career. I recently read a report on-line that outlined some statistics about the number of children aged 12 who said they wanted to be 'famous' when the grew up. I am kicking myself now as I can't find it so I can't quote the right figures but it was a decent size sample and the figures where around the 40% to 50. % mark. Now that I can live with, they still have a lot of growing up to do, the bit I struggled with was that the number 1 reason for wanting to be famous was that you "got loads of money without having to work" (I paraphrase). That worries me..........

Mind you, I struggle with the fact a singer or footballer can earn more in a week than a doctor earns in a year so maybe it's me with the problem.........

Almost every child in any or my elementary level classes would tell you they want to be "famous" no matter what their chosen profession (at the time) and all of them would tell you they want to be rich. It's the hype they see and don't really understand what it's all about.

[HarryT]

I have no problem with people who are "famous" because they are good at something - eg David Beckham being famous because he's a damned good football (soccer) player.

What I have an issue with are people like Ms. Price, who seem to be "professional celebrities" for no particular reason at all. Does having big boobs really make you famous?

[Peverel]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I have no problem with people who are "famous" because they are good at something - eg David Beckham being famous because he's a damned good football (soccer) player.

I have no issue with people being famous for being good at something and Beckham is an excellent example, I gather he is probably the best footballer in his class (sorry never been into football). However, does he, on a day to day basis, put more into our society than a doctor or a surgeon. Personally I think not but our society seems to think he does based on what our society is prepared to accept as his renumeration package.

(PS nothing against Beckham or anyone else, just using them to illustrate a personal frustration with our society)

[Peverel]

Originally Posted by kazbates

Almost every child in any or my elementary level classes would tell you they want to be "famous" no matter what their chosen profession (at the time) and all of them would tell you they want to be rich. It's the hype they see and don't really understand what it's all about.

That's the bit I see as concerning. Maybe I am being nostalgic but the hype didn't seem to be hyped quite so much when I was a lad (ok ok I know it was a long time ago lol)

[jinlo]

Originally Posted by kazbates

Agreed!! Better that than sitting at home watching yet another brainless "reality" show.

The so-called author in question is a star of a brainless reality show. It is that persona that they are marketing.

This is from the book description:

"Here, Katie Price opens up her make-up bag and throws open the doors to her wardrobe. She talks about how her image has changed as her career in the spotlight has evolved and how what she wears affects her relationships with her her family, her fans and the press. She reveals all her top tips on looking and feeling good to get the best out of life including what she wore on the night that Jordan was born, how she puts together an outfit to make a statement and she talks frankly about her fascination with cosmetic surgery. Find out which style crime makes Katie say ‘there’s just no excuse for it’ and who makes Katie think did you actually look in the mirror before leaving the house? And what are the must-have items that Katie just can’t live without."


So I guess reading about "brainlessness" is much better than watching it on television?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Peverel

That's the bit I see as concerning. Maybe I am being nostalgic but the hype didn't seem to be hyped quite so much when I was a lad (ok ok I know it was a long time ago lol)

Kids said that when I was a kid. I know I said that at some point or other. As far as I know, people have always said that when growing up. That's no reason to be concerned... the overriding majority of them get over it.

Originally Posted by HarryT

What I have an issue with are people like Ms. Price, who seem to be "professional celebrities" for no particular reason at all. Does having big boobs really make you famous?

That, too, isn't that different than other performers, and what makes them famous... physical attributes or beauty are fame-makers, always have been. And she obviously took advantage of her (ahem) attributes to become a celebrity.

But so what? It's not as if you or I have to contribute to their income, any more than I, not being that into sports, have to contribute to Beckham's income. They can do what they like, people can spend (or waste, as the case may be) their money on them, and I'll just go the other way.

Whether we're talking about football players, singers, actors, or brainless sexpots, they are all entertainers, and people are entertained by them. That process of entertainment usually provides incomes for a few to a lot of others, so, as mindless as it may be, even it has some value beyond entertainment attributed to it.

And as long as I can ignore it if I wish, and you can ignore the mindless entertainment that I enjoy, I don't have a problem with any of it.

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by Peverel

I have no issue with people being famous for being good at something and Beckham is an excellent example, I gather he is probably the best footballer in his class (sorry never been into football). However, does he, on a day to day basis, put more into our society than a doctor or a surgeon. Personally I think not but our society seems to think he does based on what our society is prepared to accept as his renumeration package.

(PS nothing against Beckham or anyone else, just using them to illustrate a personal frustration with our society)

You can hardly blame the sports (or even entertainment) celebrities for demanding high prizes when it's the general populace who are willing to buy the tickets, merchandise, magazines, etc., that promote them. There are all types of professionals who should really be paid well for their services and are not, such as, police personnel, fire fighters, etc. As it stands, doctors, at least here in the US, garner fairly high prices for their services.

Originally Posted by HarryT

I have no problem with people who are "famous" because they are good at something - eg David Beckham being famous because he's a damned good football (soccer) player.

What I have an issue with are people like Ms. Price, who seem to be "professional celebrities" for no particular reason at all. Does having big boobs really make you famous?

Uhh, I would have to say, "No", although not from personal experience.

Originally Posted by Peverel

That's the bit I see as concerning. Maybe I am being nostalgic but the hype didn't seem to be hyped quite so much when I was a lad (ok ok I know it was a long time ago lol)

I wanted to be rich and famous when I was a kid.