Change Your Mind (On the Reading of Junk)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Question. Is a graphic novel literature?

Perhaps that question might better be addressed in a separate thread?

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Perhaps that question might better be addressed in a separate thread?

No way. I'd be run out on a rail.......

Just found out a friend is a huge fan. We have lively discussions on books we've both read. Our families have dinners together occasionally........I know what the next 'round table discussion' will be about!

[kennyc]

This is fascinating. Not certain I agree with the premise completely, but thought this was interesting. Looks like a couple of good books.

Those who can tell or write stories will thrive, according to Pink. With all the world's facts and figures a click away at virtually no cost, the storyteller's ability to provide "context enriched by emotion" is what will be prized. Success in the "Conceptual Age" will mean understanding the connections between diverse disciplines — what the author refers to as "symphony ."

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by kennyc

This is fascinating. Not certain I agree with the premise completely, but thought this was interesting. Looks like a couple of good books.

Those who can tell or write stories will thrive, according to Pink. With all the world's facts and figures a click away at virtually no cost, the storyteller's ability to provide "context enriched by emotion" is what will be prized. Success in the "Conceptual Age" will mean understanding the connections between diverse disciplines — what the author refers to as "symphony ."

One such author who does this really well is Neal Stephenson in his Baroque cycle (esp. part 1).. But you have to appreciate that sort of thing.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ea

Not that I have any opinions on Joyce (haven't read him) but you sound like you're itching for a fight

If so, I'm on her side.

And I'm with DGM wrt graphic novels. They are comic books, nothing wrong with that, but that's what they are.

[bill_mchale]

I know I am jumping into this thread rather late, but I do have a few thoughts.

The first is that unless the style is so bad as to be distracting (i.e., frequent obvious mistakes in grammar, or long passages of unconnected sentences, etc.), style rarely makes an impression with me. In fact, the post-modern emphasis on style over telling a good story has been something that has generally kept me away from "serious" literature.

Honestly, there are many books that would not be considered great literature that can be excellent exercises for the mind. Certainly Hard Science Fiction and many Mystery novels require quite a bit of thought from the reader.

Ultimately though, I am not sure how "useful" great literature really will be in improving your chances in the modern world. If you want to be the next Dan Brown or Steven King (In terms of success), it is probably better to read those authors than to read the so called greats of our era that can't get on the best seller list unless Oprah picks them for her book club.

--
Bill

[lilac_jive]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Every tried Aldous Huxley? I was stunned at his writing style. I remember thinking........."Now THIS is writing!"

"Visual storytelling" A nice phrase.........but is it reading?

I looked up the book "Maus".....the subject matter is serious, worthy of writing about. Perhaps the author feels he can reel in more readers, younger readers thru the artwork. I don't know.


Are graphic novels considered junk food or nutritious food in Henry Hazletts mind?

Loved "Brave New World." And the Maus series was phenomenal. I thought it was a really interesting way to deal with the Holocaust.

I read mostly fluff, but try to squeeze in non-fluff. I guess sometimes guilt gets to me, but mostly I really do enjoy reading non-fluff. For years I wouldn't read classics, since I had a bad taste in my mouth from high school. But now I'm older and am able to appreciate books like "Brave New World," so it was worth it.

I mentioned this in another thread, but I'd like to point it out here. Normally I have no problem with what people read, ever. But recently someone who titled themselves "a romance guru" at their bookstore tried to friend me on goodreads. I did a compare books and found two things. One, there's no way she was a romance guru. I've read many many romance books and we barely had anything in common. Two, she had given Gena Showalter (who I adore, by the way) five stars, but gave 1984 three stars. Now I know that I rate books within the genre, so 4 stars in romance will be different from four stars in classics, but come on, three stars for 1984? I just didn't get it. So I denied that request.

[gastan]

Originally Posted by Ea

You could say the same about movies.... But you still visit the cinema once in while, right?

Rarely -- very, very rarely will I see a movie of a book I have already read or plan on reading. If I've already read the book, the movie invariably disappoints. Conversely, if I plan on reading the book, I know from experience that seeing the film will, in all probability, ruin the book for me.

Originally Posted by Ea

Besides, unless the author describes the 'world' richly, I don't really imagine a lot when I read.

If you really need help imagining an author's world, I can recommend several who are so detailed that they'll use pages to describe a chicken crossing the road.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by gastan

,,,,

If you really need help imagining an author's world, I can recommend several who are so detailed that they'll use pages to describe a chicken crossing the road.

But in the end, do you find out WHY?

[Ea]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

...

But see.......does that put me in the same class as the author of that article? Am I being a 'lit snob'?

Question. Is a graphic novel literature?

Good question. How would you define literature. I almost answered 'no' to your question, but then realised I wasn't certain that I wouldn't call graphic novels 'literature'. But on the other hand, it's also a thing into itself. You have to take the images into account when evaluating it, so graphic novels can't be compared 'straight' to written books. I do think though, that the stories being partly imagined visually does not make them worth less than written fiction. You 'read' images' just as much as you read words. Those images are not 'illustrations', they *are* the story in themselves. The best is created by visual artists who are no lesser artists than authors may be. As an example, I think it would have been possible to write Persepolis as a novel, but the artwork itself adds so much to the story (not that the artwork in Persepolis is outstanding - but it does relay so much that it would take many to tell).

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

The first is that unless the style is so bad as to be distracting (i.e., frequent obvious mistakes in grammar, or long passages of unconnected sentences, etc.), style rarely makes an impression with me. In fact, the post-modern emphasis on style over telling a good story has been something that has generally kept me away from "serious" literature.

I remember always having an interest (even of only slight) in 'good language' - but then when I tried writing a little bit of my own some years ago, it taught me so much about style that it's can't not notice anymore. And I've gotten much more critical - plus learned to enjoy books I'd never thought I'd like.

Originally Posted by lilac_jive

I read mostly fluff, but try to squeeze in non-fluff. I guess sometimes guilt gets to me, but mostly I really do enjoy reading non-fluff.

Sometimes I feel reading 'good' books takes just that little extra bit of energy - but when I do read them, the over-all experience is better and often make it up to me. Just like when you've waten junk food and get hungry again soon after, compared to a well-prepared, nutritious and tasty meal.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by kennyc

But in the end, do you find out WHY?

The crossing itself, if it's well described, should answer that question.

[kennyc]

Life is but a journey, the reason we know not why...

[Ea]

Originally Posted by gastan

Rarely -- very, very rarely will I see a movie of a book I have already read or plan on reading. If I've already read the book, the movie invariably disappoints. Conversely, if I plan on reading the book, I know from experience that seeing the film will, in all probability, ruin the book for me.


If you really need help imagining an author's world, I can recommend several who are so detailed that they'll use pages to describe a chicken crossing the road.

Who said I need 'help' imagining? I do quite well without help as it is

I wasn't adressing books turned into films, just the idea of storytelling through a visual medium rather than written.

[kad032000]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

I have a deep seated bias against graphic novels, whether serious or comic.

To me......(and this is just my opinion) reading is meant to immerse you into another world.

Graphic novels simply offer a different type of entertainment than "traditional" novels.

[kad032000]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And I'm with DGM wrt graphic novels. They are comic books, nothing wrong with that, but that's what they are.

By definition, graphic novels are comic books.

Some people associate a negative connotation with comic books because of how the medium has evolved, but it is not an inherently flawed mechanism of storytelling.