Reader's Block

[Bookpossum]

I thought Wide Sargasso Sea was a brilliant book, beautifully done. Indeed, I very much enjoy works that look at a story from a different angle. Tom Stoppard did it wonderfully with Rosencrantz and Guildernstern are Dead which I saw performed a very great many years ago when I was in England.

Obviously, anything like that has to be done very well indeed. I think Jean Rhys and Tom Stoppard both did so, because each work complemented and enhanced the original classic. The fact that Rhys's book and Stoppard's play have each become modern classics in their own right attests to how good they were.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by gmw

I didn't think fan-fiction was limited to non-public-domain books?

It's not, of course. I spoke badly. I should have said something along the lines of, "non-commercial." However,

<SNIP>

especially if you allow that the term "fan-fiction" need carry no inherently derogatory associations.

Well, now you've lost me. I personally find fan-fiction to be a dismissive term and use it as such myself (most recently for Margaret Atwood's The Testaments. I think my phrase was "YA fan-fiction" at that.) My own perspective is that if people want to write fan-fiction, that's fine, but I certainly don't want to read it. So in the context of a serious recommendation of a book that's been widely lauded, I take it as "fightin' words," or at least the opening lob in what is likely to be a contentious discussion. Nothing wrong with that.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Bookpossum

Obviously, anything like that has to be done very well indeed. I think Jean Rhys and Tom Stoppard both did so, because each work complemented and enhanced the original classic. The fact that Rhys's book and Stoppard's play have each become modern classics in their own right attests to how good they were.

I think you nailed it with this. The risks of a direct appropriation of an author's characters and setting are high. gmw mentioned Death Comes to Pemberley upthread, a book we both thought was dreadful. But if the author can pull it off, the rewards are commensurately greater than if they'd adapted the material. There's a symbiosis that both enhances their own work and can be enlightening about the source material, also.

Bringing it back around to Jane Eyre, I think the various revisionist takes on the story, including WSS, The Madwoman in the Attic and even the comic strip I linked to above help keep a work new. I also personally like anything that raises awareness about the undercurrents in a story, in light of advanced mores. Viewing Rochester (Heathcliff, Rhett Butler and so on) as a romantic hero can be dangerous, especially to a young girl. Ideally, the reader can hold both thoughts and see it for the romance it was intended and how it fails under scrutiny according to modern sensibilities.

And, as BookCat said, it's all for fun.

[ekbell]

Originally Posted by issybird

It's not, of course. I spoke badly. I should have said something along the lines of, "non-commercial." However,

<SNIP>



Well, now you've lost me. I personally find fan-fiction to be a dismissive term and use it as such myself (most recently for Margaret Atwood's The Testaments. I think my phrase was "YA fan-fiction" at that.) My own perspective is that if people want to write fan-fiction, that's fine, but I certainly don't want to read it. So in the context of a serious recommendation of a book that's been widely lauded, I take it as "fightin' words," or at least the opening lob in what is likely to be a contentious discussion. Nothing wrong with that.

As someone who was introduced to the concept of fan-fiction with Star Trek and has spent a fair amount of time on fanfic sites (and has read some very, very good fan fiction), I don't read the term as inherently dismissive but rather as a statement of fact. Calling something Fan Fiction is in essence stating that 'this derivative work was written by a fan of the original work'.

If I called a commercial work such as West Side Story a fanfic I would simply mean 'This is clearly a derivative work and you can perceive the author's appreciation of the original work.' not intending to be dismissive.

[issybird]

Fair enough, although I infer from Deskisamess's comment on the term fan-fiction that she meant to change it but forgot, that she thought there were negative connotations, also.

I still think that even when the term isn't judgmental in regard to quality, there is still an element that suggests the work in question hasn't been published. For me, there's a disconnect between "fan-fiction" and "winner of major literary prize."

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by issybird

... and how it fails under scrutiny according to modern sensibilities.

And, as BookCat said, it's all for fun.

As to the modern sensibilities... Any historical novel (and by that I mean a novel by a modern author set in the past) which would not fail under scrutiny according to modern sensibilities is badly written in my opinion. I hate historical novels where characters think, speak and behave like modern people in costumes, or express opinions far too advanced for their time period. The fact is, people didn't think, speak and behave according to modern sensibilities in the past, and to have your historical characters doing so is just plain ignorance or poor writing.

I'm writing this because I've seen too many characters in historical novels criticized for not having the 21st century values and sensibilities. I've never understood that. If you want modern values, why read a historical novel? Read a contemporary one.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

As to the modern sensibilities... Any historical novel (and by that I mean a novel by a modern author set in the past) which would not fail under scrutiny according to modern sensibilities is badly written in my opinion. I hate historical novels where characters think, speak and behave like modern people in costumes, or express opinions far too advanced for their time period. The fact is, people didn't think, speak and behave according to modern sensibilities in the past, and to have your historical characters doing so is just plain ignorance or poor writing.

I'm writing this because I've seen too many characters in historical novels criticized for not having the 21st century values and sensibilities. I've never understood that. If you want modern values, why read a historical novel? Read a contemporary one.

I agree with you. One of my pet peeves is historical anachronisms. That's why I think you have to be able to see both elements and hold conflicting thoughts. A character needs to be true to his times, but you can also deplore attitudes toward women, minorities and so forth.

I would say, though, that Rochester is a fail even by Victorian standards. Bigamy didn't pass muster even then.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by issybird

I would say, though, that Rochester is a fail even by Victorian standards. Bigamy didn't pass muster even then.

Of course. But if he had been an upright, honest, moral character, there would have been no story, would there?

It's a well-known fact that flawed characters make far more interesting novels. Mary Sues and Gary Stus might make perfect neighbors and in-laws in real life, but in fiction they're exceedingly boring.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Of course. But if he had been an upright, honest, moral character, there would have been no story, would there?

It's a well-known fact that flawed characters make far more interesting novels. Mary Sues and Gary Stus might make perfect neighbors and in-laws in real life, but in fiction they're exceedingly boring.

Of course. But now we've come full circle. It was the characterization of Rochester as a "friend" that got me going in the first place! Interesting, absolutely, but not what I'd call one of literature's nice guys.

[Bookpossum]

I get the distinct impression that actors far prefer to play the villain than the hero/ine. As long as the character isn’t just a cardboard cut-out villain of course.

To revert to the original question of the thread: if I get bogged down in a book, I am more likely these days to abandon it than I used to do. There are so many books waiting to be read. It is rare for me to feel unable to get reading, but I can get caught up with other things that eat into my reading time - photography, visitors, working in the garden, and so on. At times like those, I tend to read short stories rather than something more substantial which requires more time to be dedicated to it.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by issybird

[...] Well, now you've lost me. I personally find fan-fiction to be a dismissive term and use it as such myself (most recently for Margaret Atwood's The Testaments. I think my phrase was "YA fan-fiction" at that.) My own perspective is that if people want to write fan-fiction, that's fine, but I certainly don't want to read it. So in the context of a serious recommendation of a book that's been widely lauded, I take it as "fightin' words," or at least the opening lob in what is likely to be a contentious discussion. Nothing wrong with that.

Now you are getting down to knowing the person you are talking to. Some people use "literary" in derogatory terms; YA, as you mention, is another common one. Oh, and indie . But these terms may be used as simply descriptive by some, casual generalisation, as mildly dismissive by others, while your comments on this thread suggest a stronger revulsion - although, as you explain, part of that was being defensive of a book you respect.

At various times I've used all those terms in both descriptive and dismissive senses ... sometimes, I suspect, in the same paragraph, if not the same sentence. And yet I have greatly enjoyed books from all these categories.

I agree that Deskisamess seemed to be using "fan-fiction" in at least a mildly dismissive sense, but the phrasing didn't strike me as implying the level of revulsion that you would have meant if you had used that term. I've seen people say "I don't read romance", or perhaps more aptly, "I don't read indie" with about the same level of casually dismissive generalisation.

[binaryhermit]

I think I've even heard the term "genre fiction" used derisively too. But whatever.

[Poppaea]

Originally Posted by binaryhermit

I think I've even heard the term "genre fiction" used derisively too. But whatever.

You seem to know my mum

She likes to state often and loudly she doesn't read fiction and how it is wasted time to do so. And she is implying those who do are somewhat less intelligent than she is.

Every time she does this I think to myself that she lacks imagination, which makes it necessary for her to stick to non-fiction. And the intelligence to see how much can be learned by reading novels. Just think about how much one learns when reading historical fiction, for example. It always strikes me as one of the stupidest things to say whilst she is trying to appear smart by saying so.

[Poppaea]

As for the reader block, ,I know and I dread it. The longer the book I am reading and the better I like it, the harder is it to find my next read. The moment I realise I love the book I'm reading, I start worrying about the next book.

I will switch genre most often or read a series after a stand alone.

[Apache]

After finishing Neptune's Inferno I found I was having trouble trying to decide what to read next. I decided that rereading an old favorite was just the thing and have just started Agent of Change by Sharon Lee and Steve Miller. The first in the Liaden Universe Series first published in 1988. Voila no more readers block.
Apache