Jane Austin
-
sleepydumpling
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: 14 Jan 2007, 03:25
- Bookshelf Size: 0
To be honest, I cannot see why ANYONE would want to pull a book, or a painting, or a piece of music, or any other piece of art to pieces and analyse every little facet of it. How quickly the magic of the work is destroyed.
How does it make you feel? Do you enjoy it? Does it touch something in you? Then it is a great work of art.
Have you not seen a magnificent painting of a simple object? Say, a flower. Are Van Gogh's paintings of flowers not as much masterpieces, works of greatness, as say... Munch's The Scream. Now flowers are a very simple subject, compared to the emotion and expression of a scream. A flower sits there and you paint it. A scream is a moment, an action that you have to capture that is complex and intense. Why is subject matter relevant to artistic merit in your belief?
Jane Austen captures a simple statement in her works. She illustrates a point in a clear, concise, honest manner, but also stirs so many emotions in her readers while doing so. That is art. It has changed the world as much as Proust or Dickens or Tolstoy or multitudes others. Possibly more, because it has touched MORE people than the others have in it's popularity with the masses. That's not to say that the other greats are in any way detracted from by Jane's simplicity, but it's that her work is as VALID as theirs.
Nor does it suggest her work is perfect. NO piece of work is perfect. God is the only one who can create perfection.
And I don't believe that the term "junk" is justified in any of the authors you've mentioned, not even Stephenie Meyer, whom I find light and fluffy, however much I enjoy her work. It only becomes junk when one gorges oneself on it and nothing else. I believe a diet of nothing but classics is just as damaging as a diet of pop culture.
I firmly believe that if something gets a person reading, then it's valuable. Even if it's not to my taste.
As for guilt and judgement... what a complete and utter waste of time for a human being when it comes to the arts. Guilt over your tastes... it's an absolute absurdity! That's like telling someone to feel guilty if they like the taste of bananas but not asparagus. It's your taste! It's unique to you.
Feel guilt if your tastes include something that does you REAL damage (like heroin) or causes harm to others of course (eg child pornography), but seriously, what a waste of a mind to feel guilt over the things that bring you pleasure.
How does it make you feel? Do you enjoy it? Does it touch something in you? Then it is a great work of art.
Have you not seen a magnificent painting of a simple object? Say, a flower. Are Van Gogh's paintings of flowers not as much masterpieces, works of greatness, as say... Munch's The Scream. Now flowers are a very simple subject, compared to the emotion and expression of a scream. A flower sits there and you paint it. A scream is a moment, an action that you have to capture that is complex and intense. Why is subject matter relevant to artistic merit in your belief?
Jane Austen captures a simple statement in her works. She illustrates a point in a clear, concise, honest manner, but also stirs so many emotions in her readers while doing so. That is art. It has changed the world as much as Proust or Dickens or Tolstoy or multitudes others. Possibly more, because it has touched MORE people than the others have in it's popularity with the masses. That's not to say that the other greats are in any way detracted from by Jane's simplicity, but it's that her work is as VALID as theirs.
Nor does it suggest her work is perfect. NO piece of work is perfect. God is the only one who can create perfection.
And I don't believe that the term "junk" is justified in any of the authors you've mentioned, not even Stephenie Meyer, whom I find light and fluffy, however much I enjoy her work. It only becomes junk when one gorges oneself on it and nothing else. I believe a diet of nothing but classics is just as damaging as a diet of pop culture.
I firmly believe that if something gets a person reading, then it's valuable. Even if it's not to my taste.
As for guilt and judgement... what a complete and utter waste of time for a human being when it comes to the arts. Guilt over your tastes... it's an absolute absurdity! That's like telling someone to feel guilty if they like the taste of bananas but not asparagus. It's your taste! It's unique to you.
Feel guilt if your tastes include something that does you REAL damage (like heroin) or causes harm to others of course (eg child pornography), but seriously, what a waste of a mind to feel guilt over the things that bring you pleasure.
-
thisislissa
- Posts: 45
- Joined: 06 Aug 2008, 18:52
- Bookshelf Size: 0
To me the dissection and the analysis is the magic for most books. When you dissect something from nature you are right, the magic is gone, you get a fairly disgusting pile of individual parts which are no good to anyone. When you dissect a book on the other hand, just the opposite occurs. Each tiny piece is full of meaning, it leads back to other books, it makes you question your beliefs. I was rereading the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe recently and I thought “Aha! Perhaps the Witch is Milton’s Satan.” I may be wrong of course, but it gave the story new life for me, it added to rather than subtracting from the magic.
I disagree with you completely here: “How does it make you feel? Do you enjoy it? Does it touch something in you? Then it is a great work of art.” Every work of art touches someone, does that make every work good? Judging anything based on feelings is juvenile. I feel sad and nervous this morning, not because anything bad has happened to me, not because anything has changed in my life at all, but because of hormones. Feelings are nice, I’m happy to have them and all, but they are not a standard, they fluctuate. One can use these fluctuations to get the most out of certain kinds of art I think; I could have a nice cathartic cry if I put on Tannhauser, but could I really say that it was Tannhauser that had touched me, surely it had a bit of help from those pesky hormones. Tangents aside though, I’ve already said, I don’t think the greatness of a work of art has anything to do with how I or anyone else feels about it. Sure more people are likely to be touched by great works of art, but the fact that we are touched is not what makes the work great.
Van Gough’s flowers vs. The Scream: I don’t believe for a minute that Van Gough was only painting flowers. His flowers are vibrating with emotion, fear of death I think (the quick fate of all flowers). The one white iris amongst the blue ones, probably it means loneliness. But on top of the sadness was the fact that Van Gough was bowled over by how beautiful the world was and just wanted to share that beauty as he saw it. Compared with this The Scream is the simple painting, it is a painting of anguish, of that one moment when life is too awful to be true and yet one is certain that it is true. I may be wrong about both of these painters, but by trying to analyze the paintings, they come to mean more to me than then they would if I just looked at the pretty colors and said “this one is flowers and flowers make me happy, that one is a dude screaming and screams make me sad”.
You say that Jane Austen’s work is as VALID as other greats. I don’t really know what that means. All art is valid, I paint at home, I know my paintings are not great, but I put my work up anyway, it is infinitely better than bare walls, it is valid, but this does not make it great art. I never said Jane Austen didn’t produce great art, I just don’t admit that it is as great as others. Now you use ‘changing the world’ as a standard for great art, acceptance by the masses, I disagree with you utterly. I suppose I really should have more respect for the masses than I do, but they will go on watching American Idol, I can’t believe that their opinion matters one iota to what is or is not art. The other day I read something which mentioned Tolstoy out loud to my co-worker, ‘but who is Tolstoy?’ he said. This guy is smart, college educated, how does he not know who Tolstoy is? Maybe I am a ‘book snob’ as you call it because I fear that if I am not, great things will be forgotten by the culture. So much is dummed-down and oversimplified these days, isn’t it my duty to stand up for the complex and the difficult? I see people who have not read a single book since leaving school, how could I live with myself if I didn’t try to help them (lol-don’t I sound like a little missionary). In that sense I see what you mean about Jane Austen, better that they should read her than nothing at all and I never hesitate to recommend her when I can.
You say: “a diet of nothing but classics is just as damaging as a diet of pop culture”. I don’t consume only classics, but if I did I can’t see how that would be damaging. There are classics of all genres, all topics, all opinions, I don’t see that a person would lose anything by reading nothing but the best books. Also, we have a limited amount of time to read, every minute I spend on Stephanie Mayer is a minute I don’t spend on Toni Morrison, how much of my time should I waste reading the worse rather than the better, life is short after all. Also, you seem to suggest that something becomes junk only if one overdoes it. I disagree, a potato chip is a potato chip if I eat one or a whole bag, sure I probably won’t hurt myself eating only one, but it will still be a potato chip, it still lacks nutritional value. Same with ‘junk’ literature, one can safely consume the occasional junk book, but it is still junk.
You say I should only feel guilty if my tastes include something which does real damage. What damage could be more real than damage to my mind? Junk books don’t encourage you to think, they make you lazy, they give you a fun emotional rollercoaster which is essentially empty. Sure, a cheap thrill is fun, but it should not be confused with something of real value. So I listen to junk audio books while I’m painting or folding the laundry, but when it’s time to sit down and read and really pay attention I break out the really good stuff.
I disagree with you completely here: “How does it make you feel? Do you enjoy it? Does it touch something in you? Then it is a great work of art.” Every work of art touches someone, does that make every work good? Judging anything based on feelings is juvenile. I feel sad and nervous this morning, not because anything bad has happened to me, not because anything has changed in my life at all, but because of hormones. Feelings are nice, I’m happy to have them and all, but they are not a standard, they fluctuate. One can use these fluctuations to get the most out of certain kinds of art I think; I could have a nice cathartic cry if I put on Tannhauser, but could I really say that it was Tannhauser that had touched me, surely it had a bit of help from those pesky hormones. Tangents aside though, I’ve already said, I don’t think the greatness of a work of art has anything to do with how I or anyone else feels about it. Sure more people are likely to be touched by great works of art, but the fact that we are touched is not what makes the work great.
Van Gough’s flowers vs. The Scream: I don’t believe for a minute that Van Gough was only painting flowers. His flowers are vibrating with emotion, fear of death I think (the quick fate of all flowers). The one white iris amongst the blue ones, probably it means loneliness. But on top of the sadness was the fact that Van Gough was bowled over by how beautiful the world was and just wanted to share that beauty as he saw it. Compared with this The Scream is the simple painting, it is a painting of anguish, of that one moment when life is too awful to be true and yet one is certain that it is true. I may be wrong about both of these painters, but by trying to analyze the paintings, they come to mean more to me than then they would if I just looked at the pretty colors and said “this one is flowers and flowers make me happy, that one is a dude screaming and screams make me sad”.
You say that Jane Austen’s work is as VALID as other greats. I don’t really know what that means. All art is valid, I paint at home, I know my paintings are not great, but I put my work up anyway, it is infinitely better than bare walls, it is valid, but this does not make it great art. I never said Jane Austen didn’t produce great art, I just don’t admit that it is as great as others. Now you use ‘changing the world’ as a standard for great art, acceptance by the masses, I disagree with you utterly. I suppose I really should have more respect for the masses than I do, but they will go on watching American Idol, I can’t believe that their opinion matters one iota to what is or is not art. The other day I read something which mentioned Tolstoy out loud to my co-worker, ‘but who is Tolstoy?’ he said. This guy is smart, college educated, how does he not know who Tolstoy is? Maybe I am a ‘book snob’ as you call it because I fear that if I am not, great things will be forgotten by the culture. So much is dummed-down and oversimplified these days, isn’t it my duty to stand up for the complex and the difficult? I see people who have not read a single book since leaving school, how could I live with myself if I didn’t try to help them (lol-don’t I sound like a little missionary). In that sense I see what you mean about Jane Austen, better that they should read her than nothing at all and I never hesitate to recommend her when I can.
You say: “a diet of nothing but classics is just as damaging as a diet of pop culture”. I don’t consume only classics, but if I did I can’t see how that would be damaging. There are classics of all genres, all topics, all opinions, I don’t see that a person would lose anything by reading nothing but the best books. Also, we have a limited amount of time to read, every minute I spend on Stephanie Mayer is a minute I don’t spend on Toni Morrison, how much of my time should I waste reading the worse rather than the better, life is short after all. Also, you seem to suggest that something becomes junk only if one overdoes it. I disagree, a potato chip is a potato chip if I eat one or a whole bag, sure I probably won’t hurt myself eating only one, but it will still be a potato chip, it still lacks nutritional value. Same with ‘junk’ literature, one can safely consume the occasional junk book, but it is still junk.
You say I should only feel guilty if my tastes include something which does real damage. What damage could be more real than damage to my mind? Junk books don’t encourage you to think, they make you lazy, they give you a fun emotional rollercoaster which is essentially empty. Sure, a cheap thrill is fun, but it should not be confused with something of real value. So I listen to junk audio books while I’m painting or folding the laundry, but when it’s time to sit down and read and really pay attention I break out the really good stuff.
The victor belongs to the spoils.
-
sleepydumpling
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: 14 Jan 2007, 03:25
- Bookshelf Size: 0
I'm sorry, but your last post has just stripped all enjoyment of this discussion.
I just find the whole concept of tearing everything to pieces DULL, DULL, DULL. Not to mention highly pretentious. All I read is vast amounts of snobbery.
Your sneering at people who enjoy life (including art) without needing it to be some kind of profound experience at every tick of the clock is really unpleasant.
I just find the whole concept of tearing everything to pieces DULL, DULL, DULL. Not to mention highly pretentious. All I read is vast amounts of snobbery.
Your sneering at people who enjoy life (including art) without needing it to be some kind of profound experience at every tick of the clock is really unpleasant.
-
thisislissa
- Posts: 45
- Joined: 06 Aug 2008, 18:52
- Bookshelf Size: 0
-
ResonantAleph
- Posts: 56
- Joined: 21 May 2008, 14:04
- Bookshelf Size: 0
Hello. I've been following your discussion and, as much as I hate taking sides , I'm afraid, for a number of reasons, I must side with thisislissa. I truly began taking interest in this argument when sleepydumpling said:
Now, you have to realize that such an adamant standpoint of aesthetic subjectivity, i.e. "if it feels good do it", not only, in the context in which it was written, defeats itself, but is logically untenable. Coupled with:How does it make you feel? Do you enjoy it? Does it touch something in you? Then it is a great work of art.
it borders on the appalling. It seems to me more than a bit hypocritical to set the criterion for fine art as causation of feeling, enjoyment, and depth of emotion, while at the same time tearing down thisislissa's belief in the greater impact, enjoyment, and emotional purity of "tougher reads." From what I can tell, by your logic, this seems like nothing more than an expression of personal taste. As for your criticism of "tearing everything to pieces", I find it very sad if you personal philosophy of "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" has led you to a place in which you don't feel it necessary to examine what is around you. For me, at least, the exploration of why and how I feel the way I do, while not eliciting any giggles or guffaws of excitement, can be a profoundly rewarding experience. Sure, Tolkien was fun and Douglas Adams made me laugh, but Kafka made me think and Russell made me reconsider my place in the world. As for this comment:I just find the whole concept of tearing everything to pieces DULL, DULL, DULL. Not to mention highly pretentious. All I read is vast amounts of snobbery.
In this comment you seem to imply God as the highest standard in quality of expression. Tell me, and I have little doubt I will be misjudging your personal beliefs, do you think if God gave us our faculties he intended for us to use them? If God exists, and he gave us all the ability to examine the world around us, it would be an insult both to him and to ourselves to relegate our minds to a place in which enjoyment and simple emotion are the highest criteria to which we hold the ideas we expose ourselves to. We live in a complicated world, and if I ever find myself in a state of mind in which I'm comfortable not asking"why?" I feel it better never to have lived at all. If this constitutes snobbery, so be it.Nor does it suggest her work is perfect. NO piece of work is perfect. God is the only one who can create perfection.
“Bring something incomprehensible into the world!”
―Gilles Deleuze
―Gilles Deleuze
-
Wordsgood
My such a strong set of convictions for one so young ResonantAleph. You are what? All of 17? I'm sorry, I am not trying to be rude. Truly I'm not. But I've noticed some other posts in the past from you and you always take such a firm...at evens combative, stance on things that it makes me wonder if you were to keep a record of your statements here, what you think of them in say 20 years...after you've had some real life experience.
Again, I'm not trying to be rude and I love the fact that you are so passionate, but please try to remember that at 17 you don't know everything. I've tried to hold my peace since you joined, but sometimes it seems you really look down your nose at those of us who don't agree with you - or pursue your passions. 'Nuff said!
Again, I'm not trying to be rude and I love the fact that you are so passionate, but please try to remember that at 17 you don't know everything. I've tried to hold my peace since you joined, but sometimes it seems you really look down your nose at those of us who don't agree with you - or pursue your passions. 'Nuff said!
-
ResonantAleph
- Posts: 56
- Joined: 21 May 2008, 14:04
- Bookshelf Size: 0
Duly noted, Wordsgood. I know I seem a bit combative, even abrasive at times. In some sense, criticism is just the way I process things. Also, I have no doubt both my tastes and the way I express them will change with age, however, just because my opinion is subject to change doesn't mean I'll hesitate to express my current viewpoint. Nonetheless, thank you for the words and henceforth I'll do my best to be civil.
“Bring something incomprehensible into the world!”
―Gilles Deleuze
―Gilles Deleuze
-
thisislissa
- Posts: 45
- Joined: 06 Aug 2008, 18:52
- Bookshelf Size: 0
I’ve reread your post ResonantAleph and in my opinion you were not uncivil. You were certainly no more combative than Sleepydumpling and Wordsgood have been in this thread. Writing things which will embarrass us later is the inalienable right of people of all ages; please don’t stop on their account.
The victor belongs to the spoils.
-
sleepydumpling
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: 14 Jan 2007, 03:25
- Bookshelf Size: 0
While I don't think anybody was rude, I do agree with Wordsgood in that it is highly evident that in your youth, both of you, you seem to feel that you are the experts on everything.
As someone who devotes every day of my professional life to getting people to read, to raising literacy levels, I have to say that it is attitudes like yours, with your sneering derision of anything that you deem unworthy, which undoes so much good work people like myself do to get everyone else reading.
Is it any wonder that so many hesitant or self-conscious readers just walk away from reading and talking about books when there are people who look down on them for their tastes, who completely miss the point of reading all together.
Of course you were enjoying the conversation thisislissa... in your self righteousness you have yourself convinced that you're better than everyone else because you read what you deem "worthy", and dismiss all that you believe is not up to your "standards" as light or fluffy. You're the one doing the sneering and deriding, it's not unpleasant for you.
And this is the point where I stop wasting time trying to get you to understand and go back to getting people to read what they WANT to read and not to feel shame or guilt for reading to their tastes.
As someone who devotes every day of my professional life to getting people to read, to raising literacy levels, I have to say that it is attitudes like yours, with your sneering derision of anything that you deem unworthy, which undoes so much good work people like myself do to get everyone else reading.
Is it any wonder that so many hesitant or self-conscious readers just walk away from reading and talking about books when there are people who look down on them for their tastes, who completely miss the point of reading all together.
Of course you were enjoying the conversation thisislissa... in your self righteousness you have yourself convinced that you're better than everyone else because you read what you deem "worthy", and dismiss all that you believe is not up to your "standards" as light or fluffy. You're the one doing the sneering and deriding, it's not unpleasant for you.
And this is the point where I stop wasting time trying to get you to understand and go back to getting people to read what they WANT to read and not to feel shame or guilt for reading to their tastes.
-
thisislissa
- Posts: 45
- Joined: 06 Aug 2008, 18:52
- Bookshelf Size: 0
Now that you have shared a little more about your background I can better understand where you are coming from. I admit it never occurred to me that by trying to read better books myself I might be doing damage to people who are afraid to read any books at all. If this is truly the case I will try to be more careful in the future.
I come from a different background though. I work in the sciences with very smart people. I find it sad that these scientists who are so intelligent and capable do not read better books and I sometimes try to nudge them in that direction. These people do not lack self confidence, and they are certainly not going to stop reading on my account. They probably won’t even change what they are reading, but at least I can say I stood up for what I love.
I don’t miss the point of reading. Reading has many points, only one of which is pleasure. Education and spiritual improvement are also important points of reading, and I’m sure there are many more.
Throughout these posts you have been every bit as self righteous as I have. You’ve called me a snob and acted as though I was some fiendish person who wants to rob people of their pleasurable mystery novels. There is room in the world for all kinds of books and if the most difficult book a person can enjoy is a mystery novel, I wish them a lifetime of happy mystery novel reading. However, if a person is capable of enjoying Tolstoy, but they are only reading mystery novels because that’s all they know about I think that’s pretty sad. People should be encouraged not only to read, but to read best books they can.
If I can read and enjoy a difficult book which is beyond other people I don’t think this makes me a better person. I was lucky to be born with a fairly high IQ, to have parents and grandparents who read a lot themselves. In no way do I deserve these advantages, they don’t mean I am a good person. But I can’t pretend I don’t have them and say with a straight face that all books are created equal. Some books are better than others, to deny this devalues all books.
I don’t want you to think that I imagine I am on top of some reading mountain, looking down on everyone else. I have been defeated by plenty of books myself. Despite many attempts I’ve never been able to finish Ulysses and I live in fear of even starting Moby Dick. There are plenty of books out there which I am not capable of appreciating, but that isn’t going to stop me from trying to appreciate as many of the best books as I can.
Let me emphasize one last time so that there is no confusion, I do not believe that because you read better books, you are better person. However I do believe that if you do not read the best books that you are capable of enjoying, you are missing out on some of the best experiences life has to offer.
I come from a different background though. I work in the sciences with very smart people. I find it sad that these scientists who are so intelligent and capable do not read better books and I sometimes try to nudge them in that direction. These people do not lack self confidence, and they are certainly not going to stop reading on my account. They probably won’t even change what they are reading, but at least I can say I stood up for what I love.
I don’t miss the point of reading. Reading has many points, only one of which is pleasure. Education and spiritual improvement are also important points of reading, and I’m sure there are many more.
Throughout these posts you have been every bit as self righteous as I have. You’ve called me a snob and acted as though I was some fiendish person who wants to rob people of their pleasurable mystery novels. There is room in the world for all kinds of books and if the most difficult book a person can enjoy is a mystery novel, I wish them a lifetime of happy mystery novel reading. However, if a person is capable of enjoying Tolstoy, but they are only reading mystery novels because that’s all they know about I think that’s pretty sad. People should be encouraged not only to read, but to read best books they can.
If I can read and enjoy a difficult book which is beyond other people I don’t think this makes me a better person. I was lucky to be born with a fairly high IQ, to have parents and grandparents who read a lot themselves. In no way do I deserve these advantages, they don’t mean I am a good person. But I can’t pretend I don’t have them and say with a straight face that all books are created equal. Some books are better than others, to deny this devalues all books.
I don’t want you to think that I imagine I am on top of some reading mountain, looking down on everyone else. I have been defeated by plenty of books myself. Despite many attempts I’ve never been able to finish Ulysses and I live in fear of even starting Moby Dick. There are plenty of books out there which I am not capable of appreciating, but that isn’t going to stop me from trying to appreciate as many of the best books as I can.
Let me emphasize one last time so that there is no confusion, I do not believe that because you read better books, you are better person. However I do believe that if you do not read the best books that you are capable of enjoying, you are missing out on some of the best experiences life has to offer.
The victor belongs to the spoils.
-
Biblioklept
- Posts: 160
- Joined: 03 Jul 2008, 11:53
- Bookshelf Size: 0
Sometimes I am aghast that folks read the crap they read but then I remember it could be worse - they could be watching television and I relax.
I had the most wonderful thing occur yesterday, let me set the scene:
My older child is now in the second grade and she has been tasked with reading 20 minutes a day. This was first assigned this weekend. So Saturday we were very busy and then were invited to eat dinner at the pool with friends and my child swore that she would add her 20 minutes of reading onto Sunday's 20 minutes. I relented as it's the first day.
So Sunday comes and I set the timer after lunch for 40 minutes. She is settled on the couch with a Magic Treehouse book. I hear nary a peep for 40 minutes and then when the timer goes off I tell her she can be done and she says "I know...but I just want to finish this chapter". I was so proud =D
I had the most wonderful thing occur yesterday, let me set the scene:
My older child is now in the second grade and she has been tasked with reading 20 minutes a day. This was first assigned this weekend. So Saturday we were very busy and then were invited to eat dinner at the pool with friends and my child swore that she would add her 20 minutes of reading onto Sunday's 20 minutes. I relented as it's the first day.
So Sunday comes and I set the timer after lunch for 40 minutes. She is settled on the couch with a Magic Treehouse book. I hear nary a peep for 40 minutes and then when the timer goes off I tell her she can be done and she says "I know...but I just want to finish this chapter". I was so proud =D
Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.
P. J. O'Rourke
P. J. O'Rourke
-
blue_doona32
- Posts: 111
- Joined: 07 Jun 2008, 22:44
- Bookshelf Size: 0
If you believe this to be true, please, explain to me your definition of better books. If I'm not mistaken [and I am mistaken a lot, mind you], there is no such thing as a "better book". True, different books are written on different levels of knowlege and skill, but when you get down to it, books are just tools. Tools of entertainment, enlightenment, terror, you name it, and just like tools, different books are used for different purposes so there is not a "better book", just something that fits our needs or preferences at the time. But, again, I could be wrong.People should be encouraged not only to read, but to read best books they can.
This statement, though may be true to some extent, is all a matter of opinion. I could say that Twilight was just as, if not more, masterfully written as Pride and Prejudice, but it would be my opinion. Not yours, and probably not very many who have read both books.But I can’t pretend I don’t have them and say with a straight face that all books are created equal. Some books are better than others, to deny this devalues all books.
It seems that your opinions are strongly upheld by the material you read. No doubt you could argue until the end of time about something you are passionate about [as could I, and you know what? I see that as more a virtue than a fault], but could you be more specific as to your definition of a "better book"? As I have stated before, I don't believe categorizing books under a "good, better, best" system is possible because its all a matter of opinion and nothing as controversial as a book could be graded and all opinion be replaced for fact. The fact of the matter is that you believe that certain books reign over others, literarily speaking, but maybe some of the books you hold in high reguard are low on my list, and vice versa, but in the end, we're just different people with different tastes and there are different authors that appeal to our tastes, whatever level they may be on.However I do believe that if you do not read the best books that you are capable of enjoying, you are missing out on some of the best experiences life has to offer.
I still read picture books... i look at them and think of the time when I first read them. That, to me, holds more purpose than a 500 page book on philosophy that just tells me that I'm probably going about living wrong. Again, its all a personal opinion, but that's the best part about it because, technically, no one's wrong.
the difference between the right word and the almost right is really a large matter. It is the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning ~Mark Twain
-
Wordsgood
Thank you ResonatAleph, that's all I ask of you. By all means express your views, and do so with passion. I'm happy to hear that you realize your views will change and grow as you get older, but understand that I don't believe your current ones are any less valid now. I may not agree with them, but that doesn't mean they are not valid!
It was just the way you were expressing them that gets on peoples nerves. So thank for your response and your efforts to be try for more diplomatic wording. I promise you that as you get better at expressing precisely what you want to get across, but in a diplomatic, non-abrasive manner - you will get along better not just in this forum, but in life in general. Cheers!
It was just the way you were expressing them that gets on peoples nerves. So thank for your response and your efforts to be try for more diplomatic wording. I promise you that as you get better at expressing precisely what you want to get across, but in a diplomatic, non-abrasive manner - you will get along better not just in this forum, but in life in general. Cheers!
ResonantAleph wrote:Duly noted, Wordsgood. I know I seem a bit combative, even abrasive at times. In some sense, criticism is just the way I process things. Also, I have no doubt both my tastes and the way I express them will change with age, however, just because my opinion is subject to change doesn't mean I'll hesitate to express my current viewpoint. Nonetheless, thank you for the words and henceforth I'll do my best to be civil.
-
shantyknight
- Posts: 18
- Joined: 07 Apr 2015, 23:22
- Currently Reading: The Last American Vampire
- Bookshelf Size: 2
Geez, I am so embarrassed. Jane Austin is a distant Ancestor and I have never read anything of hers. I'm stuck on vampires right now. Did she do any books on vampires?
-
Fran
- Posts: 28072
- Joined: 10 Aug 2009, 12:46
- Favorite Book: Anna Karenina
- Currently Reading: Hide and Seek
- Bookshelf Size: 1207
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-fran.html
- Reading Device: B00I15SB16
shantyknight wrote:Geez, I am so embarrassed. Jane Austin is a distant Ancestor and I have never read anything of hers. I'm stuck on vampires right now. Did she do any books on vampires?
We fade away, but vivid in our eyes
A world is born again that never dies.
- My Home by Clive James
A world is born again that never dies.
- My Home by Clive James
