Books

[darthchicken]

I am America and So Can You By Stephen Colbert.

Also I started the Death Note series of manga.

[Killer Bees]

I am America and So Can You By Stephen Colbert.

Also I started the Death Note series of manga.

Saw Colbert's book on Amazon.  Is it as funny as the reviews say?  I hadn't heard of Colbert until that time.

[Yaddo 42]

I've read about two-thirds of Finnegan's Wake, I slowly plowed through reading at least three pages a day, the plan was to finish it within a year. I stopped due to personal stuff that left me unable to read for enjoyment at the time. I took it for the mishmash of themes and ideas that I take it for, I could detect the vague "plot" the introduction described, but I've heard other takes on it, some serious some not. There was an essay in the New York Times Book Review several years ago that claimed the whole thing was about fishing. I personally think it can be taken for whatever the reader want to get fromit or project onto it. Maybe this was Joyce's intention, maybe not, I'm not enough of a student of his work to know. I've read Dubliners, which I liked, and I have a copy of Ulysses I intend to take on one day as well. I may go back to finish FW one day soon, I'm tempted anyway, if only to say that I've done it.

Not reading much of anything lately, rare for me, a Discworld book as my hold out book at work, and Graham Greene's Twenty-One Stories as my bathroom book, I like his novels better.

[frank]

Hey Derf,

the problem I have is less thinking that Joyce gets more praise than he deserves, but rather that I don't really get a grip on his work. His bio is quite fascinating and I tend to find his views on humanity, let's say, interesting. Also, the gradient in the style of his writing from first to last novel seems to be impressive. The main reason for my post was my frustration to be none the wiser after listening to a humanist talk for 90 minutes....

......  He wrote for an audience that was willing to take the time to stroll liesurely through a novel, considering carefully what was happening and pondering the themes being presented. Today, we want a faster pace, more action and less thought (not in every case, but overall)....

Interesting thought, I always wondered about that. In general terms, I don't think people had more time to spent reading back then. The editions usually ran at surprisingly low numbers (for Ulysses it was something like 3000, if I remember correctly). Earlier the prints of Shakespeare's plays ran considerably lower (just finished Bryson's Shakespeare bio - nice). In fact I wonder if books back then were considered something like an investment for the upper class, because they were so pricey. However, a elaborated circle of financially well equipped persons certainly did read a lot, and often excerpts or cheap transcriptions were available, sometimes before the formal release... But were there proportionally more readers that strolled liesurely through a novel? And were there proportionally less people roaming through early pulp fiction?

Well, I guess I agree that reading might have been more intensive (but also more exclusive?) back then, but I'm not sure about the reasons.
To think that today's upper class could also come together to discuss books instead to go party-hopping....

[Derf]

Interesting thought, I always wondered about that. In general terms, I don't think people had more time to spent reading back then. The editions usually ran at surprisingly low numbers (for Ulysses it was something like 3000, if I remember correctly). Earlier the prints of Shakespeare's plays ran considerably lower (just finished Bryson's Shakespeare bio - nice). In fact I wonder if books back then were considered something like an investment for the upper class, because they were so pricey. However, a elaborated circle of financially well equipped persons certainly did read a lot, and often excerpts or cheap transcriptions were available, sometimes before the formal release... But were there proportionally more readers that strolled liesurely through a novel? And were there proportionally less people roaming through early pulp fiction?

Well, I guess I agree that reading might have been more intensive (but also more exclusive?) back then, but I'm not sure about the reasons.
To think that today's upper class could also come together to discuss books instead to go party-hopping....

Authors like Joyce seldom wrote for the general populace; rather, they wrote for the "intellectual elite," and yes, those people who considered themselves in that category did view art and literature (excuse me -- Art and Literature) as something to sit and ponder (and yes, they were either the rich, who had the leisure time, or the poor scholars, who were probably better equipped to understand the works). As literacy rates increased, most readers still did not read Joyce or Milton or Melville; they wanted potboilers, and only a few authors (like, for instance Dickens, who utilized a new marketing strategy for novels: serialization) were able to be both popular and critically acclaimed (and it's the critics who decide which authors join the Literary canon. Today, for example, far more people read Stephen King than read, say Joyce Carol Oates or Flannery O'Connor, but most would agree that King's writing is not on a par with the other authors mentioned. This is not a slight on King; he writes potboilers that titllate his audience, and he does this quite well. Oates and O'Connor wrote more to explore themes and to provoke thought. What we don't take into account is that authors like King have been popular among the literate masses ever since publishing became financially feasible. We don't see their work, however, because it doesn't stand the test of time. Shakespeare is still around because he managed to both titillate the masses with coarse humor and explore human themes and provoke thought in the intellectuals. Few writers can do that.

I have been reading (for several years now, off and on) one of the early vampire novels, Varney the Vampire, first published in book form in 1847. It's pretty dreadful; the writing is bad and the plot is a mess because it was written as a serial and published in pamphlet form. The author (and who that is is disputable) apparently wanted more money, so he kept adding to the story. It ended up being incredibly long with very little substance. It's got some interesting ideas, and some interesting vampire tidbits that influenced later writers, but there is a good reason it is not popular still today while Bram Stoker's Dracula is. Authors like the one who wrote Varney were popular, but their work is weeded out over time, and we are left with Stoker instead, who put more care and artistry into his work.

One last note before I wrap up this too-long post: We live in an entertainment culture, where we can watch a movie and be entertained for a couple of hours or read any of a million books that are easily accessible. Before moving pictures, books filled the role movies do today; they were considered exciting and worth spending time on. No, the poor people who worked 12-18 hours a day didn't have time to read. Among those who did have the time, there were those who considered themselves "above" the masses: the intellectual elite. They would be analagous to the art film crowd today: They like the "deeper" works that most don't understand, and they are willing to discuss and ponder the themes presented. Joyce was an "art film" kind of writer. In this forum, we discuss the dregs of moviedom, and we take great pleasure in watching films we know are horrible. We also watch and discuss movies that go beyond the norm and actually provoke thought and show superb craftsmanship, and we know that it is these sublime movies that will stand the test of time and be looked on in years to come as the representatives of what cinema is capable of achieving. But the site is called "Badmovies.org" because the dregs are simply more titillating. This model also applies to books. Always has, always will.

[frank]

Thanks Derf for the detailed information. I guess that could be printed like it is.

However, still curious about one thing...

...  What we don't take into account is that authors like King have been popular among the literate masses ever since publishing became financially feasible. We don't see their work, however, because it doesn't stand the test of time. ...

I wonder about the actual numbers, to see if everything has gone as bad as it is often said. No doubt people read tons of junk nowadays, including myself. But as you said, people did so before. So I'd be interested, if the proportion of people reading rather shallow stories than intellectually challenging ones has really changed. Or, more precisely, the proportion of pulp-readers among the people that read anyway (to account for decreasing illiteracy rates). If the proportion decreased, that would be an awfully sad development, given the increased availability of literature and the improved possibilities to communicate it. I would think that the mentioned former intellectual elite vanished, but was probably replaced by interested others, and probably more than replaced by students, scholars, etc. However, I agree that books have lost the "new" flavour and reading generally is not such an exciting and escaping pastime anymore. OK, I'll stop before I get melancholic...

Thanks again, extremely nice post...

[Derf]

Thanks Derf for the detailed information. I guess that could be printed like it is.

However, still curious about one thing...
I wonder about the actual numbers, to see if everything has gone as bad as it is often said. No doubt people read tons of junk nowadays, including myself. But as you said, people did so before. So I'd be interested, if the proportion of people reading rather shallow stories than intellectually challenging ones has really changed. Or, more precisely, the proportion of pulp-readers among the people that read anyway (to account for decreasing illiteracy rates). If the proportion decreased, that would be an awfully sad development, given the increased availability of literature and the improved possibilities to communicate it. I would think that the mentioned former intellectual elite vanished, but was probably replaced by interested others, and probably more than replaced by students, scholars, etc. However, I agree that books have lost the "new" flavour and reading generally is not such an exciting and escaping pastime anymore. OK, I'll stop before I get melancholic...

Thanks again, extremely nice post...

You are quite welcome. Karma to you for recognizing my greatness    .

Here's an interesting Wikipedia article on Victorian-era popular stories published as Penny Dreadfuls: cheap, sordid stories read by the masses. It taught me a few things about early pulp fiction, and it has some links concerning other mass-market publications such as dime novels and pulp magazines. It won't answer your question (and neither can I), but it might shed some further light on popular versus Literary fiction.

[darthchicken]

Saw Colbert's book on Amazon.  Is it as funny as the reviews say?  I hadn't heard of Colbert until that time.

Yeah, it's hilarious. One of my favorite books I've ever read. If you manage to get a copy, it's amazing.

[BTM]

I might have mentioned this before, but I'll do it again..

I HIGHLY recommend all the Harry Dresden books by Jim Butcher (series starts with Storm Front).

I also recommend the Repairman Jack novels by F Paul Wilson.  Jack is a pretty kickass hero I think a lot of us would related (especially with his love of B movies.)  :)

[Rev. Powell]

Thanks Derf for the detailed information. I guess that could be printed like it is.

However, still curious about one thing...

...  What we don't take into account is that authors like King have been popular among the literate masses ever since publishing became financially feasible. We don't see their work, however, because it doesn't stand the test of time. ...

I wonder about the actual numbers, to see if everything has gone as bad as it is often said. No doubt people read tons of junk nowadays, including myself. But as you said, people did so before. So I'd be interested, if the proportion of people reading rather shallow stories than intellectually challenging ones has really changed. Or, more precisely, the proportion of pulp-readers among the people that read anyway (to account for decreasing illiteracy rates). If the proportion decreased, that would be an awfully sad development, given the increased availability of literature and the improved possibilities to communicate it. I would think that the mentioned former intellectual elite vanished, but was probably replaced by interested others, and probably more than replaced by students, scholars, etc. However, I agree that books have lost the "new" flavour and reading generally is not such an exciting and escaping pastime anymore. OK, I'll stop before I get melancholic...

Thanks again, extremely nice post...

I'm not Derf, but...  I think his analogy about the proportion of people how like art movies now to the proportion of people who liked Ulysses 100 years ago is likely correct.  Obviously it would be impractical and subjective to try to decide what art is "serious" and what art is "shallow" to try to make comparisons, but I start with the premise that human nature doesn't change much through the ages.

The one thing that may have changed the proportion of people who are interested in "high" art, however, is the change in our notion of education.  (I can only speak about American higher education here, although I believe our American ways are likely infecting other countries).

It used to be that a liberal education was the ideal; everyone who be exposed to art and literature, as well as math and science.  Now the dominant focus in education is towards specialization.  People on math and science tracks are exposed to as little art and literature as possible, and vice versa.  The idea that it's necessary to have a well-rounded education consisting of a basic facility in both right- and left-brained disciplines seems to have gone by the wayside.  Therefore lots of smart "left-brained" folks just never got enough exposure to the literary canons to even start developing a serious interest in them.  They're almost programmed to think of art as frivolous.  On the flip side I've noticed an almost shocking lack of basic understanding of science in many of my friends who come from a liberal arts background. 

My apologies for I going off on a tangent.  Carry on.

Oh, I'm also reading AMERICA (THE BOOK) by "the Daily Show."  Funny stuff.   

[Killer Bees]

At the moment, I've put down all the books I mentioned in my last post and am trying to take a more organised approach to reading. The best way to do that, is to start a whole new book   

Right now I'm 100 pages into the 598 paged James Herbert tome "The Secret of Crickley Hall".  I've read a few of Herbert's books (Fluke, The Rats) and I remember enjoying them immensely.  I've probably read others of his, but they were a long time ago and I really don't remember.

However, I have a few nitpicky points about Crickley Hall I'd like to share.  I don't remember Herbert's overall style, so I'm not sure if he's different now than before.  But I think his editor should have taken a sharper axe to this tale.

The story itself is classic horror:  a family loses a child and moves away from their London home to spooky old Hollow Bay in the Devon countryside, ostensibly for the dad's job.  It's only a temporary reassignment, but the family hope to put behind them the harrowing previous 12 months.  They move into Crickley Hall which has secrets and spooky things.   Classic.

What I have a beef with is the style.  Mr Herbert REALLY loves his parentheses.  He uses them with impugnity where a simple full stop would have sufficed.  So there are numerous paragraphs with no less that three lots of parentheses over-explaining things and adding unnecessary trivial info.  If you read those paragraphs out loud, you'd have to take in a huge deep breath and you'd probably be red in the face before you finished it.  I ended up mentally putting in full stops myself thus resisting the need to gasp for air.

After a few chapters, that problem petered out a little, but as I said, I'm only part way through the story.  So, I'll write a better review when I'm actually done.  I'm enjoying the basic story so far though.

Another nitpick:  The father, Gabe is American while the daughters Cally and Loren and the mother Eve are British.  I don't know if Herbert has actually met any real life Americans, or if he's just seen them as cliched tv characters.  Because Gabe has a funny turn of phrase and sounds like an Englishman pretending to be what he thinks is an American.

Gabe's Americanisms (words like gonna, buddy, sport etc) are overused and pepper his speech to the point where I'm saying, "for corn's sake, mate, just speak English!"   Whereas the west country sounding British charaters are written in normal English.

Aside from that, this book is interesting and I can't wait to find out what secret is contained at Crickley Hall.

[RapscallionJones]

Saw Colbert's book on Amazon.  Is it as funny as the reviews say?  I hadn't heard of Colbert until that time.

Wow!  Seriously?  Over the last couple of years the man has become a massive cultural force.  I'm a devoted, loyal member of Colbert Nation.  He was always my favorite Daily Show correspondent but he has totally come into his own on The Colbert Report.  He's always "on" as far as the punditoid character he plays on TV and he's constantly pulling elaborate publicity stunts.  Aside from announcing a run presidency in the state of South Carolina (which crashed and burned) he also spoke at the 2006 White House Press Corrspondent's Dinner, which is one of the funniest bits of stand-up comedy I have ever seen. The guy is a f**king genius, I tell you.

The book is just more of that character, uninterrupted by ads for South Park and Larry The Cable Guy stand-up specials.  I think, however, out of context, it might be lost on people unfamiliar with the Colbert character.  Or for all I know, it might act as the perfect primer. 

Yes, it's that funny, though. 

[Killer Bees]

Saw Colbert's book on Amazon.  Is it as funny as the reviews say?  I hadn't heard of Colbert until that time.

Wow!  Seriously?  Over the last couple of years the man has become a massive cultural force.  I'm a devoted, loyal member of Colbert Nation.  He was always my favorite Daily Show correspondent but he has totally come into his own on The Colbert Report.  He's always "on" as far as the punditoid character he plays on TV and he's constantly pulling elaborate publicity stunts.  Aside from announcing a run presidency in the state of South Carolina (which crashed and burned) he also spoke at the 2006 White House Press Corrspondent's Dinner, which is one of the funniest bits of stand-up comedy I have ever seen. The guy is a f**king genius, I tell you.

The book is just more of that character, uninterrupted by ads for South Park and Larry The Cable Guy stand-up specials.  I think, however, out of context, it might be lost on people unfamiliar with the Colbert character.  Or for all I know, it might act as the perfect primer. 

Yes, it's that funny, though. 

We get a lot of American stuff over here, tv, fashions, fads, etc.  But the Daily Show is on cable as far as I know and I don't have cable tv.  It's still not a staple and if you have cable tv, the attitude is like, "wow, you must be rich"   

Also as much American stuff as we get, we don't get everything, SNL being a case in point.       So it's not surprising I haven't heard of it.  I'm sure if I took a quick poll around the 350 or so office peons here most people would be in my camp.

I read a review on Amazon and it sounded good, so I thought I'd buy the book for myself. The one and only Borders book store in my town should have it.

[Torgo]

I got Clive Barker's "Books of Blood 1-3" trade paperback for a Christmas gift.

I've been re-reading those. Haven't read them in over 10 years.

I've also been reading "The Complete Stories and Poems of Edgar Allen Poe" that I also got for Christmas.

[RapscallionJones]

Saw Colbert's book on Amazon.  Is it as funny as the reviews say?  I hadn't heard of Colbert until that time.

Wow!  Seriously?  Over the last couple of years the man has become a massive cultural force.  I'm a devoted, loyal member of Colbert Nation.  He was always my favorite Daily Show correspondent but he has totally come into his own on The Colbert Report.  He's always "on" as far as the punditoid character he plays on TV and he's constantly pulling elaborate publicity stunts.  Aside from announcing a run presidency in the state of South Carolina (which crashed and burned) he also spoke at the 2006 White House Press Corrspondent's Dinner, which is one of the funniest bits of stand-up comedy I have ever seen. The guy is a f**king genius, I tell you.

The book is just more of that character, uninterrupted by ads for South Park and Larry The Cable Guy stand-up specials.  I think, however, out of context, it might be lost on people unfamiliar with the Colbert character.  Or for all I know, it might act as the perfect primer. 

Yes, it's that funny, though. 

We get a lot of American stuff over here, tv, fashions, fads, etc.  But the Daily Show is on cable as far as I know and I don't have cable tv.  It's still not a staple and if you have cable tv, the attitude is like, "wow, you must be rich"   

Also as much American stuff as we get, we don't get everything, SNL being a case in point.       So it's not surprising I haven't heard of it.  I'm sure if I took a quick poll around the 350 or so office peons here most people would be in my camp.

I read a review on Amazon and it sounded good, so I thought I'd buy the book for myself. The one and only Borders book store in my town should have it.

Heh.  I suppose that it's extremely naive of me to assume that everyone here is from America.  How quickly I forget these things.