Books That Made You Want to...

[QUOTE=Chixulub]Not only did [I]Lullaby [/I] inspire Atomos to write again, Atomos inspired this thead away from the digressions of people like me. That's powerful literature...
§¦;•)>[/QUOTE]

haha...funny shit.

[QUOTE=JustinHolt]what was the main thing about Lullaby that made you want to pick up you pen again?[/QUOTE]
im not sure entirely. it was written so not like anything i had read in my life up til then and it litterally didnt get put down unless i was mixing a drink. i'd never read something i was so sucked into.. or something that made me think.. but not like think about what im reading (if that makes sense)

[QUOTE=Atomos]im not sure entirely. it was written so not like anything i had read in my life up til then and it litterally didnt get put down unless i was mixing a drink. i'd never read something i was so sucked into.. or something that made me think.. but not like think about what im reading (if that makes sense)[/QUOTE]

I think I know what you mean. Out of all of Chuck's books, everytime I read [I]Choke[/I] I get that way, even after having read it so many times. It's probably my favorite book and I remember sitting in the study hall in my dorm, reading the advance copy of it and not being able to put it down. In fact, I kept reading the first sentence over and over and over again. I thought it was the most brilliant beginning ever. Then by the time it hit the newstands some four or so months later I read it again all that first night.

Whenever I get in a writing drought, where my mind starts to wander to other things other than writing, I'll open up Choke and read parts of it and right away I'm back to writing. I remember Chuck saying that he did the same sort of thing with one of Denis Johnson's (Jesus' Son I remember right) books, that he had read it some two hundred plus times. I'm not quite there with Choke yet, but who knows.

[QUOTE=JustinHolt]I think I know what you mean. Out of all of Chuck's books, everytime I read [I]Choke[/I] I get that way, even after having read it so many times. It's probably my favorite book and I remember sitting in the study hall in my dorm, reading the advance copy of it and not being able to put it down. In fact, I kept reading the first sentence over and over and over again. I thought it was the most brilliant beginning ever. Then by the time it hit the newstands some four or so months later I read it again all that first night.

Whenever I get in a writing drought, where my mind starts to wander to other things other than writing, I'll open up Choke and read parts of it and right away I'm back to writing. I remember Chuck saying that he did the same sort of thing with one of Denis Johnson's (Jesus' Son I remember right) books, that he had read it some two hundred plus times. I'm not quite there with Choke yet, but who knows.[/QUOTE]
ive since bought a copy of lullaby and passed it off to my cousin so he could see what i love so much about chuck, about minimalism, about writing even. because i couoldnt think of anything better to show him.

like i get burned out discribing things (and i know u have to sometimes to get your point across or get your wheels spinning. but until i found lullaby last year all of my writing knowledge was "traditional: i wrote third person, i descrived everything, i used the "head" method almost exclusively, because all of this is how i was broughy up to think of as "quality writing"

i just loaned out fight club to a guy in my class who thought my writing was sloppy, and i asked him the other day giw ge liked it and he was like "well, i see where you learn from" which i took as a compliment. but anyway my point is, im not the only one who was ruined by "propper" writing. by people who's primary concerns are propper sentence structure. and thats why ive given up most reading. cuz i cant deal with all the page long paragraphs of usesless facts and discriptions and academic correctness..

thats not how i think. and i dont think reading should be a forced ride, like going through a haunted house at the fair, where all you get out of it is what some suit in wherever with a medical degree he's wasting put into it

[QUOTE=Chixulub]
The analogy I make with Stephen King, Anne Rice, John Grisham, Robert Ludlum, and other genre writers I read in my teens & twenties is with Wynton Marsalis. When he hit the scene with his quintet and albums like 'Black Codes,' I was hooked. He soon proved to be an egotistical and pedantic ass who wants more to be a curator than an artist. But if I hadn't heard his shit, I wouldn't have found Art Blakey, Sonny Rollins, pre-'Bitches Brew' Miles and a hundred other artists. Wynton was my gateway drug for hard bop.
[/QUOTE]

Ok way off topic and from a while ago but whatever. I never wanted to play jazz until I hear Wynton, he made me want to play jazz, I'm not sure what it was, but I went yeah I want to do THAT. Until that point I had been a strictly classical person. Now it never got me very far and I haven't kept it up cause quite frankly I'm a terrible piano player and I still can't figure out improv but he brought me into the jazz world. Oh and I always had it out for the sax until I had the chance to hear Branford Marsalis live, then I was like ya know the sax isn't so bad, I kinda like it.

Oh and as for having something leading to careers I would have to say that I fell in love with buildings when I was a kid, the first time I went to the top of the sears tower and looked out I remember thinking "I want to make something like this" now it wasn't until college that I translated that into structural engineering. I still look at the skyscrapers every time go into the city (which is pretty much everyday) I have never stopped looking at the buildings and just thinking, man I want to be a part of that.

And going back on topic now...
the only person that has ever made me want to write (I'm not to good with words so any writing from me is shocking) was Arthur C. Clarke I fell in love with his work after reading 2001, but it wasn't until I read the Rama series by him that I was inspired to write a sci-fi short, that is the only thing I have ever written that wasn't for a school assignment. So yeah that was a big influence for me.

[QUOTE=Atomos]ive since bought a copy of lullaby and passed it off to my cousin so he could see what i love so much about chuck, about minimalism, about writing even. because i couoldnt think of anything better to show him.

like i get burned out discribing things (and i know u have to sometimes to get your point across or get your wheels spinning. but until i found lullaby last year all of my writing knowledge was "traditional: i wrote third person, i descrived everything, i used the "head" method almost exclusively, because all of this is how i was broughy up to think of as "quality writing"

i just loaned out fight club to a guy in my class who thought my writing was sloppy, and i asked him the other day giw ge liked it and he was like "well, i see where you learn from" which i took as a compliment. but anyway my point is, im not the only one who was ruined by "propper" writing. by people who's primary concerns are propper sentence structure. and thats why ive given up most reading. cuz i cant deal with all the page long paragraphs of usesless facts and discriptions and academic correctness..

thats not how i think. and i dont think reading should be a forced ride, like going through a haunted house at the fair, where all you get out of it is what some suit in wherever with a medical degree he's wasting put into it[/QUOTE]

I definetely see what you are saying here. Going through high school and college, most of the stuff I had to read for classes, I hated. The long descriptions. The forced use of symbolism to represent "the bigger picture", the way that stories would just go on and on and...

Well, as much as I say that, I also had to realize that if I was ever going to be a better writer, I had to learn all of the rules, before I knew how to break them. I forced myself through the Faulkners, and the Hawthornes, and the Melvilles, because, like it or not, they have been classics for this long, they are always going to be seen that way, and there just is no way around it.

I think a teacher's job, and it was done well where I went to school, is to take the best of both worlds and share them with you. Especially as a writer, you have to know how to write as an academic, even if that's not your style, because if you ever want to be taken seriously as a writer, you have to present yourself that way. For instance, look at Chuck. His writer is definetely not "traditional" in terms of what most have us have been taught. But he is still elegant, well spoken, and can write "properly" when need be.

I think by you saying, "cuz i cant deal with all the page long paragraphs of usesless facts and discriptions and academic correctness." that could be very dangerous if you ever want your writing to be taken seriously, or for people to someday "buy" it, in more ways than one.

But again, I see what you are saying...

[QUOTE=JustinHolt]I definetely see what you are saying here. Going through high school and college, most of the stuff I had to read for classes, I hated. The long descriptions. The forced use of symbolism to represent "the bigger picture", the way that stories would just go on and on and...

Well, as much as I say that, I also had to realize that if I was ever going to be a better writer, I had to learn all of the rules, before I knew how to break them. I forced myself through the Faulkners, and the Hawthornes, and the Melvilles, because, like it or not, they have been classics for this long, they are always going to be seen that way, and there just is no way around it.

I think a teacher's job, and it was done well where I went to school, is to take the best of both worlds and share them with you. Especially as a writer, you have to know how to write as an academic, even if that's not your style, because if you ever want to be taken seriously as a writer, you have to present yourself that way. For instance, look at Chuck. His writer is definetely not "traditional" in terms of what most have us have been taught. But he is still elegant, well spoken, and can write "properly" when need be.

I think by you saying, "cuz i cant deal with all the page long paragraphs of usesless facts and discriptions and academic correctness." that could be very dangerous if you ever want your writing to be taken seriously, or for people to someday "buy" it, in more ways than one.

But again, I see what you are saying...[/QUOTE]
i see what you're getting at.

my biggest example of this is micheal chriton (sp?) i like him he's a good writer; but at the same time he's overboard. he goes on for pages about how this process works or that process works, or how this place looks or that place looks. ya see what i mean? back when i read "the lost world" i would seriously skim if not just skip the places where one paragraph went on for a page or more. and really i didnt miss a thing, which tells me all the detail in here was just to pad the page count, and show off his wasted degrees.

i used to write kind of like this. and its hard to keep up the same kind of intense attention to things for even a few pages for me. and it kind of is for him as well (see: timeline) ya know i imagine if this guy re-wrote survivor all the drugs tender is taking would have in-depth-medical-descriptions

i hope this makes more sense than just saying i hate writing like that.

[QUOTE=Atomos]i see what you're getting at.

my biggest example of this is micheal chriton (sp?) i like him he's a good writer; but at the same time he's overboard. he goes on for pages about how this process works or that process works, or how this place looks or that place looks. [/QUOTE]

Chrichton is a prime example, to me, of commercial success overwhelming editorial restraint. From what I recall, 'The Andromeda Strain,' was a good book, but 'Prey,' had all the problems you're complaining about. The difference between the two is one was written before things like Jurassic Park had been made into blockbuster movies. Publishers know his name will move a lot of units, so if he doesn't want to back down from an editor, who's side is the publishing house going to be on?

[QUOTE=Atomos]
i used to write kind of like this. and its hard to keep up the same kind of intense attention to things for even a few pages for me. and it kind of is for him as well (see: timeline) ya know i imagine if this guy re-wrote survivor all the drugs tender is taking would have in-depth-medical-descriptions
[/QUOTE]

The details can be fun, but they aren't always, and especially with SF, the typical audience seems to expect the laborious explanations. For me, the worst was Moby Dick, with the lengthy whaling manuals that served as chapters. I was 14 when I read it, though, and maybe it'd be more tolerable now (I'm 35).

To me, a writer like Hardy, Dickens, Wolfe (to include a contemporary example) distinguish themselves by including details that matter, that help to carry the thematic content of the book. Also, those details often serve to reinforce differences between seemingly similarly situated characters; also commonality between characters who would seem to be in utterly different situations. In the case of Wolfe, for instance, the huge differences between Conrad Hensley and the other warehouse workers, the similarity between the financial straits he's in and Charlie Croker (the tycoon), not to mention the differences between Fareek Fanon and Roger 'too-white,' and so on. If it's done right, it can be a lot of fun.

That said, some of my favorite books include 'The Magic Christian,' 'The Crying of Lot 49,' 'The Pearl,' and so on. Not exactly epics...

[QUOTE=Chixulub]I don't see that Penny Dreadfuls and Dime Westerns hurt Thomas Hardy or Willa Cather.[/quote]

Sure.
I never stated that the Harry Potters and Stephen Kings do damage to the sales of, well, grown-up books, but I don’t sincerely believe that those that graduate to, say, _Wessex Tales_ from the above mentioned writers, will be enough to keep it in print.
And my examples of out-of-print writers that King _has_ outright praised I think *clearly* proves this.
Again, I don’t see this mass reading of mediocrity as necessarily bad, I just do _not_ use phrases like, “well, at least they’re reading”.

[QUOTE=Chixulub]I don't think genre-fiction necessarily translates as a lowered quality of literature. I'd offer as exhibits Jules Verne, Kurt Vonnegut, Ray Bradbury, Tolkein, Mary Shelley, Philip Dick, George Orwell, etc. I think an insistence on 'realism' can be as narrow-minded as an insistence on magical elements, futuristic speculations and so on.[/quote]

I agree with you. But I wasn’t ‘talking’ from my point of view. We were crystal balling the potential of Chuck’s ‘legacy’ in the future by the masses.

Genre has pretty much always been a hampering weight there. I’m not a fan, but I believe Isaac Asimov has written a book on damn near every subject, fiction and non-fiction. But find more than a few that don’t add the moniker “science fiction writer” to his name.
Donald Westlake has written romance, SF, comedy and others, but gets pegged as a ‘crime writer’.

With the exception of Edgar Allan Poe, who basically started a genre, being pigeonholed is really a negative.
Although I would still question some in your choice of writers listed…

My point was only so much that I think Chuck’s 3 book submergence into ‘horror’ (not counting non-fiction work) is a really, really, (really, really) stupid move.

Literature should function as entertainment, but just being entertaining isn’t enough to satisfy the requirements of literature.

[QUOTE=Chixulub]The surest way not to disappoint critical readers is to only write one, great book. Harper Lee, John Kennedy Toole, etc.[/quote]

Well, it’s probably already being established as Cult Lore that I adamantly disagree with you about Toole…but I’d rather see someone try to grow and evolve (not shrink and devolve, however) than the one hit wonders.

[QUOTE=Chixulub]And of course very few artists in any medium successfully reinvent themselves over and over the way Picaso, for instance, did. For that matter, when they try to, they risk alienating any audience they've established.[/quote]

More power to them. Far more encouraging and sane than walking into the crowd and letting them lead you somewhere, or leading them by hand-holding.

[QUOTE=Chixulub]It seems to me that you have an unusually strong aversion to being categorized based on an occupation or hobby.[/quote]

Yes, when the verb becomes a noun…then it gets pretty silly.
I (occasionally) write, but I am not a writer.
I can get around some music, but I am not a musican. Etc

When someone comes in my room and may see a ‘doodle’ (which means I had to use the telephone –gawdawful invention-) and says, “oh, I didn’t know you were an artist!”…this is worse than nails on the blackboard. Just because I can configure some lines on paper that some may think has progressed past a 3-year old’s I am all of a sudden deemed in the same category as a Michelangelo.
No. Sorry. Cue Frank Zappa (in exaggerated voice), “annnnd now, the ice-pick in the forehead!”

Where does the line stop? When your (and I’m not strictly asking you, Rod) wife introduces (ala my Serpico reference) as a “writer”, the reflex response probably is, “oh! What have you written?” and the answer is *not* _The da Vinci Code_ or something that is recognizable. Or better yet, something that doesn’t exist, why not just call yourself…a superhero? Or an astronaut?
Or more apt: an actor?

Most of this borders quite closely to being the equivalent to being introduced to “an athlete” and when you ask whom they play for they have to answer with…”well, I did 20 sit-ups this morning…”
Bra-vo.

Take the work seriously, but one’s self less so.

[QUOTE=mr_hash]Ok way off topic and from a while ago but whatever. I never wanted to play jazz until I hear Wynton, he made me want to play jazz,[/quote]

One could start with worse. As Chix said, Wynton was his ‘gateway’ toward the Better Sounds.
Some, like the ‘only wanna read S. King’, will continue to spin the discs of, say Kenny G thinking that this is the epitome of “jazz”.
Some stuff works some some people – if I had started Chuck with _Diary_, as Atomos did, I would deem Chuck’s work as only being suitable for ‘death by whiffle ball bat’.

Keeping with the R& Juliet thing…”Dreamers often lie” (although that was Mercutio)
j(ay)

[QUOTE=jay]...I don’t sincerely believe that those that graduate to, say, _Wessex Tales_ from the above mentioned writers, will be enough to keep it in print.
And my examples of out-of-print writers that King _has_ outright praised I think *clearly* proves this.[/QUOTE]

Regrettably the market doesn't always value quality. Look at how many McDonalds/Taco Hell/Pizza Slut, etc. there are compared to places that serve actual food. In a country as prosperous as America, you'd think that prosperity would translate into a public that demands a decent meal, but they eat whatever the TV tells them to, for the most part.

And compared to the quality of TV programming in general, I am willing to be glad enough that somone is reading for pleasure without regard for whether what they're reading is what I consider good literature. If anything, unlike the fast food analogy, the Stephen Kings give a publishing house the profit margin that it takes for them to take a chance on unproven writers. I wish more people did graduate beyond pulp, but given the percentage of people who consider cable, Bud Light and a Big Mac to be an evening's entertainment, I can't be too hard on pulp.

For that matter, Asimov who you mentioned, is in my memory a very sloppy, pulpy sort of writer. A fecund imagination, and I enjoyed him tremendously in my teens, but at least as much a pulp fiction machine as King.

[QUOTE=jay]
My point was only so much that I think Chuck’s 3 book submergence into ‘horror’ (not counting non-fiction work) is a really, really, (really, really) stupid move.[/QUOTE]

I remember in the [I]Postcards From the Future[/I] interviews, where he discussed the death of transgressive ficiton in the wake of 9/11 and that the SF/Horror of the 1950s was basically a way of dealing with the same things. I think from his standpoint, he was making the same decision Elmore Leonard discusses making when he switched from Westerns to crime writing.

There is some really awful genre fiction out there, but there is some really awful shit masquerading as 'literary' fiction too. While I don't know that Elmore Leonard is writing the sort of allegorical things that usual mark a Gothic int he Poe/Shelley tradition, I do think Leonard is a hell of a storyteller.

[QUOTE=jay]
Literature should function as entertainment, but just being entertaining isn’t enough to satisfy the requirements of literature. [/QUOTE]

I think that there is a lot of room under the tent of 'literature.' Popularity does not necessarily mean a lack of quality, from time to time the public rewards virtuosity. Maybe not as much as I'd like, but it happens. Whether Palahniuk or Leonard fit under the tent depends on where you draw the line. A writer who gets less respect than I think he deserves is Clive Barker, who tends to write genre ficiton, though a variety of genres and in every form from the short story to the epic novel. And he's done passably well in the marketplace, maybe even better than he 'deserves' by whatever yardstick you want to use for that.

[QUOTE=jay]
Well, it’s probably already being established as Cult Lore that I adamantly disagree with you about Toole…but I’d rather see someone try to grow and evolve (not shrink and devolve, however) than the one hit wonders. [/QUOTE]

It's great when a writer develops and evolves, but as frustrating as it is for a lover of books to wonder what else a Harper Lee might have written, maybe Harper Lee and J.D. Salinger said everything they had to say. I'm the last person you'd expect to hear say this, but sometimes wisdom is in knowing when to shut up. John Grisham and Thomas Harris, from what I've been able to tell (I haven't read any of their stuff from the past 10 years or so, so I may be wrong) did their best work early.

For that matter, it would appear that your assessment of Chuck's career would seem to dictate that he should have packed it in before 'Lullaby.'

[QUOTE=jay]
More power to them. Far more encouraging and sane than walking into the crowd and letting them lead you somewhere, or leading them by hand-holding. [/QUOTE]

One of the things I like about Chuck is he is completely unwilling to assume superiority over his fans. I think he's a case of someone who wrote from their heart/psyche and connected with a fan base that shared a lot of the same feelings/thoughts. The fact that he holds up other writers as being superior to himself is another good sign. I don't know if it helps or hurts his writing, it's unknowable because you can't A/B it with how his writing would develop if he acted like Thomas Pynchon and refused to even be photographed, much less sign books and go on tour.

Yes, I'm aware that most writers, great or otherwise, fall somewhere between the gregarious and the recluse.

[QUOTE=jay]
Yes, when the verb becomes a noun…then it gets pretty silly.
I (occasionally) write, but I am not a writer.
I can get around some music, but I am not a musican. Etc [/QUOTE]

I can accept your point to an extent, but just as a person is more than what they do to earn a paycheck, their job and hobbies are a part of the 'what' or 'who' they are. I intentionally have my business cards printed without an occupation indicated, though I've been known to use graphic elements such as fountain pens and typewriter keys, which I guess is a bit of an indiator. Still, I've also had them printed with the Horsehead Nebula printed int he background (becuase of the nickname I'm known by in the 'real' world, Trigger).

[QUOTE=jay]
Where does the line stop? When your (and I’m not strictly asking you, Rod) wife introduces (ala my Serpico reference) as a “writer”, the reflex response probably is, “oh! What have you written?” and the answer is *not* _The da Vinci Code_ or something that is recognizable. Or better yet, something that doesn’t exist, why not just call yourself…a superhero? Or an astronaut?
Or more apt: an actor?[/QUOTE]

Of course, my wife doesn't introduce me as a writer (or anything else) unless there's some reason that it would be of interest to whoever I'm meeting. Of course if she did, I'm not unpublished, and I occasionally even meet someone who's read my stuff, something that never fails to amaze me because I generally assume that what I write in those contexts is only going to be used to line pet cages.

[QUOTE=jay]
Most of this borders quite closely to being the equivalent to being introduced to “an athlete” and when you ask whom they play for they have to answer with…”well, I did 20 sit-ups this morning…”
Bra-vo.[/QUOTE]

When someone asks me where I've played guitar, my usual answer is 'the basement.'

[QUOTE=jay]
Take the work seriously, but one’s self less so.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough, though at a certain point, label dodging is as self-serious as collecting labels as if they had intrinsic value.

[QUOTE=Chixulub]Regrettably the market doesn't always value quality. Look at how many McDonalds/Taco Hell/Pizza Slut, etc. there are compared to places that serve actual food.[/quote]

This is simple supply and demand.
Consider these establishments the paperback bestseller list of the book world.

Why have a well cooked, quasi-healthy or at least enjoyable meal when you can get ‘super sized’ just as easily.

[QUOTE=Chixulub]In a country as prosperous as America, you'd think that prosperity would translate into a public that demands a decent meal[/quote]

You have far more faith in the people than I do.
I’d moreso guess that people wonder, “why the hell doesn’t *this* McDonalds have a Drive-Thru, I’m missing [insert whatever the hell people are watching on television these days here]!”

[QUOTE=Chixulub]If anything, unlike the fast food analogy, the Stephen Kings give a publishing house the profit margin that it takes for them to take a chance on unproven writers.[/quote]

This speculative at best.
Generally the money gets re-invested into the writer, and additional publicity/promotion. And the ever-ending search for *The Next S. King*, or whatever.
McDonald’s hefty profits do not make them want to secretly take a chance on some ‘weight watchers’ type outfit – they’ll just reinvest the money into whatever the hell they come up with next.

[QUOTE=Chixulub]For that matter, Asimov who you mentioned, is in my memory a very sloppy, pulpy sort of writer. A fecund imagination, and I enjoyed him tremendously in my teens, but at least as much a pulp fiction machine as King.[/quote]

I was never a fan. But I _do_ think many, many, many of these writers are of a…juvenile reading level. And that’s exactly what makes them so…digestible (ok, now I’m mixing the metaphors).
Very timely, I came across this quote last night (and it’s taken from _Queenan Country_, incidentally, the passage right before the one I quoted just a post ago (on the Hardest Books thread):

“No wonder so many adults on both sides of the Atlantic end up reading, and seemingly enjoying, butchers like Stephen King and Tom Clancy. We are constantly striving to recapture the blissful childhood we were denied because we had to spend so much of our youth reading _Heart of Darkness_. And a large part of being a happy child is being illiterate.” P.76

[QUOTE=Chixulub]I remember in the [I]Postcards From the Future[/I] interviews, where he discussed the death of transgressive ficiton in the wake of 9/11 and that the SF/Horror of the 1950s was basically a way of dealing with the same things.[/quote]

I can’t say letting society dictate how one is to work (let alone creatively express one self) is really a wise decision.
Maybe now in the wake of the “tsunami” (wake of the tsunami---surely already a winner for worst pun of the year) all stories should be narrated by a…hedgehog?

[QUOTE=Chixulub]I do think Leonard is a hell of a storyteller.[/quote]

No doubt.

[QUOTE=Chixulub]Popularity does not necessarily mean a lack of quality[/quote]

I agree.

[QUOTE=Chixulub]A writer who gets less respect than I think he deserves is Clive Barker, who tends to write genre ficiton, though a variety of genres and in every form from the short story to the epic novel.[/quote]

I still haven’t picked him up since you first mentioned him. But he’s clearly another chap that makes his work very accessible to Hollywood. Which, I think, it partially self-defeating.
In ‘literary’ terms.

[QUOTE=Chixulub]but as frustrating as it is for a lover of books to wonder what else a Harper Lee might have written[/quote]

I agree. And for Miss Emily Bronte, which to me is the greatest one-book-wonder (that would be _Wuthering Heights_, of course).

[QUOTE=Chixulub] maybe Harper Lee and J.D. Salinger said everything they had to say. I'm the last person you'd expect to hear say this, but sometimes wisdom is in knowing when to shut up.[/quote]

No doubt. Gawd knows some of these people go on ad nauseum…and then you have the peculiar people like King who announce they’re running out of fuel, ‘but I’ll still milk you idiots for 3 more books’. [not a direct quote]
I guess this is the book equivalent to an athlete announcing a retirement BEFORE the retirement, thereby ensuring a big farewell in each and every city.
And then foreshadowed by an eventual coming out of retirement…
Which also seems to be a major trend in the music world (Celina Dion, Phil Collins and other names that it turns my stomach to just type)

[QUOTE=Chixulub] John Grisham and Thomas Harris, from what I've been able to tell (I haven't read any of their stuff from the past 10 years or so, so I may be wrong) did their best work early.[/quote]

No doubt. As many do. Very few careers maintain a steady brilliance. As much as I’m looking forward to Hempel’s forthcoming collection I sincerely doubt it can come close to _Reasons to Live_.
Eventually one, if there is some success, just starts competing with one’s self.
Or pandering to the crowd. Or experimenting wildly. Or…milking the cow.

[QUOTE=Chixulub]For that matter, it would appear that your assessment of Chuck's career would seem to dictate that he should have packed it in before 'Lullaby.'[/quote]

Time will tell. It could be a phase, but I reallllly doubt he’s going to pull out of it.

[QUOTE=Chixulub]One of the things I like about Chuck is he is completely unwilling to assume superiority over his fans.[/quote]

While this side of him makes him a verrry likeable guy. I just want him to be a good writer.
I don’t want a buddy.
I don’t want someone writing books thinking a large portion of his/her audience think crystals and such are nifty and neat.

And no matter what his stance *he* takes on it, there*is* the immediate hierarchy that the fans will create.
‘oh, cool, Chuck sent some beads’. Whereas if a fan letter response from, say, Douglas Coupland resulted in that, one may think, “whatta space cadet!”

The worship factor will always be there; might as well go with it. (and not to say that he doesn’t. One probably can’t help it when people give you that much power)

[QUOTE=Chixulub]The fact that he holds up other writers as being superior to himself is another good sign. I don't know if it helps or hurts his writing, it's unknowable because you can't A/B it with how his writing would develop if he acted like Thomas Pynchon and refused to even be photographed, much less sign books and go on tour.[/quote]

Exactly. Which is why I disagree with your saying this “is a good sign”.
Most take a humble stance; even egocentric people like Barry (steroid) Bonds will publicly demean themselves in public in light of the Baseball Gods.
One has to weigh 1) the true sincerity of it and 2) does it actually mean anything.
Maybe thinking yourself the bad’est ass on the planet is a good thing.
Well, not is P. Diddy’s case…

[QUOTE=Chixulub]I can accept your point to an extent, but just as a person is more than what they do to earn a paycheck, their job and hobbies are a part of the 'what' or 'who' they are.[/quote]

I by no means meant that a published work (paycheck) makes a “writer”, or any career positioning makes one a “whatever”.

[QUOTE=Chixulub]Fair enough, though at a certain point, label dodging is as self-serious as collecting labels as if they had intrinsic value.[/QUOTE]

Maybe. But I doubt it. It’s pretty much just outright appallation (sorry for making up a word, read as a conjugation of: appalling) at the people act and their astounding ability to warp perspective.
I not only don’t want to be consider anything, I don’t want to be considered.

But as you like snappy answers to some of those questions.
When I get confronted with, “oh! You’re an American!” I tend to immediately cringe and resort to Bogart’s answer in “Casablanca” (“I was born in New York, if that will help you any…”) or state that my passport has an eagle on it. Or ignore them.
But I don’t think being simply birthed in a specific area makes one a “whatever”.
Paying taxes aside and all…

Sans label, [shouts of Asshole! Asshole! echo the room],
j(ay)

[QUOTE=Chixulub]John Grisham and Thomas Harris, from what I've been able to tell (I haven't read any of their stuff from the past 10 years or so, so I may be wrong) did their best work early.

For that matter, it would appear that your assessment of Chuck's career would seem to dictate that he should have packed it in before 'Lullaby.' [/QUOTE]

I saw you guys talking about Grisham, King and Crichton, so I just wanted to say, maybe you think the best work from guys like Grisham or Crichton (my comparison) come early is because, after a while, their books seem to follow the same formula? I remember reading The Rainmaker in my teens and thought it was good (at the time) and then went on to read Pelican Brief but stopped because I felt like I'd already read the book before. Same with Crichton, especially with the Jurassic Park books and then comparing them to, say, Rising Sun or Andromeda Strain. King too, to some extent, although I still have appreciation for Different Seasons. I could be wrong though; with King, at least, I haven't read too much of his stuff because I feel he has a tendency to get off-topic a lot and when he does, it's just endless babble, so I'm not too familiar with his early works.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think those guys are totally worthless writers. They got me into reading at an early age, but as I started taking more english classes I thought their books were pretty empty, with not a lot of substance to them.

[QUOTE=jay]Generally the money gets re-invested into the writer, and additional publicity/promotion. And the ever-ending search for *The Next S. King*, or whatever.
McDonald’s hefty profits do not make them want to secretly take a chance on some ‘weight watchers’ type outfit – they’ll just reinvest the money into whatever the hell they come up with next. [/QUOTE]

Yes, but when Viking signed WCB's first two books, they were definitely hoping he would be a best-seller. And given the result, I would think they had to have taken profits from other writers to cover their time with him. Not a lot, but the general idea seems to be to release an impossibly large number of books and what moves. If someone sells through reasonably well, he might get his second bunch into another month's shotgun spray.

[QUOTE=jay]I can’t say letting society dictate how one is to work (let alone creatively express one self) is really a wise decision. [/QUOTE]

He has expressed affection for King and other modern practitioners of the Gothic, so I doubt it was strictly a career decision. I took it that, like Leonard, he's got a balance of creative impulses and commercial sense. That's not necessarily a bad thing, since having all of one or the other tends to lead to bad books or unpublished ones.

[QUOTE=jay]
I still haven’t picked him up since you first mentioned him. But he’s clearly another chap that makes his work very accessible to Hollywood. Which, I think, it partially self-defeating.
In ‘literary’ terms. [/QUOTE]

Barker, from what I can tell, genuinely loves movies. So when he can produce and screenwrite one of his stories, he's glad to do it. He's also a visual artist, so it makes sense that he'd be a match with Hollywood. It's not all great stuff, but some of the films based on his work are quite good (the orignal 'Candyman' for instance). As Toby Young points out in his memoir, there was a time when good writers went to Hollywood, and I think Barker may be a case where Hollywood hasn't been completely successful at keeping them out.

[QUOTE=jay]
Or pandering to the crowd. Or experimenting wildly. Or…milking the cow. [/QUOTE]

If you didn't like being a deisel mechanic and you do like writing stories, it seems logical to do things that continue making the writing profitable. I've never been to a book signing or reading, by any author, so I don't know what his fans are like compared to other authors. I've been to SF conventions in my teens, where some pretty odd types hung out (including a teenaged Chixulub).

[QUOTE=jay]
Exactly. Which is why I disagree with your saying this “is a good sign”. [/QUOTE]

A neutral sign, perhaps. I don't know that he won't get restless and decide to wander into other genres.

[QUOTE=jay]
But as you like snappy answers to some of those questions.
When I get confronted with, “oh! You’re an American!” I tend to immediately cringe and resort to Bogart’s answer in “Casablanca” (“I was born in New York, if that will help you any…”) or state that my passport has an eagle on it. Or ignore them.
But I don’t think being simply birthed in a specific area makes one a “whatever”.
Paying taxes aside and all…

Sans label, [shouts of Asshole! Asshole! echo the room],
j(ay)[/QUOTE]

'American' is a label that is even more meaningless than 'minimalist,' but I can imagine in your location it's not a great thing to be identified as. I understand not wanting people to assume things about you based on accidents of birth.

Weapons of Mass Destruction are as American as genocide and wars of aggression.

Other American institutions are somewhat more benign than nuclear bombs, the Trail of Tears and the Mexican-American War.

[QUOTE=Undertow]I saw you guys talking about Grisham, King and Crichton, so I just wanted to say, maybe you think the best work from guys like Grisham or Crichton (my comparison) come early is because, after a while, their books seem to follow the same formula? I remember reading The Rainmaker in my teens and thought it was good (at the time) and then went on to read Pelican Brief but stopped because I felt like I'd already read the book before. Same with Crichton, especially with the Jurassic Park books and then comparing them to, say, Rising Sun or Andromeda Strain. King too, to some extent, although I still have appreciation for Different Seasons. I could be wrong though; with King, at least, I haven't read too much of his stuff because I feel he has a tendency to get off-topic a lot and when he does, it's just endless babble, so I'm not too familiar with his early works.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think those guys are totally worthless writers. They got me into reading at an early age, but as I started taking more english classes I thought their books were pretty empty, with not a lot of substance to them.[/QUOTE]

Grisham I read through 'The Chamber' or 'The Client' (I forget which was the last), and I'd say 'A Time to Kill' is clearly his best work, though it could use some tightening up. 'The Firm' is a good page-turner, but pretty light fare. From there, I wouldn't bother. 'The Pelican Brief' was particularly odious.

King I read through 'Insomnia.' High points, from memory, would include 'The Shining,' 'Pet Semetary,' 'Tommyknockers,' and 'The Stand.' 'Needful Things,' and 'Gerald's Game' might make the list, though 'The Shining' and 'Gerald's Game' are as close to tight as his stuff gets.

Chricton, I've read in a very patchy way. 'Andromeda Strain' was good, and I remember enjoying Jurassic Park, though it was a long time ago and I had more inclination to lengthy books back then. I listened to the audiobook of 'Prey' and just about couldn't even listen to it for the story. The Unabomber Manifesto made the case in a more compelling way, and was short enough to be printed in a newspaper. I'm not saying Ted Kaczynksi has a great literary mind, that's how low I esteem 'Prey.'

I'd like to comment on the "at least they are reading" statement.

I too have a strong aversion to this being said about people who in my opinion read "garbage," but I may have taken this feeling too far - You be the judge.

My mum, when she was able to read - her eyesight is very bad now so she is sadly no longer able to see well enough to read anymore - used to read nothing but Harlequin novels. For those of you not familiar with these types of "books" they are romance novels, always depicting some semi-clad couple in each others arms on the cover.

I could not stand the fact that she read this type of nonsense, and since she would watch films of EM Forster and the PBS versions of the Bronte novels, I tried to get her to read those books instead, to no avail, although she would watch the films of _Ethan Frome_ and the like but not read the literature.

Finally, after my pestering, she simply gave up reading her romance novels and therefore everything (except of course her _Bible_) altogether, and stopped reading fiction full stop. Now she is unable to read and only listens to her _Bible_ on audio. Sometimes I feel guilty because I feel that I stopped her from reading and that perhaps reading that drivel was better than not reading at all. Was I wrong or was I correct and she was better off not reading at all?

What do you lot think - is it better to read frivilous rot than to not read at all? or should one read something of substance or not bother? This is a bit different from our discussion at hand as I think - of course in my opinion - that romance novels are not even on par with even the worst Stephen King or Crighton novels and have no redeeming qualities as a 'gateway' to any higher form of literature, unless it be a shot at the Brontes or other similarly-surface-themed novels, which I attempted to expose my mum to. But please feel free to give me your opinions.

MsRobin

[QUOTE=Jill's Bleeding Ulcer]I'd like to comment on the "at least they are reading" statement.

I too have a strong aversion to this being said about people who in my opinion read "garbage," but I may have taken this feeling too far - You be the judge.

My mum, when she was able to read - her eyesight is very bad now so she is sadly no longer able to see well enough to read anymore - used to read nothing but Harlequin novels. For those of you not familiar with these types of "books" they are romance novels, always depicting some semi-clad couple in each others arms on the cover.

I could not stand the fact that she read this type of nonsense, and since she would watch films of EM Forster and the PBS versions of the Bronte novels, I tried to get her to read those books instead, to no avail, although she would watch the films of _Ethan Frome_ and the like but not read the literature.

Finally, after my pestering, she simply gave up reading her romance novels and therefore everything (except of course her _Bible_) altogether, and stopped reading fiction full stop. Now she is unable to read and only listens to her _Bible_ on audio. Sometimes I feel guilty because I feel that I stopped her from reading and that perhaps reading that drivel was better than not reading at all. Was I wrong or was I correct and she was better off not reading at all?

What do you lot think - is it better to read frivilous rot than to not read at all? or should one read something of substance or not bother? This is a bit different from our discussion at hand as I think - of course in my opinion - that romance novels are not even on par with even the worst Stephen King or Crighton novels and have no redeeming qualities as a 'gateway' to any higher form of literature, unless it be a shot at the Brontes or other similarly-surface-themed novels, which I attempted to expose my mum to. But please feel free to give me your opinions.

MsRobin[/QUOTE]

I remember after my grandmother died, there were paper bags full of those romance novels, which she used to read compulsively. And other than going to bingo (being serious here) reading those books seemed to be the one enjoyment in life that she could count on.

She had six kids, twenty-some grandkids, and forty or so great-grandkids. But as time went on so did the kid's lives. She got to the point where she had to be moved into an elderly care home and I remember when I went to visit her there, even when her spirits could have easily gone south, those books helped keep them up.

She was the first to admit that they (the books) were nonsense. And she said the same about her soap operas that she used to watch. But she still watched them, and she still enjoyed them, and for her that was enough.

Truth be told, she wasn't a very educated woman. And I'm pretty sure her knowledge of the "classics" that were written, in part, in her youth I'm sure was very minimal if not completely non-exisitent. Did that make her any less of a person? Did that make her any less educated than the scholor taking care of her? Maybe if you measure it in terms of terms, but it probably wouldn't be a contenst when it came down to life experience.

My point of my rambling is this. As cheap as a romance novel may be, for a lot of people, it's the only sense of romance they'll ever know. Sad? Perhaps. Pathetic? Maybe more so. But the fact that they bring something to those people reading them goes a long way to making that person smile inside. I know it did with my grandmother. And from that time when she opened the cover to the time she closed it she was in that place in her mind that she was never allowed in real life.

That bag of books has been sitting, untouched, in one of the children's house since her apartment was cleaned out after she died. And although nobody has read those books, and although nobody really wants to read those books, every single one of us can walk by the romance section in a book store and think of grandma, and every single one of us kids, grandkids, great-grandkids who inevitably asked her why she read them will forever remember what she said to us. "Because, they're an escape."

And sometimes, I suppose, everyone needs one of those.

"Everything Is Illuminated" made me rabid to write my first novel before 25 because if that snarky little Yalegnome can do it, so can I.

[QUOTE=vidalia]"Everything Is Illuminated" made me rabid to write my first novel before 25 because if that snarky little Yalegnome can do it, so can I.[/QUOTE]

I got through some of it for a english class last year. I think I sold it too. I did like the first chapter, though, because I read it in Dr. Nick's voice for some reason.

^f'n weirdo.

Obviously Chuck but also Vonnegut and "The Catcher in The Rye"

[QUOTE=moe.ron]^f'n weirdo.[/QUOTE]

Don't knock it 'till you tried it!

"at least they're reading"

ha! i would rather people not read than to think some of the drivel out there is passable as literature.

i mean really it's that kind of thinking that almost killed me as a writer. i picked up a copy of "intensity" by dean koontz once really cheap and i plowed over it. didnt set it down. and now i have a box full of koontz books that people have given me, and they're all trash, seriously. i read through jurassic park before i saw the movie (i was like 14, i think) i've since been given many chriton novels as well. ok. so these are the "good things" people have given me.

now every time my grandma goes to a yard sale or an auction or something i get books. lots of books. old ones new ones. all kinds of things.. but none of them seem like things i would ever touch with a pole. this shit's like jaws rip-offs and op center and god only knows what else.

my point is "at least they're reading" is a cop out. because a few bad books can burn someone out totally, and then what do we have to show for it?

[QUOTE=Undertow]I got through some of it for a english class last year. I think I sold it too. I did like the first chapter, though, because I read it in Dr. Nick's voice for some reason.[/QUOTE]
we've already run the safran foer gamut around these parts... but... it's a good read. he's just naive and wicked yalified. with some dedication, any of us could write that.

(maybe save for jack dingle.)

[QUOTE=vidalia]we've already run the safran foer gamut around these parts... but... it's a good read. he's just naive and wicked yalified. with some dedication, any of us could write that.

(maybe save for jack dingle.)[/QUOTE]

Yes we have, but I can't remember if you were in on it or not, 'sall!

was i ever. it's in the book club somewhere but i don't feel like searching...

[QUOTE=Atomos]
ha! i would rather people not read than to think some of the drivel out there is passable as literature.[/QUOTE]

There was a time when I mainly read Stephen King, Anne Rice, Tom Clancy, William Blattey, Thomas Harris, John Grisham. A time before that where I mainly read Asimove, PKD, HST, etc. A time before that where I forced my way through some classics, notably 'Moby Dick' that stunted my interest in the so-called Great Books for over ten years.

But I was reading. Before that, I was reading Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys mysteries, Peter Benchley, and so on.

Before that I was reading, I don't know, Dr. Seuss.

Then I had kids, which meant less time to read and I started exploring Faulkner, Steinbeck, Kesey, etc. And with few exceptions, found they were worth my precious time, while a lot of what I'd read in the decade before that seemed less so.

But having kids also meant a return to Dr. Seuss. 'Yertle the Turtle' may be the great Anarchist tract of the 20th Century. That book also contains an 'Gertrude McFuzz,' an excellent primer on placing too much hope in pills, and 'The Big Brag,' which pretty much sums up the marketing biz.

So who's to say what's 'literature?' Or what's 'juvenile?'

[QUOTE=Atomos]
my point is "at least they're reading" is a cop out. because a few bad books can burn someone out totally, and then what do we have to show for it?[/QUOTE]

Truly, but I prefer the market deciding, as bad as its choices can be, to the Supreme Soviet or the PTA. It's not as if someone reading Harlequin novels is injuring anyone, and if they prefer that to TV, all the better. Reading is active, TV is passive. A reader is less a vegetable than a TV watcher.

For that matter, if they're watching TV, who are they hurting? Maybe themselves. But I'd legalize narcotics, including cocaine and heroin, and cable TV is only slightly worse than those drugs.

When I first read WCB, I was gung-ho on him. By the time I'd finished the third book, I was burned out on him. That doesn't mean that he's at fault, nor that I'll turn to 'American Idol' for my entertainment as a result.

I'm a broken record on Bessant, but I can't stress it enough. Sir Walter Bessant was wildly successful, commercially, in the late 19th Century. It would be hard to find someone from that era who was literate in English and didn't at lest know the general nature of his books. And they were not 'Penny Dreadfuls,' he was knighted for his work with the pen. He is, today, largely out of print and forgotten. And from what I can tell, rightly so.

Thomas Hardy, on the other hand, had much more modest success at the same time. He was not knighted, and from what I can tell was lucky to be able to make a living as a writer. To a great extent, his novels scratched the itch that soap operas do for daytime TV viewers today. He was, however, a powerful wordsmith, with a considerable gift for exposing the flaws in social institutions. He even has a very good beer named for him today, and is widely taught.

Mightn't someone 100 years ago have said that Hardy shouldn't be bothered with? Or Bessant? For that matter, a case could be made that Hardy is, in hindsight, overvalued and Bessant underappreciated.

It's art, there is not an objective standard you can put it to. The best approach is to tell someone you see reading King that they might like 'Diary' or 'Lullaby,' and let a few of them catch on to Chuck. They might even read 'Choke,' 'Fight Club' and 'Survivor,' before they're done.

A few of them might get turned on to Don DeLillo, Thomas Pynchon, Edward Abey, Michael Chabon, Johnathan Lethem, WCB, Joey Goebel, Amy Hempel, Mark Richard, Jeffrey Eugenides, etc. while they're at it.

If they run into me, there's even a chance they'll read Terry Southern.

Hell, they might read Philip Roth, Pat Conroy, Joyce Carol Oates.

Even Henry James is possible! Robert Steinbeck, Ernest Hemingway, William Faulkner!

You never know, they might even read the stunning debut novel of Atomos...

[QUOTE=Jill's Bleeding Ulcer]Finally, after my pestering, she simply gave up reading her romance novels and therefore everything (except of course her _Bible_) altogether, and stopped reading fiction full stop. Now she is unable to read and only listens to her _Bible_ on audio.
MsRobin[/QUOTE]

In my opinion the Bible is not only legit literature, it is essential to understanding a lot of what followed it. I haven't read Bronte, but I have read Dickens, Hardy, Hawthorne and Melville, all of which are laced with biblical (and other mythological) references.

Bronte, and the other Romantics, are probably available for free from your local library as audio books. Instead of 'pestering' her about what she's chosing to read/listen to, try approaching it as 'I thought this story might interest you.' Look for Richard Poe and Frank Muller readings in particualr, and beware the abridged copies. 'Read by the Author' is another good sign, Toni Morrison is great at it, as is Steve Martin (yes he writes books too), and Chuck Palalhniuk's reading of 'Choke' is great.

Martha Plimpton (that skinny blonde in the movie 'Parenthood') does an excellent reading of 'Diary,' for that matter.

Some of the audio book narrators are irritating, but the good ones are verbal performance artists. Ron Silverman does well reading Philip Roth, for instance. And no one can keep Pat Conroy from being redundant.

Incidentally, some authors should be excused from reading their work aloud. I've heard interviews with Elmore Leonard, who is a hell of a writer, but who has a voice made for...the printed page.

i could think of a few examples of the kinds of books im talking about *cough* erick nylund *cough*

nut mainly what im talking about is the burning out you're talking about. like if you came in here and you told people here you plowed through chuck. someone would undoubtably throw you some baer, or something bey like chuck because you "like" that style. and they will shovel it at you, because at least you're reading. and then if that doesnt burn you out, you'll get bored and buy everything from baer or hempel or whoever, until you cant stand minimalism anymore, if not books in general.

[QUOTE=Chixulub]Yes, but when Viking signed WCB's first two books, they were definitely hoping he would be a best-seller. And given the result, I would think they had to have taken profits from other writers to cover their time with him.[/quote]

Sure. Looking for the next King (or whomever).
If it weren’t from the profits of a King (I will just continue to use his name as example) it would be someone else.
Or loans. It, whattayacallint, takes money to make money.
None of these companies are into charity.

Justin Timberlake’s immense success for BMG records will *not* results in a bunch of releases for small-margin acts out of simple beneficence.
Sure, sometimes the obscure will surface, but this is hardly out of altruism, the company is just trying to predict the market. And probably more often than not, like with Viking and Baer, they fall flat on their ass and then have to search out The Next Timberlake/King.

[QUOTE=Chixulub]As Toby Young points out in his memoir, there was a time when good writers went to Hollywood[/quote]

Um, yeah. And good painters did lots of religious pictures.
This is a simple fact of Go Where The Money Is.

Faulkner hated his time in Hollywood, Nathanael West also. Nor were they willing to manipulate their work (even if they were not the original writer) to fit the Hollywood mold.

[QUOTE=Chixulub]I've never been to a book signing or reading, by any author, so I don't know what his fans are like compared to other authors.[/quote]

“Fans” in general are a pretty scary lot. “True fans”, even worse.

But as you say, if one is willing to manipulate the work so that it retains ‘a profit’…well, I hate terms like “selling out” but…it’s not a bit unlike me manipulating some of my data so that I can publish more papers and get better grants…

Nice to see some action here, and a return of Ms Robin…

As for Harlequins and repeated hammerings through the Bible, yeah, it’s kinda sad but this is where I file it under, as I suggested earlier, “at least they aren’t out…breeding or committing crimes” (one in the same, one might say).
Whatever someone wants to do in their own time, as long as no one is getting hurt, fine by me.
I’m just not going to give them a pat on the shoulder and say, “at least you’re reading”.

[QUOTE=Chixulub]In my opinion the Bible is not only legit literature, it is essential to understanding a lot of what followed it.[/quote]

I agree.
But I do think it’s very warped when it is taken literally, which means I think it’s legitimate literature, but hardly legitimate “truth”.
And I also fail to see *any* worth to reading it if one does not investigate what came BEFORE it.
j(ay)

I wanted to jump into Chix's and Jay's debate, since I spent a lot of time reading it yesterday.

Today I feel like keeping my mouth shut. I'll just commit on one thing.

[QUOTE]JAY:
Take the work seriously, but one’s self less so.[/QUOTE]
yep :cool:

[QUOTE=Dr.Jekyll&Mr.Hyde]I wanted to jump into Chix's and Jay's debate, since I spent a lot of time reading it yesterday.[/quote]

I’m sure Rod joins me in apologizing for that large chunk of your time we wasted
j(ay)

Thanks for your input guys.

I cannot help but feel very badly about what I feel was stopping my mum from reading, although I still feel that escapism is not learning as I have always felt that that is the purpose of existence. I did approach her very slowly on the subject of audio books and on the idea of reading novels similar to romance fiction, but the "big words" did not appeal to her. I do assist her in understanding her Bible a bit more than she does, as she is extremely fundalmentalist and very narrow in her interpretation of what she reads within those pages, so I try to broaden her views a bit in that regard.

Thank you for your suggestions on 'by the author read books' perhaps I will try that, or maybe appealing to actors that she likes as well or other 'religious' figures who read novels, she may be more open to that.

And thank you for the welcome again j(ay) - on another note - I did not know that non-subscribers were getting "thrown out" the end of January!! How awful I thought that perhaps we were only being segregated to certain areas of the site. This makes me very sad, as I was just starting to recognize people by their names, and I am going to finally read all of _Don Quixote_ for the 400th Anniversary. I shall miss you all very much but shall try to post more until the end of the month when my time runs out.

on Death Row..

MsRobin

[QUOTE=Jill's Bleeding Ulcer]on Death Row..[/QUOTE]

[ring ring ring]
The authorities just called; you’ve been pardoned.

Consider yourself sponsored.
j(ay)

Aww j(ay)

You've made me the happiest Cultist on the Forum!! I am not worthy of such an gift (am I?)

Now I will def have to be very productive to earn my sponsorship. I shall endeavor to use my English skills to attend the WW and critique the work of you lot - unless as I have read only people with WW status are allowed to critique the essays of other members, I guess I shall have to read and find out...although I do not intend to post any of my own rot, urgh. I am much more the critic than the creator - and become more active on the Book Club - firstly, by submitting by views on _Don Quixote_ , and update the foreign film list, and oh...so much to do!! I feel like I've won an Oscar...I'd better shut up now.

Sorry to be so off topic - please resume...

MsRobin

[QUOTE=Jill's Bleeding Ulcer]...escapism is not learning as I have always felt that that is the purpose of existence. [/QUOTE]

Escapism isn't learning, but it isn't a crime either. Would you prefer she took refuge in the bottle? Opium?

[QUOTE=Jill's Bleeding Ulcer]...she is extremely fundalmentalist and very narrow in her interpretation of what she reads within those pages, so I try to broaden her views a bit in that regard.[/QUOTE]

Some of the finest people I've known are narrow minded fundamentalists. And being 'broad minded' is not always a good thing. My Dad's a Kennedy/Johnson school Liberal, votes a straight Democratic Party ticket and thinks labor unions are a good thing. Which is just plain wrong, though I doubt I have much chance of disabusing him of notions he's held since before I was born.

[QUOTE=Jill's Bleeding Ulcer]Thank you for your suggestions on 'by the author read books' perhaps I will try that, or maybe appealing to actors that she likes as well or other 'religious' figures who read novels, she may be more open to that.[/QUOTE]

I used to have the argument with people that there is no such thing as a person who does not like beer. I made the case based on the hundreds of beer styles from various regions of the world: someone who dislikes a mass market American lager might love a rich, sweet German doppelbock, or a Trappist ale (of which there are several styles), or an English mild, a sweet stout, etc. If all else fails, there's Lambic, which is extravagantly sour and resembles a highly acidic sparkling wine more than what most people think of as 'beer.'

The same argument could be made for literature. Jack London, for instance, comes to mind as someone who wrote in a very basic way, but wrote some very memorable and powerful stories (that would not tend to conflict with any religion I know of).

Hemigway definitely avoided big words, though he definitely gets into some content that a prude might shrink from.

If she's truly a Victorian at heart, most of the better novelists of the 19th Century are widely available as audiobooks. Thomas Hardy would be a prime example of a fellow who could take even the most debauched characters and describe their actions in an inoffensive way.

[QUOTE=Dr.Jekyll&Mr.Hyde]IToday I feel like keeping my mouth shut. I'll just commit on one thing. [Quoting Jay]-yep :cool:[/QUOTE]

My good doctor, you wont get very far in life quoting me, so I flipped through a notebook, knowing someone had said it far more elegant that I:

„The one important thing I have learnt over the years is the difference between taking one’s work seriously and taking oneself seriously. The first is imperative and the second disastrous.”
-Dame Margot Fonteyn

So there you go.
Certainly better to quote an elegant ballet dancer than silly old me…
j(ay)

I've heard that before. I look for quotes with the same kind of premise. This was always one of my favorites.

[B]"Life is a tragedy for those who feel, and a comedy for those who
think. "--Henry Miller[/B]

[QUOTE=jay][ring ring ring]
The authorities just called; you’ve been pardoned.

Consider yourself sponsored.
j(ay)[/QUOTE]
Well done my good moon