I enjoyed the Harry Potter series, but I would be hard pressed to call it literature. Teen fiction or juvenile literature, sure...but literary literature? I think not. About a year and a half ago, two well-read friends recommended His Dark Materials, by Philip Pullman. I looked into the premise and thought Aimee would enjoy these books so I bought theme for her...and she did enjoy them. Aimee also got into the Twilight saga by Stephenie Meyer. I have a fifty-page rule. I will read the first fifty pages of almost anything, but if the story doesn't grab me within those first fifty pages, I don't continue. There are so many books I want to read that I simply cannot waste time on ones that I am not going to enjoy. This was the case with Twilight, but I suppose there are very few circumstances under which I would be disposed to read a vampire romance novel written from the perspective of a flowering teenage girl. I'm sorry, but I'm simply not part of the demographic Meyer is trying to reach.
But here's the rub: I had a similar experience with The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. I know, blasphemy, right? I read most of the Fellowship, but to be honest, I got rather bored with it all. I tried to read The Hobbit over the course of several months, but it failed my fifty-page rule. I really, really tried to like Tolkein, and I acknowledge and respect his genius. In fact, I consider most fantasy novels to be rewritings of Tolkein. But I just could not get into it all.
You may say that this only has to do with fantasy novels, but it works with science fiction as well. I enjoy a great number of sci-fi films and television shows, but I have a hard time getting into the printed variety. Aimee and I read Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow together, which I thought were brilliant, but I just couldn't get through Shadow of the Hegemon. Maybe I need to read Ender's storyline and skip all the political stuff, although Doug assures me that that is the most interesting part of the series.
There is one series that has grabbed me by the throat like no other, and it is The Dark Tower by Stephen King. I read The Gunslinger, The Drawing of the Three, and The Wastelands when I was fifteen. I was on my mission when Wizard and Glass was published, so I did not read it until 1999, after I returned. I was afraid that now that I was older and hopefully more mature, I would not enjoy the series as much. That was not the case. When King announced in 2002 that he would be publishing the final three books over the course of an eighteen month period, I was ecstatic. I gobbled them up and then reread the entire series. I'm already planning to begin reading them again once my PhD exams are out of the way.
The point is that barring the exception of The Dark Tower, I'm not a big fan of sci-fi and fantasy fiction. I like the movies and TV shows, but I have a hard time delving into these literary universes. I guess it's that I find the plots archetypal at best, and derivative and trite at worst. Granted, King is open about Tolkein's influence on his work, but he has somehow found a way to encapsulate his entire literary universe within this one overarching story. I think it's genius and people will be writing dissertations on it in fifty years. But is it literature? I'm not so sure it is in the sense of Cormac McCarthy or Gabriel Garcia Marquez or Sylvia Plath. But it is certainly more literary than Michael Crichton, Danielle Steel, John Grisham or Tom Clancy. Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed books by all of the aforementioned authors, well, not Danielle Steel. But she's the best-selling living author, having sold over 550 million copies. Stephen King isn't too far behind at 350 million, but members of the literati, like Harold Bloom, consider him a writer of penny dreadfuls.
Here's the thing, Charles Dicken's was a writer of these so-called penny dreadfuls. He was a popular serial writer of his time, but now he's considered a literary genius. Perhaps not the literary genius of his time, but his position in the literary canon is secure. Will people like Rowling, King, and Crichton have a place in the canon in 50-100 years? I think some of them will but others will fade away into oblivion until a wave of academia rescues these authors from the periphery.
Sorry to ramble like this, but sometimes I wonder why I like some books and don't like others. Sometimes I don't think there is rhyme or reason to my likes and dislikes. Certainly, my doctoral studies have turned me into a much more astute and observant reader, but when I read The Dark Tower, I'm reading for enjoyment and not to dissect it.
Having said that, No Country for Old Men, by Cormac McCarthy is one of the best books I have ever read. Period. The movie is almost just as good. I'm not sure what it is, but the substructure of that story is extremely allegorical and it penetrates my soul. Sorry, Doug, but I think the last fifty pages, the part you called the "boring section" is the best of the whole book. But maybe I'm a snobbish literary elitist now and I like deep metaphoric allegorical language because I've been trained to read it.
So, what books have moved you in the last year or two? Like I said, I'm willing to read the first fifty pages of almost anything.
(And thus we see that I have successfully procrastinated writing my paper another hour.)
But here's the rub: I had a similar experience with The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. I know, blasphemy, right? I read most of the Fellowship, but to be honest, I got rather bored with it all. I tried to read The Hobbit over the course of several months, but it failed my fifty-page rule. I really, really tried to like Tolkein, and I acknowledge and respect his genius. In fact, I consider most fantasy novels to be rewritings of Tolkein. But I just could not get into it all.
You may say that this only has to do with fantasy novels, but it works with science fiction as well. I enjoy a great number of sci-fi films and television shows, but I have a hard time getting into the printed variety. Aimee and I read Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow together, which I thought were brilliant, but I just couldn't get through Shadow of the Hegemon. Maybe I need to read Ender's storyline and skip all the political stuff, although Doug assures me that that is the most interesting part of the series.
There is one series that has grabbed me by the throat like no other, and it is The Dark Tower by Stephen King. I read The Gunslinger, The Drawing of the Three, and The Wastelands when I was fifteen. I was on my mission when Wizard and Glass was published, so I did not read it until 1999, after I returned. I was afraid that now that I was older and hopefully more mature, I would not enjoy the series as much. That was not the case. When King announced in 2002 that he would be publishing the final three books over the course of an eighteen month period, I was ecstatic. I gobbled them up and then reread the entire series. I'm already planning to begin reading them again once my PhD exams are out of the way.
The point is that barring the exception of The Dark Tower, I'm not a big fan of sci-fi and fantasy fiction. I like the movies and TV shows, but I have a hard time delving into these literary universes. I guess it's that I find the plots archetypal at best, and derivative and trite at worst. Granted, King is open about Tolkein's influence on his work, but he has somehow found a way to encapsulate his entire literary universe within this one overarching story. I think it's genius and people will be writing dissertations on it in fifty years. But is it literature? I'm not so sure it is in the sense of Cormac McCarthy or Gabriel Garcia Marquez or Sylvia Plath. But it is certainly more literary than Michael Crichton, Danielle Steel, John Grisham or Tom Clancy. Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed books by all of the aforementioned authors, well, not Danielle Steel. But she's the best-selling living author, having sold over 550 million copies. Stephen King isn't too far behind at 350 million, but members of the literati, like Harold Bloom, consider him a writer of penny dreadfuls.
Here's the thing, Charles Dicken's was a writer of these so-called penny dreadfuls. He was a popular serial writer of his time, but now he's considered a literary genius. Perhaps not the literary genius of his time, but his position in the literary canon is secure. Will people like Rowling, King, and Crichton have a place in the canon in 50-100 years? I think some of them will but others will fade away into oblivion until a wave of academia rescues these authors from the periphery.
Sorry to ramble like this, but sometimes I wonder why I like some books and don't like others. Sometimes I don't think there is rhyme or reason to my likes and dislikes. Certainly, my doctoral studies have turned me into a much more astute and observant reader, but when I read The Dark Tower, I'm reading for enjoyment and not to dissect it.
Having said that, No Country for Old Men, by Cormac McCarthy is one of the best books I have ever read. Period. The movie is almost just as good. I'm not sure what it is, but the substructure of that story is extremely allegorical and it penetrates my soul. Sorry, Doug, but I think the last fifty pages, the part you called the "boring section" is the best of the whole book. But maybe I'm a snobbish literary elitist now and I like deep metaphoric allegorical language because I've been trained to read it.
So, what books have moved you in the last year or two? Like I said, I'm willing to read the first fifty pages of almost anything.
(And thus we see that I have successfully procrastinated writing my paper another hour.)
6 comments:
50 pages into Les Miserables (the unabridged version) all I had read was character development for a priest that would hardly be mentioned again after the first 100 pages. After reading all 1200+ pages, I determined that Les Mis was the best book I had ever read.
Well, I suppose I can add a corollary to my reading approach. Perhaps my rule should be the first 10-15% of the book, or the first 50 pages, whichever is longer. I agree that Les Miserable and other lengthy works require a bit more initial patience.
I didn't like the Hobbit that much. I think it would have been a great read when I was 10. Its such a simple little story. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a much more captivating story. I found it highly entertaining and enjoyable. That being said, I don't think it is among the great literary works, but I think it kicks the pants off of No Country for Old Men. Sorry.
As for the Enders series, Enders Game is very physical in nature, which is perhaps why young people enjoy it so much more. The stories that follow are much more intellectual. They are filled with philosophy, religion, and ethical questions that emphasize the dilemma of decision and action.
I guess that's the thing, I would rather read philosophy, and ethics, and religious treatises than to read Orson Scott Card's interpretation of those things. But I'm sure I'll get to it eventually...
I'm sorry you didn't like No Country for Old Men. It truly is a great book. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose. Last night I just started The Road, which won him the Pulitzer.
Let's just talk about how great Roland of Gilead is.
See, I did like No Country For Old Men, but I didn't love it. I found it wanting. it didn't say all that much to me. I enjoyed the writing style, but didn't find anything really provocative to think about. Just "yeah, the world has problems."
In the last couple of years I think my favorite read was Brother's Karamozov - but if you haven't read Uncle Tom's Cabin, I really enjoyed that book . . .
Post a Comment