Rediscovering the classics

[Guest]

Yet another lie. You listed Bronte as your favorite American female novelist, and 1984 as one of your favorite American novels during your "I have a Master's in Literature" fugue.

No, wrong, I never did. I said it was one of my favorite novels. I didnt specify what TYPE of novel. Damn Q, aren't you tired of being wrong all the time?

 

[Guest]

There are several books I can read over and over again and never tire of.
Stephen Kings The Stand
Dean R Koontz - Lightning
Beatrice Small - Unconquered
Asimov's Foundation series

 

[Sandia]

Hamlet, thanks for writing those posts on literary criticism. That was a wonderful, insightful discussion of the subject.

Your students have a good professor.


You're not missing much by not reading King, IMO. He's a perfectly adequate storyteller, and he does have a talent for coming up with interesting scenarios, but there's nothing special about what he writes. His characters are flat, and what he relies on mostly are bad-movie type thrills: the horror-genre's equivalent to car chases and people hanging off of cliffs (and jumping out of the way just as the explosion goes off behind them.)

What I've noticed about King's works is that they start off pretty interesting, and they get duller and duller as you go along.

Really good books, on the other hand, seem to always take some effort at the beginning, but then wind up taking you somewhere you haven't already been a hundred times before.

 

[zipman]

Hamlet, thanks for writing those posts on literary criticism. That was a wonderful, insightful discussion of the subject.

Your students have a good professor.


You're not missing much by not reading King, IMO. He's a perfectly adequate storyteller, and he does have a talent for coming up with interesting scenarios, but there's nothing special about what he writes. His characters are flat, and what he relies on mostly are bad-movie type thrills: the horror-genre's equivalent to car chases and people hanging off of cliffs (and jumping out of the way just as the explosion goes off behind them.)

What I've noticed about King's works is that they start off pretty interesting, and they get duller and duller as you go along.

Really good books, on the other hand, seem to always take some effort at the beginning, but then wind up taking you somewhere you haven't already been a hundred times before.

I agree with this except there is one novel written by King that is exceptional in my opinion, The Shining.

 

[medjay]

You're not missing much by not reading King, IMO. He's a perfectly adequate storyteller, and he does have a talent for coming up with interesting scenarios, but there's nothing special about what he writes. His characters are flat, and what he relies on mostly are bad-movie type thrills: the horror-genre's equivalent to car chases and people hanging off of cliffs (and jumping out of the way just as the explosion goes off behind them.)

This may all be true at one point or another, but I disagree with the comment about flat characters. Creating believable, three-dimensional and human characters is what King is best at, and when his books suck (there are more than a couple that do), it's always the reader's investment with the characters that salvage them. It's that way with me, at least.

And, if one more person equates King with "horror", I'll just assume they have no clue about the overall scope of his work and really hasn't read much of it.

 

[peachykeen]

I also disagree with the comment about King's characters being flat. I have always found that he invests them with a rather rich inner life, and in fact I think that that is the biggest reason why some of his best books, when converted to films, don't work - his stories work so well because most of what counts occurs as part of his characters' inner dialogues. That's difficult to then convey on screen.

My main criticism of some of his books are that he gets too caught up in creating the story and the characters and the details and everything, and he gets all excited and on a roll, and then realizes "shit I've got to wrap this up somehow" and so it is often towards the end that things, if not fall apart exactly, become weak. It doesn't happen every time, but it is a tendency.

I think the argument can be made that although certainly not all of his books will come to attain 'classic' status, there are a few real gems among them that will, such as "The Stand".

 

[Queersetti]

No, wrong, I never did. I said it was one of my favorite novels. I didnt specify what TYPE of novel. Damn Q, aren't you tired of being wrong all the time?

Well, well, what have we here?



Originally posted by lavender

Scotty, what are the 5 quintessential American novels in your opinion? And why, do you select those 5?

And what authors, do you believe, are true products of American society.

Did you specialize on any time period in American literature or possibly a region/genre?


My 5 faves-
Grapes of Wrath- a tale of hardship during the Great Depression, showing how people delt in a dark period in modern American history.
Catcher in the Rye- the difficulties and indescretions of youth
Lolita- a mans yearning for what he can not have
1984- the search for truth no matter the personal consequences.

I do not specialize in any specific period but I do like the goth period. I also admire female authors such as Shelley and Plath.







Last edited by Scott X on 02-25-2004 at 12:53 AM


https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=6845642&highlight=orwell#post6845642