Being a Better Writer: "High-Class" Literature and Shakespeare · 10:27pm Jun 2nd, 2014
Today's topic is a little different. And a little late (for which I apologize, but I was wrapped up finishing reading a book, which I'm sure most of you can understand). Today's topic is more on the philosophy of not just writing, but reading as well. I'm going to talk about the semi-divide between what's often called "high-class literature" and what's written for entertainment.
Sound a little confusing? Bear with me.
Remember those English classes you had in high school? Or maybe you're still having them. Crud, you might be waiting for them to arrive. Well, I had those just like most people. And one of the defining memories I have of those days is of my teacher and their choices of literature.
You see, to my teacher, unless the work had been rubber-stamped by a faceless, indiscriminate board somewhere with the term "classic," then it wasn't worth reading. No joke. Our class actively debated this with our teacher on several occasions, because there were plenty of us who were active readers and enjoyed thumbing through a good book. The conflict was, however, that we "weren't really reading," at least, that was how we saw our teacher's stance. We were told that Tolkien was garbage, that Harry Potter was trash, all because whatever high-class group our teach took their opinion from had disdained to give those books their stamp of approval. Instead, we were given books to read like Ethan Frome or The Catcher in the Rye. The first I absolutely despise to this day for its complete dryness and lack of real depth, and the second I could replicate my feelings for simply by browsing livejournal for a few hours until I've had my fill of teenage angst.
As you can tell, I wasn't fond of either of them. But we had to read them anyway, because in our teacher's words, they were what we were supposed to be reading. They were classics. All that other stuff we enjoyed? A waste of time. Not real literature.
Bottom line: if it didn't have the classic stamp on it somewhere, we shouldn't have been reading it.
My teacher back then was a practically a card-carrying member of what some authors like to refer to as the "literati." It's a bit of a joke term, but as I see it, it boils down to any collection of individuals who will argue that one book is clearly superior to another because of high-minded reasons.
Now don't get me wrong. We all know that there are some things that just aren't worth reading. Bad plots, unending horrible grammar, overabundance of prose and showing, bad characters ... these are all things that can make a story not worth someone's time. I've read some books before that I only finished because they were so bad I was mentally cataloging all the mistakes and reminding myself not to make them.
But there's a difference here. The "literati" mentality is more rigid. Less flexible. Take for instance, an aforementioned example, The Catcher in the Rye. We all know it's a "classic."
Can any of you tell me why?
One of the largest reasons is because it's an adult author writing a very in-character viewpoint of angst and alienation. That's pretty much the whole book: A teen disjointedly raging in period-accurate vernacular about his life and everything he doesn't like about it. And you know what? For that, it does a pretty impressive job. It won awards for that portrayal, as well as a lot of readers.
Now, as most of you know, teenage angst isn't exactly in short supply. Livejournal, facebook ... There's no shortage of teenage angst in the world. And you know what? Since The Catcher in the Rye has been written, there have probably been (and I only say probably because this really isn't a genre I read) dozens of books that explore the same subject with just as much skill and modern vernacular that aren't listed as classics. And that's because Catcher was the trendsetter. It was the first. Kind of like how everyone remembers the first marathon (nike, anyone?) but they're a dime a dozen today (not the best analogy, but surely you see my point).
The problem is that in a literati's mind, Catcher having that "classic" stamp on it makes it automatically superior to any of the "lesser works" that lack that same stamp. The classic moniker is a the end all, the all-determining mark. A panel of experts somewhere got together and determined by some criteria that this story is the absolute best work there is. Nothing is better, because the experts said so.
Now clearly, not even some of the experts would say that (although some of them would), but that point doesn't matter to the mind of a literati. They're pushing "high class" literature. The experts have awarded a book an award, and that means that it is superior reading to anything else out there. In fact, if the book doesn't have one of those awards, it's not worth anyone's time, because obviously these are the best, right?
This mentality exists everywhere, in every form of entertainment, but with literature, thanks to the longevity of the art form and the established presence it has, the mentality has some pretty strong roots. Like my old English teacher. Or even here, in a fandom devoted to, of all things, fanfiction. Again, I'm not saying that there aren't stories which we all agree could use work, but I've actually conversed with individuals who have expressed that they "only read fiction that comes from EQD, because that's the only stuff worth reading." You see, it has the "rubber stamp." And quite often, it's a rubber stamp that passes over a lot of works for very arbitrary reasons, defined by incredibly narrow parameters. There are plenty of great reads that EQD infamously turned down for one reason or another. Restricting yourself to reading only works they post because those are somehow "better" is the exact same literati attitude that had my teacher arguing against The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. You don't have to like them for reasons of personal taste, but you can still acknowledge them as works that many enjoy.
Worse yet, sometimes the rubber stampers themselves fall into the same trap. A new work comes in, but if it doesn't meet some arbitrary standard—like holding to one style of English over the other—out it goes without a second thought. There's a huge debate roiling at the Hugo awards this year over a bunch of authors who got tired of the nominations being more or less cherry picked by the fans of the select few running the panel and encouraged their own fans (of which there were many) to vote in the Hugo's as well (anyone can attend Worldcon and vote for the awards, but for a while a good chunk of the reading public hasn't). The result has been a firestorm of flame from those who had, up until this point, ruled the panel (one which has gotten quite nasty). On the one side, the newcomers are arguing that the Hugo's have become incredibly polarized by the group in charge and turned it into little more than a back-slapping circlejerk, while the panel contends the upstarts are terrible people who write literary trash. Sound familiar?*
I enjoyed Wuthering Heights quite a bit. That's a classic a lot of people don't like. I thought it was a good read. Still have my copy. I enjoyed Dracula. I wasn't a fan of Jane Eyre, nor did I enjoy The Glass Unicorn that much. Everyone has tastes in their entertainment.
Which leads me to the latter of the two approaches I mentioned in the title this morning. I call it the "Shakespeare" approach, after a blog I once read discussing this same topic made this observation: Literary critics will often retreat and hide behind the mantra of "Shakespeare" to defend themselves (famously lampshaded in an amazing Absurdist play I once say in which the only actor drives the critic in the audience back by using a book of Shakespeare's plays before driving a stake through his heart), when in fact if Shakespeare were alive today he wouldn't be doing the same. We revere Shakespeare quite a bit for his talent and wordplay today, but what we tend to forget is that Shakespeare wasn't foremost trying to craft great literary works. He was an entertainer. At the time, many "literati" considered him a hack. He made up words, broke rules of English all over the place (sound familiar), and didn't conform to the current accepted standards at all. But with all that, he was popular with the regular folks. Shakespeare was a rock star in his day. If you've ever seen the Doctor Who episode where they meet Shakespeare, well, that's not too far from the truth. Shakespeare wrote stuff that was fun. He made up words. He knew he was on to something, ignored the "high-class" of his day, and wrote stuff that was fun. And the public loved it. As someone once pointed out, if Shakespeare were around today, he wouldn't be writing some sort of "high-class" novel that most people would never touch. He'd be writing the next Star Wars, and quite possibly making it a crossover with The Avengers because that would be crazy-fun and get a ton of people to watch it.
But this is the kind of mentality that gives us things like Artemis Fowl, Hard Magic or Die Hard. They're not written to change lives or win awards. They're written to be enjoyed. Let's face it, Hard Magic probably isn't going to win any Newberry awards. This doesn't mean it can't be a great, fun read. I'd say more on this segment, but I think that pretty much covers it: if it's fun, it's fun!
Alright, so that's fairly straightforward, but most of us are already determined to read what we want anyway. So what about writers? What do we take for this?
Well, I don't think it's fair to say that all we should care about when writing is straight entertainment. Popcorn for popcorn's sake is fun, but at the same time it can be tiresome, and everyone loves a bit of variety in their meal. At the same time, a diet of pure health granola is very dry, and likewise, writing solely to be "high-class" tends to go the same way. So where should you be going?
If you write nothing but entertainment, you're going to wind up in a rut. There are only so many times we can read about a character facing an action packed, end-of-the-world battle before we get tired of reading it. One the other side, whatever requirements make up the literati group you're writing for won't really leave you much to go off of. You can't write for that group, as Billy Collins so eloquently alludes to with his poem An Introduction to Poetry. They aren't interested in what you have to offer.
My answer is: Be Shakespeare. He wrote for entertainment. He didn't let the high-class concern him. At the same, time, he wasn't afraid to push the boundaries. He invented dozens of new words (check this list out and be amazed, given how common many of them are now), tried new things, and made points in his own way. Are many of his plays funny, poignant, or otherwise influential? Of course! But that isn't all that holds us to them. They're fun. Shakespeare was an entertainer. As writers, that's what we are. And if we don't entertain, no matter how amazing we think our idea is, if it isn't entertaining ... few will read it.
As readers, we can't let this escape us either. One story I have on my kindle from this site is called "Unicorn". And you know what? It's not the world's greatest story. You'll never see it on a good chunk of fic-recommendation sites out there. But you know what? I liked it anyway. It has mechanical flaws, and the story itself isn't exactly original, but at the same time, it has a few clever ideas that are entertaining (the kiss itself is an idea I wish I'd thought of, as it's a brilliant one). Is the story going to win some sort of award? No. The errors alone would disqualify it from most literati, who wouldn't even read it. And you know what? Their loss. Because it's still a good little story that I liked despite it's rough edges.
With both writing and reading, we can't let out own sights be blinded by arbitrary requirements and requests. We shouldn't refuse to read a story just because it has't been approved by some musty internet critic or uses the wrong form of "grey/gray." Likewise, if you're thinking that your action story must have something deep and mind-blowing (or controversial) in order to be "good," well, you're wrong. If someone is telling you that your story can't be good simply because they want the main character to have an existential crisis of being rather than a chase through downtown, ignore them! It's your story, and it doesn't have to be one way or the other to be good. Your talent and practice make it good. Not the inclusion of arbitrary requirements or ideas.
Be a Shakespeare. Not a high-minded literati. Write what's fun. Read what you enjoy. Step outside the zone and try new things, see if you enjoy them as well. The results will speak for themselves.
*My own stance is siding with upstarts. As they've pointed out, all they've done is asked their fans to attend and contribute by voting, while the panel has gone as far as to tell their own fans who to vote for. Also, after one of the fiery panel authors argued that some author deserved to win with their nomination, not because of what they wrote (in fact, they didn't even mention the name of the work or what it was about), but because the author was a woman, I'd read enough. I'm all for judging a work on its own merits. Did I like it? Did I not like it? But to vote without even reading the work simply because the author is a woman? What kind of horrible sexism is that? "Oh, you're a woman? I guess I should give you this award, since, you know, ovaries." This has nothing to do with the author's work. I'd be just as offended if someone demanded to win an award for his writing because he was white. That has nothing to do with your story! You could be E.T. for all I care. Is your writing good? I stopped reading the Hugo award collection books a few years ago not because of who wrote them (and I have no idea who did), but because quite honestly, they'd gotten really dull.
I think it's worth distinguishing "historically significant works of literature" from genuine "classics of literature." In my view, a true classic is a work of art which is universally appealing and contains moving appeals or turns of phrase or character portrayals or plot lines which stand the test of time.
Catcher in the Rye is historically significant.
A Christmas Carol is a classic.
Classics are where we get quotes and ideas that resonate powerfully with the human mind and that we can still read today without suffering.
Indeed, you can enjoy many stories regardless of its critical merits, and as you pointed out, many of them may have been decried in their time. The key difference is if something is enjoyable. While that may vary greatly from person to person, if there is no enjoyment for most people, perhaps it could use some work.
Also, yes. That's a stupid, offensive reason to give an award to someone.
2168896
That sounds like a fair distinction.
I personally think that the focus on "high class" literature held by the education system is in large part directly responsible for how disinterested so many people are in reading. If your only exposure to novels is hundred year old personal dramas or social critiques, then why would you bother picking up some piece of modern fiction? You've hated every book you've ever read, because instead of teachers trying to engage you with things that might entertain you, they bore you with stuff meant to "enrich" you. Any English teacher who hasn't at least looked at something like A Game of Thrones for use in the classroom, isn't a very good teacher.
Personally, I'm not a fan of many "classics", because I don't enjoy the particular things that made them classics. Your point on Catcher shows this pretty well;
I don't care about realistic, accurate, or personally relateable character portrayals. I like that stuff, sure, but it needs to be a support rather than the main focus of the story. I read almost exclusively speculative fiction, and I enjoy it precisely because when done well, it not only entertains but expresses some new, innovative, or fantastical ideas.
My favorite book that I've read recently, is Philip K. Dick's The Man in the High Castle. On the surface, it's the same as the new Wolfenstein game; the Nazi's won WWII, and here's what America looks like now. This is an ample reason for people to dismiss it, but doing so means they miss out on some of the best examples of the philosophy of objective versus perceived reality and value I've ever read. Worrying to much about "the classics" seems to me a literary version of the fallacist's fallacy; the inference that if a work contains elements of low literature, it is entirely without value.
2168992
I suggest avoiding things that involve raping and impregnating a 13 year-old girl in Middle School as sponsored reading material, but I get what you're going for.
2168896
^This is excellent.
2168935
I know. Worst of it is, that same panel has called the upstarts "misogynistic" and worse.
2168992
Personally, I think a great way to address this issue would be to let the students pick their own works to read, provided they can make a compelling case as to why. That'd be far more effective than simply telling students what to like and why. Give them to tools to pick this stuff out for themselves!
I would agree with Ether though, A Game of Thrones is a little much for a lot of adults, let alone students, popularity aside.
I'm almost the opposite. I need real characters or I lose interest quickly (fitting that characters tend to the be one of my strongest areas). Then again, characters aren't usually the purpose or guiding force of speculative fiction.
2169039
If a kid is already reading A Game of Thrones I might fairly ask them to analyze it, of course, with special interest paid to its progressive themes and the way it condemns such behavior, but directly sponsored? No way, that's asking for trauma.
I find people who consider Shakespeare to be high-class funny, because of all the penis jokes in Shakespeare's plays, as well as his frequent focus on... nothing.
2169055
There was much ado about that back in the day, I believe.
2169017
2169039
Yeah, fair point. I actually have no idea what high schoolers are reading now; I was into GoT, and it's popular right now, but, yeah, maybe a little dark. Then again, lots of schools read The Handmaid's Tale, so there is that.
2169083
I was reading Wheel of Time and the like when I was in middle school.
2169055 2169061
Anything partially incomprehensible has to be the truest of literature, right? That's why you need a teacher and/or footnotes to understand it, because it's dripping with substance. Not because it's just so old that the language changed a lot since then.
I'm not complaining, mind you. His plays stood the test of time, partly from luck and partly from being good. It's just entertaining to learn that the classics aren't the end-all be-all of writing. I didn't learn that just today, but it unfortunately wasn't in high school. Some of the choices did confound me and I wondered why some of them were considered note-worthy. That's not to say I was bright enough to know, I simply wondered back then.
I actually dodged reading Moby Dick in school because the rhetoric of my teacher made it sound like one of those awful "classics" you're writing about. Many years later I read it... and found that all the teachers and movie adaptations that bowed down to its themes and symbolism missed the most important thing about the book: It's freakin' hilarious!
I have to conclude that nobody in the last 50 years has really read the book. They've all gone through the Cliff Notes version and are just mimicking what dried up old literati say about it.
Really... the reason Ahab remains below decks for the first three days of the voyage isn't some dumb-ass symbol of "the hidden forces that control our lives," as my English prof maintained. No, it was because Ahab had been stumping around the port raging about the white whale and busted his wooden leg off against a curb. The broken end bounced up and whacked him so hard in the nuts, that he fell unconscious and caught a cold from lying in the street all night!
And the book is full of that shit! It is subtly done, and in a sly, 19th century style, but it's everywhere!
So, not only does the rubber-stamp crowd foist off dry, dull stories on us, they also frighten us away from good books by lumping them in with those others. It's a crime, I tell ya!
I probably would have enjoyed Catcher in the Rye a lot more if I had read it during the ages of 13-15 years old, that frustrating time between childhood and the relative freedom and independence of a driver's license. As it is, I read it in my mid-20's, and while I did like it it, I also felt like it was bordering on (unintentional?) satire.
And that's the thing: tastes change. If you cling to a list of "great literature" and never add anything to that list because you read it yourself and thought it was great, well, that's not opinion, it's dogma.
Also, I've read my own share of "So bad it's
goodfascinating" novels. You're right in that those are often a case study of what not to do. My own guide is that, when I write, it has to feel honest. If I feel like I'm forcing something, it's probably because it's not the right way to go. Every time I've gone the easy route instead of the honest route, I've ended up regretting it.What I'm wondering is if there are any people who decide these Hugo awards who would be disinclined to read or recommend a work of fiction written by a woman, leading to a collective mentality where they just slip the judges' minds and when people protest, they say that the men just so happened to be better this time around... just like last time... and the time before. I can get why people would get frustrated and try to rig the game in the other direction if that happens a lot.
2169083
When I was in high school Stephen King pretty much ruled my life.
2169427 I've thought that too. Moby Dick really seems to be two books in one; the deep and symbolic version, significantly weakened by hundreds of pages of off topic abstractions, and a dryly hilarious story of the sort that people like Bill Bryson are so good at. Not many people see the second book, and in my opinion, they're missing out on the superior experience.
2169715 That's what makes it even odder; women actually have an okay representation in the Hugos. It's not at perfect parity, of course (it is scifi and fantasy, after all, and anyone who says that the gender divide among the audience is an even split is a dirty liar), but there are a decent number of women in the lists. It's not like they need to fake it to keep from being a complete sausage fest.
King could actually probably be worked into a lesson plan fairly easily. Danse Macabre is still good enough thirty years later that it should be read by anyone wanting to write (or appreciate) horror stories.
I think the "classics" fell out of my favor long before I even got to high school. Raised on a steady diet of Stephen King, Michael Crichton, and Dean Koontz as a kid, I could just never summon up any interest for most of the literature that was required reading. I read the Cliff Notes, I aced the tests. When the time came to utilize—what my English teacher called—"Western literary critique" to figure out what the authors were really trying to say with their stories, I found out that I'd receive high marks if I utilized a different talent instead.
That talent being "bullshit". Give me a pen and paper, and I could bullshit through every "literary critique" I was assigned. No matter how tenuous the link, I could bullshit every paper I wrote such that the author was clearly trying to convey an idea that I really only came up with on the fly.
High school English classes, and my disillusion with their methods of "education", are actually one of the great many reasons I began to loathe school.
That's not to say they're entirely wrong. Voltaire's Candide is still one of my favorite stories, a vaunted "classic", even if it's not much in circulation around the nation's high schools. And that is a story which very much has an underlying meaning outside of the narrative itself (as does pretty much everything Voltaire wrote, ever). On the other side of the coin, I can't fucking stand Dan Brown. No idea why, I just try to read his books but eventually just put them down in disgust before finishing them. And this is coming from someone who absorbed pretty much all of Dean Koontz's library as a kid. (He's really gone downhill the last decade or two, don't judge me.)
Seems to me that prioritizing literature as an intellectual pursuit rather than as an outlet for entertainment, when both may or may not be true depending on the work, is the ultimate failure of the current educational system.
I'm probably biased, though, and definitely drunk. When it comes to stories, I'm mostly just looking for another good yarn to pick through. I imagine most people are the same.
2169427
I'm really gonna have to read Moby Dick, now.
Being one of the kids who didn't have cable aside from basic package (Mr. Rodgers ftw), a lot of my childhood composed of books. Heck, my highschool lunches were replaced with me chatting with the librarians and doing a better job than the 'volunteers' at reshelving. Plenty of time to read then. Personal opinion is that english teachers do a mix of 'high' literature and contemporary works that work on similar themes. But don't just make students read because they are 'classics', but instead ask why they gained that status, as well as what cultural changes brought about its popularity if it was unpopular in its own time.
Tastes definitely change over time. Used to think Gordan Korman books were great adventures as a little kid, but then turned them down when I got old enough to realized the amount of near-impossible stunts the protagonists pull. I mean teenagers with no training somehow managing to do surgery on a bullet wound with WWII medigal equipment? *eyes roll*
Same thing with Catcher in the Rye. Was all for him when he pointed out the hypocrisy in the world, but then later realized the things that he does are hypocrytical as well, as well as seeing him as an angsty teenager.
There are a number of works that I enjoyed reading though that still stick with me. Number the Stars was pretty entertaining. Eragon is indirectly responsible for me reading Tolkien, as my peers recommended the former, toting it as easier read of the latter. That just made me read Tolkien out of spite. Artemis Fowl was actually pretty entertaining until they decided to throw romance and time-travel shenanigans in the later books.
Hmm. Agreeing with 2168896 . Some books do have a great historical significance, but I don't find them entertaining at all. War and Peace is one I will probably never finish, as special as the book is for Russian history.
Interested in opinions of mixed media attempting to try and make the "high literature" benchmark. Specifically comics. There's a whole bunch that are definitely thought-provoking, and some that are pretty much always recommmended, like Watchmen. Should other media try and do the same thing and create their "Classics"? Video games is another one. Had interesting discussions in an English College course discussing 'video game canon'.
2169427
But as far as themes and symbolism ... yeah, our education system really goes overboard with those.
This is tempting me to pick it up myself, seeing as I've never read it. I might go in with an open mind though; I got enough tying of knots working on fishing boats myself.
2169083 2169085
I went through LotR in 4th-5gth grade, and was reading Michael Crichton by the time I was headed to sixth grade. But there's a crappy memory with this. There was a teacher in my fifth grade classes who would not let me read my books in class because he said I wasn't a good enough reader to be reading them. Instead, during reading hour he'd force me to read and then do assignments for 5th grade level, which was where I should have been, according to him.
To this day, I don't like that guy, lol.
2169680
I've got a couple of books from my childhood I've purposefully not reread, as I know I wouldn't enjoy them now, and I'd much rather have the memory of enjoying them. My tastes have changed, so I'll just remember I did enjoy them.
2169715
It's ... a messed up situation. Apparently, the panel in charge is very, shall we say, politically charged, and so they're making selections based on an authors political standings or sex and race rather than on the story, which has led to the other faction of authors getting really annoyed, each for various reasons (some feel that the end result is weakening fantasy and sci-fi in the public mind because the resulting stories that are picked as the "best" aren't that good, some are just annoyed that the stories are often soapboxes, etc). It's led to quite the flame war online, with some seriously nasty acid getting tossed around, although mostly from one side. There have been a few ridiculous moments as well (one panel-author attacked an opposing author on the grounds of "check your privilege" by accusing them of just saying all those things because they were a sexist male ... only to have the author in question reveal that she was a woman, thank you very much, and that the panel author could shove it).
I've been watching the battle for a while now. It's pretty crazy, but I think the upstarts are going to win. They've held the moral high-ground a lot better than the panel has, which has really taken some cheap, misfired shots.
And as far as reading Stephen King in high school, that's a good choice. That man can write! The way he does descriptions is just brilliant!
2170317
For our final on Ethan Frome, we were required to write an essay on four themes found in the book (man vs nature, etc) and for my final theme, I chose "man versus self."
But not in the way my teacher expected. I wrote about how the greatest theme of conflict with Ethan Frome was with the reader versus himself, as his bored, uninterested mind strove to both stay awake and finish the book, a task so arduously dull that by the end staring at a blank wall seemed exciting in comparison.
I got credit. But with a note from the teacher that they "didn't like this." I just laughed. That was the same teacher that told me I had no talent at writing whatsoever and shouldn't even bother taking English courses when I went to college.
One English degree and two published books later...
You're right though, making intellect the pursuit rather than entertainment is a crippling weakness, and part of the reason that a large portion of the US doesn't even read one book in a year.
2170622
I still love Gordon Korman, but because they're so ridiculous. Unbelievable? Sure. But some of those books have had me laughing so hard I've hurt. Dumping an industrial sized box of alka-seltzer into a rival swim-team's pool in revenge? Being the son of a mobster, going to the local make-out point with your girlfriend, and then finding a dead body in your trunk bleeding all over the blanket you'd brought when you go to get it? I'll admit, they're completely, 100% unbelievable ... but man are they funny.
2171379
I admit I have no idea what books you are talking about from the guy. I haven't kept up with him since his first couple of series (Everest, Island, Dive, On the Run). Gave up on Paolini after skimming Inheritence Cycle. So many plot holes in that one. Not to say they weren't entertaining, but it gets ridiculous.
Re: 5th grade teacher
While I can't recall any sort of restrictive teachers of that ilk, I do remember being at the tailend of what the school called "Accelerated Reading", which was to force kids to read books. Each book was given an arbitrary number of points, and each student an account. Read the book, log into one of the school computers and take a test related to that book, recieving full points on passing the test. Students were required to gain a minimum number of points in order not to be repremanded. My friends and I decided to trivialize it by turning it into a sort of scoreboard contest. Only won out due to cheesing my score with all the kiddie picture books like Madeline and Seuss books. Most of my friends went for the big ones only, like Harry Potter. It was fun, much better than the 'reading minutes' system some of my brothers and sisters had later.
Re: Affirmitive Action Awards
Are people seriously still judging books based on if the author was X or Y? Sure I can understand biographys, but I'd rather see books judged on content rather than context.
Re: Man vs Self
That sounds hilarious. Wish I thought of something like that while in school. Closest I got to something like this was a compare and contrast essay between the modern (high school) student and one in the 80's in terms of literature and other worldly distractions.
2171489
I had no idea what those ones were, I had to look them up lol. Those are all really recent (more recent than my High School days, anyway). The stuff I'm talking about is the stuff that made him big back in the day, the 90s and earlier. Books like:
Son of the Mob
I Want to Go Home!
The War With Mr. Wizzle
Losing Joe's Place
A Semester in the Life of a Garbage Bag
Are they all utterly ridiculous? Oh yes. But they're hilarious.
2171379
I cried when I finished reading the end of King's Dark Tower series, mostly because I thought I'd never get to see these characters I'd almost come to see as real people again (this was before The Wind in the Keyhole came out, but by that time I'd cooled on the series).
I may have fallen in love with Wheel of Time like Ether Echoes did had I read them early enough. Heck, my dad kept the whole collection at his parents' house, so it's not like I didn't have the opportunity. But I waited until I was done with college, and by then it was like that whole nostalgia-ruining thing you mentioned without ever having had the nostalgia in the first place.
I don't think The Eye of the World is a good book, is what I'm trying to say.
2171489
I'm gonna try and read Eragon sometime (when I can borrow the books from a friend because I refuse to buy them myself) to see just how awful it is firsthand. I've heard some shit.
2171790
Wow, didn't know he wrote that far back. And yes, they are hilarious. It's why I picked them up in the first place.
2171860
First book I liked, 2nd book was ok. Then it started going downhill.
2172359
Started going downhill?
2172628
It's not a very big hill.
Trying so hard not to talk about spoilers by the way. Definitely trying to do the hero cycle in terms of storytelling. Just so many plotholes makes it a bumpy ride to read.
I'll admit, I've entertained the idea of become an English literature teacher just so I can assign students to read something ridiculous.
Hell, imagine going to class and getting the monthly assignment "Read and analyze this action-adventure pony fan fiction".
I really wish I could add something profound to this discussion, but sadly I cannot. I don't pay much attention to the awards you mentioned, I was never a big reader when I was younger, and I've only read maybe two of William's plays.
That said, I can still appreciate the insight and wisdom you display here. I don't consider myself a terribly proficient writer. I'm capable, certainly, but I have no delusions of being 'great' or taking it to a professional level.
And I'm fine with that.
I write because I enjoy it. Because writing helps me remove stress from my daily life. Because writing allows me to express lessons and meaning to people in a way they won't often understand. Writing, for me, is a hobby. I don't care about faves, upvotes, or features (though those things are nice, certainly). I want to write a story I like, and have a handful of people who got something from it in kind.
Which is why this blog is awesome. It reminds us that the most important thing about writing is to have fun. There is a place for hard stories, but the main goal is to pull the reader into your world and help them to care about it as much as you do.
Thanks for putting those thoughts into such an eloquent blog.
-Lumino