|
| T O P I C | |
|
Good book? I couldn't pick it up!
December 26th 2000, 23:06 CET by Andy There's a BBC story about books that are bought, but not read. The focus is on books given as gifts that the lucky recipient never wanted, but let's extend that a bit... According to the BBC story, some of the most unread books are Ulysses by James Joyce, A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking, and everything by Salman Rushdie. This story really hit home with me, because one thing that infuriates me about myself is my habit of not finishing books. Even books that I like. Just recently I've started reading, enjoyed, but then given up on Glamorama by Bret Easton Ellis, A Game We Play by Simona Vinci, Resurrection Day by Brendan DuBois, Birdman by Mo Hayder, and the first Harry Potter book by J.K. Rowling. The only books I've finished in the last few years have been Hannibal by Thomas Harris, American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis, and the non-fiction On Writing by Stephen King. This week I'm going to order Gerald's Game by Stephen King and, although I expect to like it, I'm sure I'll give up on it after a hundred pages or so. I know that there's very little chance of me finishing it, no matter how much I enjoy it. I don't know why I'm like this. Just for some reason, I rarely finish books. It may be that I have high standards, or perhaps I'm just lazy -- after all, it does take effort to finish a book, especially if you're a slow reader, which I am. Feel free to jump into this thread with any relevant comments, or your thoughts on what is discussed in the BBC story. But personally I'm most interested to know if any of you also have this annoying tendency to abandon books, even when you're enjoying them. Am I the only one who does this? |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: Good book? I couldn't pick it up!
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
|
Yeah! Damn that Robert Jordan! Writing an insanely popular series with millions of fans! How dare he think he can write!! Ah c'mon, do we have to play the Deer Hunter/System Shock 2 card? Popularity does not always denote quality and vice versa. |
|
Warren: why is he a bad writer exactly? Um... because his writing is poor. To elaborate, elucidate and expound - he tells a cracking story, but then, so does my grandfather, who rambles disjointed nonsense for half of the story. Do you see what I'm saying now? |
|
Exactly. I've read all the WOT books and have enjoyed (most of) them. But I wouldn't call Jordan a great writer. Competent? Yes.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
TomC (#113): Um... because his writing is poor. To elaborate, elucidate and expound - he tells a cracking story, but then, so does my grandfather, who rambles disjointed nonsense for half of the story. Do you see what I'm saying now? Sure. What I don't see is why you would say someone is a bad writer and then admit to liking their stories and buying their books. Oh well ... --- Warren Marshall Level Designer/Programmer/Corporate Shill Epic Games (www.epicgames.com)<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
Warren, it's really pretty simple. I like James Bond movies. I like old Godzilla movies. Are they good movies? Well, not really, but they're a kick to watch and I enjoy them. See?<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
Ergo (#116): Warren, it's really pretty simple. I like James Bond movies. I like old Godzilla movies. Are they good movies? Well, not really, but they're a kick to watch and I enjoy them. See? Sure, but investing an hour or two to watch a bad movie BECAUSE it's bad is not the same as investing many, many hours reading a book ... --- Warren Marshall Level Designer/Programmer/Corporate Shill Epic Games (www.epicgames.com)<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
I don't read Jordan for his masterful prose--there isn't any. I read Jordan for the incredible, epic (if somewhat cliched) story. I also read the books because I'm curious about how the whole goddamned bloated thing is going to end! ;-) I hope that clears it up.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>Kallisti</b> (#101): <quote>Unless high school was last year, you have missed a lot. Insommnia, Bag of Bones, Wizard and Glass... some really good stuff in there. More important than whether he is "good" at any given moment in time... nearly all of his books are each better than the last, and they do tend to haul in the benjamins. What, pray tell, is your idea of a 'good writer'?</quote> Flannery O'Connor, Kurt Vonnegut, Franz Kafka (his unfinished stuff is better than most people's completed work), Albert Camus, Eugene Ionesco, Dashiel Hammet, Raymond Chandler, Harry Crewes, Jim Thompson, Ernest Hemingway, Henry Miller, etc and so on.... I read so little fiction these days it's hard for me to come up with anymore without having my bookshelf in front of me... <b>TomC</b> (#106): <quote>King <I>is</I> a terrible writer - but a truly great storyteller. </quote> I will agree there...great stories, presentation lacking... I do remember picking up a couple volumes of, what was it, The Dark Tower (?) and actually thinking that King's writing was getting better... Now someone brought up Bradbury, so when do the Aasimov fans come out of the closet? first one to quote the three rules of robotics wins the planetcrap geek of the day award... (by the way I enjoyed bradbury and aasimov both in my time, and enjoy neither of them now) 12xu out<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>#119</b> "12xu" wrote... <quote>three rules of robotics </quote> Rule One- The robot will not harm any human being. Rule Two- The robot will not allow any human being to come to harm. Rule Three- The robot will not allow any harm to come to itself.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>#120</b> "Barneyque" wrote... <quote>Rule One- The robot will not harm any human being. Rule Two- The robot will not allow any human being to come to harm. Rule Three- The robot will not allow any harm to come to itself.</quote> Um correction. Rule One- The robot will not harm any human being to throught inaction allow a human to come to harm. Rule Two- The robot must obey order given to it by a human, unless the order conflict with rule 1. Rule Three- The robot will not allow any harm to come to itself unless doing so conflicts with rule 1 or 2.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>#121</b> "None1a" wrote... <quote><B>#120</B> "Barneyque" wrote... <quote>Rule One- The robot will not harm any human being. Rule Two- The robot will not allow any human being to come to harm. Rule Three- The robot will not allow any harm to come to itself.</quote> Um correction. Rule One- The robot will not harm any human being to throught inaction allow a human to come to harm. Rule Two- The robot must obey order given to it by a human, unless the order conflict with rule 1. Rule Three- The robot will not allow any harm to come to itself unless doing so conflicts with rule 1 or 2.</quote> Damn, denied! :) After tearing my house apart looking for the book, I uhhh... cheated a bit. But I have read the material. On the other hand, be very, very afraid...Were all going to die!. Such a robot to the best of my knowledge does not exist, even the fancy ass pet robots. Ahhhhhh.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
i can't think of a book that i've picked up--bought, borrowed, or whatever--and <i>not</i> finished in the past, oh, 20 years or so. good, bad, indifferent, i just read 'em all. sometimes you get a good nugget out of even the most turgid prose, after all. and besides, i get bored on the train. 45 minutes each way means i can read about 160 pages (or more, if they're big type or a lot of dialog) from end to end on the train. maybe that's why i finish all the books i get... because i can, pretty easily. (oh, and for the inevitable "well, how fast <i>really</i>", i can and have finished a Jordan or Goodkind in about 6 hours, when i wasn't disturbed. :) favorite authors... well, not at home, so i can't check the bookshelf (and my books are all still packed anyway). ask me later. :-p |
|
<b>On pocketPC readers:</b> I read the whole thread and didn't see it: anyone know of some sort of good book reading software for the Palm Pilot? <b>On Andy's thoughts about reader interpretation vs. writer intent:</b> As a (fiction, etc.) author myself, I tend to write with a broad point in mind, but I think I derive the most enjoyment from my own efforts when readers tell me what they got out of it and the interpretation is different from my own. It helps you see your writing in a completely different light. You begin to wonder if you didn't subconsciously intend that meaning to begin with. On the whole, it strengthens the idea that a written work is art and that the interpretation of it is just as important, if not more so, than the work itself. <b>On Douglas Coupland:</b> I read Microserfs and found it kind of enjoyable. I tried to read Generation X and nearly gagged after 1/3 of it. It was like a book-length ad for a soft drink written by someone who thinks he's in touch with my generation but is instead in touch with the marketing shills who think they're in touch with my generation. Generation X, for those who haven't read it, has these wacky and zany little margin notes on words that Coupland made up, like "McJob". It reads like a marketing campaign targetted for the title audience. <b>On Books In General:</b> I wish I had more time to read than I do. I also tend to read about five different books at one time -- it depends on my mood at the moment I want to read what I'll choose, but it also means that I don't zip through the books. Right now I'm reading the recent translation of Beowulf (great read), and a classic recommended by a friend, A Prayer For Owen Meany. I'm also reading some quantum theory stuff to stay in touch with my science roots (what I originally got my degree in). That's about it right now, since in my spare time I'm trying to work on my own book. ;) |
|
I tried to read Generation X and nearly gagged after 1/3 of it and that would be why i didn't include gen-x in the coupland recommendations :) it's kind of odd, really. the reviewers seemed to love Generation X, but everyone i've talked to disliked it. of course, i would never suggest that reviewers are out of touch with the audience, but it does make one wonder. i did enjoy Life After God however, so i should have included that in the list. |
|
Direct response to the article: OH MY GOD! That's bad. You see, I have some writing skill and I'm writing a sci-fi book. I hoped to one day be able to live off writing because I suck at everything else :-)... On the other hand, I'm having much trouble writing the book; I keep losing interest so I can understand those people who don't read the books they get as a gift. That could also be because a book isn't like a movie. I dunno how fast everyone else reads, but it usually takes me up to a week to finish a book and therefore I have to carefully choose the book I start reading, before I'm stuck to a bad book for a week (if I don't finish, it sometimes leaves a sense of...incompletion or something). That, IMO, is why people don't read given books: they don't trust the judgement of the giver when it comes to books. I guess. (dunno if other people have already said this; I haven't read all the replies yet...) |
|
Re: Hellchick on Coupland: "a book-length ad for a soft drink written by someone who thinks he's in touch with my generation" I doubt that: the Generation X Coupland was writing to are all 30 and up now (I was on the tail end, and I'm 31). For some reason, I didn't think you were that far past your prime, Caryn. :-) "It reads like a marketing campaign targetted for the title audience." Umm, you do know the "title audience" (Generation X) didn't even know it existed before Coupland invented the phrase, right? BruceR |
|
<b>BruceR</b> (#127): <quote>Re: Hellchick on Coupland: "a book-length ad for a soft drink written by someone who thinks he's in touch with my generation" I doubt that: the Generation X Coupland was writing to are all 30 and up now (I was on the tail end, and I'm 31). For some reason, I didn't think you were that far past your prime, Caryn. :-) </quote> I think that's part of the problem right now. They picked up the Generation X title and ran with it to define a generation. The original generation it was referring to was only a group of people born within 11 years, so it's more recently been expanded to cover a 20-year span, more in line with the term generation ;) In that light, Generation X would be closer to people between 20 and 40, and the 19 and under crowd has gotten a mixed label of either Generation Y or Millennial Generation. -PainKilleR-[CE] |
|
<b>#128</b> "PainKilleR" wrote... <quote><B>BruceR</B> (#127): <quote>Re: Hellchick on Coupland: "a book-length ad for a soft drink written by someone who thinks he's in touch with my generation" I doubt that: the Generation X Coupland was writing to are all 30 and up now (I was on the tail end, and I'm 31). For some reason, I didn't think you were that far past your prime, Caryn. :-) </quote> I think that's part of the problem right now. They picked up the Generation X title and ran with it to define a generation. The original generation it was referring to was only a group of people born within 11 years, so it's more recently been expanded to cover a 20-year span, more in line with the term generation ;) In that light, Generation X would be closer to people between 20 and 40, and the 19 and under crowd has gotten a mixed label of either Generation Y or Millennial Generation. -PainKilleR-[CE]</quote> Ughh, I've never been easy with the concept of being catagorized. I take this opportunity to resign my position of average peon in GenX. Like everyone else, rightly, or wrongly, I honestly believe I am unique.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
BruceR said: <quote> "a book-length ad for a soft drink written by someone who thinks he's in touch with my generation" I doubt that: the Generation X Coupland was writing to are all 30 and up now (I was on the tail end, and I'm 31). For some reason, I didn't think you were that far past your prime, Caryn. :-) </quote> I'm 28 now. Granted, I was a bit young to be included as a GenX'er when the book came out, but I was at the bottom end of the bracket. Perhaps it was more a case where I'd seen the book <i>after</i> the marketing world picked it up and ran with it to try and appeal to that demographic. Thus by the time I got to it, it seemed like a suitcase packed with every cliche' ever used in reference to GenX. :) And actually, I <i>think</i> the bracket is defined as those who were born from about the early 60's to the early 70's. Not sure if that's considered the standard definition, though. |
|
It's "Generation Why", PainKilleR. Or something. And what in the FINGABOO FANG FOOMERROOOO is "Milennial Generation"? That's just homo bomo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YEEEEEEAHHEHAHE!!!!!!! Take a trip to Costa Rrrrrica (roll the r) in a boat made of 150% pure shame#!!!!! That was a metaphor!####### Put that in your cock and smoke it)(#!) |
|
Warren: What I don't see is why you would say someone is a bad writer and then admit to liking their stories and buying their books. I don't see why you don't see it :) What I'm saying is that I like his stories and enjoy the books, but that his writing style is, objectively, poor. Perhaps if I put it into computer terms... imagine a game like Pong - a fun, addictive, enjoyable game - yet ugly as sin to look at. Does that make more sense? :) |
|
Re: Coupland and Generation X. I haven't read any more than the cover, but it seems to me that it's something along the lines of 'Fight Club' or 'No Logo'. The notion that culture isn't culture anymore, but something for the marketing bods to pick up on and resell to us in a sanitised, user-friendly format. As Phil Knight says 'we don't sell a product - we sell a brand'. McJob might have been a word that Coupland made up, but it describes a very real phenomenon that doesn't just apply to McDonald's, but to all of the modern superbrands. deadlock |
|
oh, and 'Ulysses' ? Great preface... deadlock |
|
"And actually, I think the bracket is defined as those who were born from about the early 60's to the early 70's. Not sure if that's considered the standard definition, though." Back when Coupland first coined it, it was initially taken as more or less synonymous with the demographers' "tail-end boomers" category, in other words, kids born c.1960-70. (I remember writing an interview with one of the Big Giant Heads on this "Lost Generation" topic around 1995 called, "Under 25? You'll Survive.") Speaking generally, people in that age group today do remain disproportionately underemployed compared to twentysomethings and fortysomethings both. But I willingly concede there's been some bracket creep since, culturally at least. :-) At our age, we're either very young X's, or very old Y's. Depends how you want to be defined, I guess. BruceR |
|
On reading speed and attention span: My main problem here is that I can be reading a book and, unless the book is really good, my mind will wander while my eyes will still be going from left to right and from top to bottom. Then I'll find that I've skipped four pages and have no idea what has happened. Books that have avoided this so far have been Trainspotting quickly followed by The Marabou Stork Nightmares by Irvine Welsh and Good Omens by your man Terry Pratchett (even though I'm not keen on his Discworld stuff any more, I've gone through Good Omens about six or seven times. And did I hear a rumour that Terry Gilliam was currently working on the film?). Mnyay. Amongst others. It's usually down to the style of writing, I find I can flick through Douglas Adams books with the ease of a deity but if they become an effort to read that I cannae be bothered. Give me a lifestyle where I start relying on public transport a lot more (ie. maybe a job) and I'll have time to read again - but at home? Too many distractions. I got a boxette of three books for Christmas, all of which I really want to read (The God Of Small Things by Arundhati Roy (which I bought when it came out, started to read it, then lost it), Angela's Ashes by Frank McCourt (saw that one at the pictures last year and loved it) and, most intruiging of all, Wild Swans by Jung Chang) but I'm kidding myself if I ever think I'll get round to reading them and finishing them. I've got 30,000 Mornings peeled from a cover of a recent copy of Nova (crap magazine but I am a sucker for free books taped to Women's Interest titles. whatever. chick books rock like bob. sue me :) sitting around and book queues make me nervous. I mean, I don't even use launderettes any more - I always used to keep a few Kafka and Plath books around for that, while everyone else immersed themselves in Chat and The News Of The World. "Yeah. Kafka. If you don't mind. You keep your eyes on your washing, missy." ;) Oh, I can be a pretentious fuck at times. Your man Douglas Coupland: Miss Wyoming was a great book - loved every page of that one, but for anyone that wants to see a really bad Douggy story, have a look at the little novella that is included within the pages of Lara's Book (which was a gift, it was a gift and it was a gift). General recommendations / Self indulgent "Am I Cool?" book name-dropping: If you ever wanted to have a stab at autobiographies then Lenny Bruce's How To Dalk Dirty And Influence People was great and I keep getting my girl friends telling that I *must* read Stephen Fry's Moab Is My Washpot. Oddly, all my boy friends seem to be down with all that swords and sorcery shit which, eeshk, does nothing for me. Pudding: I loved the gag on Futurama about the Mars (?) library having the biggest collection of books in the universe and looking through a window they see two CDs; fiction and non-fiction. I find it really difficult reading from a monitor although I can imagine that little LCD palm-tops may be a little easier. You still can't beat how pretty a shelf-full of books looks though. - CtW (walking the corner to the rubble...) |
|
<b>ConfusionTheWaitress</b> (#136): <quote> walking the corner to the rubble... </quote> ...that used to be a library. |
|
<b>Andy</b> (#2): <quote>I annoy stupid people. Thanks for reminding me.</quote> For reminding you that you're stupid? For such a blatantly calumnious bastard, who spews irrelevant, hearsay, unconfirmed, assified+asinine garbage, the closest you're ever going to get to rhetoric, is diatribe spewed from one of Pratchet's one-legged dwarf with rheum. <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>CharlieWiederhold</b> (#32): <quote>I believe I've finished every book I've ever picked up. </quote> Did you read Pratchet's books? No? Try picking one up from Amazon. I just finished The Truth. A good read. The last books I finished are The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene and The Gift Of Fear by Gavin de Becker. Last Days Of Summer by Steve Kluger is good too. <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
For such a blatantly calumnious bastard, who spews irrelevant, hearsay, unconfirmed, assified+asinine garbage, the closest you're ever going to get to rhetoric, is diatribe spewed from one of Pratchet's one-legged dwarf with rheum/ Can't you do better than that by now? That sounded so forced... Never become a critic. |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: Good book? I couldn't pick it up!
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
| P O S T A C O M M E N T |
|
|
| C R A P T A G S | ||||||||
|
|
| There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details] |
Powered by blah 0.9.1-dev •
PlanetCrap is © 1997-2035 Hendrik "Morn" Mans
|