Too many people looking down on my favorite genres lately! So I am angrily posting.
Look, people, just because a book is only roughly based on any reality we know doesn't mean its not good. Putting some meaningless label onto it doesn't make the writing any less good, doesn't make anyone enjoy reading it any less, and doesn't make the person reading "escapist" lit. any less smart, educated, cultured, responsible, grounded than you and your Great Gatsby and The Odessey . Both of which I myself have escaped into, incedentally.
*Anything* can be escapist. It's not limited to "trash", as you so eloquently describe sf/fan. Maybe you literary snobs can't escape into the stuff you read because, contrary to what you say, you're not a good reader at all. So maybe my escaping into books--including classics, modernism, novels, poetry, and plays--shows that *I*, unlike you, know how to really read things, where as you only read to appear well-read.
Poseur.
Sorry, I started into somthing of a personal attack there on the person who sparked this rant, who, surprise surprise , is not a member of this forum.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
There are times when I want to just turn my brain off and lose myself in a book or movie that's either the mental equivalent of potato chips or is so familiar to me that it's like comfort media. I never use the "escapist" label, though.
I prefer "mind candy."
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Actually, the Oddessy is infinitely better than any modern novel I can think of. So I don't agree something can be just as good. I agree that you can enjoy it as much or more. Sometimes we like a three course meal, and sometimes we just want a few M&Ms.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
quote:Actually, the Oddessy is infinitely better than any modern novel I can think of.
I'm not sure where "actually" comes into the picture.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Some fellow classmates in my English graduate class were commenting on how they can't just read for pleasure anymore, because they analyze everything..
I think they're crazy. I still escape into books and I would HATE to reach the point where my studies robs me of that. Guess it's good I'm a second-rate student.
Escapism is more a commentary on the person than what they're reading, I think. Which is why I'd be angry too. Nothing wrong with a little escapism. This world can seriously suck at times.
Forget them.
-Katarain
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
There is a great story about "The Escapist." It's called the Adventures of Kavalier and Klay.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Escapism should be the highest goal of a piece of literature. It is in its capacity to allow us to escape into the shoes of another person and that person's world that literature has almost all it's power. That's where you find both the beauty and educational value of stories.
The usage of literary devices and good style, in contrast, is more akin to the juggling act of a good juggler. It's amazing what some people can do with some words, and I'm sure other writers (like other jugglers) can appreciate the difficulties of it, but when you get down to it writing for writing's sake is just a sideshow. It's only in writing to help the reader escape into the story being written that something wonderful is made.
[ October 03, 2004, 02:08 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by ladyday (Member # 1069) on :
That's the first thing I thought of when I saw the thread topic, Irami.
I sort of agree with you Tres, but I would add that it's rewarding when an author manages to master both expert craftsmanship and wonderful storytelling. Sort of the same way that I find an emotionally moving painting that must have required unimaginable skill with a brush just a little more appealing than a thought provoking black dot on a white canvas, however much merit both paintings have conceptually.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Me, next to the Science Fiction Section with a friend:
Friend: Isn't it funny how the romance section is always right next to the science fiction and fnatasy section? Me: That's because the genres overlap, a lot of fantasy and science fiction is romance, just in a different setting. That's why a bad of people don't like science fiction and fantasy, because they don't know that, just like any other genre, it has good and bad sections. Friend (scoffing): Or maybe it's just bad. (At this point I start looking for Foundation which I'd only seen in hardcover, or not at all)
My other friends range between a healthy natural respectful dislike, mild amusement, attempts to get me off science fiction like it is some kind of damaging addiction and the sort of non-interventionist attitude that tolerates such addicts.
Of course, this friend is notorious for being closed minded. I say that speculative fiction is a branch of science fiction (she loves 1984 and Brave New World), she says no, because she reads speculative fiction and therefore it cannot be science fiction because science fiction is bad.
It's starting to get on my nerves. Why should I be treated like some kind of amusing social outcast? "Oh, Teshi reads science fiction" is said with as much toleration as for the family alcaholic. Extend that to any reading.
(My mother, however, who used to merely used to encourage 'more expansive' reading discovered Philip K. Dick and I'm giggling gleefully behind my hand)
You know what, I think I'll write an article about this.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:I'm not sure where "actually" comes into the picture.
1. Nit picking over grammar instead of actually refuting anything is a sign of ignorance or petulance or both.
2. To understand the context of it, I shall point you toward the statement it was answering.
quote:Putting some meaningless label onto it doesn't make the writing any less good, doesn't make anyone enjoy reading it any less, and doesn't make the person reading "escapist" lit. any less smart, educated, cultured, responsible, grounded than you and your Great Gatsby and The Odessey .
To which I responded:
quote:Actually, the Oddessy is infinitely better than any modern novel I can think of.
So follow your own link, and read definition one.
Another overlooked type of literature that gets labeled escapist is the comic book genre. Plenty of good, fun stories there. Once again, I wouldn't place them on the level of the Greek classics, but man cannot live on Greek classics alone. Chris Claremont and Neil Gaiman put balance to a well-read person's library.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
I'm surprised that your friend knows the term "speculative fiction". In my experience only hardcore fans of a certain sort of literary sf/f have heard of it.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
I wasn't picking on your grammar; I was picking on exactly what I said I was--your use of the word "actually". My point is that I don't see how the Odyssey can be better than any modern novel "[i]n fact; in reality".
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
FYI:
Fact Reality Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Whatever you say. You sound more like the opposite of the kind of person Leah was complaining about in the first post. Congratulations on your own snobbery.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
He's pointing out that The Oddessy is infinitely better than any modern novel in your opinion. That's not a fact, and the only thing supporting the statement is your preferences.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
What he said.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
she Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
You're forgetting that the early Greek stories are the basis from which almost all modern works are derived.
Nice try, but when something as simple as comics and bubble-gum fiction abound in almost direct derivations on older works, it's really hard to justify that trying to reinvent the wheel is going to be anything but an attempt to reinvent the wheel.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: I'm surprised that your friend knows the term "speculative fiction".
I used it, she knew that I meant by it and is very bright, bright enough to understand that I meant Brave New World etc.
quote: You're forgetting that the early Greek stories are the basis from which almost all modern works are derived.
I am taking the two courses you really would like/should take it. In one, the professor insists on the basics, the Odyssey, the Bible etc and distains the rest for the fact that they're all just re-thought plot lines. In the other class the professor makes it clear that re-used themes and motifs are important and as viable as new ones.
[ October 03, 2004, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Personally, I like the Iliad a lot more than the Odyssey. In the Iliad, it's Honor above Life, in the Odyssey, it's Life above Honor. Odysseus is such a creep.
As for her using "Actually," it is perfectly okay for her to use the word. It is completely obvious that it is opinion, since words like "best" and "better" are totally subjective. She's speaking, so it's obviously her opinion again--even if she doesn't realize it. Prefacing your words with "I think" just because someone might disagree is weak. If you believe it, say so.
See, I could have started that "Prefacing..." sentence with I think. I didn't, because I believe it (in many situations), and if you don't, you better be secure enough in yourself to handle it.
I happen to disagree with her statement. I wouldn't put either the Iliad OR the Odyssey as better than any modern fiction. But that's probably because I have different standards from which I judge. To me, first doesn't necessarily mean best. (Coulda left the "To me," out, too.)
Now on to the rest of the post... I thought Speculative Fiction was just a name covering Science Fiction and Fantasy... kind of a new name for the genre. It's not? Someone explain, please??
It is absolutely ridiculous that anyone would proclaim an entire genre "bad." I can't get over how entirely stupid that is. Sci-Fi and Fantasy ARE the new novel! (I know, not that new.) I took a class last semester about how people are saying the novel is dead, and now they're writing metafictional novels (writing about writing). They think that's the NEW thing. That's just because academia is too much in their own little world to recognize sci-fi/fantasy. (I know, they have classes every once in a while on the topic, but I honestly think it is seen as a fluff class.) But they will recognize it eventually. Maybe 50-100 years in the future.
I'm talking to my husband about this, and he's pointing out how sci-fi has inspired science. NASA giving plaques to the entire cast of the original Star Trek for inspiring a generation to go into space, and something else he pointed out that I never thought of: the concept of using dead body parts to save lives from Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. (Gothic, not Sci-Fi exactly, but the similarities are there.)
We should just be happy that we realize sci-fi and fantasy's value now. We're so cool.
-Katarain
[ October 03, 2004, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: Katarain ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:I am taking the two courses you really would like/should take it. In one, the professor insists on the basics, the Odyssey, the Bible etc and distains the rest for the fact that they're all just re-thought plot lines. In the other class the professor makes it clear that re-used themes and motifs are important and as viable as new ones.
I've not only taken such classes, but have taken the classes after those as well. Please to not imply that I am uneducated because you disagree.
If you want to continue to assume that modern sci-fi is something fresh and new that isn't based on old legend and mythology, good for you. I will enjoy what I enjoy, both old and new, without having to have petty literary arguments that feel the need to take the new flavor of the week and place it on the same level as literature that has lasted throughout centuries. I refer back to my earlier comment about three course meals and M&Ms. Eat what you like.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
She was recommending something, not insulting you.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:it's really hard to justify that trying to reinvent the wheel is going to be anything but an attempt to reinvent the wheel.
And yet, we have much better wheels today than those of first invention.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Wow. Talk about assumptions. You're assuming she thinks you're uneducated and assuming she doesn't know that all literature in some way reflects what came before.
Just as Homer reflected Gilgamesh.
Dagonee
[ October 03, 2004, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
I am recommending that she not assume I am not educated, not taking it as an insult.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So when people know of some class, book, or movie thay think someone might like based on that person's posts, should they politely inquire first if that person has experienced it yet?
Dagonee
[ October 03, 2004, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
She never assumed you weren't educated. She said she was taking a class you might enjoy. I'm not sure how you're managing to construe this as saying your uneducated.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Wow. Talk about assumptions. You're assuming she thinks you're uneducated and assuming she doesn't know that all literature in some way reflects what came before.
Just as Homer reflected Gilgamesh.
Actually, that's my point.
We do not have preserved whole tales of Gilgamesh like we do the stories of Homer and other Greek writers, though. Still, you are correct.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote: If you want to continue to assume that modern sci-fi is something fresh and new that isn't based on old legend and mythology, good for you. I will enjoy what I enjoy, both old and new, without having to have petty literary arguments that feel the need to take the new flavor of the week and place it on the same level as literature that has lasted throughout centuries. I refer back to my earlier comment about three course meals and M&Ms. Eat what you like.
This is EXACTLY the type of attitude that I wish I could purge from all universities everywhere. The new flavor of the week, indeed! If you or they cannot recognize good literature without it being around for centuries, then you cannot recognize good literature. I don't remember anybody making the argument that legend and mythology could not be seen as the ancestor of science fiction or fantasy. Fairy Tales alone, although not nearly as old as Homer's works, is a clear precursor to Fantasy.
And sci-fi/fantasy as the new flavor of the week?! Indeed!! That's entirely ignorant. I think it is SAD that you feel like ancient literature is threatened by a love and appreciation of the value of new literature. Maybe we can all have three-course meals AND M&Ms. What a crazy, topsy-turvy world we'd have then. Are M&M's better than all three-course meals?? No, but they're certainly better than SOME three-course meals.
-Katarain
Edit: In my haste, I repeated the same phrase TWICE. How deeply embarassing. I'll leave it there, because I'm sure many people have already noticed it and probably are pointing it out in posts for some reason. And if I change it, later readers will wonder what is being referred to. Maybe. Sometimes, I have a phrase in my head and forget that I already typed it out. I guess the topic just really burns me up.
[ October 03, 2004, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: Katarain ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
People should just have stopped writing after that great work from which all works after are derived, which is better than all of those later works because after all, it was first:
"Ogg See Butterfly"*
*as translated by Russell Duhon
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The translation is very controversial. As you know, the inflections of individual grunts were very important to determine tense. So some scholars contend it's actually "Ogg saw butterfly."
There's also controversy over whether scholars should add articles to the translation, which has spawned fierce debate over "Ogg saw a butterfly" or "Ogg saw the butterfly." The first would likely be a simple narrative of an event which touched Ogg deeply. The second might be early indications of a Platonic vision in which Ogg saw the ideal butterfly or a Jungian archetype butterfly. This concept has echoed through the ages even into Japanese cinema.
Finally, there's some debate over whether the small dot over the butterfly symbol was an attempt to change the meaning to "dark butterfly," which might mean "moth," or if Ogg just had too much berry juice on the stick he was using for a pen.
Dagonee
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:And sci-fi/fantasy as the new flavor of the week?! Indeed!! That's entirely ignorant.
I'm not disparaging any genre in general. A flavor of the week could be anything from a new Dr. Phil book to the next thriller from Steven King to the next best selling scifi novel. It doesn't matter what genre it belongs to that makes it a flavor of the week. That's entirely ignorant.
If such interrelation and descriptive retelling of things wasn't so much a part of literature both new and old, classes on that very subject would be dry and boring. I'm saying that any genre related or style related claims of being some superior form that sprang whole from the mind of someone without basis in other works is snobbery. The people you describe as ignoring the validity of newer works is just as snobbish as those who argue that newer works or genres are more valid.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
*good, but not great, memory alert*
I'm cursed - I remember so much, but I forget a lot of it as well.
I swear I remember reading an introduction to a book by Isaac Asimov (probably over 35 years ago) in which he took issue with the description of science fiction as "escapist." As he put it, people like him had gotten exposed to the dangers of radiation, pollution, and overpopulation and become worried about them years or even decades ahead of the rest of the population. Some "escapism."
I read this. Honest!
Of course, there were no Asimov introductions that I can recall to fantasy fiction. Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:The translation is very controversial. As you know, the inflections of individual grunts were very important to determine tense. So some scholars contend it's actually "Ogg saw butterfly."
There's also controversy over whether scholars should add articles to the translation, which has spawned fierce debate over "Ogg saw a butterfly" or "Ogg saw the butterfly." The first would likely be a simple narrative of an event which touched Ogg deeply. The second might be early indications of a Platonic vision in which Ogg saw the ideal butterfly or a Jungian archetype butterfly. This concept has echoed through the ages even into Japanese cinema.
Finally, there's some debate over whether the small dot over the butterfly symbol was an attempt to change the meaning to "dark butterfly," which might mean "moth," or if Ogg just had too much berry juice on the stick he was using for a pen.
That's what makes the subject so wonderful!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There was a ton of discussion on this (Edit: The escapist) subject when LotR won the poll for best British novel of the 20th century.
Dagonee
[ October 03, 2004, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote: I'm saying that any genre related or style related claims of being some superior form that sprang whole from the mind of someone without basis in other works is snobbery. The people you describe as ignoring the validity of newer works is just as snobbish as those who argue that newer works or genres are more valid.
Well... Good, then!
-Katarain
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'd put a book or two of Pynchon's on par with our pal Homer. Some of Beckett's short fiction, too.
edit: not to suggest this list is exhaustive by any means, its just some mild meanderings.
[ October 03, 2004, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: I've not only taken such classes, but have taken the classes after those as well. Please to not imply that I am uneducated because you disagree.
I'm sorry. I didn't intend you to take it that way, only that you'd would be interested. I didn't know you had taken such classes...
My point was that these two professors I have are opposites of one another- not that the "new" one doesn't respect and love the classics, but that he considers the modern books he teaches in the class as as valid as (too many 'as'es!) the much older stories they are based on. The class is about modern literature reflecting the times, so a modernistic view is kind of a pre-requisite .
I don't think we should write off anything just because it is a product of the former. It's a little like writing off a little child as worse than the parent just because it hasn't grown up yet.
And also, Homer (for example) is not completely realistic. It's essentially fantasy, only the elements were already developed before Homer used them. Homer merely set them in epic poetry form and extrapolated...
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
Hmmm...Oddessey as fantasy...
Maybe I could force the Women of Genesis series onto my literary snob aquaintences wtihout telling them about the main genres OSC writes in, thereby getting them to admit their snobbishness, change their ways and tell their "well-read" friends, and then sf geeks like me could RULE THE WORLD WHA HA HA HA HA!!! or at least some really good but looked-down-on writers could get the credit they deserve.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: Hmmm...Oddessey as fantasy...
Is that a good "hmmm", or a what-is-she-going-on-about "hmmm"?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I take exactly the opposite view of Justa Notha Name, not only vis a vis genre writing but also about literature in general.
Take his parallel to the invention of the wheel. The first wheeled carts were a great step forward in technology -- greater, we might grant, than anything that followed. Yet our modern automobiles are better vehicles in every way. They accomplish better the same purpose as the early vehicles.
Similarly, I think literature has become a more refined field in the millennia following the first novels (Iliad/Odyssey). Our stories of today are not as innovative as those early novels -- how could they be, when the Iliad was the first epic ever put to paper (or oral tradition)? But modern novels are nonetheless better stories, better literature. The craft has been refined over the years.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
I'm surprised no one has brought up C.S. Lewis' comment on escapism: that one shouldn't fault prisoners for wanting out. (Sadly, I don't remember where to find the actual quote.)
But then, maybe I'm the only one with a Lewis obsession.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
Teshi- it was a "oh yeah, Greek Gods are NOT a widely accepted part of life today, Oddessey IS fantasy" sort of hmmmmmmm.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
quote:Actually, the Oddessy is infinitely better than any modern novel I can think of. So I don't agree something can be just as good. I agree that you can enjoy it as much or more. Sometimes we like a three course meal, and sometimes we just want a few M&Ms.
quote:You're forgetting that the early Greek stories are the basis from which almost all modern works are derived.
Nice try, but when something as simple as comics and bubble-gum fiction abound in almost direct derivations on older works, it's really hard to justify that trying to reinvent the wheel is going to be anything but an attempt to reinvent the wheel.
quote:I've not only taken such classes, but have taken the classes after those as well. Please to not imply that I am uneducated because you disagree.
If you want to continue to assume that modern sci-fi is something fresh and new that isn't based on old legend and mythology, good for you. I will enjoy what I enjoy, both old and new, without having to have petty literary arguments that feel the need to take the new flavor of the week and place it on the same level as literature that has lasted throughout centuries. I refer back to my earlier comment about three course meals and M&Ms. Eat what you like.
Justa Notha Name, congrtaulations. You're the first person I've encountered on Hatrack who actually makes me doubt his or her credentials. I cannot imagine any of these non-arguments you're throwing around coming out of the mouth of someone as well educated as you claim to be. You can't tell the difference between someone picking on your grammar and someone taking issue with your terms. You think the Odyssey's age and influence make it unnecessary for you to make an argument for its supposed qualitative superiority, or indeed to offer a definition of superiority. Most amusingly, you think knowing that the Odyssey was influential is a mark of erudition that other people don't have.
These are not educated traits you're displaying.
What's your level of qualification, what area is it in, and where did you get it? Enquiring minds want to know.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
P.L. I still don't know if you're being sarcastic or not- are you agreeing or disagreeing?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: The first wheeled carts were a great step forward in technology -- greater, we might grant, than anything that followed. Yet our modern automobiles are better vehicles in every way.
Actually, they are not.
They are too heavy for some applications
automobiles are too large for some applications
They depend on a non-renewable fuel source. The old ones depended on muscle powere, which is always available
They require an industrialized infrastructure to be built -- the old ones could be made by hand by one person with tools
Ancient carts gave off far less pollutants than modern automobiles.
OK, here's your nit back. I'm done.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
But Porter, the Earth's oil reserves are almost limitless. And as for pollution, well, climate change is just bad science. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:Ancient carts gave off far less pollutants than modern automobiles.
Well you could argue about the animals that pulled the carts, unless you are referring to human pulled carts only. But I think pretty much as soon as humans discovered the wheel they went after other species to pull the carts. Horses in particular are far more polluting and less efficient than Automobiles.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
, is not a member of this forum.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I still escape into books and I would HATE to reach the point where my studies robs me of that. Guess it's good I'm a second-rate student. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Prefacing your words with "I think" just because someone might disagree is weak. If you believe it, say so. ![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)