posted
>> You do realize that hating pop culture because you think it makes you sound more intelligent is no better than being a one of the mindless teenyboppers you so despise...right? <<
That's only true if you aren't actually better than everyone else.
posted
To clarify: I didn't start this merely in response to people not liking "Friends." It's something that has bothered me for quite some time, as Lalo and others will tell you.
Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a difference between "good" and "enjoyable."
One refers to having certain qualities, for example, literature should make us think about something in a new light. "Enjoyable" refers to the aesthetics of something.
Music, to be "good" has to meet certain musical standards. Your music is not "good" because you sell 10,000,000 records. It means its popular, and aesthetically pleasing... so yeah, its aesthetically good, but not necessarily good music. And I do believe that distinction is important.
"Aesthetically good" is the goal of popular entertainment, at all times in history. The idea is to entertain... not to produce quality music or movies or books or gladiatorial combat.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My mom has, for many years, referred to some of the stuff I read/watch as "mental bubblegum" -- little or no "nutritional" value, but tastes good.
Again, we argue. I don't think you're getting my points; you're just seeing an attack on an author you like.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They were fun to read. I don't think they improved my vocabulary at all or had really great themes, though (in re: themes -talking about non-Dark Tower series, non-Talisman stuff).
So by your rubric, the only good books are those that increase your vocabulary and have good themes? There is so much more to a good book than that, but if you want to be close-minded, I won't stand in your way.
How am I close-minded if I've read a lot of SK's books? I bet I've read more of his books than you have. I read everything from Carrie up to Bag of Bones, including the Bachman books, the Dark Tower series (up through Wizard and Glass), the Different Seasons collection, the 4 Past Midnight collection, his short story collections, etc., etc. I think reading so many of his books allowed me to see how formulaic he can be at times, and how much less satisfying they were than a "good" book. But they were still enjoyable or I wouldn't have read so many.
Having words that increase your vocabulary and have good themes are just two of the characteristics that I think can be found in great books. A book does not need to have good vocab words to be great (e.g. Hemingway's works), but if a book did increase my vocabulary I would be getting more out of it than just the cheap, easy thrill of your average SK book, or bestseller thriller. Again, it might just be a semantic difference we have between "good" and "enjoyable" (to steal Paul Goldner's terms).
quote:I think Stephen King novels are written just fine. It takes a lot of writing talent to keep people interested. If you think his kind of writing is so easy and it only appeals to the "lowest common denominator," then why don't you go and write some? Why isn't it your name I see on the shelves at the bookstore?
I think it takes a basic writing talent to keep people interested. Take the bestselling romance novels, for example. They keep a lot of people interested, but do you think it takes a lot of talent to write them? Do you think they're great? If not, why aren't you writing them?
I never said this type of writing is easy. I said, "...they are cheap, easy fun reads." An easy read for me is something I can read quickly because the themes don't make me stop and think - I can just read on, totally entranced in the book. It's an escape. EG by OSC seemed a perfect blend of the two, IMO, because it was an easy fun read, but it wasn't cheap. I got good themes out of the book and it made me think while it entertained me.
Books on the shelf are more than just writing. It's whether editors think your stuff will sell, whether the timing is right on the topic of the book, whether the book's different and can carve out a niche or whether a publishing house is ready to pick up another author just then. Writing a book is only half the battle.
quote:Paul Goldner wrote: One refers to having certain qualities, for example, literature should make us think about something in a new light.
I think this is so true. Compare the canon (James Joyce, Melville, Hemingway, Ayn Rand[some of you may disagree with me on this one], etc.) with SK's works or some other authors. Hopefully, you might see the difference to which Paul referred.
Rakeesh-
Thanks for disagreeing with me. All this is just my opinion as well.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You do realize that hating pop culture because you think it makes you sound more intelligent is no better than being a one of the mindless teenyboppers you so despise...right?
This is 100% correct, whether it's music, literature, art, or philosophy. Rebeling against the "in" thing simply for being "in" does not make you intelligent any more than it made you cool in middle school.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Again, we argue. I don't think you're getting my points; you're just seeing an attack on an author you like.
You want to know something funny? My point didn't have anything to do with Stephen King. I have actually never read any of his novels. I just thought that things you listed were the only thing that make up a good book.
Paul,
quote: Music, to be "good" has to meet certain musical standards. Your music is not "good" because you sell 10,000,000 records. It means its popular, and aesthetically pleasing... so yeah, its aesthetically good, but not necessarily good music. And I do believe that distinction is important.
And who says what those "standards" are?
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
OSC himself has written several articles on this subject....though I can't remember them. He used the word "elitist" to describe people that turn up their noses at popular art just because it's popular. One of them was in Storyteller in Zion and he's mentioned it in other places as well. You guys have brought up similar points and scenarios and it seems to go both ways.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just out of interest, what do you think about Joyce and Hemingway? I've never read any Hemingway, so I'd be interested to know.
Posts: 1550 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think reading so many of his books allowed me to see how formulaic he can be at times, and how much less satisfying they were than a "good" book. But they were still enjoyable or I wouldn't have read so many.
I've probably read as much or more SK as you have...but I can't help but think it strange that you call much of his work 'formulaic', but continue to read it.
quote:but if a book did increase my vocabulary I would be getting more out of it than just the cheap, easy thrill of your average SK book, or bestseller thriller. Again, it might just be a semantic difference we have between "good" and "enjoyable" (to steal Paul Goldner's terms).
That's one way to put it, if you insist on stating as fact that SK books are not 'good'.
quote:An easy read for me is something I can read quickly because the themes don't make me stop and think - I can just read on, totally entranced in the book. It's an escape. EG by OSC seemed a perfect blend of the two, IMO, because it was an easy fun read, but it wasn't cheap. I got good themes out of the book and it made me think while it entertained me.
SK's stuff doesn't make you think or reflect? If you've read all the SK you've mentioned, and you haven't reflected on anything in it (which I frankly doubt, since you've read so much of it), then you either weren't paying attention or decided beforehand, "This is brain candy. I won't think about it."
quote:Writing a book is only half the battle.
In the short run, yes. Over decades and millions of dollars across a variety of subjects and media, no.
quote:I think this is so true. Compare the canon (James Joyce, Melville, Hemingway, Ayn Rand[some of you may disagree with me on this one], etc.) with SK's works or some other authors. Hopefully, you might see the difference to which Paul referred.
I'm going to be rather blunt, while not apologizing for doing so: you're sounding like a literary snob. And I always find that so ironic-people said the same sort of things about Charles Dickens as you are about SK. 'Doesn't make me think' 'forumulaic' 'not high literature' 'enjoyable, but not "good" '.
History, readership, and legacy determine a 'good' writer from an 'enjoyable' one. Stephen King has already made history, his readership is enormous and diverse, and all that remains to determine whether he was good or merely enjoyable is legacy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hemingway's a literary populist. He draws a lot on his own experiences, and plays up the everyman in them.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:History, readership, and legacy determine a 'good' writer from an 'enjoyable' one. Stephen King has already made history, his readership is enormous and diverse, and all that remains to determine whether he was good or merely enjoyable is legacy.
Jonny has a bit of a point -- there's entertainment reading, literature, and high literature. Don't tell me you'll compare King with, say, Melville.
King has yet to pass the test of time. He's popular at the moment, and probably will remain thus for several more decades, but I doubt he'll be remembered as one of the greats. No more than, say, Crichton will. Both are immensely popular, but to equate them with the true greats due solely to their wide fan base? Why not apply the same generalization to music and declare Britney Spears on the same tier of greatness as Mozart?
Now, that said, I don't entirely disagree with you -- King isn't necessarily a bad author because he's popular. Just be aware that as popularity doesn't invalidate the worth of a work, neither does it validate artistic merit.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
"Who" doesn't say what the standards are. Music is a medium involving harmony and melody, working together in a mathematical format.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think most of King's work is destined for the trash heap. There were plenty of literary contemporaries to Dickens that nobody reads any more, remember. However, a small group of King's works will probably remain popular, is my guess.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've reflected for quite some time on quite a few themes from Eddings' books, and I don't think anyone, me included, would consider them anything other than fluff.
On the other hand, I won't read a book if it isn't enjoyable. I don't read very much 'literature,' because if I have to force myself to read it page by page, it's not worth it to me.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find that I am 'elitist' merely by taste. Although, less than I used to be. I like many extremely mainstream things; Harry Potter, LOTR, PiratesotC, for example. However, I have trained myself to have my own tastes, so popular music (or much of it) I find extremely repellant. Same goes for many television shows, I just got used to other types of television.
quote:"Who" doesn't say what the standards are. Music is a medium involving harmony and melody, working together in a mathematical format.
If nobody says what the standards are, and if whatever makes the most enjoyable music does not determine the standard, how do we know which standard is correct and which others are not?
It seems to me that whatever this standard is supposed to be is pretty arbitrary if it's not producing the most enjoyable music. I mean, wouldn't we rather have enjoyable music than "good" music? What's the point of "good" but unenjoyable music?
I suspect that the idea that there is some other standard is just a fiction created by intellectual elitists and taught to people so much that people come to believe it's true.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jazz still follows basic rules about tempo, even if it doesn't sound like it at first. If it didn't, it would be too dissonant to be catchy.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm talking about intervals, not tempo. And traditional African music also has plenty of elements that don't match the usual mathematical standards.
posted
I see what you're saying, but it doesn't quite apply. You're talking about a definition, I'm talking about musical standards. They are not related.
Yes, Mozart was famous because he created the Sonata Form. Most songs you see today have some relationship to that form. It is seen as the standard. But can songs be good without following that? Absolutely.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nick wrote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Again, we argue. I don't think you're getting my points; you're just seeing an attack on an author you like.
You want to know something funny? My point didn't have anything to do with Stephen King. I have actually never read any of his novels. I just thought that things you listed were the only thing that make up a good book.
Curses! Well at least I was 2/3rds right in that quoted part. And of course it's all about being "right" so I can "win!" [given Nick's past problems deciphering whether something is humorous, I reluctantly add ]
quote:Rakeesh wrote: I've probably read as much or more SK as you have...but I can't help but think it strange that you call much of his work 'formulaic', but continue to read it.
I made a distinction between "enjoyable" and "good" above. But maybe you think something can't be formulaic and enjoyable? Hmmm, let me try to expound. Routines can be very enjoyable, familiar. Especially if you have done something different in between doing the same routine. If I read nothing but SK books, I imagine that I would find many of them less enjoyable. But I read more than those. He's not as formulaic as say, a Scooby Doo cartoon (which I still occasionally find enjoyable), but I think he still follows a pattern, especially regarding the paranormal in his books. IMO.
quote:Rakeesh wrote: SK's stuff doesn't make you think or reflect? If you've read all the SK you've mentioned, and you haven't reflected on anything in it (which I frankly doubt, since you've read so much of it), then you either weren't paying attention or decided beforehand, "This is brain candy. I won't think about it."
Well obviously if it made YOU reflect then it must have made ME reflect if I was thinking about it at all, because you know me so well. Oh wai-
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
And it was an ancient philosopher who first came up with these mathematical relationships for music and what was "pleasing" and what wasn't. I don't remember the name right now, though; my brain is fried.
Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
People were saying the same sorts of things about Dickens. If Dickens were alive today and writing, there are several people here who would be saying, "He's entertaining."
quote:Just be aware that as popularity doesn't invalidate the worth of a work, neither does it validate artistic merit.
Thanks for the tip-I am well aware of it. Johnny's point seemed to be that SK wasn't 'good' but rather 'entertaining', because he (SK) didn't make JNSB think about lofty stuff.
quote:But maybe you think something can't be formulaic and enjoyable?
I was just commenting on the fact that you complain (criticize? Remark?) about SK's formulaic styles and plots...yet you've read `em all. The conclusion I reach when faced with that statement is, "Well the formula works."
quote:but I think he still follows a pattern, especially regarding the paranormal in his books. IMO.
What pattern is that? I am curious, because I've noticed drastic diffences in characters and plots in some of his books.
quote:Well obviously if it made YOU reflect then it must have made ME reflect if I was thinking about it at all, because you know me so well. Oh wai-
*shrug* You're allowed to label an author 'enjoyable' (which is, let's face it, calling him 'adequate'), so I say that maybe you're not thinking about it as well as you say you are.
--------
Fugu,
quote:I think most of King's work is destined for the trash heap. There were plenty of literary contemporaries to Dickens that nobody reads any more, remember. However, a small group of King's works will probably remain popular, is my guess.
You're quite right. Just because he is popular and Dickens was popular does not mean he is as good or will be popular as long as Dickens-that's a fallacy, of course.
My point, though, is that if someone is going to say that SK won't be, they should have a higher caliber of ammo than "he's massively popular" and "he's formulaic". I could as well toss aside Dickens because he writes about poverty so frequently.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright, so popularity neither guarantees nor excludes the possibility of quality. Neither does lack of popularity. In truth, I think that probably the majority -- possibly the overwhelming majority -- of art (whether music, film, sculpture, painting, or whatever) produced in the world is not that great, popular or otherwise. There just aren't that many artistic geniuses in the world.
::shrug:: Whatever, I don't feel bad about liking the George of the Jungle movie and I also don't feel bad about disliking the work of Thomas Kinkade.
Edit: I should also say that I don't feel bad about liking the works of Nabokov, Marquez, Wolfe, and Neruda, and at the same time don't feel bad about writing a negative review for The Shape of Things.
Small thought. In terms of pulp to pop music comparisons, where does Madonna come in? Who is the novelist most fitting for comparison? Will Madonna be remembered as a "great"?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
All this is just my opinion as well.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
fallow![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
]
