Neil Gaiman www.NeilgaimanBoard.com www.NeilgaimanBoard.com The World's End Other Writers The crappiest book you ever read / movie you ever saw
www.NeilgaimanBoard.com www.NeilgaimanBoard.com The World's End Other Writers The crappiest book you ever read / movie you ever saw|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Surprise Inspector Member  |
euch. i just read a rubbish book, and i knew very early that it would be rubbish and that i would read it all anyway. was my aunt's, from the library. by stephanie bond, called Our Husband. don't bother with it.
"Are you a princess? I said & she said I'm much more than a princess, but you don't have a name for it yet here on earth." -Brian Andreas Limertilly: A pagan deity forgotten by man and therefore banished to the realms of memory and darkness now remembered by a young girl in downtown L.A. in the form of a dream and therefore freed to reap your revenge on the people who discarded you, thereby forcing said girl to learn to use her innate yet awesome powers as a soothsayer to gather forces of the Earth to defy you and once more banish you to your cold, cold prisoooooon |
|||
|
|
Lost dauphin of the throne of Scotland Member  |
I think it must be The Labyrinth by Kate Mosse for me. Hated, hated, HATED IT. I made myself finish it thinking it might get better but...YUCK. Good premise, but then she forgot about her story in her zeal to teach history lessons instead of moving the plot along (and I'm saying that, me, a history major, who loves history...). Also, I grew to really dislike the two heroines, so I cared less and less the more I read what happened.
A close second is The Time Traveller's Wife--I didn't even bother to finish that one (apologies to aitapata and the many others I know who do like it). I detested both main characters and wished them ill throughout the half I did read, and just couldn't deal with them anymore. --You can't pull a holdup with a bebop gun-- --Elizabeth's Rambles from Scotland: http://www.xanga.com/bebopgirl1969 |
|||
|
|
Lost dauphin of the throne of Scotland Member |
Catch-22 is one of my favorite books as well (I'm female...). --You can't pull a holdup with a bebop gun-- --Elizabeth's Rambles from Scotland: http://www.xanga.com/bebopgirl1969 |
|||
|
) |
Lost dauphin of the throne of Scotland Member |
And...Kerouac is actually my favorite author. I can more easily put myself in his shoes (guess that may say something about how I used to view/treat men--as sex objects?! LOL!--it can go both ways! I'm KIDDING about that, btw). But what I mean is I feel closer to Kerouac, generally, his conflicts about life, his philosophies, than I do about most females in books (books written by women, just to be clear). I don't get "women's" literature--the women in them sure don't represent me in general, or my views or feelings. But Kerouac--he can be an ass, yes, but he's a bit deeper than that (the whole Buddhist yet Catholic debate he has in many of his books, his conflicts about his family, and yes, his wives and girlfriends, speaks to me much more than many other things I've read). --You can't pull a holdup with a bebop gun-- --Elizabeth's Rambles from Scotland: http://www.xanga.com/bebopgirl1969 |
|||
|
|
Member |
henry miller,s world of sex . i thought i would like it becouse the main subjects are surrealism and sex .... but i did not .
and then theres the books i liked the first time i,ve read it but hated the second , like foe . |
|||
|
|
Member |
You ain't alone in that. |
|||
|
|
has been eaten by a grue. Member |
*raises hand* same here. I felt like a traitor to all the other female english majors, especially when I chose Hemingway for my senior thesis. it's fun to be a black sheep among black sheep. ~ We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But...babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. ~ Elite Special Force Procrastinator, trained in High Arts of Extended Coffee Breaks and Master Linguist of the Water Cooler Conversation |
|||
|
|
rodentia extraordinarinus Member  |
I dunno about 'womens' literature - are we talking Austin or chick-lit? My sister, who's doing English Lit., describes Austen as 'the origional chick-lit' and I've never been able to read a whole one.
But there's other more mainstream books that do seem to appeal more to women than men. All those Childhood of Horror! books are read by far more women than men, and even things along the lines of We Need to Talk About Kevin or The Time Traveller's Wife. I know it's terribly sexist of me, but I would hesitate to pick up a fantasy book by a woman. I like them, but there's just a knee-jerk reacton. I loved Robin Hobb, but had no idea she was a woman! ____________________________________________________ tiny ball of rage. hilarious, condensed rage - Snazz I never really lost my virginity... it just sort of eventually wore off - Chris Addison Um... I'm thinking that a lot of my internal conflict and malaise comes from the tension between the life I ACTUALLY want to live, and the stories I'd love to be able to tell? - T-Rex, qwantz.com |
|||
|
|
Member |
Jane Austen as chick-lit? Um, no. Not in any way shape or form. Jane Austen is simply literature. Brilliant, nearly perfect novels that are as relevant today as they were 200 years ago when they were written.
Speaking of which... it might be time to read Pride and Prejudice again, haven't read it in over a year. |
|||
|
|
has no member title Member  |
Though sometimes it seems to be that any novel that features primarily women is immediately classed as "chick-lit".
__ The brickchewing, camera flaunting restroom saint formerly known as Babylon the Bride |
|||
|
|
Companion to owls Member  |
Not long ago they did this surey among the Guardian readers (I think) to get the Top Ten Love Stories of all time... Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights and Pride and Prejudice ended up there, to my shock and horror, and then the next week there was this column by some guy (probably was an author or reputed journalist I don't know, heh) basically saying "WTF!!??". His point was, people who voted for those novels couldn't have read the novels, likely they'd seen films/series or heard about the films and series.
That's what I generally think about people who think Austen is 'chick-lit'. As for female fantasy authors... Well, I've read a few of them and they were horrendous. So were most of the male fantasy authors I've read, to be honest.  |
|||
|
|
Lost dauphin of the throne of Scotland Member |
Both, for me, are equally non-appealing. I used to really like Pride & Prejudice, to be fair, but have grown to hate it over the years. I think it was more a young girl thing that I grew out of (thank God!!!!!). But otherwise, I've never been able to finish a Jane Austen book, no. Hate them. HATE. And I've already mentioned how much I hate The Time Traveller's Wife, so won't go into that. As for fantasy, I did and do like the first 3 Earthsea books by LeGuin, but then the 4th one--ugh. It's everything I hate about women's writing (well, except for all the sappy romantic crap of chick lit, and even Austen)--or at least writing meant to appeal to women--the women enduring while the men have it so easy, the women bearing all the evils and sorrows of the world, blah, blah, blah...if life were really that bleak we'd have all done ourselves in...  I was thinking more about Kerouac, too, and the charge that he was a misogynist--and I do remember some passages in books where he was recounting sexual fantasies, which seemed "male" (ie non-romantic, more forceful), which could be misogynistic, I suppose. But then, do females really always have fluffy lovely fantasies about sex, involving lots of cuddles and ever-lasting love? Because I don't, and was thinking maybe his more direct approach--to everything, not just sex--was more real to me than lots of "women's" books. Oh, and before anyone accuses me of being misogynist, just to be clear, I don't mean women have to fantasize about being overpowered, I mean women certainly fantasize about being forceful and not about the love of their life all the time...tho you wouldn't really know that from lots of "women's lit." (note: just bolding stuff so you can skip along to whatever you find relevant if you want...  )--You can't pull a holdup with a bebop gun-- --Elizabeth's Rambles from Scotland: http://www.xanga.com/bebopgirl1969 |
|||
|
|
has been eaten by a grue. Member |
I'm in agreement with you about Kerouac. just because a man happens to have a dominating personality doesn't make him a mysogynist. that type of personality isn't exclusively male, and will be attracted to a complimentary personality, not try to beat a similar personality into submission. if a man likes to be non-romantic or forceful, he'll find a woman who gets off on that. and if a woman likes to be non-romantic or forceful, she'll find a man who gets off on it. so whatever there. sex is sex.
as for Austen, the problem with her work is that it's been pigeonholed as chick-lit. it isn't. the woman was writing comprehensive and rather biting social satire, hidden within a romantic story. now, while I swoon over Darcy and Elizabeth like the fluff-addicted devotees of the work, I also recognize that Elizabeth and Darcy are quite often skewered by Austen. in fact, Elizabeth's motives become questionable once her relationship with Darcy thaws after she gets a good look at Pemberley. so, yeah. love Jane Austen. and while I refuse to read Jane Eyre, as the frying pan method of expressing an opinion makes me ill, I really love Wuthering Heights. even the love story. just because it's a tragic one doesn't make it any less of a love story. the book is also a hell of a lot more complex and deep and has a lot more to offer than the love story between Heathcliff and Cathy (or Hareton and Cathy II), and even those love stories were important by way of expressing some very intricate philosophical ideologies. Emily Bronte and Jane Austen don't get nearly enough credit for writing intelligent, layered works of literature, in my opinion. ~ We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But...babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. ~ Elite Special Force Procrastinator, trained in High Arts of Extended Coffee Breaks and Master Linguist of the Water Cooler Conversation |
|||
|
|
Lost dauphin of the throne of Scotland Member |
I wouldn't disagree with any of that, but still don't care for Austen. I can appreciate that there is satire aplenty there, but to be honest, I'm not interested in the period or its social ideals, so it doesn't do it for me. I'm sure it's that simple for me! When I did love Pride & Prejudice, it was indeed because it had humor and Elizabeth had attitude, etc. Not sure why I outgrew it, but I'm still glad I did, sorry! (could be because I come from a family with an Austen fanatic, and she has turned me off the whole thing...) The Brontes, again, I enjoyed when younger (I'll include college in that), but they just don't do it for me anymore; not because they are bad or childish, but because I changed. But, again, I agree that the plots are multi-level and complex. One of my favorite papers I had to write in college was about "moor people vs manor people," rather than about love relationships. And I did enjoy discussing that aspect of Wuthering Heights for sure. Have been thinking about the chick-lit comparisons, and while I see the opposition, I also think there are some similiarities (keep in mind that I have only forced my way through one "chick-lit" book, which came free with a magazine, and was read in the bath, cuz I didn't care if it fell in...). I mean, the book I read made fun of modern society and female types, but at the heart was still a love story. So, simplistic tho it may have been, there was a bit of satire there. And at the heart, all the works mentioned--Austen, the Brontes--are about females finding their place in their period of history and, ummmmm, about finding love. Obviously they have endured because their is something about them, but I think we also can, if not careful, make them into more than they are. Are they better written than books today? Possibly, but at the time they were popular lit. Who knows what will stand up from now in the future...possibly Time Traveller's Wife? It is beautifully written, people connect to it...well, not me, but you know...and yet it's a bestselling popular novel as well. Women's book today/classic in 100 years? Who knows... Just a note, since I have hardly posted in ages: I have a degree in literature and history. Not really important, but just mentioning it. --You can't pull a holdup with a bebop gun-- --Elizabeth's Rambles from Scotland: http://www.xanga.com/bebopgirl1969 |
|||
|
|
Member |
Well, no, there you're wrong. In fact, of Austen's books the only one that really can be considered to have that sort of ending is Pride and Prejudice. You know the thing that gets me about Austen, and it is a rare gift for a writer, is that her characters really come across as real individuals and not just varied reflections of the author. Sure, Darcy and Elizabeth are obvious examples, but even the more minor characters of, for example, Bingley's sisters. Or Mr Bennet, who frankly is my hero. Even poor Mr Collins, much maligned by the various adaptations of the book, is a well-fleshed out character. You understand him and maybe you even kind of like him in spite of himself. He's not a bad person, and he's not a caricature either. Dull? Yes. A sycophant? Sure. A bit of a fool? Yeah. Easily impressed by the nobility? Right. A representation of everything that was wrong with the Church of England at the time? That too. Amazing, really, that anyone was able to bring off all that in what is a fairly minor character in a rather short book. Anyone who is planning on writing a novel should read Austen.
So was Shakespeare, another 200 years back. So what? Being popular is not a disqualification for being good; despite that seeming to be the position of, for example, most college lit professors. |
|||
|
|
Lost dauphin of the throne of Scotland Member |
OK, as I have said I was never able to finish any other Austen novels, so I can't comment with any authority on the other plots...fair enough. The bits I did get through, tho, satirical or not, seemed to revolve around setting people up and finding, well, love... And I never said I equated being popular with being bad--I was making a point, wondering what popular books today would become classics tomorrow. Wondering, in other words, what will be forgotten (many popluar books from then are forgotten today), what will become "classic." No offense, but you clipped out quite a bit of what I said! --You can't pull a holdup with a bebop gun-- --Elizabeth's Rambles from Scotland: http://www.xanga.com/bebopgirl1969 |
|||
|
|
Companion to owls Member |
I just wanted to comment on this, coz although it's true, the same can be said of most literature, even that written by men, of that period (and before, and after). Didn't all novels that revolved around a character (whether male or female) end up with the hero/ine finding their place in the world and someone to share their life with? I think Austen and the Brontës have suffered at the hands of media and popular culture, who overenphasise the romance bit -yes, Wuthering Heights is a tremendous love story, but it's more than that (and let's not forget that the two main characters are essentially psychopaths, so I'd even argue about the 'love' part...); Jane Eyre might end up with her marrying her beloved -but only after she's rejected him, found her own worth and independence, and found him again crippled and in almost humiliation, a social outcast like she used to be. And the 'love' bits in the Austen novels don't really fill in as many pages as everything else that's going on. That said, it is a formula that can get tiring, whether the hero is a man or a woman, using someone and their life journey to depict/criticise/praise a certain age's society. I suppose that you either have to care a lot for the period, or for the style of the author, because usually these characters are not fleshed out or they are used to represent something larger... (I'd say Wuthering Heights is an exepction to this, as it doesn't really depict anything but the imaginary world within the autor's mind... but, again, if you don't particularly care for that then it's probably not much fun either.) So, Elizabeth, I can get why something like Kerouac appeals more to you, because that is the unique voice of one individual, and that is always interesting. If what they're saying echoes within you, even more so. |
|||
|
|
has been eaten by a grue. Member |
same here, actually. I agree that both Emily Bronte's and Jane Austen's works have enormously life-like characters, which is a large part of what makes them so approachable today. Shakespeare also dealt with common themes, not the least of which being the ubiquitous love story, and yet his work endures, because he gave us real people, whether they're fairies or sprites or nobles or workmen. the more closely you can identify with a character (without tripping your way into a stereotype), the more universal (and therefore free of a particular time period or location) the work will be. those are the works that last outside of an academic construct. and as for Wuthering Heights, while the love story is compelling, it's actually incidental to the point Bronte was trying to make. rather than centering her novel around a love story and using philosophy/ideals to convey it, she centered her novel around the philosophy and used the love story to convey it. ~ We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But...babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. ~ Elite Special Force Procrastinator, trained in High Arts of Extended Coffee Breaks and Master Linguist of the Water Cooler Conversation |
|||
|
|
Lost dauphin of the throne of Scotland Member |
...which is probably why I enjoyed writing a paper on it (the moor vs manor people one). Have been thinking about everything else (are the books romantic? aimed at women? well-written? universal? etc.) and really think it's one of those things that can be debated without end and without winners, because everyone is different and responds to different things. No rights or wrongs, in other words. I may find Austen's characters wooden and lifeless (and I do), but I understand that others find them appealing and very real, and I have no problem with that. Life would be pretty boring if we all loved the same things. --You can't pull a holdup with a bebop gun-- --Elizabeth's Rambles from Scotland: http://www.xanga.com/bebopgirl1969 |
|||
|
|
has been eaten by a grue. Member |
|