TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Merits of mindless books?

Go To

BonsaiForest Since: Jan, 2001
#151: Jul 3rd 2011 at 8:52:54 PM

Good point about how the "classics" weren't seen as such in their day. Cracked.com had a great article called 6 Great Novels that Were Hated in Their Time, that is worth checking out.

Really, "classic" status is all about hindsight. But more than that, by dictating that what was meant to just be entertainment is a "classic", we're losing sight of what was really going on.

To put it another way, one day, Twilight will be required reading in high schools across the country.

Wicked223 from Death Star in the forest Since: Apr, 2009
#152: Jul 3rd 2011 at 8:58:47 PM

A lot of classics were written to be the mindless fluff of their day.

How exactly is this relevant to their quality, again?

You can't even write racist abuse in excrement on somebody's car without the politically correct brigade jumping down your throat!
Tzetze DUMB from a converted church in Venice, Italy Since: Jan, 2001
DUMB
#153: Jul 3rd 2011 at 9:03:23 PM

To put it another way, one day, Twilight will be required reading in high schools across the country.

Let's not go crazy here.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.
Firebert That One Guy from Somewhere in Illinois Since: Jan, 2001
That One Guy
#154: Jul 3rd 2011 at 9:08:49 PM

"How not to write"?

(On the other hand, perhaps it could also replace Romeo And Juliet...)

edited 3rd Jul '11 9:10:00 PM by Firebert

Support Gravitaz on Kickstarter!
BonsaiForest Since: Jan, 2001
#155: Jul 3rd 2011 at 9:44:45 PM

[up][up]That was a joke. But on the other hand, A Clockwork Orange is studied in schools, and that book was pumped out in 3 weeks for money, widely hated in its time, and only caught on after becoming a cult classic due to the release of the movie, which also offended a lot of people.

BetsyandtheFiveAvengers Since: Feb, 2011
#156: Jul 3rd 2011 at 9:56:43 PM

[up] Yes, but a book's popularity and its ability to provoke thought are not mutually exclusive. A Clockwork Orange, and all of the other novels on the Cracked article you linked to, were criticized because they were controversial for their time. They became "embraced" when it became easier to talk about them.

edited 3rd Jul '11 9:57:18 PM by BetsyandtheFiveAvengers

Bleusman Frodog from Boston, MA Since: Jan, 2001
Frodog
#157: Jul 3rd 2011 at 10:02:43 PM

I'd say a lot of people are thinking of "classics" in the wrong way. They're not "really great books" - they're really influential books, and books that show their influence.

One of my favorite books is Jane Eyre. Jane Eyre is a "response" to a lot of literature before it. It rebukes a lot of the other pastoral novels of the period, where women search for their happiness in being completely subservient to a man. Charlotte Bronte creates Jane, who outright rejects that attitude and spends a great deal of time trying to be taken seriously, even when she's courting Mr. Rochester. By examining that connection, you can learn a lot about Jane Eyre, the feminine nature, and, say, Sense and Sensibility. You can also look at how more modern books still use ideas from Jane Eyre - you could argue that Nately's girl in Catch-22 is another representation of Jane: fierce, withdrawn, and with some of the same attitudes towards love. (There's a lot of feminist literature which responds more directly - I just haven't read very much of it.) Lastly, you can think of nearly any complicated topic, ask "How does this relate to Jane Eyre?" and find yourself with an insightful answer. If you're curious about autism in society, you can try to place the autistic model on Jane. It doesn't fit perfectly, but she has some autistic traits and the ways people relate to them in the novel are pretty diverse.

It's the ability to make these three kinds of connections repeatedly that make a book into a classic. Influence into the future isn't even necessary: Mc Carthy's Blood Meridian (which I don't like much myself) responds to almost every single American "classic" and pulls out the dark in it. And if you have one of those broad topics and you want to ask a question, you can ask it to Blood Meridian and get an answer (which is probably "_____ is fated to collapse and burn," but hey, the way it will collapse and burn will be different each time.)

FreezairForALimitedTime Responsible adult from Planet Claire Since: Jan, 2001
Responsible adult
#158: Jul 3rd 2011 at 11:43:22 PM

How exactly is this relevant to their quality, again?

Well, if you're going to bash on a "modern" book for being "mindless fluff..."

"Proto-Indo-European makes the damnedest words related. It's great. It's the Kevin Bacon of etymology." ~Madrugada
Wicked223 from Death Star in the forest Since: Apr, 2009
#159: Jul 3rd 2011 at 11:47:08 PM

Must you really stereotype peoples' motives like that? Can't they simply be bashing it for being mindless fluff?

You can't even write racist abuse in excrement on somebody's car without the politically correct brigade jumping down your throat!
FreezairForALimitedTime Responsible adult from Planet Claire Since: Jan, 2001
Responsible adult
#160: Jul 4th 2011 at 12:19:22 AM

Was a generic "you," not "you specifically." And since there seems to be a lot of trashing on modern fiction in this thread, not to mention stereotyping of motives on both sides...

I feel it's worth saying that "influential" does not necessarily mean "good." To go back to the Twilight example, Twilight has been hugely influential. Paranormal romance now makes up a huge chunk of YA fiction. But a lot of people consider it to be poor quality.

I do think it's worth studying things that have influence, but being influential does not automatically imbue a work with the power to stand on its own merits.

"Proto-Indo-European makes the damnedest words related. It's great. It's the Kevin Bacon of etymology." ~Madrugada
DomaDoma Three-Puppet Saluter Since: Jan, 2001
Three-Puppet Saluter
#161: Jul 4th 2011 at 6:03:32 AM

The unabridged (non-Heaney) Beowulf did give me a new appreciation for Tolkien's elf digressions... but it fulfilled the same function as said digressions, when you get right down to it, because it was a glimpse of Dark Ages Scandinavian culture. Historical value lets me put up with a lot of plot weakness.

edited 4th Jul '11 6:04:31 AM by DomaDoma

Hail Martin Septim!
Bleusman Frodog from Boston, MA Since: Jan, 2001
Frodog
#162: Jul 4th 2011 at 6:51:26 AM

[up][up] But Twilight doesn't engage in those conversations, really. Twilight doesn't answer questions about big subjects. Sure, Stephanie Meyer thinks the story is a retelling of Wuthering Heights - but she misunderstands the story so much that I'm not sure it really counts. And I truly doubt any insightful work of literature will make insightful commentary on the things that Twilight does as a text.

blamspam Since: Oct, 2010
#163: Jul 4th 2011 at 7:29:39 AM

Modern books can be literary too. They are not altogether mindless fluff. Why are people acting like "Well THIS book has words and characters so obviously it is the same as those old things, why are classics so snobby and pretentious?" People who act like the quality is the same are missing the point of why something is acclaimed.

DomaDoma Three-Puppet Saluter Since: Jan, 2001
Three-Puppet Saluter
#164: Jul 4th 2011 at 8:05:43 AM

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there, Blam.

Hail Martin Septim!
blamspam Since: Oct, 2010
#165: Jul 4th 2011 at 8:42:03 AM

I'm trying to say that people aren't looking at the fact that how well written a book is and the reason that it's acclaimed are what's important.

Old doesn't mean automatically better. I've bought tons of awful, crappy romances written in the Victorian age that are just as bad as today's worst chick lit.

Perhaps not everything lauded as a classic doesn't quite deserve it, but that is not a reason to ignore classics or avoid them. Why do people who never touch one think that we are taught these books in school? Why do they think that they are seen in such a good light?

I don't know if it's the way that tropes compare and break down both literature and entertainment, but just because a literary book and some pulpy genre thing use the same devices doesn't meant that they have the same amount of merit. That's what I'm seeing in this thread.

edited 4th Jul '11 8:42:22 AM by blamspam

DomaDoma Three-Puppet Saluter Since: Jan, 2001
Three-Puppet Saluter
#166: Jul 4th 2011 at 9:35:55 AM

...Are you saying that genre fiction is inherently mindless? And when I think "literary", I think of the "whiny Long Islanders" of the Turkey City Lexicon.

edited 4th Jul '11 9:37:37 AM by DomaDoma

Hail Martin Septim!
Rottweiler Dog and Pony Show from Portland, Oregon Since: Dec, 2009
Dog and Pony Show
#167: Jul 4th 2011 at 9:51:29 AM

[up] If by "genre fiction" you mean The Lord Of The Rings, then no. If by "genre fiction" you mean game tie-in novels, then yes.

By "mindless", I mean books that have nothing significant to say about love, change, the environment, God, man, family, government, good and evil, life and death, or any of the other timeless ideas that have preoccupied the great authors of the last 2,800 or so years.

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard
DomaDoma Three-Puppet Saluter Since: Jan, 2001
Three-Puppet Saluter
#168: Jul 4th 2011 at 9:55:45 AM

Then we two, at least, are in complete agreement.

Though the Dark Elf Trilogy is pretty philosophical for a game tie-in. And the first two books are filled with devious schemes, which are another thing I can't call mindless.

Hail Martin Septim!
Bleusman Frodog from Boston, MA Since: Jan, 2001
Frodog
#169: Jul 4th 2011 at 9:55:49 AM

Some "modern classics," in that they're books with a deep connection to previous literature and previous ideas:

  • Cormac Mc Carthy's works.
  • Franzen's "The Corrections" and "Freedom."
  • Jonathan Safran Foer's "Everything Is Illuminated."
  • Margaret Atwood's work, probably most notably "The Handmaid's Tale."
  • Arguably, Dave Eggers's "A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius."

It's true that only Atwood, from this incomplete list, would really be genre fiction, but that's because I don't really read much genre fiction. Like I've been saying: great literature is about forming relationships. It's sticky, and it's stuck to other stuff.

DomaDoma Three-Puppet Saluter Since: Jan, 2001
Three-Puppet Saluter
#170: Jul 4th 2011 at 9:58:14 AM

Okay, the items on that list I've heard of, I can buy as literary fiction with excellent dramatic value. I guess I'll have to get around to reading them :p

Hail Martin Septim!
Drakyndra Her with the hat from Somewhere Since: Jan, 2001
Her with the hat
#171: Jul 4th 2011 at 9:59:55 AM

I will note for the record that Margaret Atwood was at the time rather offended at the suggestion she was a science fiction writer. Audience aren't the only people who fall into the genre ghetto.

Though I personally agree on The Handmaid's Tale both being of literary value, and a piece of genre fiction.

The owner of this account is temporarily unavailable. Please leave your number and call again later.
Rottweiler Dog and Pony Show from Portland, Oregon Since: Dec, 2009
Dog and Pony Show
#172: Jul 4th 2011 at 10:09:07 AM

[up][up][up] Eh? Who said there aren't modern classics?

We're talking about several distinct but overlapping kinds of books here.

"Classics" are influential and intertextual, participating in the "great conversation".

"Great books" deal with a large number of great ideas.

Modern books were published in recent decades.

Entertaining books are fun to read.

The Lord Of The Rings would be in categories 2, 3, 4 for some people, and there are lit crit people trying to push it into 1 (it's definitely influential, but only in the sense of having spun off the fantasy genre). Orlando Furioso would be in 1, 2, and 4. The Brothers Karamazov would be 1 and 2. And so on.

edited 4th Jul '11 10:09:33 AM by Rottweiler

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard
Bleusman Frodog from Boston, MA Since: Jan, 2001
Frodog
#173: Jul 4th 2011 at 10:14:56 AM

Ah, never mind - I read blamspam's posts wrong. My bad.

edited 4th Jul '11 10:16:26 AM by Bleusman

Ironeye Cutmaster-san from SoCal Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
Cutmaster-san
#174: Jul 4th 2011 at 10:17:52 AM

I think you're moving into personal definition territory with "classic".

I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.
Rottweiler Dog and Pony Show from Portland, Oregon Since: Dec, 2009
Dog and Pony Show
#175: Jul 4th 2011 at 10:18:40 AM

[up] Actually, I'm just accepting Bleusman's.

edited 4th Jul '11 10:18:56 AM by Rottweiler

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard

Total posts: 308
Top