TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Merits of mindless books?

Go To

Ironeye Cutmaster-san from SoCal Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
Cutmaster-san
#176: Jul 4th 2011 at 10:29:41 AM

If we're going to discuss "Classics", we can at least use the proper definition: a literary work of the first rank (i.e. one with pure and correct style, and which serves as a standard or model), especially one of demonstrably enduring quality.

This is not to deny that considering works with notable intertextual relationships is a bad thing, just that we need a new term for it, since "Classic" is already taken for a different quality worth considering.

Edit: This would give five categories on Rott's list:

  • "Classics"
  • "Great Books"
  • Interconnected books
  • Entertaining books
  • Modern books

edited 4th Jul '11 10:32:36 AM by Ironeye

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.
FreezairForALimitedTime Responsible adult from Planet Claire Since: Jan, 2001
Responsible adult
#177: Jul 4th 2011 at 10:57:47 AM

I would argue that not all classics are as such because they are inherently great. Quality by Popular Vote has been a thing for a long time, and a number of books and stories have survived more or less because they were popular.

I would also say that not all "classics" necessarily promote deep thought or "conversation", despite what our teachers may have forced down on us. Some do. But some of them were not written to, and have survived on other virtues (like being funny or fun), but many people assume that, due to being "classic," it must be deep in some fashion. I mean things like that essay claiming The Wizard Of Oz is allegorical to the government of England and such. We can't allow our classics to be merely fun or merely funny; there's an obsession with tearing them apart, like we feel there absolutely must be something more there.

Smart people are often very afraid to admit they like something shallow.

edited 4th Jul '11 10:58:05 AM by FreezairForALimitedTime

"Proto-Indo-European makes the damnedest words related. It's great. It's the Kevin Bacon of etymology." ~Madrugada
BetsyandtheFiveAvengers Since: Feb, 2011
#178: Jul 4th 2011 at 11:06:44 AM

[up] But The Wonderful Wizard of Oz really was about the Populist movement, William Jennings Bryan, William McKinley, and the gold standard—or at least, it was inspired by those things. That doesn't mean that it is any less fun and enjoyable; it just came from something political and real.

edited 4th Jul '11 11:07:19 AM by BetsyandtheFiveAvengers

brc2000 Thermonuclear Warrior from here Since: Jul, 2010
Thermonuclear Warrior
#179: Jul 4th 2011 at 11:07:41 AM

No one has really answered why there's anything wrong with reading a book purely for entertainment. Why shouldn't anyone be able to enjoy Robert E. Howard, Edgar Rice Burroughs, or C.L. Moore as much as they would a "great book", even if only as a guilty pleasure? I'll never agree with the opinion that everything has to be a "deep" commentary on something to have any value. I don't NEED fiction to tell me things. No one is saying that pulpy stuff is technically as good is "proper" fiction, but it's still possible for it to be more enjoyable. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that some intelligent and educated people may enjoy Die Hard more than City Of God or video-games more than opera, so why is it only literature that has to be thought-provocative and "intelligent" all the time? Can't you enjoy something for the plot or atmosphere?

edited 4th Jul '11 11:54:24 AM by brc2000

DomaDoma Three-Puppet Saluter Since: Jan, 2001
Three-Puppet Saluter
#180: Jul 4th 2011 at 11:18:23 AM

And I agree with you, too. But depth - genuine depth, not Harold Pinter I'll-pretend-I-have-depth-so-you'll-think-I'm-smart - is only a plus.

Hail Martin Septim!
FreezairForALimitedTime Responsible adult from Planet Claire Since: Jan, 2001
Responsible adult
#181: Jul 4th 2011 at 12:00:33 PM

[up][up]: Baum never made any statements as such; all theories on that have been based purely on scholarly conjecture. And the guy who wrote the initial essay wasn't particularly knowledgable about the 1890's, and in fact made numerous errors in his "allegory."

Stuff.

"Proto-Indo-European makes the damnedest words related. It's great. It's the Kevin Bacon of etymology." ~Madrugada
BetsyandtheFiveAvengers Since: Feb, 2011
#182: Jul 4th 2011 at 12:06:04 PM

[up] Fair enough.

I still stand by what I was driving at there, which is that it is an extra bonus to read a book or story which remains enjoyable as it draws upon real life issues and topics.

[up][up][up] Reading is recreational, and it's supposed to be entertaining and fun. It's the medium that allows it to be more than that.

edited 4th Jul '11 12:17:27 PM by BetsyandtheFiveAvengers

captainbrass2 from the United Kingdom Since: Mar, 2011
#183: Jul 4th 2011 at 12:33:27 PM

Has anyone actually come up with a satisfactory definition of a mindless book for these purposes? I always thought "mindless" meant "lacking in purpose of any kind". Well, no kind of fiction is truly mindless in that sense, even if the purpose is purely entertainment. Writing is too hard for anyone to want to do it for no reason at all.

You can say that some books have more elevated purposes than others, usually involving making some sort of serious comment about the world, although I don't think there are many books apart from the most unbearably pretentious experimental ones that aren't meant also to entertain readers. Some of the distinctions being made are a bit artificial. Books that are now seen as serious classics were often popular, best selling works at the time.

"Well, it's a lifestyle"
brc2000 Thermonuclear Warrior from here Since: Jul, 2010
Thermonuclear Warrior
#184: Jul 4th 2011 at 12:48:06 PM

[up][up] Okay, but what makes a work that doesn't relate to reality less enjoyable, even if it's technically inferior (as long as it's competently written of course. I'm not talking about Eragon here)? If horrors can be judged by how scary they are and comedies by how funny they are, why can't a drama be enjoyed solely by how dramatic it is, or a speculative fiction work be judged on how imaginative its setting is, even if there's no real meaning to it?

edited 4th Jul '11 12:56:18 PM by brc2000

BetsyandtheFiveAvengers Since: Feb, 2011
#185: Jul 4th 2011 at 12:55:20 PM

[up] It would be enjoyable regardless of its lack of relation to reality. The fun would be concentrated in how funny or scary it is, trying to solve the mystery before the characters do, the fantasy world the writer created, or all of the plot and dramatic twists.

edited 4th Jul '11 12:56:10 PM by BetsyandtheFiveAvengers

brc2000 Thermonuclear Warrior from here Since: Jul, 2010
Thermonuclear Warrior
#186: Jul 4th 2011 at 12:57:11 PM

[up] Alright. I mostly agree with you then.

Rottweiler Dog and Pony Show from Portland, Oregon Since: Dec, 2009
Dog and Pony Show
#187: Jul 4th 2011 at 1:04:45 PM

Has anyone actually come up with a satisfactory definition of a mindless book for these purposes?

"Devoid of anything significant to say about any of the great ideas that have occupied the enduring authors of the past 2,800 years."

Here's a list of irreducible ideas, cribbed from the Great Books of the Western World set:

Angel (or "gods", small g), Animal, Art, Astronomy, Beauty, Being, Cause, Chance, Change, Citizen, Custom and Convention, Definition, Desire, Dialectic, Duty, Education, Element, Emotion, Equality, Eternity, Evolution, Experience, Family, Fate, Form, God, Good and Evil, Government, Habit, Happiness, History, Hypothesis, Idea, Immortality, Induction, Infinity, Judgment, Justice, Knowledge, Labor, Language, Law, Liberty, Life and Death, Logic, Love, Man, Mathematics, Matter, Mechanics, Medicine, Memory and Imagination, Metaphysics, Mind, Nature, Necessity and Contingency, One and Many, Opinion, Opposition, Philosophy, Physics, Pleasure and Pain, Poetry, Principle, Progress, Prophecy, Punishment, Quality, Quantity, Reasoning, Relation, Religion, Revolution, Rhetoric, Same and Other, Science, Sense, Sign and Symbol, Sin, Slavery, Soul, Space, Time, Truth, Universal and Particular, Virtue and Vice, War and Peace, Wealth, Will, Wisdom, and World.

So for example, At The Mountains Of Madness, while using the form of a pulp story, demonstrates the innovative things HP Lovecraft had to say about gods, Knowledge, Man, Science, Time, and such.

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard
blamspam Since: Oct, 2010
#188: Jul 4th 2011 at 1:14:15 PM

@Bleusman: I was articulating my meaning badly, sorry.

MrShine Since: Jun, 2011 Relationship Status: Hoping Senpai notices me
#189: Jul 4th 2011 at 1:16:34 PM

[up][up]I guess the only problem there is who decides upon the meaning of the word "significant"

edited 4th Jul '11 1:17:04 PM by MrShine

Tzetze DUMB from a converted church in Venice, Italy Since: Jan, 2001
DUMB
#190: Jul 4th 2011 at 2:03:03 PM

I thought Oz was mostly known as a classic children's book. That's pretty different.

No one has really answered why there's anything wrong with reading a book purely for entertainment.

I wouldn't say it's wrong, but personally, I'd rather spend my time on something that will have a lasting impact on me. Of course, I get that from many books that aren't "classics", and many that nobody would ever write an essay on*

.

(Does anyone really do the "sci fi/fantasy can't be literary" thing anymore, anyway? I never really got that, probably because one of my favorite sci-fi authors is a literary critic, and another one gets the analysis treatment a lot)

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.
ImipolexG frozen in time from all our yesterdays Since: Jan, 2001
frozen in time
#191: Jul 4th 2011 at 2:08:05 PM

I don't know, when I was in college a few years ago it seemed to be alive and well.

no one will notice that I changed this
Rottweiler Dog and Pony Show from Portland, Oregon Since: Dec, 2009
Dog and Pony Show
#192: Jul 4th 2011 at 2:09:57 PM

Most English professors will even turn their noses up at The Lord Of The Rings, because "it's not a novel" (realism is part of the genre definition, hence the name Magical Realism when a Latino writes a fantasy they like).

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard
Tzetze DUMB from a converted church in Venice, Italy Since: Jan, 2001
ImipolexG frozen in time from all our yesterdays Since: Jan, 2001
frozen in time
#194: Jul 4th 2011 at 2:14:31 PM

I get the impression that the "sci-fi/fantasy is not literary" thing is decreasing, but very gradually.

no one will notice that I changed this
brc2000 Thermonuclear Warrior from here Since: Jul, 2010
Thermonuclear Warrior
#195: Jul 4th 2011 at 3:09:15 PM

Just a quick question. Never mind tie-ins, but do you people consider the works of Robert E. Howard (one of my favorite writers) and similar authors to be "mindless" and devoid of any value? If yes, then this is not something I can see eye to eye with people here, and I'll end my postings in this thread. His works do have real world themes (such as the downfall of civilizations), but I'm guessing as a writer as Sword & Sorcery who wrote for pulps, he'll never be accepted by the True Art crowd.

Tzetze DUMB from a converted church in Venice, Italy Since: Jan, 2001
brc2000 Thermonuclear Warrior from here Since: Jul, 2010
Thermonuclear Warrior
#197: Jul 4th 2011 at 3:16:13 PM

The "classics are objectively better" crowd.

Tzetze DUMB from a converted church in Venice, Italy Since: Jan, 2001
DUMB
#198: Jul 4th 2011 at 3:33:49 PM

I think Rottweiler is the only one who said anything like that, and one person isn't a crowd. Am I mistaken?

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.
SantosLHalper Since: Aug, 2009
#199: Jul 4th 2011 at 3:37:44 PM

"Devoid of anything significant to say about any of the great ideas that have occupied the enduring authors of the past 2, 800 years."

Here's a list of irreducible ideas, cribbed from the Great Books of the Western World set:

Angel (or "gods", small g), Animal, Art, Astronomy, Beauty, Being, Cause, Chance, Change, Citizen, Custom and Convention, Definition, Desire, Dialectic, Duty, Education, Element, Emotion, Equality, Eternity, Evolution, Experience, Family, Fate, Form, God, Good and Evil, Government, Habit, Happiness, History, Hypothesis, Idea, Immortality, Induction, Infinity, Judgment, Justice, Knowledge, Labor, Language, Law, Liberty, Life and Death, Logic, Love, Man, Mathematics, Matter, Mechanics, Medicine, Memory and Imagination, Metaphysics, Mind, Nature, Necessity and Contingency, One and Many, Opinion, Opposition, Philosophy, Physics, Pleasure and Pain, Poetry, Principle, Progress, Prophecy, Punishment, Quality, Quantity, Reasoning, Relation, Religion, Revolution, Rhetoric, Same and Other, Science, Sense, Sign and Symbol, Sin, Slavery, Soul, Space, Time, Truth, Universal and Particular, Virtue and Vice, War and Peace, Wealth, Will, Wisdom, and World.

So for example, At the Mountains of Madness, while using the form of a pulp story, demonstrates the innovative things H.P. Lovecraft had to say about gods, Knowledge, Man, Science, Time, and such.

You know, I think a lot of the Horus Heresy and other Warhammer 40000 novels*

have at leadt War and Peace, Good and Evil, Religion, and Virtue and Vice in them.

edited 4th Jul '11 3:38:05 PM by SantosLHalper

brc2000 Thermonuclear Warrior from here Since: Jul, 2010
Thermonuclear Warrior
#200: Jul 4th 2011 at 3:42:43 PM

[up][up] I think there were a few others, including one who said that A Song of Fire and Ice is nothing more than guilty pleasure (though I haven't read the series, so it may as well be low brow entertaiment), and another who pretty much said that "pulpy stuff" was inherently bad.

[up] I think the point he's making is that it should present the themes in an interesting and novel way for it to not be deemed "mindless" (not that I necessarily agree). I've never read a Warhammer book, though.

edited 4th Jul '11 3:45:34 PM by brc2000


Total posts: 308
Top