Today I read a couple of ridiculous articles online. One applied Freudian analysis to the pseudo-children's book Go the F*ck to Sleep, and the author came to the conclusion that people think it's funny because we're all sexless yuppies who secretly hate our kids. Another was some stupid political rant that just peeved me off. And then there was that Slate article by that YA author that had everyone in a tizzy because she admitted that she doesn't do a bajillion drafts and doesn't seem to take the industry seriously.
Add to this yesterday's brew-ha-ha over The Article That Shall Not Be Named (did I steal that?) at the Santa Cruz Weekly and I am simultaneously RANTY and GRR. So. Since I've been sitting on that one the longest, let's TALK ABOUT IT. And by talk about it, I mean bitch about it. If you're looking for anything thought-provoking or lucid, go check out The Reading Ape's perfect response to the article. If you just want to piss and moan with me, here we go:
To be honest, I initially thought it was a joke. The writer opens by saying that book bloggers are essentially a bunch of 20-something girls (girls?) who mommy-blog. She then goes on to say that while we're all sitting on our asses watching Regis and Kelly, we're also reading crap books. Then, when we're all done gossiping about the royal wedding or something, we gather together and "chatter" about that crap book. Because of this, good literature is becoming extinct and the publishing industry is going to hell. All of these points combined led me to believe this lady was writing a parody. Nay, nay, my friends.
First of all, the generalizations about book bloggers are so factually inaccurate that it's really moot to address them, so whatever. But the "mommy blogger" thing implies so much: that women who blog obviously are housewives because if we had REAL jobs (like hers) we wouldn't be TALKING OUT OF TURN IN PUBLIC. Also, women who blog who have had children apparently lost their ability to read literature and think about it critically. Did you know that? Did you know that when your child leaves your womb, he takes your brain cells with him? I know that when I had kids 3 months ago, I get way stuiderz, i surely did done did it haha team edward hahaha look my kidz did a poopies!!!!111!!!1!
So basically, if you're a book blogger, you're ruining the book industry. Also, you're a woman. Also, you're an idiot who has probably never read DeLillo. Never mind the fact that authors court book bloggers because we help sell the books, thereby boosting the industry- they're the WRONG BOOKS. EPIC FAIL. Book bloggers are evil little Tweeters who are stealing my job nooooo.......
Ok. I'm done being ranty. Just had to get that off my chest.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Friday, June 10, 2011
I Hate Your Favorite Book.
Not really. Ok, maybe I do- especially if your name is Adam and you have a blog called Roof Beam Reader...then I really do hate your favorite books. It's fine, people. We've discussed it.
LET'S TALK ABOUT OVERRATED CLASSICS! These are books over which other people fawn and paw and drool and you just sort of stand there and go "Meh. Who wants a cookie because I would love something cookie-tastic and that book IS NOT IT." I'm not talking about books that everyone secretly thinks are less-than. For example, The Professor by Charlotte Bronte- no one's favorite Bronte novel. Most people with whom I have talked about that book pretty much agree that this is a lesser work for a reason. There are also those books that were not my favorite, but I can see why they're so important, or why other people love them. I don't consider those books overrated, I just personally don't hang out with them on the daily. Examples of this are Catcher in the Rye (though I love everything else Salinger ever sneezed on) and Don Quixote and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. I GET those books, I just don't LOVE those books.
When I say a book is "overrated," I mean that not only did I not enjoy it, I don't understand why anyone else does, either. I don't see why it's stood the test of time. I do NOT get it. The first one I can think of is Wuthering Heights. On a personal level, I thought it was goofy and the characters were totally irritable, which made me want to kick a puppy the entire time. Beyond that, I thought the prose was almost purple in its melodrama. It's the AS THE WORLD TURNS of classic literature, except without the who-is-the-baby-daddy bits.
Another one? On the Road, which would be more aptly named Man Gets Drunk Bunches and Sleeps on Friends Couch. Uh. Awesome? I can see why this would have been novel at the time, but why are we still reading it as if we haven't all gotten drunk bunches and slept on our friends couch? And then there's Ethan Frome, which may be the singlemost laugh-inducing (almost) death scene in history...except for that bit in Titanic where Rose says "I'll never let go" and then proceeds to not just let go but to PUSH Leo's ice-dreads into the ocean.
In looking for a thread or pattern here, I can see that if I find something to be melodramatic or overwrought but everyone else loves it, I will find it overrated. As a fan of realism, I can recognize that as a personal foible. I don't relate to these books, and I don't find anything redeeming enough to place them on the "classics" shelf along with some of the best books of all time. What about you? What classics do you find to be the most overrated? What's your definition of overrated?
Do you HATE my favorite books?
LET'S TALK ABOUT OVERRATED CLASSICS! These are books over which other people fawn and paw and drool and you just sort of stand there and go "Meh. Who wants a cookie because I would love something cookie-tastic and that book IS NOT IT." I'm not talking about books that everyone secretly thinks are less-than. For example, The Professor by Charlotte Bronte- no one's favorite Bronte novel. Most people with whom I have talked about that book pretty much agree that this is a lesser work for a reason. There are also those books that were not my favorite, but I can see why they're so important, or why other people love them. I don't consider those books overrated, I just personally don't hang out with them on the daily. Examples of this are Catcher in the Rye (though I love everything else Salinger ever sneezed on) and Don Quixote and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. I GET those books, I just don't LOVE those books.
When I say a book is "overrated," I mean that not only did I not enjoy it, I don't understand why anyone else does, either. I don't see why it's stood the test of time. I do NOT get it. The first one I can think of is Wuthering Heights. On a personal level, I thought it was goofy and the characters were totally irritable, which made me want to kick a puppy the entire time. Beyond that, I thought the prose was almost purple in its melodrama. It's the AS THE WORLD TURNS of classic literature, except without the who-is-the-baby-daddy bits.
Another one? On the Road, which would be more aptly named Man Gets Drunk Bunches and Sleeps on Friends Couch. Uh. Awesome? I can see why this would have been novel at the time, but why are we still reading it as if we haven't all gotten drunk bunches and slept on our friends couch? And then there's Ethan Frome, which may be the singlemost laugh-inducing (almost) death scene in history...except for that bit in Titanic where Rose says "I'll never let go" and then proceeds to not just let go but to PUSH Leo's ice-dreads into the ocean.
In looking for a thread or pattern here, I can see that if I find something to be melodramatic or overwrought but everyone else loves it, I will find it overrated. As a fan of realism, I can recognize that as a personal foible. I don't relate to these books, and I don't find anything redeeming enough to place them on the "classics" shelf along with some of the best books of all time. What about you? What classics do you find to be the most overrated? What's your definition of overrated?
Do you HATE my favorite books?
Saturday, June 4, 2011
"The Once and Future King" by T.H. White: A Review
Before we begin, let's take a second to pay homage to the greatness that is Helen Mirren as Morgana La Fey in the 1980s EPIC HEAVY METAL WIN that is Excalibur.
I love this movie. It is full of ridiculousness and unintentional camp and Gabriel Byrne? Amazeballs. Ok, moving on.
The Once and Future King is (obvs) a retelling of the Arthurian legend, beginning with Arthur's time as The Wart in Sir Ector's castle, in which Merlyn comes and makes him all sorts of beasties so he can learn their ways. It continues through Arthur's crowning after he pulls the sword out of the stone (NOT after a watery tart lobs a scimitar at him, unfortunately), and straight through Queen Gwen's creeping on the DL with Lancelot. Then, lickity split, Camelot becomes all icky and falls apart.
The internet AND the back of the book both told me this is THE fantasy novel, as in Best of the Genre. I say...no..? I mean, there are certainly fantasy bits with people turning into geese and unicorns prancing about and occasional other beasties, including fairies in bacon castles, but these seem to be mostly an afterthought. Plot devices used to develop character, like the very Don Quixote-like King Pellinore's never ending chase after the Questing Beast, through which you learn about the King's kindness and general awesome sauce. So maybe it's fantasy, yeah, whatever, don't let that turn you off if that's not you're thing.
T.H. White does that thing I LOVE where he says heartbreakingly beautiful things in five words or less. These bits are interspersed with pages and pages about the philosophy of the Round Table, and long bits about Gwen and Lancelot which are largely uninteresting. I mean, let's get real- there's nothing novel about dude sleeping with his best friend's wife, or even about that dude's attempts to justify it. There IS something fascinating about Arthur's reasons behind being totally cool with it. Let's talk more about that, and less about Gwen and Lancelot singing songs to each other in the moonlight.
As un-plotty as the philosophical parts are, they're worth reading (as opposed to those random essays in War and Peace that you all skipped, amirite?). They're full of thought-provoking stuff about original sin and the decency of man and the justification of war and the silliness of nationalism and whatnot. And then there's SWORDS and MEADE and BACON CASTLES and you're all: "wow this is smart AND entertaining and that is a rare thing." Also? I love books that have hope. And that make the good guys human and faulted, but still let them be the good guys. Because I think that in real life, there are still good guys and bad guys, and sometimes things can be that simple.
Four stars out of your mom.
I love this movie. It is full of ridiculousness and unintentional camp and Gabriel Byrne? Amazeballs. Ok, moving on.
The Once and Future King is (obvs) a retelling of the Arthurian legend, beginning with Arthur's time as The Wart in Sir Ector's castle, in which Merlyn comes and makes him all sorts of beasties so he can learn their ways. It continues through Arthur's crowning after he pulls the sword out of the stone (NOT after a watery tart lobs a scimitar at him, unfortunately), and straight through Queen Gwen's creeping on the DL with Lancelot. Then, lickity split, Camelot becomes all icky and falls apart.
The internet AND the back of the book both told me this is THE fantasy novel, as in Best of the Genre. I say...no..? I mean, there are certainly fantasy bits with people turning into geese and unicorns prancing about and occasional other beasties, including fairies in bacon castles, but these seem to be mostly an afterthought. Plot devices used to develop character, like the very Don Quixote-like King Pellinore's never ending chase after the Questing Beast, through which you learn about the King's kindness and general awesome sauce. So maybe it's fantasy, yeah, whatever, don't let that turn you off if that's not you're thing.
T.H. White does that thing I LOVE where he says heartbreakingly beautiful things in five words or less. These bits are interspersed with pages and pages about the philosophy of the Round Table, and long bits about Gwen and Lancelot which are largely uninteresting. I mean, let's get real- there's nothing novel about dude sleeping with his best friend's wife, or even about that dude's attempts to justify it. There IS something fascinating about Arthur's reasons behind being totally cool with it. Let's talk more about that, and less about Gwen and Lancelot singing songs to each other in the moonlight.
As un-plotty as the philosophical parts are, they're worth reading (as opposed to those random essays in War and Peace that you all skipped, amirite?). They're full of thought-provoking stuff about original sin and the decency of man and the justification of war and the silliness of nationalism and whatnot. And then there's SWORDS and MEADE and BACON CASTLES and you're all: "wow this is smart AND entertaining and that is a rare thing." Also? I love books that have hope. And that make the good guys human and faulted, but still let them be the good guys. Because I think that in real life, there are still good guys and bad guys, and sometimes things can be that simple.
Four stars out of your mom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
