Hah, yeah, so it would seem. But definitely an exercise in critical thinking as far as choosing what you want to read is concerned.Originally Posted by Dalyn
Hah, yeah, so it would seem. But definitely an exercise in critical thinking as far as choosing what you want to read is concerned.
In the same way someone telling you never to talk because every word has been spoken is an exercise in critical thinking as far as choosing your words carefully is concerned.
Yea, I'd say I have a strong preference to nineteenth and early-twentieth century novels (and with more antiquated writing in general), but I also strongly dispute the idea that "new fiction" isn't worth reading. I subscribe to the notion that both nothing and everything is new under the sun.
"For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."
Or, telling someone not to listen too intently. But I'll handily admit that is just my interpretation. I didn't perceive it to be a discouragement from production, although it would seem the two go hand in hand.
Last edited by Hawk; 08-19-2015 at 04:36 AM.
Yeah. I don't mean to insult your favorite professor. We all have our checklist when picking a book. It's why--unless it's one of the writers I follow--I now try to ignore everything about a new book when deciding what to read. It forces one to broaden their horizons. I recommend it to anyone who finds themselves reading too much of the same thing (or even feels like they are) and wants to change that.
They certainly do (in my opinion).
Favorite is an arbitrary term, no offense taken.
I am curious though -- if you 'ignore everything' about books you are about to read, what criteria do you use to determine what you'll read next?
Maybe. I think it's relative to the writer. I mean, who do you write for? Yourself or your audience?
Well, every other book I read (one is based off my "checklist" and/or recommendations/awards/etc) I just grab something that for whatever reason captured my attention (title, cover art, blurb, whatever). It definitely leads to a lot of bad books, but also to a few gems I might not have otherwise been exposed to. Even when I go off recommendations or awards or name recognition, I do my best to avoid any and all information about the book beforehand.
I took your meaning as you need to read to write. I might've misunderstood.
Interesting. I appreciate that approach.
I'm the opposite, I think I spend as much time researching what I'll read as I do actually reading whatever I decide on.
Dalyn (08-19-2015)
Oh, no, I meant that I didn't see his comment as suggesting that people should stop writing 'new' fiction.
Dalyn (08-19-2015)
I used to do that, too. Maybe you are better than me with it, because after a decade or so it felt like I was often reading the same thing over and over and over. I started hating some of my early loves like traditional fantasy. I still do in many ways. Now I try to kick aside as many of my fences as I possibly can. I'll read anything, and I'd prefer not to know anything about it beforehand. My loves still most often fall in my wheelhouse, but not always (and A LOT less often than before).
Hawk (08-19-2015)
Oh, okay. I misunderstood.
I think it was Harold Bloom who argued that "secondariness" was the engine of literary history (or something like that). The writer recognizes how much has been done before (maybe everything) and strives to create something new or original, in style or substance. He likened it to a dialogue between past and present. I might go even further and say that a combination (reading past and present) gives you a new appreciation for both. The past makes the present original and new and the present returns the favor.
Last edited by Dalyn; 08-19-2015 at 08:28 AM.
It's not perfect, by any means. In fact, it's an extremely flawed approach. I think that's what makes it work for me right now. I'm sure the deluge of "bad" books will get to me eventually, but I'm going to hang on as long as possible.
Hawk (08-19-2015)
Yes, it had some name dropping but those are his people. The section on his wife' passing was very moving. In the past I wouldn't have chosen this kind of book but I took a chance on Billy Crystal's Still Foolin' 'Em and loved it. Same with Bossy Pants and then Steve Martin's latest. I like reading comedians, especially ones that can write. I'm debating Jimmie Walker's DYN-O-MITE. I never found him very funny but the book is supposed to be good. He's seen a lot in 40 years as a B list comedian. He comes across as a straight up dude in interviews and admits that "Dyn-o-mite" was stupid the first time he said it and wasn't his idea.
Also cf. Eliot's Traditional and the Individual Talent.
"For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."
Dalyn (08-19-2015)
I'm not sure to what extent that admission is hyperbolic, but I definitely tend towards that approach, as well: I certainly don't spend as much time researching the text as actually reading it (with a few exceptions, for academic reasons), but I rarely read anything blind and regularly have made myself aware of the discussion surrounding a text, the author's milieu, et cetera.
Flawed or not—and I'm skeptical there really is a "flawed approach" to reading, or consuming any media, as long as you're engaging and leveraging your critical apparatus—I'm pretty envious of your ability to read like that. Personally, the university ruined me for that kind of reading; these days I'm a somewhat slow, very deliberate, constantly-annotating reader. As a result, selecting the new text can feel a bit burdensome, since the next one's always going to entail a solid temporal investment (and substantial cerebral) investment.
Last edited by jpx7; 08-19-2015 at 02:50 PM.
"For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."
Dalyn (08-19-2015)
It is definitely freeing. I've been doing it for a little over a year now.
The statement that "everything has already been written" has surely been said countless times, after the Greeks, Homer and Aesop, for instance, but then the world changed and along came Shakespeare, who redid the old stories with new characters and language. It seems impossible for such a statement to hold water, with every new day potentially bringing new perspectives. "Nothing and everything is new under the sun." Indeed. Readers change if nothing else and they like to be spoken to directly. If there were any limits to the human imagination one beholder could never see it all, making such a statement merely lacking imagination.
Man, you guys take your "pleasure" reading seriously. You must be writers. I just follow my nose and certainly don't spend that much time picking out a new book. I would never buy in to anything that heavily. Any new read is gonna have to win me over to keep me turning pages. I will give up on a book, usually near the beginning but that hasn't happened in a while.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote