Learning from the Greatest - Page 3 - Writers Forum

lin · 07-05-2008, 06:19 PM

Quote:

I never understood the infatuation with To Kill a Mockingbird. I don't loathe it, but on the stage of other such works as Lord of the Flies and Catcher in the Rye,

I thought all three of the sucked. I just couldn't believe with all the great books around they were us read that shit. Not to mention the Brontes and SILAS FUCKING MARNER

SevenWritez · 07-05-2008, 06:22 PM

Harry Potter will stand the test of time because it's an enjoyable read that requires an IQ no higher than that of a disabled chimp's to enjoy. I enjoyed Harry Potter due to the imagination Rowling gave to it in the beginning, but when I hear someone say they want to 'write' like J.K Rowling I envision myself behind said person with a baseball bat in hand, and in this fantasy they are soon a red effigy of a human body.

Rowling isn't a bad story teller, but she's definitely a step back from what great writing is. I hate to think what would happen if thousands of literary aspirants emulated her.

SevenWritez · 07-05-2008, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lin

I thought all three of the sucked. I just couldn't believe with all the great books around they were us read that shit. Not to mention the Brontes and SILAS FUCKING MARNER

To Kill a Mockingbird was the only one I read in school, which may attest to my lack of enthusiasm for it. Catcher and Flies I found on my own time and enjoyed. I recently picked up The Great Gatsby and am enjoying that as well.

I'm in AP English, and we read shitty non-fiction as opposed to shitty fiction, so hey.

SevenWritez · 07-05-2008, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lin

Hmmm....

an orphan kid gets a mysterious letter one day... "Your name is enrolled at Gutworm School". Turns out his parents were fiends from hell and that there is a commnity of satan worshipping demons living among the unaware mundane citizens.

Give a ticket on the blues-powered Hellbound Train, leaving at the crossroads at midnight, he finds himself in the compaany of various imps, demi-urges, succubi, screwtapes, and hellions on the way to his first year at Gutworm.

Quickly picking up skills at riding pitchforks to play the traditional Achen Ball, in which the testicles of damned sinners are driven around with blows from clubs, he finds himself immersed in the unclean, hellish, putrescent fellowship and hijinks of the school.

But there are certain mysteries afoot: The Jesus wimp was here for three days, then left to go back to sit on the right hand of Whoever... or did he? Are their conspiracies afoot to deprive growing children of the very bones they gnaw and souls they corrupt and defile?

Might be a big seller.

The title?

The Satanic Verses II: Remix

HippoHead · 07-05-2008, 08:01 PM

Classics make me wonder whether most of the symbolism is simply invented by analysers.

Like, in the lil thing I'm writing, I devoted a chapter to a bunch of talking animals as a fun side story, but then put a few random pieces together, changed some appearances and dialogue and hey presto, each animal represents a person in the main novel and all the events in that chapter represent what's happened during the story and foreshadow what is to come (though, frankly that's a loada bullcrap).

What if most of the sub-meanings are unintentional? If I was a writer who got praised for having deep meanings to my words, I'd just go with it.

And some of it isn't even spotted. In the 7th harry potter book, I never realised that Hedwig's death was a symbol of Harry's ending of childhood. I only found out because J k Rowling said it herelf.

Therefore, no-one knows whether anything in any novel is symbiotic (is that a word?) or not. And also, I have not thought this rant through, so pay no heed to my words. I may have even contradicted myself in places.

smilinghelps · 07-05-2008, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron

I like the way that you suggest that this is some kind of secret. When I studied English Literature as a subject we were strongly advised to read "quality" rather than trash, and all the more if we wanted to write for a living. Has the education system changed so much?

I despair when I see aspiring writers on these forums who can't even spell and who know nothing about grammar, let alone creating a story that someone else might actually want to read.

I said it this way because if you ask any accomplished writer what inspired him/her to write, they'll say, "I read ____ when I was younger." -- or something to that affect. I do believe that education has changed. I remember reading The Inferno of Dante The Inferno of Dante - Google Book Search (someone took the time to scan the entire book)in high school and dreading the entire experience (and I was already calling myself a writer by then).

Like others have said, not everyone's 'Greats' are the same. Although I'm a Shakespeare lover, I will admit that he's not for everyone (I will try to convert you though).

Read, read, read before you write, write, write.

Mermaid on the breakwater · 07-05-2008, 09:35 PM

Just write. Read for ideas and learn from yourself.

My favourite poet is Blake.

lin · 07-05-2008, 11:07 PM

Quote:

When I studied English Literature as a subject we were strongly advised to read "quality" rather than trash, and all the more if we wanted to write for a living.

Man, is that sentence packed with irony.

In order to write for a living, study stuff only taught in schools, not popular books with a mass market--that's quite a conundrum right there.

Then there's the word "quality". A good place to start on that would be reading "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainence"...just the first chapter, actually.

A professor's mind slips out of gear when he tries to figure out what exactly "quality" is.

It's not so much that it can't be defined as that any two given people will have a different definition.
Which amounts to the same thing.

A-L · 07-05-2008, 11:09 PM

What, or who, classifies a book as a classic?

lin · 07-05-2008, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Classics make me wonder whether most of the symbolism is simply invented by analysers.

Uh-oh. Somebody's catching on. Quick, go neutralize that guy.

My favorite is "theme". Like writers sit down and say, "I think I'll write a novel about Love Conquers All or Duty Before Self."
Themes are completely in the mind of the critiquer. Yet you see all these clowns with straight faces saying they are vital to writing.

lin · 07-05-2008, 11:10 PM

PS When it doubt, it symbolizes a penis.

SevenWritez · 07-05-2008, 11:31 PM

While the false theme is true, I doubt a writer would argue the point if everyone was calling them a genius. Example: If I wrote a novel that became a bestseller while simaltaneously gaining literary praise - said praise coming from critics who construe a meaning I never intended - there's no way in hell I'd argue it. I'm a genius who made subtle commentary on the world at large by using Plot Point A to further emphasize the symbolism of Plot Point B?

Sure, why the fuck not? Gimme' the money and the praise.

SevenWritez · 07-05-2008, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A-L

What, or who, classifies a book as a classic?

Literary critics who hold a prestige that is rarely granted. It's debatable whether their tastes are the end all be all, but due to trained technique and undeniable intelligence they can present a stronger argument in the justification of 'great' literature and 'poor' literature. As the public - most here who consider themself independent included - tend to be no more than sheep, they tend to go along shouting praise.

A-L · 07-05-2008, 11:54 PM

Hm, I see. I view very few books as classics, but then again I guess it depends on its affect. I mean I see very little point in dubbing a book a classic that has very little relevance to today. By relevance I mean does its text transcend its time period, or does it still have an affect today in some shape or form?

SevenWritez · 07-05-2008, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A-L

Hm, I see. I view very few books as classics, but then again I guess it depends on its affect. I mean I see very little point in dubbing a book a classic that has very little relevance to today. By relevance I mean does its text transcend its time period, or does it still have an affect today in some shape or form?

The classics are often given their title due to the human condition exemplified in their story. Despite our technological and social advances, the emotional turbulence of the human heart is something that has not changed. While the characters and voices of a centuries old novel may come from a time period much different than our own, the pains and sufferings of those characters are ones we still feel today, striking us at our core with their truth and resonance.

However, this is only how I see it, and I am basing this belief off of the classics I have read.