[J m HofMarN]

John Updike, Norman Mailer, Truman Capote, ETC. There are some authors who are only read because they are very literary. It's writing for the sake of writing with little entertainment involved. Some of these people have great stories but are just over-written. For instance, Les Miserables, War and Peace. These books aren't meant to entertain, or so it seems to me, they're meant to impress one's friends. I've tried to read the two books mentioned and some of the authors but they just seem stodgy and inaccessible. What do you guys think? Am I missing something?

[SimeSublime]

I've never read any of them. Struck me as rather boring. I read for entertainment and escapism. I don't care if that makes me seem shallow. I like a book to make me think, but if it isn't entertaining I'm not going to sit through it. I remember in year 12 having an arguement with my lit teacher. Sure, "The Lost Honour of Katarina Blum" gives an excellent view of post war West Germany and the corruption of the free media, but it was so bloody boring that nobody would bother reading more then a few pages, and if nobody's going to read it, your point is now invalid.

[Marky]

Can't help you on this one. Didn't read any books of the dudes mentioned.

[JW Wells]

John Updike, Norman Mailer, Truman Capote, ETC. There are some authors who are only read because they are very literary. It's writing for the sake of writing with little entertainment involved. Some of these people have great stories but are just over-written. For instance, Les Miserables, War and Peace. These books aren't meant to entertain, or so it seems to me, they're meant to impress one's friends. I've tried to read the two books mentioned and some of the authors but they just seem stodgy and inaccessible. What do you guys think? Am I missing something?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I refer you to A Reader's Manifesto for further elucidation of this argument. While good use of language is one thing, too much "literary" fiction these days seems to be pretention served with a heapin' helping of snobbery - intended mostly as a reason for those who read it to feel superior.

[J m HofMarN]

Gardener and Cleese seem to fall into this category as well, same with Faulkner.

[floppydisk]

I agree completely with Slade.

[J m HofMarN]

Zuh?

[floppydisk]

Urm... Sime, I mean.

D'oh!

[SimeSublime]

Huzzah!

[jariten]

Its hard to figure out whos more to blame though, the author or English Literature departments. Its a shame that a good book will often be shrouded by pretention and bullish intellectualism when what it really wanted to be was just a Cracking Good Read.

[J m HofMarN]

I've found yet another victim of this madness. Charles Dickens' Bleak House starts out as a fine and typical Dickens book, abandoned child, Victorian era London, stodgy society types, poor people, social commentary, etc. But around chapter twenty somewhere he just started introducing new people completely at random with names like snagsby and truffledump and bucket and all sorts of other craziness and the metaphors wander around aimlessly, it really is a shame.

[Slade]

Oh bloody Hells, JM, don't torture yourself anymore with that piece of nonsense!

And floppydisk, of course you agree with me! I don't need to post for you to say it, it's ok!

[Patrick Bateman]

Dude, what about 'The Fight' or 'Tough Guys Don't Dance", two classic Mailer novel's/new journalism, Fitzgerald's 'Great Gatsby' or JC Oates 'Marilyn' all brilliantly entertaining.
Reading for escapism is fine and dandy, some of my most enjoyable read's are Spiderman Collections, but if you can combine entertainment with something a little more - thinking of a non-pretencious word for class - then aren't you a little better off???

Then again, try a little Hunter S, F and L on the campaign trail is the perfect example of both.