Authors I should like & don't

[Bill Sikes]

Burrows 'Junky' was great!
Eric Bogosian 'Stories from the underground' likewise...

'On the road' was good but not what they make out to be.

Capote's 'In cold blood' was FANTASTIC!

 

[Olaf]

1984, is SHITHOT!

EVERYONE should read it. It's not the greatest of Stories, but it is such a powerful, relevant, text on politics and political power, you'd be a fool to over look its importance.

It reads more like political theory, so it can be quite dull, quite dry, unemotive, but it is interspersed with a fictional account of living under those political conditions.

Nowhere is 1984's message more important than in America, and just about anywhere: if you think political power has been taken over by the bad folk, or if you think he new world order is a real entity, or if you just think people are dumb and easily controlled by the mediated world. YOU MUST READ THIS BOOK!

Excellent comment on: Media, Censorship, Language, Mind Control, Ideology, Class Structure, Nationalism, and stupidity.

 

[Bukfan]

Olaf, you forgot to mention the author of 1984, George Orwell! I seem to remember that Buk liked another of Orwell's books, Down And Out In Paris And London. Like Factotum it's about a man drifting from job to job. Another great book by Orwell is Homeage To Catalonia, about Orwell's participation in the Spanish civil war...

 

[Rob.]

1984, is SHITHOT!

EVERYONE should read it. It's not the greatest of Stories... It reads more like political theory, so it can be quite dull, quite dry, unemotive, but it is interspersed with a fictional account of living under those political conditions.

That's like saying, "Here, try these brownies. They are delicious. I only put a small amount of dog shit in them. You can hardly taste it!"

For what it's worth, I did get a kick out of Animal Farm.

 

[ROC]

I read Olafs spiel as "It's dry and academic at times, but it's a book that's too important not to read.

It should be required reading in US schools in my opinion.

Homeland Security, my ass!

 

[Bill Sikes]

I suppose it;s required in Australia? Also, I wish US schools require more (if they do any at all) 'rooshians.'

 

[ROC]

It's on and off the syllabus over the years. I'd say most high school kids get to read it in their 6 year stint, yes.
But I'm old now. God knows what theye are teaching now days. Maybe even that horible Bukowski man?!

 

[Bill Sikes]

Bukowski in schools? The US, is way too conservative . I haven't met enyone who has heard of Bukowski, never mind read him!

Even in his home town, in 1997 he was known ony as the 'poet.'

 

[Olaf]

Rob: That's like saying, "Here, try these brownies. They are delicious. I only put a small amount of dog shit in them. You can hardly taste it!"

No, robbie, that bares no relation to anything I said about 1984! None what so ever!

1984 is fucking crazy: a brutal realisation of what can and will happen, if the people are put to sleep, and the political system, controls our lives, unimpeded. More and more revelant in these times of globalisation, never more so in America, and Europe.

Get reading! Or, you can go back to eating your brownies laced with shit if you prefer.

 

[Rob.]

O.k. Olaf...since you said so. I will read 1984 atop a mountain. :rolleyes:

 

[justine]

'Fahrenheit 451' by Ray Bradbury works on the same themes as '1984' but it much better written and much more subtle. read that instead, rob.

 

[Rob.]

I have been meaning to.

~moves Farenheit 451 to top of reading list~

 

[Olaf]

O.k. Olaf...since you said so. I will read 1984 atop a mountain. :rolleyes:

Rob, try to understand, it has nothing to do with me!

You should read the book because its:

A= Fucking Shithot.
B=Highly Relevant Comment on Political Power and Control.
C= It is terrifying.

Not because I recommded it.

 

[bogthing]

Olaf, you forgot to mention the author of 1984, George Orwell! I seem to remember that Buk liked another of Orwell's books, Down And Out In Paris And London. Like Factotum it's about a man drifting from job to job. Another great book by Orwell is Homeage To Catalonia, about Orwell's participation in the Spanish civil war...

Yeah, I loved Orwell's "non-required" reading a lot better. Down and Out is a great book, as is Homage to Catalonia, Burma Days, Road to Wigan Pier etc.

 

[Olaf]

Homage to Catalonia is amazing! I'll need to re-read it one of these days. I remember walking down La Ramblas thinking of Orwell and the Anarchists and all the bullets and all the chaos. Barcelona is a great city - wild, dirty, stunning!

Not read 'down and out in Paris and London' - but I hear it's very good, I'll buy a copy, when I get some money.

 

[wayne]

1984...1984

thats one of the things we were yelling about back in the 60's,the whole picture was being laid out and we did not like it,Olaf you are right not fasted paced but on the money,maybe i should hit it again oh good quaterbacking your a natural do you have line on a local writer? and if so who?....

 

[Olaf]

I do have a line on a writer: Alasdair Gray - 1982, Janine.

Or, of course me, but I'm entirely unknown and won't be, until I've died and gone.

 

[mjp]

Alasdair Gray, now there's an author who fits the subject of this thread perfectly. Someone stuck one of his books into my hands 15+ years ago, and sometimes I swear that I can still smell the stink of the damn thing on my fingers (which roughly translates to: I didn't care for it).

Well, maybe I spoke too soon. I just Googled him and got a taste of some rhyming poetry that almost made me nostalgic for the bad novel.

That makes Gray 0 for 2 on my scorecard, as we Yanks would say.

 

[nebula]

While many of the writers mentioned in this post are certainly overrated (Salinger has to be the most overrated one in the history of literature (he's about as diverse and productive as a sloth), with Fitzgerald close behind, choking on his dreams of fame), it seems like Bukowski is an excuse for despising anything that isn't written with a sixth grader's vocabulary, or isn't about what is considered 'real' or 'authentic,' which are dubious categories.

The so-called 'difficult' books, linguistically or stylistically, and the language of each book (with any visionary writer) may be necessary to the style, may not open to one with such ease, but perhaps the writer isn't interested in creating a palatable experience for the reader. I think there are a multitude of things to consider when reading besides one's own subjective response. To wrestle with the new language of whatever writer, and each writer in a sense has his own language, demands patience, but that patience opens one up to an entire other consciousness, to a different experience of the world.

It's incomprehensible to me how someone cannot be fascinated by Crime and Punishment. Raskolnikov is one of the most intriguing characters in all of literature. Clearly, Dostoevsky is prone to sermonizing and as a pagan, his Christian ethos is not at all palatable to me, but the vision of the novel surpasses his viewpoints and his understanding and expression of suffering could not be more profound. Dostoevsky's contempt for modernity and the false ideals of progress are piercing forces still if not even more relevant today.

 

[justine]

nebula, your views of literature really annoy me.

"It's incomprehensible to me how someone cannot be fascinated by Crime and Punishment"

---WOW.
forgive me for not having identical literary taste to you. forgive us all for not being homogenous in our literary tendencies. the title of this thread is "authors i should LIKE and don't" - not "authors who i should appreciate as talented in their own right, but i don't". there is a major distinction between thinking a novel has shit form/style/content and sucks ass, and thinking a novel has huge literary merit but being totally unable to gain anything from it yourself. so you think fitzgerald and salinger are crap? fine. i happen to respect the fact that NOT EVERYONE LIKES THE SAME BOOKS AS ME. it's a shame you don't.

p.s. d.h. lawrence was a talentless hack and i hate his stuff (even though i've only read about 100 pages from one book). anyone who likes him must be an idiot.

 

[justine]

salinger is almost certainly responsible - over the course of 15 years - for my arrival at bukowski. the fact that he wrote little and had a very narrow stylistic range has nothing to do with a critique of his talent as a author.

 

[slimedog]

I'd like to note that Bukowski mentioned liking Crime and Punishment.I like it, too.

And I'd like to tell my wife that Bukowski also liked Lawrence, but I don't.

Also, everyone that agrees with me is right and those wo don't are sadly mistaken.

P.S. I've changed my professional name to spicedog in celebration of the Spice Girls reuniting.

 

[justine]

it seems like Bukowski is an excuse for despising anything that isn't written with a sixth grader's vocabulary, or isn't about what is considered 'real' or 'authentic,' which are dubious categories.

this post has been bugging me all night. so what you're implying is that bukowski wrote with a sixth grader's vocabulary? firstly, i think that's utter bullshit. secondly, using 'big words' doesn't automatically make what you're saying any better, any more relevant, any more poignant . the ability to speak/write concisely means that a greater number of people from varying levels of 'education' can be communicated to. take a look at the new blood board: what you'll find there is a lot of people who never got into reading fiction or poetry until they were introduced to bukowski. that's an incredible legacy that bukowski has left behind.

you talk about wrestling with an author's particular way of using a language, and being patient, and being opened up to a whole new consciousness. that's great if you're able to do that. but not everyone is capable of that kind of thinking, or that type of approach to literature - and they shouldn't be condescended to, or made to feel stupid.

there are other things to consider, when approaching a novel, apart from subjective response. but subjective response will ALWAYS be the dominant response. i will never get to read all the books i WANT to read in this life - let alone also all the books i'm SUPPOSED to read (according to you). so i'm gonna stick with subjective response as my guiding light for what i should and shouldn't read.

and spicedog: if you like lawrence, we're so getting a divorce.

 

[slimedog]

Yes, dear, whatever you say. But if you read my post I think I say Buk liked Lawrence not I.

But you must be right, I'm sorry for questioning you, please forgive me.

 

[bright]

..clever old dog, you know how to treat our masters.

..all that work just for the happy-birthday-moment..;)


I miss my (female)dog.

 

[hoochmonkey9]

I like Lawrence, especially his bitter and angry poems.

 

[justine]

my attack on lawrence was sarcastic - i really, really disliked 'women in love' but i haven't read anything else by him. i was trying to make the point that although he doesn't 'do it' for me i still respect him as a writer, and i don't have a problem with other people digging his stuff. i'm not going to seriously call someone a dick just because they like an author that i don't, regardless of whether it's d.h. lawrence or john grisham.

that nebula person seems to be another one of those anti-anti-intellectualists. why is this still getting my back up? i guess because i have a few friends who are big on the old european writers like tolstoy, dostoyevsky, nabokov, et al., and they give me shit about liking carver, bukowski, ford, salinger and fitzgerald: "it's so boring, how can you read that crap? nothing happens!"

i'm not 'anti-intellectualism'; i just don't happen to enjoy much 'intellectual' fiction.

slimey, i wasn't kidding about the divorce thing, so i'm glad i misread your post.

 

[slimedog]

Spicedog here:

hey, the publisher of the Noise calls me slimey.

I'm glad we're not getting divorced as we have such a happy marriage!

 

[Bclever]

I do like Catcher and Franny and Zooey, but none of Salinger;s other stuff. Just because he has a massive vocabulary doesn't mean he should keep writing.

(here's my take on the movie it was really for my friend's school project, but that's how it turned out.)

I'm just waiting for him to die so they'll make a Catcher in the Rye movie.

Naked lunch and Junky were okay be Burroghs, but I didn't like The soft Machine by him also.

 

[taxidriver]

I find it funny that I am interested in reading many of the works of the authors mentioned here (Dosto, more Salinger, and even Junky) and I have books by Leo Tolstoy and some of the Pretentious Brontes (perfect name) sitting on my shelf waiting to be read. Keep on reading everyone.