I hate reading!

[superluser]

Actually, I don't hate reading, but a recent thread over in the Lost Lake forum brought this topic up, and since that part of the thread was off-topic there, I thought I'd whip up a thread here.

As I said, I rather enjoy reading, motifs, imagery and themes.  I mentioned Thomas Pynchon and James Joyce.  Add Hemingway and Steinbeck to that list.

Now, I know what you're thinking...what about the bard?  Shakespeare is a difficult topic; his later works were indeed quite brilliant, but many of his early works are quite bad.  Read, for example, Titus Andronicus or Romeo and Juliet (yes, I hate Romeo and Juliet).

Both of these, actually, suffer from having few themes or motifs.  I should hasten to add that Shakespeare's histories, based on Raphael Holinshed or Plutarch, are consistently decent.

So anyways, if you've got something to say about this, let's have it.

[terrycloth]

Shakespear's okay, but it really needs to be translated into modern english at some point, if someone hasn't already done it. A lot of the humor and stuff gets lost in slowly puzzling out what in god's name the characters are trying to say through all the archaic words.

I love reading... I don't read as much now as I did before I discovered the internet (yes, it was me! I planted my flag and...) but I still read several books a month. I don't usually like reading 'good' books, though, with themes and motifs and all that crap. I like funny books or escapist fantasies. Being well written is a bonus, but it won't make up for the book lacking the essentials (that is, humor and/or fantasy).

And 'being well written' doesn't mean 'having themes and motifs'. I hate themes and motifs. Ugh. x.x It means having believable characters, keeping the reader's interest, and presenting thought-provoking concepts. Probably among other things that I'm not thinking of.

[Farinata]

Titus Andronicus is awesome. It's a Shakespearean slasher play, what's not to love?  I love Shakespeare. I consider Hamlet to be the greatest work of English literature.

I seem to be the opposite of you, I don't really like Thomas Pynchon and I think James Joyce is one of the most overrated authors ever (I cannot think of Finnegan's Wake without frowning).

Developing a criterion for "well written" is difficult in the extreme! There are many elements; style, themes, plot, characterization, originality, pacing, etc. I don't think any of them is "most important."

And I think it is possible to really enjoy works that aren't great literature. Many of my favorite books are seriously flawed, but I enjoy them because of other elements.

[superluser]

Shakespear's okay, but it really needs to be translated into modern english at some point, if someone hasn't already done it. A lot of the humor and stuff gets lost in slowly puzzling out what in god's name the characters are trying to say through all the archaic words.

Ooh!  Them's fightin' words!  Shakespeare wrote in Modern English.  Chaucer wrote in Middle English, and the Beowulf-Poet wrote in Old English.  The delineation from middle to modern is usually considered to have taken place somewhere between the start of the 15th century and the turn of the 16th centuries.

If you can't read it, that's a personal deficiency.  The vocabulary and syntax are still used today, and while the phrasing may be odd to our ears, there's nothing wrong with it.  It does come across a lot better in speech than in type.

And 'being well written' doesn't mean 'having themes and motifs'. I hate themes and motifs. Ugh. x.x It means having believable characters, keeping the reader's interest, and presenting thought-provoking concepts. Probably among other things that I'm not thinking of.

Well, believable characters are part of that, but you can find believable characters in crappy literature, too.

(I cannot think of Finnegan's Wake without frowning)

Well, that's Finnegans Wake.  Many people say that that's just Joyce taken to its absurd extreme.  What about Portrait?

[Farinata]

Shakespear's okay, but it really needs to be translated into modern english at some point, if someone hasn't already done it. A lot of the humor and stuff gets lost in slowly puzzling out what in god's name the characters are trying to say through all the archaic words.

Ooh!  Them's fightin' words!  Shakespeare wrote in Modern English.  Chaucer wrote in Middle English, and the Beowulf-Poet wrote in Old English.  The delineation from middle to modern is usually considered to have taken place somewhere between the start of the 15th century and the turn of the 16th centuries.

If you can't read it, that's a personal deficiency.  The vocabulary and syntax are still used today, and while the phrasing may be odd to our ears, there's nothing wrong with it.  It does come across a lot better in speech than in type.

I generally agree with you, but in fairness there are elements in Shakespeare that are not present in modern modern English; he's not just using a big vocabulary.

And 'being well written' doesn't mean 'having themes and motifs'. I hate themes and motifs. Ugh. x.x It means having believable characters, keeping the reader's interest, and presenting thought-provoking concepts. Probably among other things that I'm not thinking of.

Well, believable characters are part of that, but you can find believable characters in crappy literature, too.

Yeah, but you can find themes in crappy literature as well. 

(I cannot think of Finnegan's Wake without frowning)

Well, that's Finnegans Wake.  Many people say that that's just Joyce taken to its absurd extreme.  What about Portrait?

I'll be honest with you here; the only works by Joyce that I have read are Ulysses and Finnegan's Wake. After that I had absolutely no desire to read any of his other works, but perhaps that was a mistake....

Have you read any Umberto Eco?

[Alan Garou]

Well, I, for one, have the uncanny ability to read Shakespeare and instantly understand what everyone is saying. I can completely understand all of the archaic words and weird sentence structures.
As for overanalyzing literature, I totally agree with superluser. For every book I read from third grade to eighth grade, I had to write an essay on the prompt "What does this work say about Change?" When I heard a similar prompt in ninth grade, I nearly screamed in terror, then bit a piece out of the worksheet. I got in quite a bit of trouble, and I had to write the essay anyway. 

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

That says something about your teachers being lazy, not the work itself, Alan.

Arguing along the lines of writing an essay which says what the work says about, say, the populace of the area it's set in, or about changing mores, or about what the author thinks about morals, or whatever seems to fit that particular book. Coming up with an essay explaining why "what this book says about change" is a silly idea, since it doesn't evoke much enthusiasm in the class would be classy...

[superluser]

I'll be honest with you here; the only works by Joyce that I have read are Ulysses and Finnegan's Wake. After that I had absolutely no desire to read any of his other works, but perhaps that was a mistake....

Have you read any Umberto Eco?

I've not read Umberto Eco.  I really should, but I rarely find the time.  Did you read the Odyssey before you read Ulysses?

Coming up with an essay explaining why "what this book says about change" is a silly idea

Yeah.  I gotta agree with that.  Most literature is about change in some form.  I don't know what book you were talking about, but I would start my essay by talking about how literature involves change, and that this book was no exception and start talking about dialectics or something in the book.

And then I'd finish up by suggesting that the idiot teacher *change* the teacher's manual where she got the stock question from.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

That last line would probably lose you any credit you'd collected by then, I think. :-)

Accurate, but...

[Farinata]

When I heard a similar prompt in ninth grade, I nearly screamed in terror, then bit a piece out of the worksheet. I got in quite a bit of trouble, and I had to write the essay anyway. 

That's a great story! I never thought of trying that...

And I agree with everyone about the essay topic. Ugh.

I've not read Umberto Eco.  I really should, but I rarely find the time.  Did you read the Odyssey before you read Ulysses?

I did, though I like the Iliad better. Hector is the man.

[Manawolf]

Wow, I inadvertantly started a thread.  I don't much for the deep analysis of othere people's work.  I just feel forced when it comes to schoolwork where I have to write crap about the work of others.  I'd like to get to writing my own stuff for a change.

[superluser]

I did, though I like the Iliad better. Hector is the man.

Did you read the unabridged Iliad?  Because that was boring.  There are entire books of that which are just lists of troops massing for battle.

The action parts are awesome, but as to the work as a whole, I find it hard to prefer the Iliad to the Odyssey.  More power to you if you do.

[Farinata]

I did, though I like the Iliad better. Hector is the man.

Did you read the unabridged Iliad?  Because that was boring.  There are entire books of that which are just lists of troops massing for battle.

The action parts are awesome, but as to the work as a whole, I find it hard to prefer the Iliad to the Odyssey.  More power to you if you do.

I'm a dork for ancient Greece though so I like the boring parts. 

[Hilary]

I liked the Iliad, but I confess I skimmed through that huge-arse block of listing the different countries and their troops. I went back and looked at it later, though-- the names and stuff were pretty cool.

I almost stabbed my own eyes out while reading Oedipus (har, har) pretty much because I had to answer "What is Oedipus' feeling toward his citizens at the beginning?" and "Where can dramatic irony be found in this story?" about a million times each. I know I would have enjoyed it more if I could have magically forgotten how it ended.

I'm cool with Shakespeare... I just was in this theatre-thingy where we performed a bunch of scenes from Shakespeare. Midsummer Night's Dream/Pyramus and Thisbe was the shiz. Of course, making our friends cross-dress always is...

[superluser]

I liked the Iliad, but I confess I skimmed through that huge-arse block of listing the different countries and their troops. I went back and looked at it later, though-- the names and stuff were pretty cool.

The Iliad is a lot like DBZ.  It's pretty much ``Spend one book powering up,'' ``Spend one book taunting,'' ``Spend one book fighting,'' and ``Spend one book talking about the fallout of the fight.''  Repeat six times.

I'm cool with Shakespeare... I just was in this theatre-thingy where we performed a bunch of scenes from Shakespeare. Midsummer Night's Dream/Pyramus and Thisbe was the shiz. Of course, making our friends cross-dress always is...

SNOUT
Therefore another prologue must tell he is not a lion.

BOTTOM
Nay, you must name his name, and half his face must be seen
through the lion's neck;



That bit is something that will never be topped.