Unpopular opinions about books

[Hazel Motes]

Speaking of which, I've noticed that the more performative someone is about having reading as a "hobby", the more likely they are to just criticize you for your tastes instead of actually talking about the book/author/etc.

It is people being tied to ideas which stunts their mental growth. Someone who labels himself and lives by a strict code, tends (not always) to be regurgitating the thoughts of others rather than putting in the extra effort to think. It often leads to an rigid intolerance for anything deviating from the norm. The best writers are beyond ideologies. Some of the greats, Shaw, George Eliot, Wells, suffered from wanting to remain 'true' to their respective causes. Some of most wrong-headed philosophers, Rousseau is first to mind, made great fiction writers.

I have never enjoyed dating or hanging around with someone who studied English Literature. There is no common ground beyond 'I also like reading' (read what? Who?). There is also the issue that True Believers, those who regard the social causes of today over aesthetic quality, come at literature from an angle that I disagree with. While I do not think the artist is supreme (he is often wrong), I do personally live for art, and quality trumps worldview.

I am obsessed with literature. I am tunnel visioned with it in a way I am with little else. Even what I do outside of it, work, exercise, socialising, has that layer of how that benefits my writing and thoughts. But I have few, if any, conversations about in the 'real world'.

Two quotes!

"Owing to the flood of shallow books which really are exhausted in one reading, the modern mind tends to think every book is the same, finished in one reading. But it is not so. And gradually the modern mind will realize it again. The real joy of a book lies in reading it over and over again, and always finding something different, coming upon another meaning, another level of meaning. It is, as usual, a question of values: we are so overwhelmed with quantities of books, that we hardly realize any more that a book can be valuable, valuable like a jewel, or a lovely picture, into which you can look deeper and deeper and get a more profound experience very time. It is far, far better to read one book six times, at intervals, than to read six several books.”
― D.H. Lawrence, Apocalypse

“The wig is the appropriate symbol of the man of learning, pure and simple. It adorns the head with a copious quantity of false hair, in lack of one's own: just as erudition means endowing it with a great mass of alien thought. This, to be sure, does not clothe the head so well and naturally, nor is it so generally useful, nor so suited for all purposes, nor so firmly rooted; nor when alien thought is used up, can it be immediately replaced by more from the same source, as is the case with that which springs from soil of one's own.”
― Arthur Schopenhauer, Essays and Aphorisms

 

[Alexander Thaut]

It is people being tied to ideas which stunts their mental growth. Someone who labels himself and lives by a strict code, tends (not always) to be regurgitating the thoughts of others rather than putting in the extra effort to think. It often leads to an rigid intolerance for anything deviating from the norm. The best writers are beyond ideologies. Some of the greats, Shaw, George Eliot, Wells, suffered from wanting to remain 'true' to their respective causes. Some of most wrong-headed philosophers, Rousseau is first to mind, made great fiction writers.

I find that these people are the first to tell me why I should respect their opinion and then they give the worst list of books/movies/music I've heard of.

and, yes, I do believe that the best writers don't focus/fixate on ideology. It seems especially true with genre fiction for some reason.

I have never enjoyed dating or hanging around with someone who studied English Literature. There is no common ground beyond 'I also like reading' (read what? Who?). There is also the issue that True Believers, those who regard the social causes of today over aesthetic quality, come at literature from an angle that I disagree with. While I do not think the artist is supreme (he is often wrong), I do personally live for art, and quality trumps worldview.

I've been in english lit at a grad level and the amount of navel gazing over problematic elements made me say "fuck this" after I finished grad school.

I want to read quality, to understand the evolution of what I enjoy. No, I'm not reading Atwood because I don't want to deal with this sort of shit. If a writer can't write something that transcends into "high lit", that's fine. It better be entertaining. If it does NEITHER, then I leave it.

The artist ain't supreme. I don't agree with every writer I read. I enjoy Moorcock, Asimov, Clarke, etc. I despise commies and am not an atheist. I can still respect Moorcock for not using his fiction as a soapbox.

I am obsessed with literature. I am tunnel visioned with it in a way I am with little else. Even what I do outside of it, work, exercise, socialising, has that layer of how that benefits my writing and thoughts. But I have few, if any, conversations about in the 'real world'.

I think my issue is that half the time I find someone that enjoys this stuff, they've imbibed the kool-aid and have gone kinda woke.

 

[Hazel Motes]

I think my issue is that half the time I find someone that enjoys this stuff, they've imbibed the kool-aid and have gone kinda woke.

Just how it is, mate. Joseph De Maistre, the conservative philosopher, travelled to Russia, thinking the intellectuals would be of a different sort than he found in France. Not so. He learned that they all had the exact same opinions. The cosmopolitan attitude is universal. The large scale production of these types, in part due to the proliferation of university education, means it is not kept solely in royal courts or the bohemian squalor of London and Paris.

There's a line from Francis Bacon's essay, the one on atheism, which applies: "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." To be cosmopolitan, woke, or post modern is not too hard. It tickles an intellectual minded person without pushing boundaries or being a challenge. It keeps one thinking he is a free thinker. Most do not go any further than what they were taught. A love of wisdom, philosophy, is not for everyone, and some are better off not bothering. The common sense rural folk, venerated by Tolstoy, tend to know best anyhow.

Really liked your reply by the way.

 

[Alexander Thaut]

Just how it is, mate. Joseph De Maistre, the conservative philosopher, travelled to Russia, thinking the intellectuals would be of a different sort than he found in France. Not so. He learned that they all had the exact same opinions. The cosmopolitan attitude is universal. The large scale production of these types, in part due to the proliferation of university education, means it is not kept solely in royal courts or the bohemian squalor of London and Paris.

I miss the old folks from when I was young who just enjoyed talking about good books and movies and how it reminded them of XYZ.

I can accept the attitude, but I just don't like how it's now egregiously and militarily "anti-everything to the right of Mao or Stalin"

There's a line from Francis Bacon's essay, the one on atheism, which applies: "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." To be cosmopolitan, woke, or post modern is not too hard. It tickles an intellectual minded person without pushing boundaries or being a challenge. It keeps one thinking he is a free thinker. Most do not go any further than what they were taught. A love of wisdom, philosophy, is not for everyone, and some are better off not bothering. The common sense rural folk, venerated by Tolstoy, tend to know best anyhow.

Really liked your reply by the way.

I'm beginning to understand that, perhaps, there's more enjoyment out of genre lit made for the masses too. Fucking tired of all the denigration they've gotten from snobby pseudo-intellectuals. Sometimes stuff transcends, like the various speculative fiction works that've done so.

 

[N1993R K1LL4H]

I miss the old folks from when I was young who just enjoyed talking about good books and movies and how it reminded them of XYZ.

I can accept the attitude, but I just don't like how it's now egregiously and militarily "anti-everything to the right of Mao or Stalin"

I miss people learning something and coming up with stuff. I really really miss a literate and educated population which sought enlightenment. Im not trying to brag about being knowledgeable but I at least seek to learn things, I dont see many people outside of here trying to seek things outside orthodoxy or analyze things and hypothesize.

 

[Alexander Thaut]

I miss people learning something and coming up with stuff. I really really miss a literate and educated population which sought enlightenment. Im not trying to brag about being knowledgeable but I at least seek to learn things, I dont see many people outside of here trying to seek things outside orthodoxy or analyze things and hypothesize.

I've noticed that it's usually old people or just men who are kinda like this. I've gotten so tired of being browbeaten by midwits who really think I need to be enlightened on Kipling being an Imperialist, on Lovecraft's racism, and on how non-current thing bad

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

I am long past the point of enjoying discussing literature with other people. At some point reading became a wholly personal, private thing for me. I mean, it's always been an enveloping, important, individual experience. But I also studied it formally and loved that life - enough for 2 of my top 3 career thoughts to be literature-related (I chose door number 3).

But at some point I stopped knowing people in real life who enjoyed it like I do. Tried a few discussion groups/book clubs, but life was busy, and I also had different goals (one was a "ladies of [my street] book club): it was catty, the books were so-so, and the meetings were mostly about cheap wine and bad brie (which is to say, any brie, fight me), so it didn't feel a good use of my time).

And now everything is discussed through a social/societal ills lens. People fight more than they critique, share observations/ appreciation, or follow paths of analysis. Everything is about whether someone personally agrees with something some character thinks, or with the author's perspective. There's no personal distance at all. It's as though they think the book is there to service them.

These days, I enjoy the occasional discussion with my college-aged kids, who are finally discovering literature (somehow I birthed kids who largely resisted the thousands of books both in my home and, to a lesser degree, in their father's, until they were well into their teens). I love hearing them discover the deep joy in reading, and I especially enjoy when they recognize "great," versus "fine" or "serviceable." They feel their own minds work at deeper levels, and they experience the calm weight of profoundly good literature (as compared to the shallow, agitated dullness of everything else we consume). It's great to see.

We do not talk about everything in modern terms of politics or psychology. We talk more about the literary rendering, along with the context of the time in which something was written and themes larger than what fits into some internet meme - the nature of humanity and human-ness, the orientation of self and/in society, etc. We talk about the craft and the architecture of a book. ...We talk good old-fashioned literature talk.

I don't see that kind of discussion online much at all - everything is reduced to modern political points of ignorance or insensitivity, or dismissal of both "antiquated" experiences and complex prose alike. Although I think discussing a modern view of something from or about "the past" can be part of a discussion, I think it's a small point. But it seems to me that most "discussion" is people blowing past all the literary aspects of things and going straight to pronouncements of acceptable or unacceptable politics.

And that happens across the political spectrum: it is not just "woke" that disregards the thing itself; plenty of unwoke people bring a parallel condemnation based on their own sensitivities and prudishness. It's facile and tiresome, and it assails my personal joy, so I rarely bother engaging at all.

 

[Alexander Thaut]

I am long past the point of enjoying discussing literature with other people. At some point reading became a wholly personal, private thing for me. I mean, it's always been an enveloping, important, individual experience. But I also studied it formally and loved that life - enough for 2 of my top 3 career thoughts to be literature-related (I chose door number 3).

But at some point I stopped knowing people in real life who enjoyed it like I do. Tried a few discussion groups/book clubs, but life was busy, and I also had different goals (one was a "ladies of [my street] book club): it was catty, the books were so-so, and the meetings were mostly about cheap wine and bad brie (which is to say, any brie, fight me), so it didn't feel a good use of my time).

And now everything is discussed through a social/societal ills lens. People fight more than they critique, share observations/ appreciation, or follow paths of analysis. Everything is about whether someone personally agrees with something some character thinks, or with the author's perspective. There's no personal distance at all. It's as though they think the book is there to service them.

These days, I enjoy the occasional discussion with my college-aged kids, who are finally discovering literature (somehow I birthed kids who largely resisted the thousands of books both in my home and, to a lesser degree, in their father's, until they were well into their teens). I love hearing them discover the deep joy in reading, and I especially enjoy when they recognize "great," versus "fine" or "serviceable." They feel their own minds work at deeper levels, and they experience the calm weight of profoundly good literature (as compared to the shallow, agitated dullness of everything else we consume). It's great to see.

We do not talk about everything in modern terms of politics or psychology. We talk more about the literary rendering, along with the context of the time in which something was written and themes larger than what fits into some internet meme - the nature of humanity and human-ness, the orientation of self and/in society, etc. We talk about the craft and the architecture of a book. ...We talk good old-fashioned literature talk.

I don't see that kind of discussion online much at all - everything is reduced to modern political points of ignorance or insensitivity, or dismissal of both "antiquated" experiences and complex prose alike. Although I think discussing a modern view of something from or about "the past" can be part of a discussion, I think it's a small point. But it seems to me that most "discussion" is people blowing past all the literary aspects of things and going straight to pronouncements of acceptable or unacceptable politics.

And that happens across the political spectrum: it is not just "woke" that disregards the thing itself; plenty of unwoke people bring a parallel condemnation based on their own sensitivities and prudishness. It's facile and tiresome, and it assails my personal joy, so I rarely bother engaging at all.

I think my personal view of it is that I just wanna sperg about how fun something is. Which Doc Savage or James Bond or Elric book is the most fun? Etc.

I grew up with 54 bookcases. My father had 5 encyclopedia sets and inherited hundreds of books from like 5 generations.


I intentionally try to go out and find people who love this stuff without making it all about politics. I love reading the stuff and shift depending on mood. But I love it more when I find another person and we just love talking about Hammett or Chandler or etc. I also love discovering things, linking inspirations, talking about what influenced it, etc. I hate modern discussion with a passion because all it does is whinge about politics and drag in idpol.

 

[AnOminous]

There's a line from Francis Bacon's essay, the one on atheism, which applies: "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."

I'm not sure if that's specifically true, but having some grasp of philosophy certainly militates against mindlessly insisting that only an idiot could possibly believe in God. Otherwise, why would so many of the very "I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE" heroes like Einstein explicitly reject outright atheism?

There's an inherent order in nature and the structure of the universe that almost implies some level of intelligence or intent in its creation. There are theories of equal merit that imply it actually is just the result of chaos or some mindless process. Neither can simply be rejected as something only an idiot could believe.

 

[N1993R K1LL4H]

Kipling being an Imperialist

Taking something as banal as imperialism, you can analyze it in couple different ways. The midwit uses imperialism interchangeably with colonialism even though both are different concepts.

Spoiler: off topic

Imperialism means aggression towards a foreign entity in violation of their civil and property rights. It doesn't necessarily mean that their property is being reappropriated or expropriated which is what colonialism is. They also don't understand that liberals of the 19th century perceived imperialism as a necessary evil, coming back to kipling, the white man's burden caricature was the dominant progressive position which mirrors today's progressive position of the first world being obligated to improving the third world which is darkly ironic. But to understand things like this you must read, you must comprehend and analyze things outside your own biases, possibly come to conclusions and make hypotheses.

Point being you can analyze it in many different ways, you can perceive it in many different ways. But you wouldn't find that kind of attitude anymore. It's an education issue first, media and legacy issue second. Education is now a system which processes people towards industry, to fit the norm and the media reinforces that, whatever media it is. It's in contrast to education earlier where people were encouraged to pursue methods of thought instead of being fed concrete conclusions. Didn't matter if the wheel was reinvented over and over, people learned how to innovate. That's whats lacking, the spirit of innovation and the system which cultivates it.

Also @Friend of Dorothy Parker, don't worry, you're in good company when it comes to lit discussion. Although I will say, forgive my relative illiteracy in advance.

 

[Elite Kipchak]

i dont like brandon sanderson

 

[Kromeleon]

He’s almost entirely pozzed at this point.

I grew up reading Wheel of Time and him finishing that series drew me into his Stormlight Saga. I don’t think I’ll be able to finish the latest book, and if I do it will be the last thing of his that I read.

 

[2mm and 99 others]

Mistborn series was several books longer than it should be, and as for Stormlight archives, I've used the first book as ''paper narcosis'' for some time - something I try to read when I have problem falling asleep.

 

[She Beetle]

Ever since I first heard the actual details of George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire novels, I've had this thought, and I want to sanity check it with people who've never read 'em, and I'm not sure where else to ask.

Your post is fairly representative of a lot of the GRRM discourse which doesn't come from former fans. That is, you haven't read the stories and overestimate your knowledge of them.

Even as of the last book, most of the protagonists are still alive. Bran, Dany, Sansa, Arya, Davos, Jaime, Brienne and Theon are still alive and nobody has believed Jon Snow will actualy stay dead since 2014. So I have to assume that this meme is based on Ned Stark, who died at the end of book one, and Cait/Rob who died in the Red Wedding. So... that's three major protagonists who have been killed off against the two major antagonists who have been killed off, a better ratio than Avengers Endgame. What a hopeless grimdark story!

If you've actually read the books, the trajectory of the story should be obvious, especially if you've played Elden Ring which shares a lot of the same themes. The setting of the series is stuck in a magically induced stasis which has resulted in longer seasons but, more immediately, has kept the characters' society in a perpetual state of feudalism. The resolution won't be "lul, the bad guys sweeped so hard they actually sweeped themselves!". It will resolve with the world being allowed to move on, which did actually happen-- albeit clumsily-- in the television series, when the surviving protagonists decided to form an adhoc democracy.

Add.
You're not wrong about a lot of that other stuff, there are elements of the characters missing the forests for the trees and it leading to cataclysm. The story has insisted upon an impending event that will probably result in the deaths of a few major characters, and leave the setting in a much worse place, but also a position which is ripe to be reconstructed. Hence, The Winds of Winter leading into A Dream of Spring. But this has more to do with the characters being too concerned with conflicts within a flawed and corrupt society, and using that society's tools to combat them, while ignoring the root cause of the problem; the old ways, the sinister and corrupted belief in old gods, pacts made thousands of years ago with fairy creatures and a network of trees sustained by blood, maintained by and maintaining the status quo.

 

[Flatline]

i dont like brandon sanderson

The only books worth reading by him are Elantris, the original Mistborn trilogy, and The Way of Kings.

 

[From The Uncanny Valley]

The Young Adult genre was a mistake.

Most western graphic novels not based on a franchise are pretty bad

 

[Soseki]

I cannot read through most dystopian novels. Especially that hack fraud Orwell.

 

[2mm and 99 others]

My problem with Orwell (and come to that, many other authors too) is, that he failed to make the reader know, how much the main character's thoughts reflect his own views.

 

[curbside2]

I also, very tentatively (feel free to shit on this opinion), speculate that reading Dostoevsky might not be good for the reader. I find his main appeal is that he illustrates characters with such exaggerated neuroses such that, as the reader, you recognize in them people/archetypes you know IRL and end up all tickled and impressed at how accurately he captures flaws in the human psyche. The whole while though you, as the reader, sort of remain detached - you see these flaws in other people but not yourself and start to feel sort of "above" the retardation. In fact I wonder if Dostoevsky might be bad for you in the same way kf is bad for you - his books, ultimately, are about a bunch of lolcows and his appeal is for those of us who contrive some kind of perverse pleasure out of staring into the abyss of lolcow farms.

This reads like a statement made by someone who has only read Crime and Punishment. I do think Tolstoy is superior to Dostoevsky. But boiling Dostoevsky down to neuroses says more about the reader.

 

[AnOminous]

In fact I wonder if Dostoevsky might be bad for you in the same way kf is bad for you - his books, ultimately, are about a bunch of lolcows and his appeal is for those of us who contrive some kind of perverse pleasure out of staring into the abyss of lolcow farms.

Two really prominent examples would be the dudes from Notes from Underground and The Overcoat (derp that's by Gogol). Both utter loonballs. Same with Raskolnikov.