Great Literature


jriggenbach

Recommended Posts

(NOTE FROM MSK: This thread was started from posts split off from here.)

Thanks Jim.

I clicked on the link and went to Amazon and browsed the blurbs and comments on Goodkind's books. Seems at first browse as if he is either largely or entirely a "fantasy" writer. I don't think I've given that genre a full chance, but so far don't care for it much. I prefer hard science fiction in the sf/f field (Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, Niven are the big four). The fact he is an Objectivist is not enough to get me to read him. Nor is the fact someone is a best seller or has rabid fans enough to rouse my curiosity. What I'll sometimes do, before I add something to my huge to be read list, is first read Amazon (blurb, reviews, and especially reader comments). And, if it's a novelist, I'll sample one of his short stories if available. I recently started in on a book of Dostoevsky's short stories, and James Joyce's famous collection. A 'maybe' on one and a strong 'no' on the other so far.

Much of my fiction reading was sci fi well into my twenties. Mostly since then, I've branched out greatly. I've discovered the great classics of literature, for example. I'm always surprised at Oists who complain there is nothing good to read out there, once they have worked their way through Rand and a couple light fiction authors and start to say "now what?" Or who say, based on secondhand information or being turned off by bad stuff, "the culture offers me no good writers."

Sad.

I didn't know Dostoevsky had written any short stories. As for Joyce, I think the two in Dubliners that would be most likely to impress Phil positively are "Eveline" and "The Dead." The others likely won't work at all for him.

Regarding fantasy, Goodkind's books are of little or no literary value, but there are a handful of works in that genre that do qualify as genuine literary classics of the very first quality. Some of these date from the 19th Century - Bram Stoker's Dracula, Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray, Charles Dickens's A Christmas Carol. I used to tell my students back in the '90s, when I taught a course in Fantasy and Science Fiction at an art college in San Francisco, that those were the three great works of fantasy of the Victorian Era. (There were several great 19th Century works of science fiction, too, including Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Robert Louis Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.)

There are also a handful of genuine literary classics among the fantasy works of the 20th Century. One of these, which I know Phil hasn't read - sudden, terrifying thought: does Phil appear on every thread at this site, explaining why he won't read or hasn't read whatever book{s] is/are under discussion there? - is J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. Another is the first two volumes - Titus Groan and Gormenghast - of the somewhat misnamed "Gormenghast Trilogy" of Mervyn Peake. Still others are Little, Big by John Crowley and The Circus of Dr. Lao by Charles G. Finney.

Some other time, I'll try to wean Phil away from Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, and Niven and get him to try some more literarily respectable science fiction writers.

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 417
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

> - sudden, terrifying thought: does Phil appear on every thread at this site, explaining why he won't read or hasn't read whatever book{s] is/are under discussion there?

No, not quite yet on every thread. But at some point, instead of posting on the 100 best books I have read, I expect to write a considerably longer post on 5000 books I have never read and do not plan to and why they are evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> literarily respectable science fiction writers

When I see the phrase "literarily respectable science fiction", I reach for my light saber.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Philip:

Try the early Tim Powers: The Anubis Gates and The Stress of Her Regard are historical fantasies (Egyptian gods and magic in one, vampires in the other) set in early 19th century England and Italy (mostly). They're very intricately plotted--the sort you need to read at least two or three times to catch it all; and Stress of Her Regard revolves around the English Romantic Poets (Byron, Shelley, Keats) and the Hapsburg rule of Italy. (Coleridge shows up in Anubis Gates, but he's less central to the plot, although when he does show up it's rather a hoot: he decides he's on a bad opium trip.) His more recent books are darker and less tightly plotted (although they form a sort of ongoing series, with Albert Einstein figuring in the most recent one).

There's also Barry Hughart's Bridge of Birds, which is set in a fantasy version of ancient Imperial China, with drunken sage Li as a Holmes and Number Ten Ox his peasant disciple/Watson. Hughart wrote two sequels that are nearly as good as the first book, but not quite.

I'd also suggest the Gormenghast books, including the third one, which is very different and much darker in tone but in the end just as good as the first two.

As for sci-fi--I can't remember reading a science fiction book I though worthy of suggesting to anyone who wasn't a fan of the genre already, other than Heinlein.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for sci-fi--I can't remember reading a science fiction book I though worthy of suggesting to anyone who wasn't a fan of the genre already, other than Heinlein.

One does not need to be a "sci fi fan" to enjoy the works of Ursula Laguin. I think she is a better writer than Ayn Rand.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BS!

Be specific please. It is not very helpful to hear Phil Coates say that he has read some good writers of standard literature if he does not mention their names.

It is spelled Leguin, not Laguin. Lathe of Heaven and the Earthsea Trilogy (up to at least five books now, I think?) are good. Left Hand of Darkness is the best i have read by her.

As for the big four? Asimov is a far better writer of non-fiction. Clarke is okay. Heinlein is the most engaging of writers, the only one of the four mentioned who can make you cry. (Time Enough for Love, Moon is a Harsh Mistress.) Niven is best as a writer of imaginative hard fiction. His recent Draco's Tavern collection is fun. The real top four sci-fi writers in my book are Heinlein, Herbert, Niven and Bear.

Has anyone read Marion Zimmer Bradley's Endless Universe? It has a positive pro-family theme and is an exciting sci-fi adventure to boot.

Leonard Peikoff talks a lot about how much he enjoys Orson Scott Card. I find him terribly uneven, but when he's good he's great. Red Prophet and Speaker for the Dead are absolutely wonderful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm always looking for a good writer, Ba'al. Who is this Ursula and what kind of stuff does she write?

Leguin has some literary skill. Left Hand of Darkness, the tale of a man stranded on a planet of cyclical hermaphrodites is often considered her best. The Lathe of Heaven, about an "effective dreamer," was made into a celebrated 1980 made for TV movie by PBS (avoid the 2002 remake) and I suggest you see the movie as well. The Earthsea Trilogy is a somewhat juvenile fantasy about a young wizard and a young priestess. It is "hard" fantasy and will entertain adults who are not put off by Tolkien.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm always looking for a good writer, Ba'al. Who is this Ursula and what kind of stuff does she write?

Ursula K. LeGuin is one of the very best contemporary science fiction and fantasy writers and an important figure in 20th Century American literature. Her best novels are The Dispossessed (1974), The Word for World Is Forest (1976),The Left Hand of Darkness (1969), Malafrena (1979), The Lathe of Heaven (1971), and A Wizard of Earthsea (1968). The last two titles are fantasies. Malafrena is a realistic novel, depicting the brief career of a young intellectual who attempts to promote classical liberalism in central Europe in the early 19th Century, at a time when such ideas are still considered too radical by too many to actually take hold and exercise wide influence.

The Dispossessed, subtitled "An Ambiguous Utopia," is a political novel, telling the story of a scientist born, reared, and educated on an anarchist planet (actually a large moon of the planet Urras) who is invited to visit and, later, to take up residence on the mixed-economy planet his anarchist world revolves around. LeGuin thinks of herself as an anarchist, but not of the sort some Objectivists have been tempted by. Rather than an individualist anarchist or "anarcho-capitalist," Le Guin, who clearly does not understand economics, is an anarcho-syndicalist. Interestingly, however, though she harbors many delusions about economics, LeGuin's artistic integrity is such that she is led inexorably to depict the anarchist society from which her hero, Shevek, comes as more or less permanently impoverished. And this is, of course, exactly what it would be. The opening scene of this novel will be a powerful emotional experience for any Objectivist or other sort of libertarian. This is an exceptionally well written novel from top to bottom, but it will be of greatest interest to those with a strong interest in political fiction.

The same might be said of The Word for World Is Forest, which was written during the Vietnam War and has been seen as symbolically depicting aspects of that conflict in its portrayal of a scientific and military mission from Earth on a distant planet and the ways in which the newcomers from Earth treat the indigenous people of that planet.

The Left Hand of Darkness also has political content (LeGuin is nothing if not remorselessly political in her thinking), but its primary focus is elsewhere - on sex roles and sexuality and what it might be like if humans (or intellectually advanced humanoids) were sexually ambiguous. As the Wikipedia article on the novel puts it, "The inhabitants of Gethen [the planet visited for political reasons by an emissary from Earth] are sequentially hermaphroditic humans; for twenty-four days of each twenty-six day lunar cycle they are sexually latent androgynes, and for the remaining two days (kemmer) are male or female, as determined by pheromonal negotiation with an interested sex partner. Thus each individual can both sire and bear children." Many critics and other readers regard this as LeGuin's best novel. I'm not sure about that, myself, but I cannot recommend it too highly.

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're going to talk objective standards rather than "sez you", "sez me" in arguing without evidence about which is better Dracula and Gomeghast? Ursula Le Guin? Heinlein and Niven? and so on, it might be a good idea to define our terms at the outset.

Jeff, you argued that certain writers are and certain are not 'literarily respectable'. Since I'm sure you don't want to argue that just because certain writers are 'respectable' with the critics, that means the critics are always right, perhaps you can describe your standards for what constitutes high literary quality. How did you define this for your classes? What did you tell them to look for to distinguish trash from gems?

If we agree on the more important criteria then we have some possibility of using a similar yardstick, or seeing why we won't agree on authors.

Ted mentions that Le Guin has 'some literary skill' but people mean different things by such a phrase so it's unclear without concretization - some aspects of plot? style? characterization? description? When he says "I suggest you see the movie", I need to know more about his tastes and the reasons for them before I will take a recommendation. Jeff gives a lot of detail about some of the stories she tells...but a story can be told well or long-windedely or prosaically. To say a writer is "one of the very best"and "an important figure"? "artistic integrity"? "well-written"? A "powerful emotional experience"? These are somewhat floating abstractions unless concretized at least in one of more of the claims.

This, from Wikipedia, would not be enough to motivate me to read: ""The inhabitants..are sequentially hermaphroditic humans; for twenty-four days of each twenty-six day lunar cycle they are sexually latent androgynes, and for the remaining two days (kemmer) are male or female." My immediate reaction is who the eff cares? Tell me at least a little of what the author -does- with that, executes the story-telling brilliantly, if she is a great stylist or a master of language. Does the different psychology of the alien emerge richly?

Again, an impressive amount of reading and knowledge is shown by both Ted and Jeff. And there is no obligation to try to make a case or provide more detail.

But there is a danger in too big a laundry list of recommendations in one post. Enough detail is hard to pack in for each title. A case would need to be made. Or else it's just an arbitrary assertion of one's opinion. Combined with a dizzying 'packed in' reading list: "I like this, this, this, and this; read them. I don't know how to explain / can't explain each one. Go see this movie." )

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize I didn't take my own advice (from above) in mentioning the consensus 'big four' (Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, and Niven) without making a case for them.

The remark was made in passing about my preferences and method of deciding what to read next in a post that was not about them but offhand about not normally liking fantasy. But if Jeff or Ted are willing to start with what are their criteria for literary excellence - and for what is what reading if it differs, I think I'd be willing to participate and write further. (After exploring whether or not we have the same criteria.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just realized Jeff did make the helpful point that Le Guin often writes political fiction and at least one of her books would be of interest to those inclined in that area.

Jeff has made many recommendations on other occasions which are more persuasive or 'rich' to this reader than this one. He is the reason I read and included Dickens...or some Dickens...on my syllabus. My next is likely to be "A Christmas Carol".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alls I can say about Asimov is that I have tried many, many times to read his fiction (I devoured his nonfiction as a gradeschooler) and was never once able to finish a book. I got within 20 pages of the end of I Robot and threw it out. I have tried to read Foundation so many times I still have calluses after 30 years.

As for Leguin, I found her Dispossessed tendentious and boring and after three serious attempts at reading have never gotten past page 100.

And no, I don't feel like developing a full blown literary theory in order to suggest what I believe are some rather good books. That I believe these books are good and the information I have provided is enough of a basis for you to decide whether to investigate further on your own dime.

And Phil, you still haven't even mentioned the names of those authors of standard literature you would recommend.

Oh, and calling Lathe of Heaven fantasy without further explanation is misleading in the extreme. Yes, the book features the effect of dreams on reality, but this is in the context of the future, with plague, nuclear war, alien visitation and advanced technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: **TIME TO BAIL OUT**

> And Phil, you still haven't even mentioned the names of those authors of standard literature you would recommend.

Actually, I've pretty much had it here. I don't think I will.

There is too much of a "cranky old man" tendency on this thread and in literary discussions hereabouts. If I offer my views and some carefully detailed reasons for them, ample past experience indicates that I will either get dead silence or monosyllables if people agree or are uncomprehending. I posted on movies and television I loved recently: dead silence. Or if my choices are -not- approved of, I will get an abrasive, contemptuous response simply dismissing the things I love and my reasons for them as **trash**.

And that will be that. Good conversation closer.

I only enjoy being around kindness, gentleness, supportiveness - either in person or on the web. No matter how bright the people are. I -certainly- don't want to continue to share too much of very personal, emotional values in art and literature unless it is on a thread or with people who understand how to treat that sort of thing with a certain tact and respect.

I tend to post a lot on OL or elsewhere for a month or two till I get fed up with the atmosphere of the snarky people and the put downs and contemptuousness and non-benevolent, gotcha personalities. About as far away from Atlantis (the valley, not the website) as you could get. When I start to get so irritated myself that I am tempted to take shots at people or engage in personalities or put downs or have little ongoing petty grudges, then it's time to stop. Then I usually bail for many months. Or in some cases longer.

.

.

Probably getting to nearly be about time to again stop sharing my thoughts here. Or at least *very infrequently*. Not much of a trade of value for value here. And I have work to do - in a more sunlit and less bitter and alienated universe.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Phil, I actually am interested in hearing what you have (had?) to say. I hope you didn't take my above post as personally critical, I saw little point in being a mere yes man (I largely agree with what you have sai so far) so I figured it made sense to mention where I disagree. I didn't call you cranky.

Edited by Ted Keer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't so much mean you or any one person or incident, Ted. I just have come to feel less and less comfortable and more like its a huge waste of time posting for many reasons, including the ones I mentioned of negativity and general lack of feedback/engagement.

I prefer to give detailed reasons rather than just say, obiter dicta, the Odyssey, Jane Eyre, Sonnets from the Portuguese and a half dozen others are truly great, life-impacting literature [i'm answering with those three as a sample since you asked for my recommendations] ...and if I take the time to explain and concretize with a number of examples, it would be time-, heart-, and energy-consuming and won't be worth it to me. Not on this list.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't so much mean you or any one person or incident, Ted. I just have come to feel less and less comfortable and more like its a huge waste of time posting for many reasons, including the ones I mentioned of negativity and general lack of feedback/engagement.

I prefer to give detailed reasons rather than just say, obiter dicta, the Odyssey, Jane Eyre, Sonnets from the Portuguese and a half dozen others are truly great, life-impacting literature [i'm answering with those three as a sample since you asked for my recommendations] ...and if I take the time to explain and concretize with a number of examples, it would be time-, heart-, and energy-consuming and won't be worth it to me. Not on this list.

Thanks. Actually, I am usually quite satisfied with a few well chosen words. I can then look the book up on wikipedia. If I am at all interested, I will then either get it at the library, get it very cheap at a used book store, or order it very cheaply from Powell books of Portland OR or at abebooks.com. For instance, with Jane Eyre, I'd wonder if it was the plot or the writing style you found interesting. With the Odyssey I'd want to know which translation. If I want to take the time to write something half decent, I put it on Radicals for Happiness. You should consider a blog to showcase what you really value. Then just put a link here directing people to your blog, upon which they cannot defecate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Then just put a link here directing people to your blog, upon which they cannot defecate.

Very good point, Ted. Barbara suggested that a month or so ago - and the idea has stayed with me. One problem is I'm trying to write a book and so time is very much an issue, unless my blog is limited to outtakes or spadework on that topic, which I'm uncomfortable with. (If I had a blog or website, I'd have a comments section, perhaps, but with the caveat that they are moderated and I will ruthlessly delete all the illiteracy and self-indulgent junk and keep only the really good ones.)

> With the Odyssey I'd want to know which translation.

I tried a number of translations and finally found Robert Fitzgerald's which both makes it sing - both poetic and very powerful, yet doesn't lose the meaning. Neither too loose nor too literal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried a number of translations [of the Odyssey] and finally found Robert Fitzgerald's which both makes it sing - both poetic and very powerful, yet doesn't lose the meaning. Neither too loose nor too literal.

Just out of idle curiosity, how are you able to judge whether a translation of ancient Greek "doesn't lose the meaning" and is (or is not) "too literal"? Do you read ancient Greek? Or are we back in the wonderful world of "secondary sources"?

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried a number of translations [of the Odyssey] and finally found Robert Fitzgerald's which both makes it sing - both poetic and very powerful, yet doesn't lose the meaning. Neither too loose nor too literal.

Just out of idle curiosity, how are you able to judge whether a translation of ancient Greek "doesn't lose the meaning" and is (or is not) "too literal"? Do you read ancient Greek? Or are we back in the wonderful world of "secondary sources"?

JR

Well, Phil, I suppose this is an example of the sort of thing that makes you not want to bother? I would say concentrate on the book and forgo the blog unless you have plenty of time and would see blogging as a brief respite.

As for "do you read ancient Greek?" Well, I do, enough to know when I am being shitted. And yes, you can tell when a translator is being too free (everything rhymes too conveniently, modern language is used) or too close (all art is forgone for the sake of accuracy) even when you don't have a clue as to the original. I trust Phil's authority, can judge for myself with just a helpful hint for guidance, and agree with Phil as to the value of playing gotcha Objectionism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yes, you can tell when a translator is being too free (everything rhymes too conveniently, modern language is used) or too close (all art is forgone for the sake of accuracy) even when you don't have a clue as to the original. I trust Phil's authority, can judge for myself with just a helpful hint for guidance, and agree with Phil as to the value of playing gotcha Objectionism.

So tell me, oh wise one, just how does someone who hasn't "a clue as to the original" judge that a translation of that original has foregone "all art . . . for the sake of accuracy"? How does one judge "accuracy" with regard to an original as to which one hasn't a clue?

Some of us are willing to be accused of "playing gotcha Objectionism," I guess, because we think words ought to be used as though they mean something: when we encounter someone promulgating some notion that, given the actual meanings of the words used to express it, makes no sense at all, we say so.

You don't like that? Take it and stick it up your ass. Better yet, don't read my posts.

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Then just put a link here directing people to your blog, upon which they cannot defecate.

Very good point, Ted. Barbara suggested that a month or so ago - and the idea has stayed with me. One problem is I'm trying to write a book and so time is very much an issue, unless my blog is limited to outtakes or spadework on that topic, which I'm uncomfortable with. (If I had a blog or website, I'd have a comments section, perhaps, but with the caveat that they are moderated and I will ruthlessly delete all the illiteracy and self-indulgent junk and keep only the really good ones.)

"There is no try." Phil, just think that you are writing a book; that that's your job. Your orientation of "trying" won't get it done.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried a number of translations and finally found Robert Fitzgerald's which both makes it sing - both poetic and very powerful, yet doesn't lose the meaning. Neither too loose nor too literal.

I will propose Lattimore, the many-volumed laborer,

Who first encountered me the songs of the many greaved Danaans,

Their sailings over the wine dark seas, and the rustic muse

Of Hesiod telling the descents of gods and men.

Yes, I know that's not real hexameter :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now