Great Literature

[Philip Coates]

> As long as there are a lot of spaceships blasting each other I can put up with "literarily respectable science fiction."

Jeff, whose post heads this thread, didn't really explain what he meant by 'literarily respectable' in general or in s-f - and why Heinlein, Clarke, Asimov, and Niven (generally considered the four greatest among s-f afficionados as opposed to non-s-f "culture vultures") are not respectable. One has to assume he's read enough of them to make that judgement - bearing in mind that each of the "Big Four" was/is prolific and has highs and lows.

Note my caution about making a value judgement about Shakespeare's comedies vs. his tragedies.

And the reason I gave for not doing so.

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Mind/Body Dichotomy in Literary Criticism and Preference

> As long as there are a lot of spaceships blasting each other... [brant]

There's a modern trend toward deprecating heavy action in fiction in favor of books which are entirely discussion or psychology or stream of consciousness. The latter are often considered by the literati to be 'literary' and the former to be trash or lowbrow or 'light' fiction only.

There's a counter trend among the average people on the street toward intellectual shallowness, only enjoying a lot of action, shoot em ups and deprecating the psychology and 'talk' as novels for girls in school or for women in adulthood (think "chick flicks" in the movies.)

Each side - the literati today and Joe six-pack - is mistaken and his psyche harbors one half of the mind-body dichotomy - which is rife across our culture. The arts are only one area where this quickly becomes visible.

Good fiction (and movies) doesn't usually tend to either action/event-packed stories or introspection/dialogue at the expense of the other.

Edited September 24, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Brant Gaede]

JR:

Sherry is generally sweet - sickeningly sweet, to be exact.

Then I haven't missed anything in never trying it.

What am I to do with the stuff in my basement? The bricks and mortar? The airplane ticket?

--Brant

not sweet

Poe was a subjectivist, why not me?

[Brant Gaede]

Subject: Mind/Body Dichotomy in Literary Criticism and Preference

> As long as there are a lot of spaceships blasting each other... [brant]

There's a modern trend toward deprecating heavy action in fiction in favor of books which are entirely discussion or psychology or stream of consciousness. The latter are often considered by the literati to be 'literary' and the former to be trash or lowbrow or 'light' fiction only.

There's a counter trend among the average people on the street toward intellectual shallowness, only enjoying a lot of action, shoot em ups and deprecating the psychology and 'talk' as novels for girls in school or for women in adulthood (think "chick flicks" in the movies.)

Each side - the literati today and Joe six-pack - is mistaken and his psyche harbors one half of the mind-body dichotomy - which is rife across our culture. The arts are only one area where this quickly becomes visible.

Good fiction (and movies) doesn't usually tend to either action/event-packed stories or introspection/dialogue at the expense of the other.

?!?!?

--Brant

[jeffrey smith]

Subject: Mind/Body Dichotomy in Literary Criticism and Preference

> As long as there are a lot of spaceships blasting each other... [brant]

There's a modern trend toward deprecating heavy action in fiction in favor of books which are entirely discussion or psychology or stream of consciousness. The latter are often considered by the literati to be 'literary' and the former to be trash or lowbrow or 'light' fiction only.

There's a counter trend among the average people on the street toward intellectual shallowness, only enjoying a lot of action, shoot em ups and deprecating the psychology and 'talk' as novels for girls in school or for women in adulthood (think "chick flicks" in the movies.)

Each side - the literati today and Joe six-pack - is mistaken and his psyche harbors one half of the mind-body dichotomy - which is rife across our culture. The arts are only one area where this quickly becomes visible.

Good fiction (and movies) doesn't usually tend to either action/event-packed stories or introspection/dialogue at the expense of the other.

Actually, stream of consciousness doesn't rule out plenty of action. Faulkner is a good case in point: while they aren't shoot-em-up stories, they have plenty of events in them while maintaining stream of consciousness. So for that matter is Hemingway. S-o-C does not mean that the story is just a diffuse record of what is going on through the character's mind, a vast contemplation on past events and future possibilities. It records what is going on in the character's mind as the story goes on, stating his thoughts as he thinks them. If he happens to participate in a gunfight, then you'll get the gunfight, narrated as the character experiences it in (sort of) real time.

It's probably better to say that the mind-body split shows up in writers who concentrate on plot and action at the expense of other literary values (Dan Brown, for instance--although he's complicated by the fact that he uses oddball "esoteric" faux traditions about the Templars and Masons which render the whole action ridiculous), or writers who focus on character or style and let plot and action go by the wayside (although I can't recall any recent examples of this--perhaps a sign that the general reading population prefers the body side of the "split", or maybe just a symptom of how I don't pay attention to the literati anymore.)

Edited September 24, 2009 by jeffrey smith

[jriggenbach]

Jeff, whose post heads this thread, didn't really explain what he meant by 'literarily respectable' in general or in s-f - and why Heinlein, Clarke, Asimov, and Niven (generally considered the four greatest among s-f afficionados as opposed to non-s-f "culture vultures") are not respectable. One has to assume he's read enough of them to make that judgement - bearing in mind that each of the "Big Four" was/is prolific and has highs and lows.

To be literarily respectable, a fiction writer must display unusual skill at both writing and storytelling. The so-called "Big Four" whom Phil believes are "generally considered the four greatest among s-f aficionados" are not particularly good writers. Heinlein at his best is pretty good. Ditto Clarke. And neither of them is at his best very often. Asimov and Niven are mediocre at best. It is, by the way, an extremely dubious claim that these four writers enjoy the stature among "s-f aficionados" that Phil apparently believes they do. Heinlein does. But the others? When Locus, the trade magazine of the science fiction field, polled its readership in 1998 on the best SF novels published before 1990, for example, Heinlein had two titles in the top ten and three titles in the top twenty-five; the other three writers in Phil's "Big Four" managed only one title apiece in the top twenty-five - Asimov's and Clarke's were at least in the top ten, but Niven barely finished in the top twenty-five at all, in a tie for twenty-fifth place. Meanwhile, such writers as Ursula LeGuin and Alfred Bester did far better; each placed one title in the top ten and another farther down in the top twenty-five. Meanwhile, William Gibson, Philip K. Dick, Theodore Sturgeon, Walter M. Miller, Jr., Dan Simmons, and Ray Bradbury all did better than Niven, with one title each in the top twenty-five, all more highly placed therein than Niven's.

http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/LocusAT1998.html

Nor are Phil's "Big Four" anything to write home about when it comes to storytelling skill. Each has his strengths and weaknesses, but on average, they're all mediocre - which is fine if all you're concerned about is selling books and winning the applause of a basically ignorant (literarily ignorant) readership. If, however, you want to be taken seriously by people who know and care about literature as an art, mediocre is not good enough.

JR

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Polls and Knowledge

Using polls

Jeff chose one poll by one particular magazine (a trade mag at that, not one that those who like to read s.f. are all readers of) in -one- particular year. Browsing through the website he linked to, in the very same poll taken in a different year, Niven moves up to #9 and #13.

Also, the poll is just on novels. The writers I cited are also justly famous for -great- short stories.

On a deeper level, you don't judge these things by polls -- too easy to cherry pick, too easy to have a sample of the wrong people, or below the threshold of statistical significance. To do a good job of literary criticism, you take particular works, passages, summaries, read them carefully and perhaps write a critical essay or three. (And those essays are in turn subject to criticism.)

Enough of an expert on these four writers?

I'll repeat this point: "Jeff [says] Heinlein, Clarke, Asimov, and Niven..are not respectable. One has to assume he's read enough of them to make that judgment, bearing in mind that each of the Big Four was/is prolific and has highs and lows."

Edited September 24, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

P.S., I really shouldn't claim that H,C, A, N are -more- popular than Le Guin or Silverberg or (shudder) Harlan Ellison, etc. Tastes change over the decades. My keeping up with every quirk and turn in s-f (and with its move into the domain of -another shudder- mainstream critics) ended with the execrable "Dangerous Visions" anthology of Ellison.

An unfortunate "modernist" turning point.

Heinlein, Clarke, Asimov, and Niven are four *very good writers*, interesting, exciting, thought-provoking in their best decades or periods. But if you pick up the wrong book (as is true of any writer), you will be turned off.

But in the seventies and on there was a lot of the 'acid trip' writers - fuzzy, unclear, little plot, dark and murky. Among hard s-f, there are a lot of 'gadget' writers. They don't have the concern with people and their lives and the direction of civilizations that the Big Four did timelessly. With economy, skill, and heart.

Edited September 24, 2009 by Philip Coates

[jriggenbach]

Subject: Polls and Knowledge

Using polls

Jeff chose one poll by one particular magazine (a trade mag at that, not one that those who like to read s.f. are all readers of) in -one- particular year. Browsing through the website he linked to, in the very same poll taken in a different year, Niven moves up to #9 and #13.

Look again, Phil. The greatest SF novels published before 1990 poll does not take place twice

Also, the poll is just on novels. The writers I cited are also justly famous for -great- short stories.

I assure you that none of the "Big Four" ever wrote a great short story. But I'll return to this topic with further observations in a later post.

On a deeper level, you don't judge these things by polls -- too easy to cherry pick, too easy to have a sample of the wrong people, or below the threshold of statistical significance. To do a good job of literary criticism, you take particular works, passages, summaries, read them carefully and perhaps write a critical essay or three. (And those essays are in turn subject to criticism.)

In case you hadn't noticed, Phil, we're not doing literary criticism here. We're discussing whether your impression that Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, and Niven are regarded by "s-f aficionados" as the four greatest sf authors. You find out the truth about that by consulting polls.

I'll repeat this point: "Jeff [says] Heinlein, Clarke, Asimov, and Niven..are not respectable. One has to assume he's read enough of them to make that judgment, bearing in mind that each of the Big Four was/is prolific and has highs and lows."

No, one doesn't have to assume anything. One can ask Jeff. The answer is, with reference to Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein, that Jeff has read all the major works by each (both novels and short stories) and has almost certainly read far more than you have. With regard to Niven, Jeff is not quite so well read. He read enough Niven back in the '70s, when Ringworld came out, to satisfy himself that he had no further interest in this author.

JR

[jriggenbach]

P.S., I really shouldn't claim that H,C, A, N are -more- popular than Le Guin or Silverberg or (shudder) Harlan Ellison, etc.

No, you shouldn't.

Tastes change over the decades.

Yes, they do.

My keeping up with every quirk and turn in s-f (and with its move into the domain of -another shudder- mainstream critics) ended with the execrable "Dangerous Visions" anthology of Ellison.

And Dangerous Visions was published forty years ago!

Heinlein, Clarke, Asimov, and Niven are four *very good writers*, interesting, exciting, thought-provoking in their best decades or periods. But if you pick up the wrong book (as is true of any writer), you will be turned off.

"Interesting," "exciting," and "thought-provoking" are not terms that have anything to do with literary criticism. They are reports on what interests you, what excites you, what provokes your thoughts. What you like has no necessary connection with what is "very good." Judged by objective criteria, the so-called "Big Four" are, as I have mentioned, mediocre writers.

But in the seventies and on there was a lot of the 'acid trip' writers - fuzzy, unclear, little plot, dark and murky.

Examples? Since there were such "a lot" of them, surely some examples must be ready to hand.

JR

[Xray]

What am I to do with the stuff in my basement? The bricks and mortar? The airplane ticket?

Do you expect me to mourn your financial loss here? Now that takes the cake (or the "cask", pun intended)!

Next time, better don't count your victims before they have been 'trapped'.

Edited September 24, 2009 by Xray

[Philip Coates]

> with reference to Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein...Jeff has read all the major works by each (both novels and short stories) and has almost certainly read far more than you have.

Really? How do you know that? Psychic on Thursdays, are we? Had a peek at my reading lists?

> Judged by objective criteria, the so-called "Big Four" are, as I have mentioned, mediocre writers.

No they are assuredly not. So THERE...…Sez you…sez me….sez you.

Of course, since you –claim- “objective criteria”! I guess I’ll just have to bow down!!

[jriggenbach]

> with reference to Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein...Jeff has read all the major works by each (both novels and short stories) and has almost certainly read far more than you have.

Really? How do you know that? Psychic on Thursdays, are we? Had a peek at my reading lists?

> Judged by objective criteria, the so-called "Big Four" are, as I have mentioned, mediocre writers.

No they are assuredly not. So THERE...…Sez you…sez me….sez you.

Of course, since you –claim- “objective criteria”! I guess I’ll just have to bow down!!

No, Phil, you don't have to bow down. But it would be helpful if you were willing to admit when you don't know what you're talking about. You don't have any idea what the objective standards for judging proficiency at writing are, do you? You've never given it a moment's thought, have you? You've always just figured, "If I like a writer, s/he must be a good writer," right?

JR

[anonrobt]

> with reference to Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein...Jeff has read all the major works by each (both novels and short stories) and has almost certainly read far more than you have.

Really? How do you know that? Psychic on Thursdays, are we? Had a peek at my reading lists?

> Judged by objective criteria, the so-called "Big Four" are, as I have mentioned, mediocre writers.

No they are assuredly not. So THERE...…Sez you…sez me….sez you.

Of course, since you –claim- “objective criteria”! I guess I’ll just have to bow down!!

No, Phil, you don't have to bow down. But it would be helpful if you were willing to admit when you don't know what you're talking about. You don't have any idea what the objective standards for judging proficiency at writing are, do you? You've never given it a moment's thought, have you? You've always just figured, "If I like a writer, s/he must be a good writer," right?

JR

What 'objective standards' ? the ones touted at creative writing classes? doubtful, as the real criteria there was philosophical/political - if ye wrote about certain things in a certain way, then ye were in writing - if ye wrote about the 'wrong' things, no matter how well ye punctuated ye were the lousy mediocre writer - and most of those so-called objective standards fit that mode... which is why, to them, Heinlein is not a good writer, but Vonnegut is; Clarke isn't, but Farmer is, etc...

Edited September 24, 2009 by anonrobt

[jriggenbach]

> with reference to Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein...Jeff has read all the major works by each (both novels and short stories) and has almost certainly read far more than you have.

Really? How do you know that? Psychic on Thursdays, are we? Had a peek at my reading lists?

> Judged by objective criteria, the so-called "Big Four" are, as I have mentioned, mediocre writers.

No they are assuredly not. So THERE...…Sez you…sez me….sez you.

Of course, since you –claim- “objective criteria”! I guess I’ll just have to bow down!!

No, Phil, you don't have to bow down. But it would be helpful if you were willing to admit when you don't know what you're talking about. You don't have any idea what the objective standards for judging proficiency at writing are, do you? You've never given it a moment's thought, have you? You've always just figured, "If I like a writer, s/he must be a good writer," right?

JR

What 'objective standards' ? the ones touted at creative writing classes? doubtful, as the real criteria there was philosophical/political - if ye wrote about certain things in a certain way, then ye were in writing - if ye wrote about the 'wrong' things, no matter how well ye punctuated ye were the lousy mediocre writer - and most of those so-called objective standards fit that mode... which is why, to them, Heinlein is not a good writer, but Vonnegut is; Clarke isn't, but Farmer is, etc...

Subject matter - what one writes about - has nothing to do with whether one writes well.

JR

[Xray]

> with reference to Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein...Jeff has read all the major works by each (both novels and short stories) and has almost certainly read far more than you have.

Really? How do you know that? Psychic on Thursdays, are we? Had a peek at my reading lists?

> Judged by objective criteria, the so-called "Big Four" are, as I have mentioned, mediocre writers.

No they are assuredly not. So THERE...…Sez you…sez me….sez you.

Of course, since you –claim- “objective criteria”! I guess I’ll just have to bow down!!

No, Phil, you don't have to bow down. But it would be helpful if you were willing to admit when you don't know what you're talking about. You don't have any idea what the objective standards for judging proficiency at writing are, do you? You've never given it a moment's thought, have you? You've always just figured, "If I like a writer, s/he must be a good writer," right?

JR

What 'objective standards' ? the ones touted at creative writing classes? doubtful, as the real criteria there was philosophical/political - if ye wrote about certain things in a certain way, then ye were in writing - if ye wrote about the 'wrong' things, no matter how well ye punctuated ye were the lousy mediocre writer - and most of those so-called objective standards fit that mode... which is why, to them, Heinlein is not a good writer, but Vonnegut is; Clarke isn't, but Farmer is, etc...

As for "standards" in general, they can't be objective at all. That (many) people subjectively agree upon a standard (or are by law obliged to accept it) does not make the standard "objective".

JR:

No, Phil, you don't have to bow down. But it would be helpful if you were willing to admit when you don't know what you're talking about. You don't have any idea what the objective standards for judging proficiency at writing are, do you? You've never given it a moment's thought, have you? You've always just figured, "If I like a writer, s/he must be a good writer," right?

A little litmus test: have YOU ever liked a writer and concluded the writer was "a bad writer"? ;)

So you claim that there exist "objective standards" for judging proficiency at writing.

Just curious: how does Ayn Rand as a fiction writer fare in terms of this alleged "objective" standard scale ?

How is she placed?

So I'm deliberately not asking how you place her, but would like you to illustrate via Rand's fiction that "objective standard" of proficiency (or lack thereof) which you claim exists. TIA.

Edited September 24, 2009 by Xray

[jriggenbach]

As for "standards" in general, they can't be objective at all.

Why not?

That (many) people subjectively agree upon a standard (or are by law obliged to accept it) does not make the standard "objective".

And just who said anything about many people agreeing upon a standard? Or about many people being obliged to accept one? What precisely does any of this have to do with what I actually said?

A little litmus test: have YOU ever liked a writer and concluded the writer was "a bad writer"? ;)

Yes.

So you claim that there exist "objective standards" for judging proficiency at writing.

Yes.

Just curious: how does Ayn Rand as a fiction writer fare in terms of this alleged "objective" standard scale ?

Writing is writing. The standards for judging it are the same whether it's fiction, poetry, or nonfiction. Rand is one of the greatest writers of English in the 20th Century. Her best writing is to be found in her fiction (mostly in Atlas Shrugged), but that's happenstance - probably relating to the fact that her heart was more in her fiction than in her nonfiction.

JR

[Xray]

As for "standards" in general, they can't be objective at all.

Why not?

Feel free to list any "objective standard" and supply arguments to support your claim.

That (many) people subjectively agree upon a standard (or are by law obliged to accept it) does not make the standard "objective".

JR: And just who said anything about many people agreeing upon a standard?

Surely you are aware of this being a fact: that people can (and often do agree) on standards.

JR: Or about many people being obliged to accept one? What precisely does any of this have to do with what I actually said?

This statement was made as a general remark about "standard", and it does have to do with what you said. Just think about how different political systems have propagated "objective standards" of artistic value which people had to officially 'accept' if they were not to run into major trouble.

Xray:A little litmus test: have YOU ever liked a writer and concluded the writer was "a bad writer"? ;)

JR: Yes.

Thanks for the info.

Xray:

So you claim that there exist "objective standards" for judging proficiency at writing.

JR: Yes.

What are they?

Just curious: how does Ayn Rand as a fiction writer fare in terms of this alleged "objective" standard scale ?

JR: Writing is writing. The standards for judging it are the same whether it's fiction, poetry, or nonfiction. Rand is one of the greatest writers of English in the 20th Century. Her best writing is to be found in her fiction (mostly in Atlas Shrugged), but that's happenstance - probably relating to the fact that her heart was more in her fiction than in her nonfiction.

JR

And by what "objective standards" is Rand one of the greatest writers of English in the 20th century? That was the question I had asked. Edited September 24, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

"Feel free to list any "objective standard" and supply arguments to support your claim."

"What are they?"

[Xray]

Writing is writing. The standards for judging it are the same whether it's fiction, poetry, or nonfiction. Rand is one of the greatest writers of English in the 20th Century. Her best writing is to be found in her fiction (mostly in Atlas Shrugged), but that's happenstance - probably relating to the fact that her heart was more in her fiction than in her nonfiction.

Dagny Taggart's first encounter with John Galt:

"It was as if he were a single whole, grasped by her first glance of him, like some irreducible absolute like an axiom not to be explained any further,as if she knew everything about him by direct perception and what awaited her now was only the process of identifying her knowledge". (AR)

Rand quite obviously used Galt to illustrate her epistemology. Galt as "irreducible absolute" - that made me laugh, for it just sounds too "constructed".

Edited September 24, 2009 by Xray

[Philip Coates]

> Dagny Taggart's first encounter with John Galt:

"It was as if he were a single whole, grasped by her first glance of him, like some irreducible absolute, like an axiom not to be explained any further,as if she knew everything about him by direct perception and what awaited her now was only the process of identifying her knowledge".

This beautiful quote (moving and effective, just like the rest of her first encounter with John Galt) is just one of numerous examples why - as Jeff Riggenbach said - Rand is one of the great writers of English in the 20th century.

One of Rand's many, many strengths as a writer is her arresting, original use of similes and analogies. They are often striking and make you stop and think. Obviously, it would be foolish to say and mean -literally- that one can know everything about a person by direct perception, that he is a single whole, that he is like an axiom. So the reader has to identify what aspect is being pointed to by the comparison. And the rest of what she says about Galt when she first sees him in the valley, and in some ways the whole previous context of the kind of novel this is about the use and abuse of the mind, about perceptiveness and its lack, about being in touch with reality and not being, helps with that.

But it's not instantly self-evident what she means (or is trying to be evocative of) by all the epistemological references. Often people will simply feel it and they don't have to tease it all out consciously. This is, after, all a novel. Rand's purpose as a writer is not to make it easy for you or to explain all her references, comparisons, giving of additional meanings to words (such as reversing, redefining, expanding of familiar biblical and other literary or folk sayings). It's not necessary to do this to be a great writer, but it's part of what she does well.

[Philip Coates]

> Dubliners is a fairly dark collection of short stories, full of the malevolent universe, but the last story, The Dead, is one of the finest short stories in the English language. [Jeffrey]

The reason I picked "Dubliners" up (I wouldn't have otherwise) and decided to give non-word games, non-stream of consciousness Joyce a second try [i read "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man"]was because Jim Heaps-Nelson and Jeff have both had thoughtful comments about literature in the past and both recommended it.

I'm about halfway through it,not getting too much out it [the dude ain't Homer, he ain't Dickens, and he sure as hell ain't Shakespeare] and have been putting off finishing it. My problem is not so much that he is malevolent (which is okay and can be worth reading to try to understand that kind of sense of life, the same way Rand valued Dostoevsky) but that he is often either pointless (something happens, has no point, just ends in midstream) or unclear. For example, I have now read "Araby" multiple times -- like "Bartleby the Scrivener", it seems to be in almost every anthology of important short stories -- and the ending simply is unclear to me or could have ended in any number of ways (or a favorite of modernists, it is 'rich in multiple interpretations'?) Again, just like BTS by Melville. [My guess is that Bartleby is supposed to be the narrator, but again it was not made clear...a serious literary flaw.] Oddly though, "Eveline" did make sense, as Jeff said it would ("The Sisters" and "Two Gallants" slightly less so).

I will push through slowly, reluctantly to the end of this anthology, although a little 'darkness' and cynicism about humanity goes a long way for me and is somewhat predictable. I was exposed to that in every lit class and many humanities classes in college - and there is a phoniness to it, it is actually less interesting than a more positive (and thus more perceptive and more real) view of people and the universe. So, if I don't fade in the stretch, I will read "The Dead" - since you are often perceptive and I now have your recommendation to add to the previous two J's.

Don't be surprised, though, if I end up disagreeing with all of you three J's. That's just the kind of guy I am.

Edited September 27, 2009 by Philip Coates

[jeffrey smith]

> Dubliners is a fairly dark collection of short stories, full of the malevolent universe, but the last story, The Dead, is one of the finest short stories in the English language. [Jeffrey]

The reason I picked "Dubliners" up (I wouldn't have otherwise) and decided to give non-word games, non-stream of consciousness Joyce a second try [i read "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man"]was because Jim Heaps-Nelson and Jeff have both had thoughtful comments about literature in the past and both recommended it.

I'm about halfway through it,not getting too much out it [the dude ain't Homer, he ain't Dickens, and he sure as hell ain't Shakespeare] and have been putting off finishing it. My problem is not so much that he is malevolent (which is okay and can be worth reading to try to understand that kind of sense of life, the same way Rand valued Dostoevsky) but that he is often either pointless (something happens, has no point, just ends in midstream) or unclear. For example, I have now read "Araby" multiple times -- like "Bartleby the Scrivener", it seems to be in almost every anthology of important short stories -- and the ending simply is unclear to me or could have ended in any number of ways (or a favorite of modernists, it is 'rich in multiple interpretations'?) Again, just like BTS by Melville. [My guess is that Bartleby is supposed to be the narrator, but again it was not made clear...a serious literary flaw.] Oddly though, "Eveline" did make sense, as Jeff said it would ("The Sisters" and "Two Gallants" slightly less so).

I will push through slowly, reluctantly to the end of this anthology, although a little 'darkness' and cynicism about humanity goes a long way for me and is somewhat predictable. I was exposed to that in every lit class and many humanities classes in college - and there is a phoniness to it, it is actually less interesting than a more positive (and thus more perceptive and more real) view of people and the universe. So, if I don't fade in the stretch, I will read "The Dead" - since you are often perceptive and I now have your recommendation to add to the previous two J's.

Don't be surprised, though, if I end up disagreeing with all of you three J's. That's just the kind of guy I am.

"Araby" as a truly great short story? Never hit me that way--in fact, I barely remembered it. I skimmed it over now; I think the point was that the narrator is a kid who gets disillusioned and thereby takes another step towards maturity. But I see why you were underwhelmed by it. I have a note on the first page of the story, which must be a transcription of a comment by my high school English teacher (that's how far back Joyce and I go--this was in 11th grade, and Portrait of the Artist in 12th grade): "linking of Araby and girl in his imagination".

I suppose the pointlessness of some of the action might have been Joyce's way of depicting life as pointless.

But do press on to "The Dead"; it's well worth reading, even if you decide you don't like it.

Jeff S.

[Philip Coates]

I just read another story from Dubliners last night, "A Little Cloud". It seems useful to compare that to "Araby". I'll try to do that later today, after rereading both.

[Philip Coates]

In "Dubliners", James Joyce's critically praised collection of short stories, some of them are good but many are worthless. Surprisingly (or maybe not), the one story that is most anthologized, "Araby" has little value because of a fundamental literary flaw that would cause most students to get red-penciled for if they turned it in as a composition.

But the overlooked short story, "A Little Cloud", is very good and has the virtues the more celebrated story lacks. An unsuccessful, melancholy Dublin writer, Little Chandler, meets his old school chum, Gallaher, who is visiting town and has become a successful journalist. The story, through Chandler's eyes tells of his thoughts of eager anticipation that day, their meeting and drinks at an upscale bar, and the events afterwards at home.

I found the story faintly boring on first reading, not caring for either fellow or finding them of interest - and concluding "what was the point?" Wasn't this just another of those tedious, naturalistic, slice-of-life stories starting and ending nowhere for no reason that one could discern which had bored me to tears in pretentious college courses?

It took me a second reading to understand and appreciate what Joyce was doing, what he was actually writing -about-, and the value of it.

[to be continued]