Kevin's Watch

Avatar wrote:True enough. Been a long time since I read the abridged version...remember the full-length one much better.

Now that I've read the full-length version, I am sure this will be the case with me as well. I think the only time I read the other was in 1980.

Avatar wrote:Anyway, I suspect that when authors get to the "status" King had when the next version came out, "neccessity" is a very much secondary concern.

:::Idealism raising its ugy head:::

But...

Shouldn't the status of the author not have anything to do with it? Isn't it the story that is most important? This tacked on ending feels more and more contrived the more I think about it...

:::shrug:::

:::let it go, Pam:::

Sure, I agree largely. A part of it might be ego. I always liked the intro to Feist's unabridged Magician where he basically admits that he became successful enough to publish the unabridged version just because he wanted to, and that it was the only reason it appeared.

--A

Avatar wrote:I always liked the intro to Feist's unabridged Magician where he basically admits that he became successful enough to publish the unabridged version just because he wanted to, and that it was the only reason it appeared.

:::blatantly admitting I have not read much literature:::

I don't know of either this author or the work. Is it something you would recommend?

Is not literature, is fantasy.

Definitely recommend the first series. Check the Gen Lit Forum for the thread Raymond E Feist.

--A

Avatar wrote:Is not literature, is fantasy.

--A

oh brother! did you really say that? he said that didn't he. i'm sittin here lookin at my screen and i'm seeing you saying that!

lit·er·a·ture /ˈlɪtərətʃər, -ˌtʃʊər, ˈlɪtrə-/

–noun 1. writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays
.
2. the entire body of writings of a specific language, period, people, etc.: the literature of England.

3. the writings dealing with a particular subject: the literature of ornithology.

4. the profession of a writer or author.

5. literary work or production.

6. any kind of printed material, as circulars, leaflets, or handbills: literature describing company products.

7. Archaic. polite learning; literary culture; appreciation of letters and books.



NOwhere in those definitions of the word literature does it say "EXCEPT FANTASY, WHICH DOESN'T COUNT AS LITERATURE!!"

k?

ha!

Notice the little ?

Anyway, when I think literature I think serious stuff...Joyce, Tolstoy, stuff like that. Heavy.

Everything else is fiction / non-fiction.

--A

Avatar wrote: Anyway, when I think literature I think serious stuff...Joyce, Tolstoy, stuff like that. Heavy.

Everything else is fiction / non-fiction.

--A

Luci, my apologies. I posted the question to Av regarding the series he mentioned, asking if it was Literature. Same implication of meaning as he suggests.

But, I take your point.

Avatar wrote:
Anyway, when I think literature I think serious stuff...Joyce, Tolstoy, stuff like that. Heavy.

Everything else is fiction / non-fiction.

--A

well why don't you start thinking in movements or genres instead. cause EVERYTHING is either fiction or non-fiction, Avatar!! <------

define "serious".

so um...phillip k. dick and steven r. donaldson and stephen king and ursula k. leguin and william gibson and neal stephenson and arthur c. clark and (list is endless). they're work is less "serious" than say joyce or tolstoy? they were less "serious" about writing? they were less "serious" about the craft? they labored over it less? what? WHAT?

Avatar wrote:Notice the little ?

yes. notice mine?



(never mind menolly. i'm just takin Avatar to task for his obvious prejudices. it has to be done. he's the Tank Mastah!! )

I don't have prejudices...ok wait, I do. I do think in genre's...but literature is a catchall for the classics...not usually contemporary writing, you know, those books you know you should read because they're great works, but really just can't get into.

(Am reading a great P.K. Dick book, all about an alterate America where the president institutes a police state under the guise of fighting a terrorist organisation...)

Anyway, I know what you mean. I just wouldn't describe a sci-fi book as literature, even though they are.

And "serious" are books where the message is of greater significance to the Author than the story itself.

--A

Avatar wrote:
And "serious" are books where the message is of greater significance to the Author than the story itself.

--A

:::sigh:::

Such as the assigned summer reading books Beorn is working on for the Cambridge program? Man, are these dry...

:::heavy sigh mixed with extreme emotion::

...or...at least not to my taste (nor his)...

At least they're short. But, they're definitely not quick reads.

Avatar wrote:And "serious" are books where the message is of greater significance to the Author than the story itself.

--A

well that's a chicken or the egg statement if i ever saw one. what came first? the story or the "message", the "message" or the story?

look here, Av... NOTHING is of greater significance to the author than the story. how the story is told (structure, tone, narrative style, POV, language, etc) is where the "message" IS. its all signification of intent. support for theme and motif.

you're saying that writers of fantasy (we'll just stick to fantasy for now) don't use craft to make a point. they're telling "empty" stories devoid of message?!!! you really believe that?

so...the authors i mentioned above wrote books WITHOUT "messages"????

hmmmm.

(Am reading a great P.K. Dick book, all about an alternate America where the president institutes a police state under the guise of fighting a terrorist organisation...)

no message THERE, huh. just fluff. what in the world is a THINKIN man like YOU doing reading FLUFF with no MESSAGE?????

so PK Dick is not serious? what about Orwell? is that serious?

what is the difference between Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and 1984? is one literature and one not?


come on Av. concede.

Ack.

How did I wind up in the 'Tank? I avoid that place like the plague. :::oops, I guess I shouldn't mention the plague in this thread, huh?:::

i assume you're not please with my debate with Avatar, i'll ask him to move the discussion to a more appropriate venue. sorry.

Just to throw gas on the fire, I think there's a marked difference between many/most books and what I'd consider literature. There are times that "fluff" books (like some Dick, WaG, On the Beach) rise above their humble origins and enter the realm of literature. But you simply can't convince me that the Xanth novels, the majority of King's stuff, Sue Grafton, Jackie Collins, Dean Koontz, and Clive Cussler are anything remotely close to literature, regardless of what the motives of the author may have been.

Cail wrote:Just to throw gas on the fire, I think there's a marked difference between many/most books and what I'd consider literature. There are times that "fluff" books (like some Dick, WaG, On the Beach) rise above their humble origins and enter the realm of literature. But you simply can't convince me that the Xanth novels, the majority of King's stuff, Sue Grafton, Jackie Collins, Dean Koontz, and Clive Cussler are anything remotely close to literature, regardless of what the motives of the author may have been.

all you're doing is making a distinction between "good" literature and "bad" literature.

No, I'm making a distinction between fluff and something lasting.

As much as I salivate over every new Cussler book, I understand that they're pulp....Airline novels.

50 years from now, people will still be marveling at On the Beach, not so with any of Cussler's books.

Cail wrote:No, I'm making a distinction between fluff and something lasting.

As much as I salivate over every new Cussler book, I understand that they're pulp....Airline novels.

50 years from now, people will still be marveling at On the Beach, not so with any of Cussler's books.

interesting. that's what they said about Jim Thompson and Raymond Chandler.

i stand my ground. merely a distinction between good writing and bad writing.

I would argue that Chandler is pulp. Good pulp, but pulp nonetheless.

Luci, no problem with the debate. I'll just skip over it if I can.