Overrated Novels

[Guest Raidne]

Raidne,

I agree, and in addition I found Rand's "philosophy" to be rather odious to see. While I could see where Objectivism would appeal to some, the "heroic" acts of selfishness were like an anathema to me. Thankfully, the poorly-structured plot, the pages of speeches that serve to derail the remnants of said plot, all of that combines with the odious "philosophy" to create something unpalatable to me.

Yeah, I feel bad trashing the book merely for espousing a repugnant philosophy (since that's not really a literary quality, right?), so thankfully it offers many other sources for criticism. Still, I think I can criticize it when it doesn't work in the plot. Try as she might, Rand couldn't get me to cheer for Reardon (not Roark, sorry, they are just so much the same person) when he refuses his brother a job because he's disabled. What? You don't have clerks at the steel mill?

Nevertheless, I'm intrigued by the idea of a film starring Angelina Jolie as Dagny Taggert. I wonder if they'll play down the "philosophy"?

[add-on]

Perhaps Lawrence is one of those authors you grow into.

No, he isn't. He is incredibly boring.

Just remembered this poem. Not really directed at folks like us, but still amusing I think:

Lawrence

by Tony Hoagland

On two occasions in the past twelve months

I have failed, when someone at a party

spoke of him with a dismissive scorn,

to stand up for D. H. Lawrence,

a man who burned like an acetylene torch

from one end to the other of his life.

These individuals, whose relationship to literature

is approximately that of a tree shredder

to stands of old-growth forest,

these people leaned back in their chairs,

bellies full of dry white wine and the ovum of some foreign fish,

and casually dropped his name

the way pygmies with their little poison spears

strut around the carcass of a fallen elephant.

“O Elephant,†they say,

“you are not so big and brave today!â€

It’s a bad day when people speak of their superiors

with a contempt they haven’t earned,

and it’s a sorry thing when certain other people

don’t defend the great dead ones

who have opened up the world before them.

And though, in the catalogue of my betrayals,

this is a fairly minor entry,

I resolve, if the occasion should recur,

to uncheck my tongue and say, “I love the spectacle

of maggots condescending to a corpse,â€

or, “You should be so lucky in your brainy, bloodless life

as to deserve to lift

just one of D. H. Lawrence’s urine samples

to your arid psychobiographic

theory-tainted lips.â€

Or maybe I’ll just take the shortcut

between the spirit and the flesh,

and punch someone in the face,

because human beings haven’t come that far

in their effort to subdue the body,

and we still walk around like zombies

in our dying, burning world,

able to do little more

than fight, and fuck, and crow,

something Lawrence wrote about

in such a manner

as to make us seem magnificent.

[Fenny]

So, why do you like Lawrence, add-on?

[Peadar]

Thank you for the poem, add-on, I think it's brilliant

[automne]

I still think there's nothing wrong with writing on a forum that D. H. Lawrence is boring. And yes I did read some of his books.

[Trencher]

I think Steven Erikson is way overrated. While I love GRRM, I thought the Malazan books were some of the worst I have read. I read Gardens of the Moon and it was a struggle to keep going. Now I am halfway through Deadhouse Gates and still don't care about a single character. It's like he doesn't bother with character development. Maybe Martin has spoiled me. The thing is I really want to like this series since I have heard so much praise for it, but I seriously can't see what is there for people to enjoy.

[Intercept]

I think Steven Erikson is way overrated. While I love GRRM, I thought the Malazan books were some of the worst I have read. I read Gardens of the Moon and it was a struggle to keep going. Now I am halfway through Deadhouse Gates and still don't care about a single character. It's like he doesn't bother with character development. Maybe Martin has spoiled me. The thing is I really want to like this series since I have heard so much praise for it, but I seriously can't see what is there for people to enjoy.

I bought Gardens of the Moon because of all the buzz I heard about this guy, and I returned it a few days later because I struggled through the first 40 pages.

I keep hearing the rest of the series is great but I just don't want to bother anymore.

Also, I have a love-hate relationship with William Gibson. He has a great grasp of concept and some absolutely brilliant moments of prose, like the opening chapter of Virtual Light, but his characters are all exactly the same.

[ThRiNiDiR]

Overrated? For me, lately: Broken Angels by Richard Morgan (as well as the other two novels in the Takeshi Kovacs trilogy to a point, but not nearly as bad as this one) and Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever Chronicles above all!

[add-on]

I still think there's nothing wrong with writing on a forum that D. H. Lawrence is boring. And yes I did read some of his books.

Well, neither do I. And like I said in my last post, Hoagland's poem isn't really directed at internet forum posters (the lines "These individuals, whose relationship to literature/is approximately that of a tree shredder" and "arid psychobiographic/theory-tainted lips" make it pretty clear he's talking about his fellow literature professors). But the poem still relates to this entire thread, so when I remembered it, I thought I'd post it. Just kind of for everyone's amusement.

Thank you for the poem, add-on, I think it's brilliant

You're welcome. Hoagland is a favorite of mine.

So, why do you like Lawrence, add-on?

I just find the subject matter interesting. Since in your last post, you said that you weren't necessarily interested in psychological discussions of sex (or something like that), I dunno if I'll be able to convince you that Lawrence is worthwhile. Sex, and more generally, the body, is Lawrence's main focus. Not unlike Yeats, Lawrence was interested in getting down to the very essence of why we function -- for him that was sex --acquiring it, engaging in it, bladdy bladdy blah. For me, "The Horse Dealer's Daughter" is a very good story that deals with Lawrence's main ideas.

Also, Lawrence's writing never seemed very pretentious to me in this regard -- this is what he believed, so he was writing about it and that was that.

And I do love his use of language. His writing is very literal. You can go and get all metaphoric if you want, but you have to remember that he's writing intentionally about humanity at its most basic and his language reflects that. You've got to read every word as if it means exactly what it says it means (which we don't often do, with any writer), and that's just an incredibly fun game for me to play. YMMV, as always.

I'm not trying to convince everyone here that Lawrence is awesome, but you did ask. I hope my answer satisfies.