FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB General Discussion Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-20-2003, 05:55 PM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: the peach state ga I am a metaphysical naturalist
Posts: 2,869
Default Literature in tv

Currently, I am watching Gilmore Girls, I generally like the dialog. anyway, rory(sp?) was giving her valedictorian speech and talked about living in the land of books and only mentioned classics. I think that it is quite common in tv shows and movies. If someone likes to read its melville and faulkner, both mentioned in the speech. It never seems to be Asimov or Jackie Collins or even Carl Sagan.

I just dont understand why if a character likes to read it is most often the classics which can be hard to get into.

I do not like Melville, never really impressed with his story telling ability.

I do like faulkner but many people, even valedictorians do not find him accessible to the reader.


I just question why she couldnt mention a single popular modern writer. I just dont know many people who like to read that read nothing popular.


edited to add a little clarity
beyelzu is offline  
Old 05-20-2003, 06:50 PM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,867
Default

Well, it's just that Faulkner and Melville aren't as popularly read, so they have a mystique about them that makes them sound a bit more impressive. And the names are famous. Saying you really dug John Grisham or Nicholas Sparks' latest novel doesn't carry the same weight simply because it's front and center on the New Releases rack, whereas to read some Faulkner you'd need to go farther into the bookstore.

It's the same reason why Mozart carries more intellecutal cach� than LL Cool J.
KoopaFanatic is offline  
Old 05-21-2003, 06:23 AM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: the peach state ga I am a metaphysical naturalist
Posts: 2,869
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by KoopaFanatic
Well, it's just that Faulkner and Melville aren't as popularly read, so they have a mystique about them that makes them sound a bit more impressive. And the names are famous. Saying you really dug John Grisham or Nicholas Sparks' latest novel doesn't carry the same weight simply because it's front and center on the New Releases rack, whereas to read some Faulkner you'd need to go farther into the bookstore.

It's the same reason why Mozart carries more intellecutal cach� than LL Cool J.

I think that tv and movie writers are actually doing a disservice to literature by only mentioning writers who are "classics" because they arent accessible. Also younger people might assume that if melville sucks so do oter books because melville is held up as an example of good writing.
beyelzu is offline  
Old 05-21-2003, 06:57 AM   #4
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: With 10,000 lakes who needs a coast?
Posts: 10,762
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Beyelzu
I think that tv and movie writers are actually doing a disservice to literature by only mentioning writers who are "classics" because they arent accessible. Also younger people might assume that if melville sucks so do oter books because melville is held up as an example of good writing.
I would add English teachers to the list of people doing literature a disservice. I agree with you about Melville; who else could turn an exciting story about a whaling ship into a thousand page snoozer? I think there's a lot of snobbery in the literary community. If a book isn't inaccessible, hard to read, and dull it isn't considered literature.

Beyelzu, have you read "Tokien: Author of the Century" by Tom Shippey? The book is a fantastic critical and linguistic analysis of Tolkien's work. But in the introduction Shippey expounds his idea that "imaginitive" literature - sci fi, fantasy, and magical realism - is the literature that will be remembered from the 20th Century. He mentions Stephen King, of all people, as being one of the more influential writers of the century.
Godless Dave is offline  
Old 05-21-2003, 07:27 AM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: the peach state ga I am a metaphysical naturalist
Posts: 2,869
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Godless Dave
I would add English teachers to the list of people doing literature a disservice. I agree with you about Melville; who else could turn an exciting story about a whaling ship into a thousand page snoozer? I think there's a lot of snobbery in the literary community. If a book isn't inaccessible, hard to read, and dull it isn't considered literature.

Beyelzu, have you read "Tokien: Author of the Century" by Tom Shippey? The book is a fantastic critical and linguistic analysis of Tolkien's work. But in the introduction Shippey expounds his idea that "imaginitive" literature - sci fi, fantasy, and magical realism - is the literature that will be remembered from the 20th Century. He mentions Stephen King, of all people, as being one of the more influential writers of the century.
No, I havent read that book, I will have to check it out. Tolkein is ok in my opinion. I think his veiw on King may be justified. I dont think all of King's works will be remembered. But the Bachman books and The gunslinger series are really well written with themes and imagery.

I need to check that book out.


You are right about English teachers. I think they fail to see that it is important to read anything so students can become better readers.

example from my life.

I have bought my nephew a couple of Simpsons graphic novels because has problems with reading. He liked them and since then has actually read a couple of books for fun.
beyelzu is offline  
Old 05-21-2003, 11:00 AM   #6
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Rockford, IL
Posts: 122
Cool

They do it for the same reason that every other author does it.

Because they can.

A careful and well-read watcher will be innundated with subtleties that the authors know about. Chances are they studied literature in college, and they like it, so they read and write and put some of the knowledge to use, just like many other authors do.

A quick perusal of most of Thomas Pynchon books will get more pop culture references (of their time) than your average episode of TRL. David Foster Wallace has more of that fun stuff. I think it's fun, but I'm weird. When I write a story, I like to have these references, personally, and while I don't hunt them out in stuff I watch and read, I appreciate them when I notice them.

A well done reference to Moby Dick was in South Park the other day, Chef was insisting they win the dodgeball championchip, when Cartman says, "Oh, Captain Ahab has to get his whale."

Funny stuff.

Serious stuff, when Kahn in Star Trek II "With hells hate . . ." that's from Moby Dick, IIRC, though many think it's Shakespere, whose name I can never spell right.

Now, my copy of Moby Dick is in tatters from use on my bookshelf, so your milage may very, but note when someone from one of those "Pretty People With Problems" movies from the 80's tells you the name of their High School; even Clueless had some of this stuff.

I take a broad view of literature. My stories are just as likely to refer to Seinfeld or Bugs Bunny instead of Jorie Graham or Plato. Preferably both. But, when it's done well, you wouldn't know it, or have to have read any of that stuff.
danlowlite is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:18 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.