He flipped his wig and started throwing them into a huge cauldron, burning them. He wanted to get rid of some of his backlog of books, by taking them to other bookstores and libraries and such, but none of them wanted his books (they probably had their own backlogs and stock to deal with). His bookstore doesn't sell as many books as he would like, and he is taking in more books than he is selling. This bookstore has a small warehouse area for storing used books he's bought but hasn't sold yet. Some guy has a used bookstore in Kansas City. And entertainment is, must be, part of this. 'Intrinsic artistic value', inasmuch as it means anything at all, means that it is capable of moving people, changing them and that people like the experience. Thus a good book is one which rewards the first sort of reading, which still has benefit on second and subsequent readings, while poor books, once their plot is discovered, hold nothing more out to the reader. The unliterary reader reads simply to find out what happens next. The literary reader reads and re-reads for the joy of immersion in the world of the book, for the language of the descriptions and to meet again the characters, and mulls over the book afterwards. Lewis' An Experiment in Criticism ? He argues (in his capacity as literary don rather than as Christian apologist) that there is such thing as a literary or unliterary book, but only literary or unliterary readers. Entertainment value doesn't enter the picture here, as far as I'm concerned (from what I've seen). Lots of people love them, though, so maybe I'm missing something.Īlso, that would be 'Midsummer Night's Dream,' and its Shakespeare, so it probably shouldn't be listed separately.Ī literary work first must have intrinsic artistic value. Great stories, but I cannot stand to read them. Didn't surprise me a bit when I found out he often got paid a penny a work. I agree with you on disliking Dickens, though.
Now Joan Collins? That's simply crap, and you should probably stay away from that sort of thing. Sometimes you have to read stuff that's only for fun, especially if you tend to read a lot of dense books, you need a break.but you need some sort of nutrition in your diet too. Should your diet consist only of candy? Emphatically no. Does this make them less worthy of existence? No. Does this mean you shouldn't read them? No. I tend to say that with books, there is candy and there is steak. Oh, and plays have no literary value because they're not 'books.' Ack! Apparently Shakespeare isn't entertaining (have you counted the number of raunchy jokes in his comedies?), Dostoevsky writes 'poor books' (those are fabulously well-constructed, nuanced works, and not usually a terrible slog to read, either), 1984 has no literary value, but Dracula and Frankenstein do. I hope this helps to clarify my point of view, even if you don't agree with me (not my intention to convince anyone).Įrm.what? This whole set of opinions is, in my opinion, pretty off the mark. Since I don't think it is always the case (many good books and authors end up forgotten, for whatever reasons), I didn't list it before. Time is only a factor if you consider "surviving the test of time", which is usually the case. Mobydick (which I actually didn't enjoy) Some good literary works that are also good books: Most of Shakespeare work (for the same reason) Midnight Summer Dreams (not a book, but a play, so it can't be a good book) The Lusiads (name 1 person who actually enjoyed the book) Some good literary works, but poor books: Lord of the Rings (boy, you guys are going to kill me) Harry Potter (controversial, but already stated)
Some good books with poor literary value: Entertainment value doesn't enter the picture here, as far as I'm concerned (from what I've seen).įor my examples, I'll try to pick, probably without much success, some non controversial names. Please, bear with me.Ī literary work first must have intrinsic artistic value. First by explanation, then by giving some examples. Literary is a complex classification, so I'll explain my PoV in two parts.
0 kommentar(er)
