Comments on: What Should I be Reading?

By: Graham Clements

Graham Clements — Fri, 06 Dec 2013 09:05:13 +0000

Hi Anthony, the link works now. I have been trying to come up with some modern literary fiction to read that has characters, in much the same vein as they are in White's writing, who are hard to work out. I think the guy's who did the study I mentioned would put writers like Atwood and Franzen etc into the popular fiction lot, with their characters, although not one dimensional by any means, being well-defined by the authors. White's characters aren't. They are all pretty much emignas (well they were to me, or perhaps there was less to them than I thought) And that was what the study was all about. Where an author makes you work to try and figure out who the characters are, that effort has been shown to help in reading people in the real world. It was a very interesting article.

By: Anthony J. Langford

Anthony J. Langford — Fri, 06 Dec 2013 06:51:02 +0000

I do agree that some literary fiction can provide depth not often seen in genre fiction. There are always exceptions of course.
I agree, Turner is a very good writer. It is possible to straddle both worlds.

Dostoyesky is quite brilliant and deserving to be read. Ulyssess was the biggest load of crap I've ever read – and I can't believe I actually finished it. Think it was more of a challenge to see if I could do it rather than any enjoyment. It's basically a huge experiment.
I've only read one Patrick White and I didn't like it. Some authors are way overrated, (Hemingway-good but..) yet such is their standing that any new critic doesn't wish to appear uninformed or not of taste, so they toe the line.

(Your BBC link didn't work. But checked the list, I've read 22. But funny how the same few authors keep popping up – definitely British centric. )

By: Graham Clements

Graham Clements — Thu, 05 Dec 2013 05:49:59 +0000

Checkov and Dostoyesky were mentioned as literary fiction in the article. I haven't read either. But I have read Patrick White's novels Voss and The Tree of Man and I would suggest they lack a single authorial voice. In both books the characters were very difficult to unravel, and I am not sure I did.

But as you imply there are complex characters in popular fiction, it's just they can also be a lot less complex in popular fiction. But I got the sentiment behind the study, that if you are reading books with multiple complex, flawed and unreliable characters, who the author never defines for you, you might train your brain to read people better in real life.

I have been a great fan of George Turner for years. My favourite science fiction book is The Sea and Summer. I recommend you get a hold of hid Genetic Soldiers if you can.

A Pursuit of Miracles is a collection of about eight of his novella length stories, three of which he later turned into novels, including The Sea and Summer and Genetic Soldier.

By: graywave

graywave — Thu, 05 Dec 2013 04:52:00 +0000

I'm glad you mentioned George Turner. I only discovered him this year(!) I read The Sea and Summer not long ago and it was excellent.

I hate this pompous nonsense about literature versus genre (or "popular' in this case). There is plenty of excellent, beautifully-written sci-fi (crime, etc.) and plenty of turgid, ridiculous dross masquerading as 'literary' fiction.

I can't imagine what the author of that study might have been reading if he thinks that in lit. fic. “there is no single overarching authorial voice," certainly not Hemingway, Atwood, Palahniuk, or a hundred others I could name.