|
None of the books I've really enjoyed would have been changed by knowing the ending. In fact, knowing the ending from reading the last few pages wouldn't have changed much because I don't know what lead to that ending. I'd still have to piece together the meaning as I get closer and closer to it.
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2018 22:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
learnincurve posted:I can’t think of a single book of fiction I’ve ever read where it wouldn’t have spoiled the ending. I don’t read stuff like horror, sci-fi or much fantasy though and I could see the appeal of wanting to know who wasn’t dead before investing in a character. It's exactly in fantasy, sci-fi, horror that I could see reading the end being deleterious. They're hinging on the outcome revealing something. In genres were the events are what's driving the story knowing the events conclusion is going to spoil it. If you're reading something where a character changes based on their situation then its each situation that's worth reading about, not finding out at the end that hey-ho, they actually went back to work without happy, after everything else that happened to them. It wouldn't make a difference if they went back to work reluctantly, sadly, or they didn't go back to work. Without the intervening material the end means nothing. Whereas knowing he defeated the shadow monster ruins the suspense of the will they/won't they/what's gonna bet set up for the sequel.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2018 23:31
|
|
|
It's not so much whodunnit, more whydunnit, and what effects havingdunnit have wrought.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2018 16:31
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I also find the anxiety of wanting to find out what happens to be unpleasant You're going to end up looking at wikipedia anyway, so why not start by looking at wikipedia?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2018 16:45
|
|
|
*rests lips right against the mic* the words only exist to tell the story
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
chernobyl kinsman posted:the words are the story The story is all the questions that are sparked as we read. The ideas prompted by dead words. The theories we come to about ourselves, about others. The understanding or doubt raised about what we live within. The author killed a part of themselves to give you that, if they were worth anything. Or, there was a bit about a talking sword. Either of those.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
chernobyl kinsman posted:i appreciate the verbal masturbation here but there is no story apart from the words. they are not divisible elements of a text. I agree, to a certain extent and was being facetious about how the words only exist to serve the story. My entire point is that the actual novel, the written words exist in some half state between author and reader. The author is dead, as we well know. The reader constructs something out of the words the author killed for. What the reader constructs can be close to whatever an author intended, or far removed. However, failing illness that effect semiotic understanding, etc. the author's intent, or a decent author's intent, will be to spark ideas for the reader. To allow the reader to create from the words they put down in their word processor. A story, for me, is how something happened, maybe with some insight. The novel is much more than that. It's communicating more than simple events. It's why people say I wrote a novel (or book if you want to be vulgar.) Some people write stories, but nowadays there's a lot more to writing than telling stories. The words, sentences, paragraphs are all elements of what a writer does. They might not stand on their own, but there's a lot more than a simple story coming from them. Or there should be.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:When you talk about music you get into neuroscience and the way different brains react to music is both fascinating and strange. Give me a child under three with sensory issues and I can literally rewire their brains with sounds and lights without anyone on earth knowing exactly why it works. It's something music does that people increasingly want from literature. This ability to simply experience it, rather than to engage with it. It's the "relatibility" of characters, the ease of the prose, the empathetic response people get from plot going according to their predictions and desires. It's not featuring "problematic" situations. It's substituting the characters' morals for the author's. It's total shite. I get the feeling that people increasingly want to be passive when it comes to books. Editors and agents saying, "I want to wow'ed!" Bollocks. The book can only do so much if you're willing to do nothing. Engagement seems lower and lower, with people wanting stories that reveal. At least an old man yelling at clouds is an active participant in something.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
chernobyl kinsman posted:it might be particularly bad now but it's not new, aristotle was making GBS threads on the desire for spectacle in the 4th century BC I am that active aul lad yelling at faraway clouds.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
My noise tape of beeps, boops and sighs is about the self service checkout in the supermarket.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2018 23:41
|
|
|
"gently caress the cistern!" a cry often heard by numb legged readers.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2018 23:44
|
|
|
I'm totally kidding about a noise tape featuring a self service supermarket checkout. haha ha
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2018 23:50
|
|
|
There's nothing quite like sitting in a traditional, warm, busy pub, having a drink and reading a book while picking up snatches of conversation as you smile to yourself over the humourous little moments in the story. It's the best mix of being anonymous, with no-one to bother you and your solitary time while also having a hint of sociability to it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2019 09:46
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I used to really enjoy this but now everyone's on devices and nobody can tell you're reading a book, they just think you're on facebook That's pretty much why I've never tried reading Ulysses. I don't want to be seen with it in public.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2019 21:16
|
|
|
I saw a good tweet about that the other day. Something along the lines of, "If you dismiss YA lit you'll get people mad that you're dismissing thousands of teen girls. If you say YA is lit for teen girls they'll get even angrier."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2019 16:26
|
|
|
I think you're stumbling across a new country's (person's) fear of destruction, dismay, doom, whatever. Beckett wrote about it in Murphy, where a man shakes himself to death (with help) because he's tried to commune with madness. The actual mad people are already living their life. Go into an early morning pub with functional alcoholics, a support group for domestic abuse, an out-patients centre for people with mental health issues, talk to homeless people on the street and you'll find the same "same-recognises-same" going on there, maybe tailored to specific examples where their doom has already come. You only seeing this in America and Americans would indicate to me it's a young country thing. Other nations have been through this many times over. Some nations might be experiencing freedom from it for the first time ever in the 20th century. You might die, you might live, everything might change. Keep going while you can, the people who manage that keeping going won't look back, or at the very least they won't stop. A simple recognition to take what's coming as it comes could be helpful.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2020 02:23
|
|
|
I dislike the idea of calling people who uncritically engage with a book (either through their love for it or their hate for it) subhuman. Calling them fascists is much better, seeing as fascist art (and their oppression of, yes, "subhuman" art) was all about denying the critical experience and instead art existed to valorise the fascist, i.e. sate their desires, especially their desire to be seen as great.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2020 16:50
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:And narrowing aesthetics to that which glorifies existing power structures is hardly an invention of the fascists No-one said it was an invention of the fascists, but it is a hallmark of what fascism (among other political movements) wanted from its art. But it's interesting that you bring up Roman poetry, with Roman art held up by a lot of fascists as the right kind of art, not this modernist stuff that causes people to be confused and ask questions. Edit: Never mind the bullshit you put onto it about "glorifying existing power structures."
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2020 20:11
|
|
|
chernobyl kinsman posted:lol this dumb guilt-by-association stuff is a symptom of terminal online brain Are you always this stupid or are you just incapable of reading because nowhere did I assign guilt. ulvir posted:futurism was literally a modernist movement by mostly fascists (even people who went on to write the manifesto of Mussolini’s movement). Are you really saying that one of the main aspects of fascist art isn't a valorisation of fascism and the people of fascism?
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2020 22:39
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:The main aspect of any political art is the valorisation of the political system that spawned it Yes. And religious art. And I've also read Marxist literature. And... And... And... My point about uncritical engagement with a work being more akin to fascism than something borne of "subhumans" was simply because fascism is particularly dogmatic, and especially relevant to this situation, seeing as "subhumans" was the topic and that links to fascism. Maybe Nazism would be better? But that doesn't seem to be the argument we're having.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2020 22:57
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:What’s a good method for reading, according to you? If we’re going to have antifascist theory for talking about art, what does that look like? I think you have to start at an intentional level. I read to be stimulated. I watch comedy TV shows before bed for the opposite reason, to wind down. I think at that point judgement can occur. A judgement which would differ for someone reading books to wind down at night and watching prestige TV to be stimulated. It would again differ from someone who watches comedy TV all day to not engage with anything and someone who avoids real world interaction by intellectualising their existence by reading books all the time. The question for me is why are you judging the reading/the book and not the elements surrounding it? (And I do think there's a difference between the intent in reading something and the purpose of a book.)
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2020 23:28
|
|
|
I'm interested in this from the perspective of Mel's view of being in the "outside community." Whether a novel can bring you to "inside" the community. It's ridiculous to think a novel can encompass an entire life that's brought someone to one point, even to think a novel can capture the entirety of someone's perspective in a moment—mediated experience/thought that a novel necessarily is—but can a novel "teach" or "embed" someone in an experience well enough, through what's gone before in the story/writing, to have them near-enough to what the protagonist/narrator/author is going through. Is it possible to prime—temporarily, through reading the novel—someone in a way that they adopt the necessary mind-space to appreciate, even become, the view that's put across in a story. Tangential to this is the paratext of novels, the back matter, title, maybe an introduction, etc. that establish how the reader should experience something.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2020 23:31
|
|
|
I don't know what this Chuck Wendig storm is about, but I have been following the #PublishingPaidMe stuff on twitter, where people post their advances/deals with publishers for their novels. And a good point raised was that people are expecting publishers to enact the ideals of perfect little social democracies instead of looking for the state to do it. Having anyone in control of what gets disseminated is problematic, but expecting publishers to pursue an ideal in a non-idealistic world could be considered a big ask. Instead, at the point of writing, wouldn't it be better that everyone is afforded the same ability to survive, even flourish, by the state, instead of expecting publishers to balance it all out. This ensures a better situation beyond, "just writing," and extends it to all forms of art, and production of art.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2020 18:42
|
|
|
"Buckle up tweetohs!" I shall not.  I would rather disable the airbags and be flung through this windscreen to death, or potential brain damage, at which point I might vibe with your post.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2020 19:02
|
|
|
On the copyright front, as someone who wants their work to be read I feel a dilemma. Firstly, it's necessary to earn money to survive, publishing (in a limited, with copyright sense) can achieve this. For a lot of authors publishing a novel is only the beginning of what they do, especially in limited markets. They end up doing readings and appearances to earn more money, many also teach classes and workshops on writing (something I don't see much value in from a participatory perspective.) They might write reviews for newspapers and magazines on an area they, as a personality, are seen to have an interest or expertise in. This is all necessary because publishing, even with royalties, but especially with the general sales a book may make, doesn't provide a living. Separate to that is the idea that you just want your book read, i.e. it's separate to needing to live, and needing to live from your writing and related activities. People write—often—to communicate with people. There might be further desires embedded within that writing, to entertain, to further a viewpoint, to ask questions of a prevailing ideal, to challenge a philosophical output, to simply tell a—or your—story. For many reasons (look at self publishing) the industry around a traditionally published book supports the idea that it is worthwhile. If I were to release my book (in whatever form I can make it) very few people would see the value in it. It is something I have done. People didn't care to engage, even if the few who did saw its worth. The publishing industry—protected, withdrawn and closeted—with copyright as a form of its protection, establishes value for a book. And that goes straight to the primary desire of getting your book read, of having the communication you need as an author. These are societal issues, something the publishing industry works within, maintains, and something they take value from. Without wholesale change, far beyond the publishing industry itself, the route of books to readers won't be changed. It's not just books, it's not just media, it's everything related to how society values an author, their work, and the realms works find themselves in.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2020 19:29
|
|
|
The question then is why is someone's means to survive a "pittance."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2020 20:02
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:if someone was able to survive off the lost revenue caused by the internet archive they are profound masters of budgeting "Meaningfully" is doing a lot of work here. Would everyone who borrowed from it leave the book unread otherwise? Maybe, but it's doubtful. You're asking one particular instance of access to forego a society of realities without addressing the society.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2020 20:09
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Yes I am, because a simple solution to a small issue doesnt necessitate solving a large issue "You might as well earn nothing, because you're worth next to nothing! I don't value books, your work, or your need to live. Sure we can address the global issue of why and how people deserve access to the necessities of living, but I don't care, because my €1 I'd normally be giving you is irrelevant, even if you're talking about changing this so I don't have to pay you and you could still live. Eat dirt!" Mel Mudkiper posted:This is largely what I meant earlier when I said I find the commodification of art to be toxic to society This is bollocks. "Greater human experience" means nothing when you're denying the part one particular person plays in that experience.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2020 20:19
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:You seem to be arguing with someone other than me and maybe you should go find them instead. I will still be here if you actually want to argue with my points though. Your points are crap because you're denying someone's ability to live and make what you see as part of "the greater human experience."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2020 20:25
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I CAN QUOTE BLACK WRITERS TOO Never mind that they seem to be honing in on my idea of "changing society" so authors can live and create without worrying about their books being commercial successes (rather than important documents) and how that's supposedly "to justify intentional theft" rather than me, as an author, wanting my work to have an effect on society.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2020 20:29
|
|
|
P1.) Art has a meaning to all of society and responsibilities beyond those of a "mere" consumer product. P2.) Artists have a right to make a living! P3.) How about we combine those two things? P1. P2.) Wow, calm down!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2020 20:54
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:WHO ARE YOU ARGUING WITH And with one sentence your entire existence on this sacred forums is summed up. Everything's a loving argument to you and if you can't find a way to attack you're lost.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2020 20:58
|
|
|
There's a not bad series of videos from the two guys in charge of Influx Press. It's them talking about aspects of the publishing industry, from the perspective of editors at an indie press, and as writers of both fiction and non-fiction. This one is about "Risk Taking" in publishing. There's more if you click through to their channel. It's nothing groundbreaking, but what they're talking about is fairly considered by them, and it's nice to see/watch/listen to. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7i3rzYd64c
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 03:41
|
|
|
I just bought the book today. 'bout to pour myself a beer and read.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2020 14:46
|
|
|
Safety Biscuits posted:Maybe you should read the book, then Let's Read it so you don't have to worry about spoilers. That's well and great (intentioned) but a lot of the time, having finished a book, you can't encompass all your lernins in a single post, and few people engage with the cumulation of what you've been through. It is something I wonder about. Do people (other than me) have intensely private responses to a book? Or is it that you have to strike when the iron is hot and they still care? Or, are your takes are idiotic and of no interest? Or is it foolhardy to try and get across what a book meant, in vast levels and layers, to anyone else (i.e. necessarily a reduction of the book and so not "lernins")? A lot of what I find (on social media) is stultified (probably because it's social media) and amounts to "This is great!" or "Loved this." I think DFW is different because it's another book with a controversy surrounding it (its author or its readers.) Even reading it now (although less so a few pages in) my view was to read it to have an opinion (something that doesn't stop a seeming lot of people.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2020 15:57
|
|
|
buffalo all day posted:gonna start recommending animal farm more in the SF thread because the animals can talk I once asked a fella what he thought of Brave New World and he disdainfully told me, "I don't read sci-fi."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2021 19:24
|
|
|
Megazver posted:https://www.amazon.com/Cabinet-Greek-Curiosities-Surprising-Civilization/dp/0199982104/ Oooh, the titles of those reminded me of the Horrible History books by Terry Deary (I think it is.) They're aimed at making history fun for older kids and younger teens but I know plenty of adults who love them, and the TV series that came out of them. They put a good focus on the "disgusting" bits of history while still being kid friendly. Lots of revolutions, beheading, farts and pooing. A bit of British focus but there's a lot of them covering many different areas.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2024 15:12
|
|
|
Enfys posted:It feels related to the whole trope obsession in a way where I guess some people want to know exactly what they're getting before they read the book. It's a bummer because some of my best reads have been random goon recs that I definitely wouldn't have picked up myself. I have times I just want a specific sort of book, but there's a lot to be said for trying something new periodically. Even more than this, writing serials, I find readers, some of them at least, are incredibly unwilling to go with the flow of a book or story. They want specific things from every chapter, even if the story demands other things. Once something doesn't deliver immediately, and hit precise expectations, they get pissy. Any ideas of setting things up long term, or showing something that's intended to be dealt with later, as a foundational aspect, is hotly rejected. That something might be unclear, for a little, is a sign to abandon something. Even if you've built up goodwill people want a constant drive. And if it was even a demand for a constant drive that'd be one thing, it's more a demand for every need and whim to be satisified. I think that goes back to your idea of "trope obsession." Readers being extremely uncharitable and not wanting any challenge. I feel like it's a particular problem highlighted with posting chapters and parts of serials every few days or once a week or so.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2024 23:28
|
|
|
cumpantry posted:you arent a very good writer based on post history so im siding with the readers here the collected works of something awful
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2024 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Why? This is the way that the vast, vast majority of people have interacted with literature since literacy became widespread. I was specifically talking about serials, and how it's highlighting issues elsewhere. I feel it's partly because the story can't be read to completion in one sitting, if the reader chooses to do so. They're limited by a release schedule, so each "episode" must contain and achieve certain things. The problem is how willing people are to stretch their ideas of whether the story is satisfying those things. And that'll differ for each reader. If someone is reading for "satisfaction" is it ok to leave a hanging thread to be picked up later? Even if the majority of that chapter achieves the satisfaction in other areas? Is it OK to leave some confusion about the world if you're writing a sci-fi or fantasy, and need/desire some mystery to remain? As I originally said, this was highlighted to me by serials/posting a chapter at a time online. Of course there'll be problems with churn, but the problems of "achievement" and "giving the reader something" in each distinct section are highlighted by this format when readers can't read straight through to the end. I feel even TV, which—recently at least—is much more established in this area has similar problems with whether to dump an entire series in one go or space it out over a few weeks. Sure, some of it is a business decision, but equally for an author publishing this way it's a business decision. Just one that's influencing how stories are told. To me it feels like the high and low points of what we knew to be novels, where a reader would be taken through something, and allowed to feel a downbeat, are being squashed out by a need to retain readers.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2024 15:35
|
|