Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Welcome to Writers Talkback. If you are a new user, your account will have to be approved manually to prevent spam. Please bear with us in the meantime
Comments
Also, in the Mozart v Madonna battle, Madonna won. What are these people on? (I could say that David Bowie was before Madonna and was way ahead of his time, whereas Madonna is a product OF her time, but knowing I worship David Bowie, some might think I was being pretentious.)
People are strange. It's the only conclusion I can come to.
http://www.visionariesdebate.com/
A trult visionary writer is the author of '1984.'
There's one on a TV channel now asking people to vote for their favourite Morecambe & Wise clip. Hasn't that been done before?
However, these kinds of votes always end up as mere popularity contests. Tolkien frequently gets the people's vote for 'best writer', but his writing style was merely workmanlike.
Mozart? Unique and brilliant, yes. Ahead of his time? I don't think so. Although I don't listen to jazz, I feel that there should be a jazz musician in that slot, perhaps Miles Davis or so. Somebody who really broke new ground.
Out of the nominees in the various fields, the one who most obviously deserves the title of 'visionary' is Da Vinci. But putting him up against Warhol is a joke. Like racing a greyhound against a donkey.
But which writer to nominate? I'd be interested to hear other Talkbackers' choices on that one.
There can't be a "best writer" because there are too many options.
In a very literal sense, it'd be William Blake.
I'm not sure there's any evidence of JK Rowling as visionary, much as I love her books.
I wouldn't say, though, that Rowling's books bear "no relation to reality". The reason that fairy tales have endured is that they provide a safe space in which difficult issues can be explored. A novel about somebody coming to terms with death and being let down by those closest to them could be a bit of a dreary affair - or it could be "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" :)
I can actually only think of Orwell as a visionary, and watch it happen.
I agree DD about Orwell - he saw things coming years ago, so why did no one take any notice before it became too late?
One thing I do admire and value about Dickens was that he was unashamedly commercial in his approach. Ironically, if he were alive today he would be chasing modern audiences just as hard as he chased those of his time, and culture buffs would hate him every bit as much as they hate JKR.
Incidentally, Madonna is more akin to "Maestro Salieri".
Incidentally, Stephen Fry did the talking book version which is fab.
Also fab is the way JKR has got so many reluctant readers reading - including my son. Nothing on this earth would make him read Dickens; I couldn't even get him to watch Dickens on TV. Bring it on JKR - next series now please.
The Richard and Judy children's books programme is tonight at 8pm.
All for it, me.
In the trade, this has recently become known as 'doing a Germaine' after Germaine Greer's comment on a book show that she knew Tolkien's books were rubbish and full of Nazis because a friend had told her so ...
Personally, I read Dickens at school and didn't think much of him, probably because I had little interest in the world he was describing, and I've read most of JKR's book and enjoyed them enormously. But enjoyment or otherwise of books is almost entirely subjective, so this is one subject few of us are likely to agree about.
James
As far as the visionary aspects of Dickens and JKR are concerned, I don't think either author fits the bill. I would suggest that the most visionary writer of the twentieth century was probably Arthur C Clarke.
James
As for Dickens, along with other writers like Gaskell, they brought the plight of the poorest of society into the public arena, and that is why we are so appalled today at the thought of children working jobs where they would be crushed in granary mills, or women having fingers sliced off in cotton mills. The pen is truly mighter than the sword.
As for saying that if you haven't read a book, you can't have an opinion, what a load of crap. If you walk into a book shop pick up a book and decide after reading the blurb you have developed an opinion on that book. If people don't want to read HP, don't launch an attack, respect them.
Finally, I would like to say my favourite book is Collins The Woman In White (the original detective novel) and the only book that has ever had me sobbing is Bleak House. Such a shame that a contemporary novel has never had the same effect on me.
But Charles Dickens, well, if you can't read The Old Curiosity Shop and get involved with the mass of highly colourful often outrageous yet instantly recognisable characters he brings in during Nell and her grandfather's journey and the despicable Mr Quilp leaping in and out of the tale and not feel desperately sad when Nell dies, there is no hope for you! One of his outstanding throwaway descriptions I have never forgotten is to say someone was 'as tall as an afternoon shadow.' Says so much in a few words. The man was/is a genius.
So, no need to read JKR, just because others do, no need to read Jordan, because others do, the hype is the same, after all. I am not criticising her books, I don't read them so I won't comment on the standard of writing or lack of editing or anything else I have seen written about at length. I will say she is NO visionary, just someone who got an idea and ran with it. And made a lot of money and if along the way she got children reading, that's a bonus. I just wish they had learned to acquire the love of reading a lot earlier, is all.
I don't think you need to descend to abuse. What I actually said was, and I quote 'the opinion of somebody who's read a book is more likely to be right than that of a person who hasn't' and I maintain that that is a perfectly reasonable statement.
Everyone rejects books without reading them - that's patently obvious. Some people never read fiction, or non-fiction, or biographies, or romance and it's perfectly acceptable to say 'it's not my kind of book' based on the blurb or reviews or whatever. But I maintain that nobody can properly criticise a book unless they've actually read it.
I think Dan Brown is arguably one of the worst writers ever to have achieved commercial success, but I state that from having read - or at least tried to read - three of his books. I would never have the temerity to rubbish - or praise - an author without having read at least one book by him or her, because to do so would be wholly unfair.
Dorothy - you have the absolute right not to read JKR because you don't think you will enjoy them, just as I have an absolute right not to read Dickens because I know I don't enjoy his work, having at least tried to read one. As I said before, reading is entirely subjective. The number of books on Amazon that have attracted both one-star and five-star reviews are an immediate proof of this. And I don't actually accept that there is 'no hope' for me just because I don't happen to share your enthusiasm for The Old Curiosity Shop. That just seems, well, arrogant. Sorry.
James
James
Copernicus, Galileo?? Were they Victorians???
We should only read someone's books if we are interested in the genre in which they write, otherwise it is a waste of time, money and energy. As is putting someone down for holding a point of view. I said much the same, remember? I dislike the hype, the hoohaa around JKR more than anything, which is why I refuse to subscribe a single penny toward it. Incidentally, I am not alone, another forum I visit, an American one, the majority there said the same thing. In fact, I cannot recall a dissenting voice, so the Americans haven't fallen for the hype as we have here, which may say a lot about the English.
And, if you go back to the top of this thread, you will find the comment 'in my view, Charles Dickens was a genius who had a certain way of looking at ordinary people, and his books survive because people are people and will forever be people.' Stirling and I are not alone in our love for that great writer so I think it a bit unkind and unfair for you to make that comment about Stirling. We all have to start somewhere, and we all start at the same 'somewhere' and work our way up, don't we? Or am I reading this entirely wrong?
She has very strong views, and I suspect that the study she is currently undertaking is having a big influence on her thinking at this current time.
I remember being very scathing of modern fiction after I did my English A'Level, it took me two years to be able to appreciate a standard piece of fiction.