What's your favorite fiction book?

[2099net]

Good Omens. Not only is it very funny, but you will finally find out the difference between a "device" and a "gadget".

[Prince Eric]

As much as I appreciate your assurance, I still disagree. Sure, in theory, postmodernism has to be different, or at least that's what brought about its rise, but like most things that are different but acclaimed, it became a fad. I never cared for it to begin with, but I now just see it as a hodgepodge of cheap liberal ranting passed off as literature. Some of the potent elements of postmodernism are the same elements that I see in more and more of our "literature" of the day all the time. As far as the Pulitzers go, I'm not necessarily saying that they, too, are postmodern, but simply that I don't care much for a lot of the stuff I've read coming out of those.

-Aaron

This is completely unfair. As a literary theorist in the making, and as a person pursuing a degree in English literature, I know that the first thing you have to do is seperate politics and art. Again, postmodernity is not a "message" within literature, it's a process of writing it. Could you please site examples of this "hodgepodge" you speak so lowly of? You mentioned Brit Lit as a successful alternative, but the hottest books of Great Britain are overwhelmingly postmodern, including the great Ian McEwan.

[AwallaceUNC]

Politics and art are routinely intentionally fused by the artist. It is often very difficult, and perhaps unethical, to separate them. Of course if you happen to know an author/actor/musician/etc's ideological leanings that differ from your own, you shouldn't allow that to influence how you see the work itself. But when the ideology is written all over the work, it becomes a different matter. Some examples off the top of my head of works that aren't strictly postmodern, but that I see as drawing from it are Girl in Landscape by Jonathan Lethem, Gain by Richard Powers, The Fifth Book of Peace by Maxine Hong Kingston, etc. Again, these may not be the best examples, but are just off the top of my head. It's really just a general trend that I've been observing.

I mentioned the British as more apt at literature than Americans in general. That's not to say that contemporary lit is any better there (and I admittedly don't know as much about their contemporary scene). It's classic British lit that I offered as my preferential alternative.

-Aaron

[Wonderlicious]

I'm a fan of Alice in Wonderland/Through the Looking Glass and Of Mice and Men.

[Prince Eric]

Politics and art are routinely intentionally fused by the artist. It is often very difficult, and perhaps unethical, to separate them. Of course if you happen to know an author/actor/musician/etc's ideological leanings that differ from your own, you shouldn't allow that to influence how you see the work itself. But when the ideology is written all over the work, it becomes a different matter. Some examples off the top of my head of works that aren't strictly postmodern, but that I see as drawing from it are Girl in Landscape by Jonathan Lethem, Gain by Richard Powers, The Fifth Book of Peace by Maxine Hong Kingston, etc. Again, these may not be the best examples, but are just off the top of my head. It's really just a general trend that I've been observing.

-Aaron

When you study a text, you should leave what you know about the author out of your criticism. You judge the work as a text in itself, without any ideology of the author or yourself tainting the words on the page. It certainly is possible to separate art and politics, and it really is the only way to study literature in American academia. Art and politics is called propogranda, pure and simple. You're right, those aren't very good examples to further your cause, as one is a science fiction novel (science fiction is by no means considered literature by academia, unless its part of the acknowledged "cannon"), one is obscure to the point where I doubt it has altered the literary zeitgeist and the other isn't even postmodern.

Again, my only response to your initial post is that American literature is just as good as British literature. Really, I could care less if a book is American or British, because frankly, that would exclude the many translated works that soar high and above those originally written in the English language, such as, Anna Karenina, A Thousand Years of Solitude, and the Greek classics, of course.

[AwallaceUNC]

When you study a text, you should leave what you know about the author out of your criticism. You judge the work as a text in itself, without any ideology of the author or yourself tainting the words on the page.

That's exactly what I said.

It certainly is possible to separate art and politics, and it really is the only way to study literature in American academia. Art and politics is called propogranda, pure and simple.

Not at all. Art is a perfectly viable medium for expression of ideology and politics. Propoganda is a word that's slung around entirely too hastily. As I said, the fusion is often intentional, be it in music, literature, film, etc.

You're right, those aren't very good examples to further your cause, as one is a science fiction novel (science fiction is by no means considered literature by academia, unless its part of the acknowledged "cannon")

Step into any literary circle familiar with that book and I think you'd be hard pressed in not having your conception of it as "science fiction" challenged. Certainly, it has strong elements of it, but it's a blending of genre with a loose narrative that incorporates a postmodern tone and sets out with the goal of sending a societal message.

one is obscure to the point where I doubt it has altered the literary zeitgeist

It's hardly obscure to the point. I've found that a lot of people have heard of it (assuming you're referencing Gain), but I'll give you that it probably hasn't altered the zeitgeist.

and the other isn't even postmodern.

Actually, none of them are postmodern (although Girl in Landscape probably comes closest). That's my whole point. I'm not concerned with things that are decidedly postmodern.

Again, my only response to your initial post is that American literature is just as good as British literature. Really, I could care less if a book is American or British, because frankly, that would exclude the many translated works that soar high and above those originally written in the English language, such as, Anna Karenina, A Thousand Years of Solitude, and the Greek classics, of course.

Well that really boils down to preference. There is a difference in style between the two, and I've always preferred the British. I haven't enjoyed a lot of what I've read that's come out of America (with many exceptions, of course). I would never rule out something just because it came from America, though.

I entirely respect your opinion, but I do find it troublesome that you so haughtily dismiss mine as ignorant of some unquestionable, previously ascertained dogma. No, I'm not an English major (I've taken more courses in that discipline than any other up to this point, though) and don't aspire to be (though I am interested in it and do enjoy reading quite a bit), and so I take my hat off to your pursuit in this area and what I am sure is an impressive background in it. Still, that doesn't qualify your opinion as fact, or disqualify mine as unfounded, and I'd appreciate a tad less arrogance, hostility, or whatever it is that I seem to be detecting in your tone.

-Aaron

[Prince Eric]

I entirely respect your opinion, but I do find it troublesome that you so haughtily dismiss mine as ignorant of some unquestionable, previously ascertained dogma. No, I'm not an English major (I've taken more courses in that discipline than any other up to this point, though) and don't aspire to be (though I am interested in it and do enjoy reading quite a bit), and so I take my hat off to your pursuit in this area and what I am sure is an impressive background in it. Still, that doesn't qualify your opinion as fact, or disqualify mine as unfounded, and I'd appreciate a tad less arrogance, hostility, or whatever it is that I seem to be detecting in your tone.

-Aaron

Well, I thought we were having a DISCUSSION here. I'm merely presenting my side of the arguement, and by no means am I being arrogant. I have gotten some IMs stating that I don't know a thing about books, so I included the part about my education to show that I have at least some background in the field.

If anything, you are the one being arrogant by saying that American is lesser than British. At least I've said that both are exceptional. You have the habit of stating your opinion and then wording it to put it above the rest. Dismissing postmodernism for being postmodern is about as arrogant as you can get my friend.

This next statement is for everyone: You may not have to agree with a certain school of thought, or "-ism," but if you get to a point where you can only see through one lense and deem all others as nothing more than fodder, than that's not scholarly arguement, its elitist propoganda.

[AwallaceUNC]

I have gotten some IMs stating that I don't know a thing about books, so I included the part about my education to show that I have at least some background in the field.

Well that's certainly unfortunate, as it's obviously not the case. Just so everyone knows, those IMs weren't from me.

If anything, you are the one being arrogant by saying that American is lesser than British.

This is an interesting spin. It's not often that I, an American, am accused of being arrogant on behalf of the British. That's not the case, though. I prefer British lit to American overall. I find Brit lit to be of higher quality and more suited to my stylistic preferences. I'm not sure I see any arrogance in preference, not even in your preference.

You have the habit of stating your opinion and then wording it to put it above the rest.

Well I hope that isn't the case and I'm sorry if it comes off that way. I don't mean for it to. Writing's my forte (pardon the lack of an accent), so I might come off as strongly-worded sometimes. I don't think I ever frame anyone else's views as invalid, though, which is what I feel you're doing. For example, I don't tell people they're wrong, but rather that I disagree.

Dismissing postmodernism for being postmodern is about as arrogant as you can get my friend.

No, I "dismiss" it because I don't at all care for it. Its characteristics are subject for discussion, not for dismissal.

This next statement is for everyone: You may not have to agree with a certain school of thought, or "-ism," but if you get to a point where you can only see through one lense and deem all others as nothing more than fodder, than that's not scholarly arguement, its elitist propoganda.

While I don't think we need to hold message board discussions to the formality of scholarly debate, I agree with your point. Still, "propoganda" hardly applies here. I realize that you addressed everyone, but I haven't seen anyone restrict themselves to only one literary lense in this thread, so I do wonder about the relevance of saying that.

Anyways, I just got a relevant Walt Disney quote in from SaveDisney.com today that seems fitting for this thread:

"There are fashions in reading, even in thinking. You don't have to follow them unless you want to. On the other hand, watch out! Don't stick too closely to your favorite subject. That would keep you from adventuring into other fields. It's silly to build a wall around your interests."

-Aaron

[Disney Guru]

I don't really read many fiction novels.

But some of my favorites are

LOTR books
Hary Potter books
Canterburry Tales
Wuthering Heights
Death of a Salesman

Anything by Agatha Christie.

[The Lizard King]

Fiction: The Holy Bible -- many authors

Non-fiction: Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right -- Al Franken

TLK

[chaychay102royal]

My favorite fiction book is Gone With the Wind

Followed by:
The Secret Life of Bees
To Kill A Mockingbird
The Harry Potter series

[yankees]

My Favorite Is Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban. I thought that the book was amazing. I read it all the time and i never get sick of it. JK Rowling is a amazing writter. Then My second favorte Book Is The Whole HP series. I read them all the time. JK Rowling is a amazing writter and i hope she does more different books after HP

The Movies Were Great

But Prisoner Of Azkaban Movie Is My favorite movie of all time
________
Jeep Wrangler

[yankees]

I'm a fan of Alice in Wonderland/Through the Looking Glass and Of Mice and Men.

Mice of men is also a great book... I finished reading it just a few days ago
________
Mercedes-Benz 450Sel 6.9 History

[DaveWadding]

Oh, before I forget...Dante's Inferno is awesome as well.

[Prince Eric]

I have gotten some IMs stating that I don't know a thing about books, so I included the part about my education to show that I have at least some background in the field.

Well that's certainly unfortunate, as it's obviously not the case. Just so everyone knows, those IMs weren't from me.

If anything, you are the one being arrogant by saying that American is lesser than British.

This is an interesting spin. It's not often that I, an American, am accused of being arrogant on behalf of the British. That's not the case, though. I prefer British lit to American overall. I find Brit lit to be of higher quality and more suited to my stylistic preferences. I'm not sure I see any arrogance in preference, not even in your preference.

You have the habit of stating your opinion and then wording it to put it above the rest.

Well I hope that isn't the case and I'm sorry if it comes off that way. I don't mean for it to. Writing's my forte (pardon the lack of an accent), so I might come off as strongly-worded sometimes. I don't think I ever frame anyone else's views as invalid, though, which is what I feel you're doing. For example, I don't tell people they're wrong, but rather that I disagree.

Dismissing postmodernism for being postmodern is about as arrogant as you can get my friend.

No, I "dismiss" it because I don't at all care for it. Its characteristics are subject for discussion, not for dismissal.

This next statement is for everyone: You may not have to agree with a certain school of thought, or "-ism," but if you get to a point where you can only see through one lense and deem all others as nothing more than fodder, than that's not scholarly arguement, its elitist propoganda.

While I don't think we need to hold message board discussions to the formality of scholarly debate, I agree with your point. Still, "propoganda" hardly applies here. I realize that you addressed everyone, but I haven't seen anyone restrict themselves to only one literary lense in this thread, so I do wonder about the relevance of saying that.

Anyways, I just got a relevant Walt Disney quote in from SaveDisney.com today that seems fitting for this thread:

"There are fashions in reading, even in thinking. You don't have to follow them unless you want to. On the other hand, watch out! Don't stick too closely to your favorite subject. That would keep you from adventuring into other fields. It's silly to build a wall around your interests."

-Aaron

I'm familiar with the SaveDisney.com quote and I've always agreed with that philosophy, it's just strange to me that you quoted something that is innately postmodern.

I have not said that anyone is wrong on this thread. I just feel that you are being a tad bit conservative when addressing postmodernism as a forum for "liberal hodgepodge." Maybe it's just the way I have been taught, or the literary scene in general, but little remarks like that are usually percieved to be wrong and unacceptable. Also, there is no "style" difference between American and British (of course, there's different dialect, maybe grammar, wording, and diction, but in the grand scheme of things, those hardly constitute a different "style"), and saying that British is of higher quality is really the most factless statement that has been said on this thread. I'm still not clear that I understand this trend that you speak of, especially since postmodernism has been in full swing since the 1960's, and you sort of imply that you've followed the movement since its beginning. I guess the real question I'm asking is: What's your beef with postmodernism?

I mean, when you think about it, I could sit here and say that the latest traditionalist offereings are just conservative hodgepodge rantings. However, that's something that I would never say because I view all literary theories as equal and pertinent and I'm able to read and appreciate each one of them.

Believe me, I'm not trying to hold everyone up to certain standards of literary theory, BUT, I AM trying to get forum members to see all sides to the story.

Oh, and I would never try to implicate you as the IM perpetrator, since I know you are above that.

[AwallaceUNC]

I just feel that you are being a tad bit conservative when addressing postmodernism as a forum for "liberal hodgepodge." Maybe it's just the way I have been taught, or the literary scene in general, but little remarks like that are usually percieved to be wrong and unacceptable.

It must be, as you say, the way you've been taught, but it certainly isn't the literary scene in general as I've experienced it. Every literary analyst must be able to put on blinders toward the politics of the outside world, but to deny that they exist within literature is not only a bit naive, I think, but also serves a great injustice to those who tactfully and purposefully bring politics into their art.

Well I am conservative, so I won't refute that. Finding liberalism in literature is a perfectly valid and academically acceptable (though again, academically acceptable isn't some sort of holy grail) assessment.

Also, there is no "style" difference between American and British (of course, there's different dialect, maybe grammar, wording, and diction, but in the grand scheme of things, those hardly constitute a different "style")

Well we could get into semantics, but what's the point. I find that classic Brit lit has a very different feel than American, and am honestly surprised that you don't, but that's an eye-opener at least and thus these sort of discussions can be useful. To bring some context to what I meant by style, wording, diction, and to some degree even dialect are all big contributors to the distinctions that I prefer.

and saying that British is of higher quality is really the most factless statement that has been said on this thread.

Who said anything about facts? It's a preference. I find that after a certain point of diminishing quality, quality itself becomes a subjective matter.

I'm still not clear that I understand this trend that you speak of, especially since postmodernism has been in full swing since the 1960's, and you sort of imply that you've followed the movement since its beginning.

I implied nothing of the sort.

I see postmodernism in contemporary American literature to have become a bit of a fad. I've never cared for pure postmodernism. From the writing style to the inherent societal messages to the divergence from traditional literature, it all leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I can read it, but I don't enjoy it. As I've said repeatedly, a lot of contemporary lit isn't postmodern, but it's increasingly influenced by it... these influences, like their source, are not something I enjoy. Thus the trend. Thus the beef.

It's sort of like punk music. At first divergent from the norm, it became a fad, and soon had a pop-icized version of itself all over the mainstream. The new incarnation was no longer punk music, but it certainly bore heavy punk influences. I don't like punk, and I don't care for punk imprints on pop music. Same goes for postmodern lit.

I mean, when you think about it, I could sit here and say that the latest traditionalist offereings are just conservative hodgepodge rantings.

Well, you could. Traditional literature isn't as frequently issue-driven, so to speak, as postmodernism is, though (with notable exceptions, of course, Dickens among them).

However, that's something that I would never say because I view all literary theories as equal and pertinent and I'm able to read and appreciate each one of them.

Therein lies another difference. I refuse to accept the notion that anything submitted as art is art, or as literature is literature, etc. I'm able to read anything (excluding some languages, of course ), but it isn't always worthy of appreciation. Things can be written that don't make the grade. Things can be written that are bad. To be honest, I don't consider postmodern literature to be literature at all (braces self for the gasps at this supposed academic blasphemy, and the "closed-minded," "ignorant" name-calling that is likely to ensue).

-Aaron

[Prince Eric]

Therein lies another difference. I refuse to accept the notion that anything submitted as art is art, or as literature is literature, etc. I'm able to read anything (excluding some languages, of course ), but it isn't always worthy of appreciation. Things can be written that don't make the grade. Things can be written that are bad. To be honest, I don't consider postmodern literature to be literature at all (braces self for the gasps at this supposed academic blasphemy, and the "closed-minded," "ignorant" name-calling that is likely to ensue).

-Aaron

Why would I, or anyone else, name-call when you have already labeled yourself quite nicely?

I'm really hate to break it to you, but academics is not as closed-cannon as it used to be, and you experience of the literary scene seems to be an isolated incident, as no one can hold a high-level university position with that attitude, or escape the sneers of cocktail party conversationalists. This is evident in you science fiction example: Those "literary circles" you speak of are probably just sci-fi fans. Unless we're talking about Brave New World or something of the like, science fiction is not taught in the universities or considred literature.

Just look at the president of Harvard who's under fire by feminisits. Why do I say feminism? Postmodernism in fact encompasses several literary movements, including feminism, postcolonialism, and new historicism. The movements ensued because several key voices in society were not being represented by literarture and modernism (traditionalism) was just not answering enough questions. In effect, by saying postmodernism is not literature, you are in effect saying that women do not have a voice, and therefore are not literature. You are saying that colonized Third World authors do not have a voice, and therefore, are not literary. If you don't call the works of Jamaica Kincaid, Salman Rushdie, and V.S. Naipaul literature, then by all means, tell me what is.

Also, I think you fail to realize what postmodernism is. It goes beyong a writer creating a "postmodern" piece of literature. Postmodernism is a way of looking at works from the past, even Charles Dickens. You seem to highly esteem traditional writers, but truth be told, when they were writing centuries ago, they had no idea that what they were writing would be considered "traditional"; they were just trying their best to answer questions of the day. Times change, and so do writers, and so do theories, and this change is absolutely necessary.

Could you please give examples of literature (university-taught literature that is) that has mixes politics with art? Allegories don't count, so no George Orwell. I'm seriously trying to understand your far-right point-of-view. Oh, well, like my professor said (who's a typical Texan Republican), "There's no use arguing with a Leavisite."

[AwallaceUNC]

Why would I, or anyone else, name-call when you have already labeled yourself quite nicely?

Well, that, along with the rest of this post (among others) is probably reason enough to stop trying to discuss this with you, but I reluctantly continue...

I'm really hate to break it to you, but academics is not as closed-cannon as it used to be,

Well I think that the liberalizing (used literally, not politically) of the academic canon has been healthy in some regards (i.e. some academic disciplines now viewed as more credible), but the liberalizing (again, literally, though I'd argue politically too ) of what's accepted as literature is, to me, unfortunate.

and you experience of the literary scene seems to be an isolated incident,

And with these comments, you construct a brick wall. If you insist that because we disagree, I'm without credence, then we aren't going to get much of anywhere. I can tell you that you're wrong, and you can say you don't believe me, and if that's going to be the case, then I'm clearly wasting my time here.

as no one can hold a high-level university position with that attitude, or escape the sneers of cocktail party conversationalists.

And God forbid we elicit elitist sneers! Though I don't share your enamor for high-level university positions, I can assure you that that isn't necessarily true (but I admit that it would certainly be in the minority of most professorship circles).

This is evident in you science fiction example: Those "literary circles" you speak of are probably just sci-fi fans. Unless we're talking about Brave New World or something of the like, science fiction is not taught in the universities or considred literature.

And I'm back to repeating points again. Have you read Girl in Landscape? It's hardly a sci-fi book. It borrows conventions of the genre while defying them at the same time. It borrows from various other genres as well. I've even heard it called a western. No one label is apt, though. Still, it definitely incorporates elements of postmodernism, and is widely considered to be of literary merit.

Sci-fi fans? Come on. Let's not drag this down to a level that seems inevitable at this point anyways.

Just look at the president of Harvard who's under fire by feminisits. Why do I say feminism? Postmodernism in fact encompasses several literary movements, including feminism, postcolonialism, and new historicism.

No argument there.

In effect, by saying postmodernism is not literature, you are in effect saying that women do not have a voice, and therefore are not literature. You are saying that colonized Third World authors do not have a voice, and therefore, are not literary.

A hasty generalization if ever I've seen one. First of all, it wouldn't be a woman's voice that would be the issue, it would the feminist movement as a medium for that voice that would be the issue. And even beyond that, the issue of whether postmodernism was an appropriate medium for the voice of the feminist movement would be at hand. Clearly, it isn't just a matter of "should women be heard?" or something as asinine as that. Or are you just trying to call me a sexist without saying it?

Postmodernism is a way of looking at works from the past, even Charles Dickens.

Indeed, which is also unfortunate.

You seem to highly esteem traditional writers, but truth be told, when they were writing centuries ago, they had no idea that what they were writing would be considered "traditional"; they were just trying their best to answer questions of the day. Times change, and so do writers, and so do theories, and this change is absolutely necessary.

You seem to imply that I like traditional writers simply because they are old, and likewise dislike postmodernism because it is relatively new. That isn't the case. I enjoy what is now considered traditional writing because of what it is, and dislike postmodernism on respective grounds. Should something else arise that I enjoy, I wouldn't shun it because it was new. Likewise, there are fairly old works of literature (I've already cited much of classic American lit as an example) that I don't care for either.

Could you please give examples of literature (university-taught literature that is) that has mixes politics with art? Allegories don't count, so no George Orwell.

Allegories certainly do count and I see no reason why they shouldn't. But even those notwithstanding, I've given examples already. Nearly any postmodern work would make that list. It is its very nature.

I'm seriously trying to understand your far-right point-of-view.

Your very phrasing makes that laughable.

Oh, well, like my professor said (who's a typical Texan Republican), "There's no use arguing with a Leavisite."

Well, well, look who is framing the academic by his politics! (I'm smiling at the outrage I'd probably hear if I said something like 'a typical New England/Californian liberal').

And yet all my posts have flown in the face of Leavis. Are you taking the time to think about what I'm writing?

As much as you seem to value this notion of some sort of unquestionable academic truth and those who champion it, it seems that you're forgetting the most important lesson a college education (and again, I'm wincing at placing this much importance on college) can bring: there are few, if any, academically accepted absolutes. Most issues have two sides, both of which are viable in their formation, and simply charging them as incredulous (or, in your case, bordering on insult) isn't a constructive way of going about debating them.

-Aaron

[tomothy81]

Fiction: The Holy Bible -- many authors

Non-fiction: Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right -- Al Franken

TLK

If you consider the Bible as fiction, yeah it makes a great fiction book, but I personally consider it as a historical book with factual information.

[DDMAN26]

I forgot to mention anything by Steinbeck and Hemingway is always worth reading