just because what is entertaining you is sublime art doesn't mean it's not fulfilling the purpose of entertainment.Originally Posted by gwahir
if art isn't boring you to death, it's entertaining. every great piece of western art was made as a form of diversion, from shakespeare's plays to beethoven's symphonies. if we take art so seriously now that it's a chore to take it in, then we seriously have a problem and art is dying.
Last edited by sycld; 11-13-2009 at 07:14 AM.
PANDAS
If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.
Yeah, most of what King writes is pulpy allegory - but he's so goddamn prolific, and the turn out of good shit that he writes versus only okay shit that he writes is phenomenal. Not only that, the fucker has written some of the best religious allegories I've ever read (Desperation is a quasi-retelling of the Jesus story set in a town with a posessed cop playing Satan). Just because he's commonly associated with 'horror' doesn't mean that all the man writes is horror. His short story anthologies typically have 4-5 scary stories in them against 10-15 straight out normal stories.
It seems errant to fault the guy for writing entertaining stories, when he also writes stories with great measure and depth.
You're pretty much wrong abut this but I really don't feel like going into the history of the novel when I'm only on this site to procrastinate from writing an essay on that exact subject.
And the only "magic" in storytelling is Harry fucking Potter okay
in an attempt to cover my ass, King does have a touch for pulpy, entertaining stories that don't require much depth or insight to appreciate, which is why he made the list of two people i name. It's not faulting him for it, because both he and Dan Brown have this ability to use a gripping narrative compellingly, although Dan Brown gets shitty and preachy as time goes by while King is usually much better about it.
Back to Lord of the Flies, no, it's not particularly entertaining, but it does have a valid point to make. It's not the best-written story, in terms of writing style, but it's immaculately constructed in spite of that. You don't really get into the characters on much more than a surface level because they're all symbolic representations of a part of man's spirit, but this doesn't stop the book from being good in spite of that. Overall, I enjoyed the book for seeing the events play out as they did and figuring out what the author was trying to say through symbolism. It's not particularly difficult to read in that aspect, which is why so many high schools have it in their curriculum; it's a good primer for learning to read on a more analytical level as opposed to reading just the story for entertainment. This same issue crops up again in stories like the Chrysalids and Catcher in the Rye, both which which are great to read and understand the various points the author is making without directly stating, but have issues when read purely for entertainment - the Chrysalids suffers from really boring writing and Catcher in the Rye, which actually has good writing has, unfortunately, lost it's touch mostly from a difference of era, which youth have a hard time seeing past, while the points Salinger was making are still pertinent. I would recommend all three books to read, just none of them if you're looking only for entertainment, which was why I suggested people who have a gift for good writing style.
Which was why I mentioned Dan Brown and Stephen King, because both have this ability for compelling narrative, but they aren't necessarily the only ones. J. K. Rowling also has a great narrative style, and, if you like a more poetic style, Jack Kerouac fits the bill pretty admirably as well. I should apologize for being dismissive of reading purely for entertainment, which isn't something I can fault without being hypocritical, but there is the reason for choosing those two in particular, although I suppose I should apologize again for suggesting Dan Brown because, well, he's pretty terrible with everything except pacing.
I say should, but I'm not.
nu-uh.
the novel was obviously developed in the 17th century with the express intent to be dry, stultifying, and a means to bore people to death.
see: don quixote
PANDAS
If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.
Shit, you could beat people to death with Don Quixote.
But seriously: art is becoming more and more irrelevant to average people probably in part because of the attitude gwahir expressed. He is a film maker, after all.
Before the 20th century, there was never this separation between diversion and art. It is only now that art has allowed to be boring and dull but still get a pass by the connoisseurs because it makes them so damn sophisticated to appreciate something which is nauseatingly dull.
That said, I do not read pulp fiction-like authors such as Dan Brown and Stephen King. They hold no interest for me. However, I did enjoy the last novel I read which was by Joyce Carol Oates, and I am enjoying the current novel I'm reading by Pearl Buck.
Last edited by sycld; 11-13-2009 at 03:17 PM.
PANDAS
If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.
i'm not saying it's not diverting, jackass, i'm saying that perhaps entertainment is not the right word. art can be entertaining, but you're making a false dichotomy of entertaining versus boring. entertainment is enjoyment, but not all art is to be enjoyed. some of it is meant to unsettle, some of it is meant to inspire, some is meant to educate. to say all are meant to entertain is vastly dumbing down the entire discussion.
i do think that the best art is usually entertaining, but not always. i don't get off on symbology and meanings and when art "has something to say". none of that is for me. but it doesn't change the fact that not everything is just supposed to entertain.
...no i'm not.
i'm not elitist towards art. if you enjoy what you enjoy, fantastic. but i think there's stuff worth studying in it -- so that we can figure out what makes art (and entertainment) so powerful, and figure out how to make more great stuff. yeah, completely irrelevant.
art is becoming more irrelevant to "average" people because it is becoming more and mpre postmodern, that is to say more and more relevant to our future selves and opinions of the future.
we may not see it now, but art is a progression, in my opinion. we have had realism, depicting what is there, and gradually we have changed into what isnt there, what we imagine etc. To me, this is postmodernism.
I know this is just my opinion, but I also know that it is shared by a number of other people in my lectures on the subject.
I would prefer to discuss this concept in AI because its actually the basis of many deep running theories me and my classmates, as well as postgraduates, are writing on.
YO HO YO HO
ceci n'est pas une signature
oh god, i love it when you're aggressive
Well, when I say "diversion" or even "entertainment," I mean it in a more general sense than you're probably taking it. I mean that which is not work, not boring, and captures our imagination somehow. It could be light, but not it's not necessarily.i'm saying that perhaps entertainment is not the right word. art can be entertaining, but you're making a false dichotomy of entertaining versus boring. entertainment is enjoyment, but not all art is to be enjoyed. some of it is meant to unsettle, some of it is meant to inspire, some is meant to educate. to say all are meant to entertain is vastly dumbing down the entire discussion.
i do think that the best art is usually entertaining, but not always. i don't get off on symbology and meanings and when art "has something to say". none of that is for me. but it doesn't change the fact that not everything is just supposed to entertain.
PANDAS
If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.
well then we don't disagree, do we.
you may want to think about discovering what people actually believe before you condescend to them sycld
why i don't get it what's the point in that
PANDAS
If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.
maybe it's a small step towards being likeable
nah, that's a hopeless cause. there's so many reasons for not being likeable that it's pretty much impossible to change this.
and being obnoxious is fun. not being obnoxious yields nothing.
halfway through The Good Earth.
PANDAS
If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.
And the benefits of anonymity strike again.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." -Anne Frank
We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world. -Buddha
Identity
You can say that again, my good chum.
PANDAS
If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.
TOGS, Anne Frank doesn't deserve to be quoted
i only quote cool people like batman or jesus.
PANDAS
If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.
Well, not everyone is as wise as you big guy
also, let's cool it with the elitism ITT
well what about oneupmanship? please don't take that away from me too ;_;
PANDAS
If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.
That's a great book. I can't believe I read it in 5th grade.
I gave up on Lord of the Flies because I remembered how boring the first half is. Since I already know what happens in the end, re-reading the book isn't worth it.
Now reading: 101 Wacky Computer Jokes. Hopefully this will keep my attention better. Q: Why did the witch buy a computer? A: She needed spell checker!
What a classic!
Well, 101 Wacky Computer Jokes was an excellent read. I can't decide whether to read 99 1/2 Food Jokes, Riddles, & Nonsense or Garfield's Big Fat Scary Joke Book next. I'm intrigued by the notion of 1/2 a food joke, riddle, and/or nonsense but on the other hand I can't help but wonder if the author was just too lazy to finish the last joke.
Im reading The Wolves of Willoughby Chase, just finished the Candle Man. Generally on a bit of a young fiction binge for some reason.
Also haven't been in this thread for a while but I will say that the Lord of the Flies is worth a read but I didn't enjoy it or agree with the theme.
So it turns out I'm addicted to Lee Child
woofness you are going to make me get up on my elitist high horse with comments like that
The good earth was boring as hell.
that was the intention, yes..
OMG! A kt post that actually made me smile.
some fourth grader is probably going to plargerize this for a book report.
this is what we've come to.
PANDAS
If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.
During my commute between school and San Diego during these holidays. I'm also listening to audiobooks between novels.
I'm listening to David Sedaris' When You Are Engulfed in Flames.
Fabulously hilarious. Hilarious. I whole heatedly recommend it.
About halfway through it and Atwood's Year of the Flood
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." -Anne Frank
We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world. -Buddha
Identity
yes, that was awesome. in some ways this is one book that i'd even recommend more in audio book form because sedaris narrates it himself, and really he's a spoken word guy. his timing and phlegmatic tone of voice are just impeccable.
PANDAS
If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.
Save Me From Myself by Head. So far it's interesting.
I'm also looking for some PDF books to put on my phone so if anyone has any suggestions...
Is that the book by the douchey guitarist who quit Korn to masturbate over Jaysus?
It's the book by the guitarist who quit Korn named Head.
A simple yes would have done.
Hey simonj how do your parents feel about your molestation habits?
Doesn't affect them. Except when the moles get out and eat our food.
a simple yes would have done
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks