Post: #1

...and so does Noel Gallagher.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/oc...waste-time

Quote:Noel Gallagher says reading fiction 'a waste of fucking time'.

Oasis songwriter voices frustration at reading what 'isn't fucking true' and says he restricts himself to 'things that have actually happened'.

Post: #2

I agree.

"Truth is stranger than fiction"

And, more powerful, in my opinion.

Post: #3

BS. There are plenty of works of fiction that absolutely have more value than works of non-fiction.

What contains more truth: the collected works of Shakespeare or every celebrity memoir ever written? What tells you more about the realities of the human condition: a season of Breaking Bad or a season of Real Housewives?

Post: #4

I don't get the fuss about Shakespeare.

It is my belief that his reputation is based on intellectual snobbery dating back to the British Empire when Shakespeare's works were used as a way of providing a cultural identity for a quarter of the world's population to unite behind.

Look how easily William Ireland managed to fool the experts with his forgeries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_Sha..._forgeries

Hell even the current collected works of Shakespeare is thought to contain a forgery:

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_s...balls.html

Give me a trashy memoir full of hollywood gossip anytime.

Post: #5

I disagree.

There's been many great inventions inspired by Star Trek.

Post: #6

(10-21-2013 02:27 PM)j r Wrote:  What contains more truth: the collected works of Shakespeare or every celebrity memoir ever written?

It's impossible to say unless we both read "every celebrity memoir ever written"

Those "celebrity memoirs" could very well contain more truth than Shakespeare..?

Personally, I think Shakespeare is highly overrated. The "truths" that he writes about are nothing ground breaking and its written in a language that is hard for the average person to understand.

Why do we make kids read that shit? If we want to teach them life lessons and the English language, there are much more efficient ways to do it.

I would much rather read a celebrity memoir.

(10-21-2013 02:27 PM)j r Wrote:  What tells you more about the realities of the human condition: a season of Breaking Bad or a season of Real Housewives?

Again, its tough to say and it depends on owns perspective but honestly, I consider both of those shows to be fiction. Most "reality" shows are fake.

That said, what we are describing is just a difference in taste. What engages my imagination may not engage yours and vice versa.

I would never tell someone not to read fiction if they enjoyed it. If you like fiction, read fiction.

I just like a friendly, intellectual debate sometimes..

Post: #7

I have come across some amazing characters in films.

But none of the characters in Shakespeare have ever really stood out for me.

Also - I think the memoirs of an ordinary guy who has done something interesting with their life (which is what most celebrity memoirs are) can provide more useful lessons that Breaking Bad or Shakespeare.

Unless of course - you life involves being an international gangster selling crystal meth, or you are a prince worring about how you can become king.

Personally - I think the 'universal truths' of most of these works don't really exist.

Post: #8

Whilst I don't read fiction, (mainly due there being 102352325634 books regarding real life that can give me REAL knowledge, which I'd rather) I do understand why people read fiction, as it may be insightful, and help free your mind.

Having said that, Noel Gallagher certainly wouldn't be someone that will help me make my decision. Not sure how his take on the book market will have any residence to anyone who cares. [/align]

Post: #9

Noel Gallagher is a smart guy. As well as being a musician - he is also one of the best football pundits I have heard.

Post: #10

I'm the same way, now a days I'm into reading books that make me grow as a person, which I think fiction doesn't really do. I'd rather read the Tao Te Ching, Anthony Robbins, or Don Miguel Ruiz, and gain a whole lot, then reading some work of fiction for entertainment. Biographies are great too, I read Iceberg Slim's "Pimp" this past spring, and two of my all time favorite books are autobiographies of black Americans, "Black Boy" by Richard Wright, and "The Autobiography of Malcolm X", oh shit and I almost forgot Huey Newton's "Revolutionary Suicide". Reading these real life accounts is amazing and helps you learn from their experiences and put things into perspective in your own life.

The only works of fiction I really got into are ones that are loosely based on real events and therefore very plausible to real life. Two of my favorites are "The Kite Runner" which I assume most of you have heard about, but my all time favorite is a book about India called "A Fine Balance", really an epic story. Shantram is supposed to be good too, my Mom gave it to me as a gift, but I've never once opened it and have since lost it.

Post: #11

(10-21-2013 02:50 PM)cardguy Wrote:  I don't get the fuss about Shakespeare.

He had: command of eloquent language and turning phrase in an interesting and imaginative way; command of structuring an interesting, engaging story; command of knowing what both high and low audiences wanted from entertainment. Remove the latter two parts and you have modern literature.

The snobs loved his work, but so did the peasants, and, as such, he helped shape language, which is why he is so easy to dismiss, because he was so prevalent his influence upon the way we speak has become invisible. You quote Shakespeare all the time, or use words he introduced into the language, without knowing it.

Ever said something was 'auspicious'? Been in 'Amazement?' Found something 'satisfying'? Cursed your 'Employer?' Packed your 'Belongings?' 'Outgrown' something? Found someone 'sanctimonius'?

Words and phrases coined by Shakespeare

Post: #12

(10-21-2013 02:50 PM)cardguy Wrote:  I don't get the fuss about Shakespeare.

It is my belief that his reputation is based on intellectual snobbery dating back to the British Empire when Shakespeare's works were used as a way of providing a cultural identity for a quarter of the world's population to unite behind.

Look how easily William Ireland managed to fool the experts with his forgeries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_Sha..._forgeries

Hell even the current collected works of Shakespeare is thought to contain a forgery:

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_s...balls.html

Give me a trashy memoir full of hollywood gossip anytime.

It's easy to forge a work of art, or "reverse engineer" a tech product, because someone else, someone probably smarter and definitely more creative, than the forger has already created the template. Today, where the management class are in the ascendancy creative works and actually creative people are undervalued. But that's a different thread.

I guess that, like me, you received forwarded emails from friends a few years back with sentences where the vowels had been removed. The supposedly shocking realisation was that the reader could still fully understand the sentences. And the conclusion drawn was that vowels were useless since the brain fills in the blanks and you can still understand what is written. Now as much as I tried to explain what is really pretty obvious...

That your mind only fills in the blanks because you are already familiar with the words with vowels. Thus vowels are not useless because if you had never been exposed to vowels you wouldn't have a mental template to use to mentally fill in the missing letters.

...some of my friends still insisted that vowels were useless.

I look at creative works that are forged, or more positively used as templates for other creative works, in much the same way. The fact that someone can write a credible Shakespearean play today doesn't detract from Shakespeare's (or Christopher Marlowe's. It really doesn't matter) legacy. If anything t only adds to it. Since "Imitation is the greatest form of flattery".

Post: #13

I think Shakespeare was brilliant at language. No doubt.

But that doesn't grip me in the way modern writers do like Tarantino, the Coen Brothers, Alan Bennett, Daivd Mamet and the guy who wrote Goodfellas and Casino.

Is there anything in Shakespeare as entertaining or as fun as these scenes?

Post: #14

(10-21-2013 04:16 PM)cardguy Wrote:  Is there anything in Shakespeare as entertaining or as fun as these scenes?

Absolutely. The difference is that they're speaking in the common language of our time, so it's easier for us to understand and enjoy.

Shakespeare *was* Tarantino in the context of his time: creative, fun dialogue; interesting stories; experiments with story structure; blood and violence for the cheap seats; intellectual stimulation for the snobs. His speechs were as striking and memorable in the context of his time as anything in Pulp Fiction. The dude was a rock star.

He's actually described in conversations of the time as a 'player', meaning exactly what it means now, and would offer other men advice on how to successfully woo women.

You don't have to read him. I'm just saying he can't be dismissed as mere snobbery either.

Post: #15

There was a nice blog post about Shakespeare recently in my favourite newspaper. And it has alot of nice things to say about Shakespeare. But it also has a telling (and amusing) anecdote at the start of the article:

Quote:An actor friend of mine tells the story of doing Hamlet on the radio with an eminent vintage actor. Reading his lines from a script, the distinguished actor delivered one of the soliloquies in perfect iambic pentameter, without pausing or mumbling.

“How was that, darling?” he asked the director, peering over his half-moon specs, already basking in the anticipated compliments.

“Wonderful – except you missed a page.”

For all his skill at reciting Shakespearean verse, the old ham didn’t have a clue what it actually meant – he’d skipped great chunks of the narrative without noticing.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/har...-the-bard/

Post: #16

There are a lot of references to classic books in nonfiction material. If you are not well read, you miss these references. For example, a government program might be referred to as soma, but if you never read Brave New World you would miss the reference. Or in a political discussion, some one may say some animals are more equal than others if you never read Animal Farm, you wont get the full context. Not a big deal, but a lot of references fly over your head without you knowing it.

Not a bad idea to be reasonably well read.

Post: #17

Times change, styles change, and culture changes. What was brilliant, funny, or cutting edge at one time may not remain so forever. But you would be surprised to find some of these old classics are better than you think, and more edgy than you might suspect.
Aristophanes is amazingly vulgar. Incest, rape, murder, fuck jokes, bathroom humor, etc.
Chaucer: ribald and vulgar
The Satyricon: sex, orgies, vulgarity
Shakespeare: for his time, he had cutting edge plots, exciting stories, and great language. He was very, very popular. I'm not a big Shakespeare fan but I recognize that he was supreme as a genius. Was also a good businessman. He got rich not from his plays but from his investments as a shareholder in the Globe Theatre.

Post: #18

@Dusty

Actually - I find 1984, Animal Farm, Brave New World and Alice in Wonderland covers most of the references that I regularly see.

You make a good point.

But the number of works that regularly get referenced are quite small. And it is quite easy to understand the references after seeing them a few times.

Post: #19

Regarding Shakespeare, I highly recommend picking up Bill Brysons "The World As Stage" which is a short narrative history of Shakespeares jaw-dropping contributions to the English language, as well as his life - or rather how little is known about it.



Here are few choice quotes:

"He coined -- or, to be more carefully precise, made the first recorded use of -- 2,035 words [...] Among the words first found in Shakespeare are abstemious, antipathy, critical, frugal, dwindle, extract, horrid, vast, hereditary, critical, excellent, eventful, barefaced, assassination, lonely, leapfrog, indistinguishable, well-read, zany, and countless others (including countless). Where would be without them?"

"It is often said that what sets Shakespeare apart is his ability to illuminate the workings of the soul and so on, and he does that superbly, goodness knows, but what really characterizes his work is a positive and palpable appreciation of the transfixing power of language. A Midsummer Night's Dream remains an enchanting work after four hundred years, but few would argue that it cuts to the very heart of human behavior. What it does do is take, and give, a positive satisfaction in the joyous possibilities of verbal expression."

Post: #20

Novels have always appealed more to the common man then non-fiction. It's not any coincidence if you look at the favorite books of most people, especially females you'll typically see works of fiction with maybe a few New York Times non-fiction best sellers thrown in.

Post: #21

I know it sounds cliché at this point but Atlas Shrugged is a work of fiction that left quite an impact on my life.

Post: #22

Hunter S. Thompson. Can't recommend that guy enough. (Technically I suppose a lot of it isn't actually fiction, though..)

Aldous Huxley and George Orwell are pretty awesome, but their works are slowly becoming non-fiction, too

I totally agree, though - non-fiction is way better.

Post: #23

For those of us who in earlier life had stumbled around our words so much, I've gotten results in being a much smoother conversationalist, and an infinitely better storyteller.

My mind is so much a straight line, one thing at a time, one speed processor and it reflects in my speech patterns as monotonous and often disjointed. Reading helps me internalize how to change the dynamics of how I talk.

Some people think that movies and t.v are enough to "get" all these things, and while it certainly helps to see the pros show how it's done, it isn't enough.

The difference is like listening to a song and sight reading it. You can see why it's played well, but reading it shows you how it's played well and internalizes it in an entirely different way.

It might be a waste of your time, but it certainly isn't a waste of mine.

Post: #24

I didn't mean to start a debate about how great Shakespeare is or which writers are better than others. My only point is that the whole idea that fiction is made up while non-fiction is "real" is pretty stupid. Truth and reality are about more than facts and dates. Good fiction has a lot more truth than bad non-fiction. And bad non-fiction is even worse, because it presents itself as "what really happened." Just look at how easy is is to make a skewed documentary.

This is just Gallagher's schtick. "Yeah I make catchy pop tunes for a living, but I'm not some artsy literary poof. I'm a real working class man and novels are for fancy lads."

There is a but of truth, however, to the idea that the literary world has come to be dominated by effeminate SWPL types. It wasn't always the case though. There used to be a lot more writers like Hemingway and Jack London.

Post: #25

I gave up on novels around the age of 20. Have to admit I have voiced Noel's exact statements at times. Occasionally on vacation I will pick up a classic, but there is just too much knowledge to devote to some random authors mental masturbation. Would much rather watch a movie if I want to delve into a fantasy world, it illicit's a much deeper emotional response as well. At Comic Con I saw protests and boycotts over Enders Game, was pretty sad to this considering the effect OSC had on my youth, he was my favorite author in high school.

But Noel does sound like a dumb ass here. Lets be honest, he writes the most inane four chord Beatles re-hash crap. I realize Wonderwall is the defacto anthem of GB, but lets call a spade a spade.