Books and Intelligence

[jay]

Possibly. Literary fiction seems to be a different thing from literature these days. Maybe I should have said "fiction" instead.

True.
And for that I would then say that I don’t think fiction writers take themselves seriously enough.
Sure, some do. John Irving, whose work hasn’t been interesting in years (maybe decades) seems kind of serious – at least about himself.
But I’m not sure if many (any?) actually care about the craft anymore.

I was thinking about this earlier today –we were briefly talking about music earlier, this morning I had do some lab stuff that requires no thinking. If MonkeyCatcher could catch me a monkey to do this task both she and the monkey would be paid well (even if it’s a female monkey!) - so on comes the music. Today’s selection was Yes’ _Fragile_. While jamming and ticking off (or entertaining) neighboring labs I was thinking of your [oddly, I rarely address an individual poster but just riff on themes from a quote, with you, Jennifer, I find myself singling out…funny] mention of preferring rock music. As this album from 1972 was spinning ‘round I was thinking of how un-aged the sounds were. And that, in my opinion or at least to my knowledge, very few bands have progressed to this musical level. What’s the best “rock” band nowadays? Green Day? Oh, sorry, they have tattoos so they are “punk” (rolls eyes). Very few bands have been of such solid musicianship as Yes. How many other bands could make and album with each tune (pretty much) being written by a different band member? What are the classically trained guys doing these days? Is such training dead? Why has there not yet, 20 years later, been a solid rock band that has driving bass lines like a Yes or Led Zeppelin?
Ok, I don’t want to tangent this too much, but I see fiction as being the same way. The past template(s) are there to be used, but they are largely ignored. Yes, some have played with language ala Joyce and form ala Faulkner, but there is a certain something (i.e. quality) missing.
As many bands are trying to simply make a 3+ minute song with little substance to get onto Mtv, many typists are shaping something in book form to get to the loveable movie “rights” part of their contract.

(although kids don't seem to be allowed to fail any more...)

Hmmm, orrrrrr –as I more than hint on the Required Reading thread- there just simply is no more “bad”. No matter what the student does, it’s ok. Move along, go to the next level, don’t slow the line up. Any thing “bad” is now “negative”, and we don’t want that.
In the Boston area I honest to gawd knew high school graduates that could barely write.

But I think as our actual intelligence slips overall, the wish of the average person to be seen as intelligent grows stronger. Hence Da Vinci Code, "I'm reading about art and religion and codes and, you know, clever stuff!"

Maybe. Maybe. An interesting way to look at it. ‘This book must be good because it was on the news and on the cover of Tyme and Newsweak!’.

Absolutely. If I see a book that claims to protray "real events" I tend to back away slowly. This is fiction, not political comment.

I agree. I’m all up for one writing a song or a story about such an event if they have a story to tell, but to do it just to do it…phuck that.

(It's 11/9, anyway. Just to be pedantic and English).

One of the few reasons I always put the reference in quotes.

I do think it's brilliant, however, that the church felt the need to react so violently to the books.

It’s hysterical. I am sure Benny (or Pope Benedict the whatever, if you prefer) will make one of his first big public nonsense-sermons when Ann Rice’s thing comes out.

Like it was the biggest threat since Science.

Jezus you can turn a phrase…

Are they completely out of touch?

I can completely assure you I’ve known some “mental patients” that have a closer grasp of reality than many of these folks.

Perhaps they had higher standards then. Or the general standard of literature meant that the "popular" audience was the rich and well-educated, not the "masses".

True, but also mediocrity wasn’t so widely available and certainly not celebrated.

Nice mention of a very underrated Austen book.
j

 

[jay]

Did anyone else think that there was a decided lack of spanking in the Da Vinci Code?

Now that you mention it *all* books have a decided lack of spanking.
Well, maybe not _The Story of O_.

And platypus fondling. I’ve yet to read a solid novel with a satisfying platypus fondling section.
I remain, in wait…
j

 

[clueless]

True, but also mediocrity wasn’t so widely available and certainly not celebrated.

j

They were, but fortunately most of them are not remembered today. In Northanger Abbey itself, you can see a critique of gothic novels, which were really popular at the time. You can go a lot further back in time and find an enormous amount of dross.
Most of the 'knight errant', pastoral and Byzantine novels popular in the XV and XVI centuries were total dross. I can even imagine Dan Brown writing one of the last type.

 

[jay]

They were, but fortunately most of them are not remembered today.

No doubt. I didn’t mean to sound as if it was a non-existent thing but it seemingly wasn’t celebrated as it is nowadays. Maybe. The whole media thing clouds judgment in such parallel (or attempting parallel) thoughts.
And as I’ve stated, I’m certainly not an optimist, especially when it comes to this particular species, but I do have small feeling that much of this crap too will dwindle away. Once a Stephen King stops excreting a new book every so and so he’ll no longer be headline news and his wastings can be hoarded by some, but will slowly become obsolete. Nor can I see generations passing down a ‘Da Code’ as representative of good writing, solid story telling or even entertainment.

As Dennis Miller used to say, “I could be wrong”,
j

 

[sirmyk]

Once a Stephen King stops excreting a new book every so and so he’ll no longer be headline news and his wastings can be hoarded by some, but will slowly become obsolete. Nor can I see generations passing down a ‘Da Code’ as representative of good writing, solid story telling or even entertainment.

I think this is true for some works of Mr. King... maybe all works of Mr. Brown. But not all of Stephen's novels will be easily forgotten. Although he's not Poe (timeless), there are a few of his novels and other works I see passing the trials of time most fiction writers face, such as The Shining, The Stand, most of his novellas, some of his short stories... and a few others I am surely forgetting. I can see King disected in literature classes a hundred years from now.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

While I agree that qualifications are far more important than gender, I think that gender equality in work is a myth. Or in my experience anyway. Up until last year, where I work, the male workers were paid nearly twice as much as the female, for doing exactly the same job - a job at which women were, as a rule, better.

I think that occurances such as these are now in the minority of experiences in the workforce. Again, I can not talk with knowledge about the current stance of gender equality in the major countries, such as the U.S and the U.K, but here there this nothing like that at all going on in work places. As jay ( ) said, entities which currently use practices such as these should come under criminal investigation.

Anyway, positive discrimination fails. While women may get some jobs on the basis of gender, they will still be ridiculed.

Of course they will, as are men, homosexuals, environmentalists, people of certain ethnic races and/or of certain religious beliefs... the list goes on. We are never going to fully cure the streak of prejeduce in society, but we can at least make it more fair and more acceptable in places that law has some control over.

Female politicians are vilified, female police officers are harrassed.

Again, I don't think that there is a way to fully counter this abuse. This is no longer a matter that police can keep a strict eye over, such as practices in work environments, but acts of certain individuals which are hard to track down and prove. It's not only females who are copping slack though. I'm sure that handsome policemen are harrassed by women and I know certain men who are ridiculed for their choice of profession as it is not traditional, such as chefs and dancers.

It's still fine for a man to sleep around, where a woman would be a slag. And so on.

It's fine for a women to cook or do the dishes, but if a man does it he's "pussy-whipped". It's fine for a woman to explore her sexuality, but if a man does it he's immediately branded as a homosexual and is seperated from society. Women are not battling alone against the ignorance of stereotypes, yet you'll find that most feminists preach only about the stereotypes that are connected to females and forget completely that they too apply stereotypes.

~MonkeyCatcher~

 

[mehastings]

I'm wondering if this discussion should again be split from the ?original thread. It's an interesting conversation, but totally off topic.

Before I even start I should say that I am not in favor of blatant quota hiring. The companies that do so are only making the corporate environment more hostile toward women and minorities. I do, however, consider myself a feminist. I don't burn bras, hate men, or promote my own agenda to the detriment of other minority groups. I do think that I deserve equal treatment in every aspect. I know that I can do any job I set my sights on, and that I deserve to be paid equally for it. I believe that having a child is my right, but not my responsibility and it shouldn't play a factor either way in potential employment.

True. And I’m still waiting for the day for a female politician to be proud she’s a female and not try to act like one of the boys. Cuntaleeza (sic) Rice, Hillary Clinton, etc. I’d say Thatcher but I’m not even sure she was human…

Why? A female politician should be "one of the boys" except, perhaps we could replace boys with a more gender neutral term. She should do whatever the male politicians do. Isn't it really about what they are doing for us, the citizens? Also, a lot of that perception that women politicians aren't proud to be women is media mania. America used to love to make fun of Janet Reno just because she was manly looking. That doesn't mean that she didn't go home and buy lace bras (or whatever else we want to call "womanly").

Of course not /all/ males would be better than /all/ females at this job, as I think that I stated when I said I was speaking in generalised terms. I was just trying to make the point that it is ridiculous that a female gets a job over a more qualified or better suited male applicant just because of the fact that she is a female. They should look at qualifications and/or suitability for a job rather than gender, as I think that this makes things a lot fairer. Yeah I know, "Life isn't fair", but it's things like this statement which keep it that way

I think you may have missed the point I was trying to make above. I wasn't saying anything about all men being better than all women. What I was trying to say is that there are very few jobs where strength is the only thing you need. In fact, I can't come up with one off the top of my head. However, men in male dominated fields love to let people believe otherwise. The example I was making is that I may not be as strong as my male counterparts, but I have other advantages that they don't. In reality, any person who is way too heavy for me to lift is probably unsafe for two people to carry down stairs anyway. In the past, a woman may not have been considered for my job for a lot of reasons. Equal opportunity hiring has certainly changed that, and I appreciate it. Quota hiring, is less prevalent than you may think, particularly when it comes to women.

I think that occurances such as these are now in the minority of experiences in the workforce. Again, I can not talk with knowledge about the current stance of gender equality in the major countries, such as the U.S and the U.K, but here there this nothing like that at all going on in work places.

I'm not trying to be ageist in any way here (I'm not even that much older than you are), so please don't be offended by what I have to say. However, I can see from your profile that you have just recently turned 17. I have to suggest that you probably don't have the experience in the workforce to state that this doesn't happen in NZ. I don't know what type of jobs a teenager in NZ would have. In the US you might work in a fast food resturant or a retail store. Minimum wage jobs are not usually the places where gender inequality occurs, so you may not have come into contact with it yet. It isn't something that is advertised in want adds or discussed in interviews. You'll never have a job interview where a person will come right out and inform you that "I intend to pay you less than your male counterparts (this is the point I was making with the $.83)" or "I'm not going to hire you based on the theory that at some point in the next 15 years you may get pregnant", but that doesn't mean that these things don't happen. In reality, many women don't even realize they are getting paid less or being discriminated against.

It's fine for a women to cook or do the dishes, but if a man does it he's "pussy-whipped". It's fine for a woman to explore her sexuality, but if a man does it he's immediately branded as a homosexual and is seperated from society. Women are not battling alone against the ignorance of stereotypes, yet you'll find that most feminists preach only about the stereotypes that are connected to females and forget completely that they too apply stereotypes.

I find that a lot of feminists align strongly with minorities and GLBTQ people. In my household, the man does the laundry and some of the dishes. He's a lousy cook, otherwise he'd probably do that sometimes too. He's not pussy whipped, he just likes clean clothes and doesn't have as much underwear as I do. My closest male friend loves to cook and does a lot of the cleaning in his house too. I've never heard any person in our age group (or even my mother's) make a statement like that, which is good since I have a tendency to talk back a tad. Anyone who feels that way is simply an asshole. I do agree with your statement about homosexuality, and I think it's wrong. It goes both ways though. Men sleep around and they're players or bachelors. Women are simply sluts or whores.

 

[mehastings]

Now that you mention it *all* books have a decided lack of spanking.
Well, maybe not _The Story of O_.

And platypus fondling. I’ve yet to read a solid novel with a satisfying platypus fondling section.
I remain, in wait…
j

BTW, have you tried the Sleeping Beauty trilogy by A. N. Roquelaure (Anne Rice)? It's not exactly a classic, but there's quite a bit of spanking... No platypus though.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

I do, however, consider myself a feminist. I don't burn bras, hate men, or promote my own agenda to the detriment of other minority groups. I do think that I deserve equal treatment in every aspect. I know that I can do any job I set my sights on, and that I deserve to be paid equally for it. I believe that having a child is my right, but not my responsibility and it shouldn't play a factor either way in potential employment.

I think that I will clarify myself here by saying I meant feminist in the term of a woman who believes herself to be /above/ males. In other words reverse sexism. Sorry for the confusion

What I was trying to say is that there are very few jobs where strength is the only thing you need. In fact, I can't come up with one off the top of my head. However, men in male dominated fields love to let people believe otherwise. The example I was making is that I may not be as strong as my male counterparts, but I have other advantages that they don't.

I was only using strength as an example. I understand that females have other advantages which males don't, for example their pain threshold, I was just saying that in a profession which mainly relies on the advantages that males can offer, it seems silly to hire a female just because she is female.

I have to suggest that you probably don't have the experience in the workforce to state that this doesn't happen in NZ. I don't know what type of jobs a teenager in NZ would have. In the US you might work in a fast food resturant or a retail store. Minimum wage jobs are not usually the places where gender inequality occurs, so you may not have come into contact with it yet.

I was aware of this, I was just going on the fact that NZ is very strongly PC and anything like this is reported in the papers and as a general public very frowned upon. It's a small country and most believe strongly in upkeeping morals and so things like this do not happen for very long without coming under the spotlight. I know that I have not had much experience in the work industry, and that you would know more about the actual conditions, I don't think that it is a serious issue here as we have a highly feminist Prime Minister whose main agenda while in power has been to raise the all-round living quality of females (including in some places where it has become slightly bias).

In my household, the man does the laundry and some of the dishes. He's a lousy cook, otherwise he'd probably do that sometimes too. He's not pussy whipped, he just likes clean clothes and doesn't have as much underwear as I do.

NZ is oviously a farming country and our main (well, only) source of income comes from this. A "real" man in NZ works on a farm, does all the grunty outside work, and sits back at night while the woman does the dishes. This is where the US/UK differs strongly from our country. This really needs to change.

Anyone who feels that way is simply an asshole.

I agree!

~MonkeyCatcher~

 

[clueless]

Hey monkeycatcher. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am not sure what you said about NZ being different is true. I know someone who came from NZ a couple of years ago. She is a teacher and came to teach here because of the positive discrimination for men to go into teaching in NZ. She said the government considered there were too few male teachers so they started advertising jobs in male magazines and offering them not to have to repay their student loans, special golden handshakes and bonuses, etc.

 

[jay]

But not all of Stephen's novels will be easily forgotten […] a few of his novels and other works I see passing the trials of time most fiction writers face, such as The Shining, The Stand, most of his novellas, some of his short stories... and a few others I am surely forgetting. I can see King disected in literature classes a hundred years from now.

Quite possibly. As I said, I’m just being optimistic and maybe a bit hopeful.
I honestly can’t such pap having longevity though. Even on a dark day.

It’s hard to say what –or how- time weeds things out.
If King retired (or died) around the time when he was writing almost readable stuff (most if not all of which are themes already in “literature”) then maybe it would be slightly different.
Although history has generally not been very kind to ‘genre’ writers.
But continued decades of really abysmal tomes will surely not be a helpful factor.

Sadly though, King is already in some University classes.

A female politician should be "one of the boys" except, perhaps we could replace boys with a more gender neutral term. She should do whatever the male politicians do.

I don’t want to get too into the ‘feminist’ stuff (frankly, I prefer working and conversing with females), and I *did* mean to put ‘one of the boys’ in my ever-used annoying ‘apostrophe things’. Sorry.
All in all, I agree. There should be no differentiation. My point was this seemingly biological affect of when a woman gets power she stops producing estrogen and cranks up the testosterone. Maybe this is what it takes. Or the, er um, hardness is a formed ‘exoskeleton’ to be seen as simply *not* a ‘sex object’ and only a colleague.

Some years ago while working for the surgery department -something very, very dominated by men- we got a young and stunningly beautiful woman on the team. I for the life of my could not ever picture how the situation was for her, to be the only woman in a whole department (cardiac surgery no less, so this is the gods of the Gawd Complex) and the closest person on the bullshit-hierarchy to her is the (perceived as) lowly scrub nurse. In short time she hacked off all her lovely hair and eventually transferred somewhere else. Sad.

It’s a catch-22. If this affect isn’t achieved it’s a reversal; look at Imelda Marcos: an outright tyrant and criminal and many levels. But she kept the feminine edge and what is she known for?
Buying shoes.

Good points on Reno.

BTW, have you tried the Sleeping Beauty trilogy by A. N. Roquelaure (Anne Rice)? It's not exactly a classic, but there's quite a bit of spanking... No platypus though.

I’ve tried throwing darts at them but even they wanted no part of her.
(I was working at a bookstore when they came out and it was absolutely hysterical to see the looks on some of the faces of people (we had a lot of frequent customers) after they bought those thinking it was some new Lestat rubbish. I, of course, acting *very* interested [cue Bugs Bunny’esqe “Aint I a Stinker?!”], asked them what they thought of it. – Ahhhh, where have all the good times gone…)

j

 

[mehastings]

I think that I will clarify myself here by saying I meant feminist in the term of a woman who believes herself to be /above/ males. In other words reverse sexism. Sorry for the confusion

Chauvanism is much more appropriate in that context. Yes, it does go both ways. By talking about feminism in a negative manner, you simply connect it with a very small minority. It's like saying priests like to touch small boys. Only a small few do, but it's a really damaging misconception.

I was only using strength as an example. I understand that females have other advantages which males don't, for example their pain threshold, I was just saying that in a profession which mainly relies on the advantages that males can offer, it seems silly to hire a female just because she is female.

I understood exactly what you were trying to say. I'm saying that I've yet to come across a profession that women can't do as well as men. Until they offer a job peeing standing up I will hold that opinion. The only advantages men have are size and strength, and even that isn't universal. BTW, on a side note. The thing about pain threshold is something of an urban legend. There's scientific evidence leaning both ways.

I was aware of this, I was just going on the fact that NZ is very strongly PC and anything like this is reported in the papers and as a general public very frowned upon. It's a small country and most believe strongly in upkeeping morals and so things like this do not happen for very long without coming under the spotlight. I know that I have not had much experience in the work industry, and that you would know more about the actual conditions, I don't think that it is a serious issue here as we have a highly feminist Prime Minister whose main agenda while in power has been to raise the all-round living quality of females (including in some places where it has become slightly bias).

I understand that, and considering, your difference in pay rate is a lot lower than the US/UK. However, gender bias still exists. It's one of those things that isn't talked about, and isn't often addressed by the media. It's also something very difficult to prove on an individual basis, which may have something to do with the fact that lots of people don't believe these things still happen. Honestly, your statement about "real men" and farming just confirms that NZ isn't as progressive as you'd like to hope.

 

[mehastings]

I’ve tried throwing darts at them but even they wanted no part of her.
(I was working at a bookstore when they came out and it was absolutely hysterical to see the looks on some of the faces of people (we had a lot of frequent customers) after they bought those thinking it was some new Lestat rubbish. I, of course, acting *very* interested [cue Bugs Bunny’esqe “Aint I a Stinker?!”], asked them what they thought of it. – Ahhhh, where have all the good times gone…)

I picked one of these books up for a dollar before I went on vacation. I thought it was an interesting idea and I'd never read anything by her before. I actually thought it was incredibly boring, and I was glad I hadn't bothered with her other books. There's only so much spanking you can write about before you are being repetitive. I don't know, maybe I'm just not built for erotica. I'm sure you're supposed to get so turned on that you don't notice the story is for crap. I take it that Rice's other novels are not like this at all? I had always assumed they were somewhat erotic, but I guess this is just a leap beyond.

 

[jay]

I actually thought it was incredibly boring

I can *easily* picture this quote on the cover of every Ann Rice book. I’ll contact her publisher and see if we can’t get you a blurb with commission.

I take it that Rice's other novels are not like this at all?

Over the years I’ve yet to hear a satisfying reason as to *any* appeal to anything Rice-related except, “oh, vampires!!”

Well, we’re fully back on topic now…
j

 

[Stewart]

Over the years I’ve yet to hear a satisfying reason as to *any* appeal to anything Rice-related except, “oh, vampires!!”

I read the first five books of Rice's Vampire Chronicles and, looking back, there were only two that I really enjoyed: Interview With The Vampire and Memnoch The Devil, the first and the last of the series.*

Interview... was a great book as, for the first time to me, it turned the narrative onto that of the vampire. Horror beforehand had always cast the vampire as the antagonist, some bloodsucking evil thing that had to be defeated at all costs. This one showed the vampire's perspective, almost a family story, and was something refreshing to my experience of the vampire horror genre. It dealt more with the characters and emotions of these undead creatures and, obviously, paralleled some social concerns of Rice's in addition to the death of her daughter.

Memnoch... I enjoyed although my recollections of the whole series is somewhat hazy. It seemed that the last two in the main pentology were tacked on, The Tale of the Body Thief and this, but since the three between Interview... and this were, for the most part, crap this focused on, if I remember correctly, religious (well, it was Catholic so maybe I should use the term hagiophilia gone mad) perception of death. I may be wrong though but it was certainly one of the five chronicles that had some content and wasn't just page after page of words for no reason.

The books between told the history of LeStat and how ridiculous they got culmminating in the stupid life of a rock star.

* Although the series continues, and merges with the Mayfair Witches stories, I have not read them and doubt I ever will. They are, however, on my shelf but I think I've grown out of all that.

 

[jay]

on my shelf but I think I've grown out of all that.

That was kind of my behind-the-scenes point.
If it’s a stepping stone for some, cool. If it’s iconic because, you know, wearing black makes one *really* “different” (a concept I’ve never quite understood), then I’m lost.
All in all, it’s really, really bad writing.
There seems to be a vague split in the fanbase too. Mention other (i.e. better) vampire novels to them and they hiss and whine and of course don’t look into them as if Rice has written the “bible” for them. The other lot may look into other books on the subject but stray very little from the path of the “horror” section.
Thankfully, a few do stream out and notice that a bookstore has many other sections and, you know, clothes come in a wide assortment of colours and mascara is not always your friend.

For an interest perspective switch check out John Gardner’s ‘re-telling’ of the Beowulf tale from the point of the monster, _Grendel_ (1971).

Rice’s take on Jezuz will arrive on 1 November. Be sure to wear your black jeans…(and hopefully someone will provide with the spanking data within)
j

 

[Jennifer]

you'll find that most feminists preach only about the stereotypes that are connected to females and forget completely that they too apply stereotypes.

Isn't this the basis of all argument and opinion?

Not to get too far into the debate, I would just comment that although there are instances of men being discriminated against on the basis of gender, the instances for women are far more numerous. Just because it happens to men too doesn't mean it's right for it to happen to women.

And sweeping generalisations about feminists are useless, because going on the original definition, every sensible person should be one (ie: it is not right to discriminate against women, and we oppose it). Now men (and many women) feel permitted to use "feminist" almost as an insult, as though it's a completely unreasonable philosophy. That's kind of what I meant earlier about being set back about thirty years.

I'm sorry, but I refuse to just sit back and accept injustices against women just because it's politically unfashionable, and just because other injustices happen. (By the way, I suspect that the people calling men who cook "pussywhipped" are the same people who think that women belong in the kitchen and not in the workplace. That is, not generally women.)

And I'll murder the first man who expects me to cater to his every whim...

Edit:

I think that I will clarify myself here by saying I meant feminist in the term of a woman who believes herself to be /above/ males. In other words reverse sexism.

But women ARE better...!
These are few and far between. Once again, women who want to stand up for themselves are given bad press by a few idiots in their ranks, and a few men who want to send us back to the Dark Ages. Feminist does not equal sexist.

You have been warned...

 

[Stewart]

Oh, shut up and make my dinner!

 

[Jennifer]

I'm surprised you can't hear the knives being sharpened already

 

[jay]

Oh, shut up and make my dinner!

As President of the Jennifer Fan club I’ll have to (at first) kindly ask you to cease and desist from addressing her in this way. Failure to comply will mean you will then be asked to play “chase” with the British police force.
If you, however, decide to take part in their new scientific study of “What is the Effect of 8 (?) 9mm Bullets Point Blank To the Head Like, Exactly?” is up to you.
Or them.

j
who’s a big supporter of the idea that whomever cooks, the other person does the dishes. But as I live alone and my plants have yet to master “sponging” properly, I’m always left doing both…