Lovelyish

I wish I felt more compelled to read in general!  However, I would have to say your choices are far more intellectual then my summer reads would ever be.  My beach-y books would have to chick-lit books, probably as Sophie Kinsella’s Shopaholic books and Jane Green.  Or Nicholas Sparks romance.  Happy reading!

Great choices, but when I think of the beach its total relaxation time for me. Those seem like great books but take a lot to get into. I would choose: Eat Pray Love, The White Oleander, Julie & Julia, something along those lines. I read The order of the phoenix on the beach once, and it was perrrfect! Same with Eat Pray Love. xx

Catcher in the Rye is a genius book about  the frustration and occasional hopelessness of trying to live in earnest and purposefully within an ego-bent, materialistist, disingenuous society. It’s not about teenage angst–at least, that’s not the whole of it.

Also, Salinger is definitely in the top five greatest writers of the 20th century. He’s brilliant. I’ve been reading all his short stories, including Franny and Zooey this summer. He writes in a way that makes the reader conjure a feeling, a picture, that otherwise would be very hard to conjure. That takes brilliance, and uncommon talent as a writer.
I could go on. But I find that people who quickly dismiss Catcher in the Rye as “terrible, about a spoiled brat” have only read it once in highschool at some point, and missed the overarching themes of the book entirely. Or, prefer plot over character developement and excellent writing.

I plan on working on reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read The Fountainhead as a beach read a few years ago, so I thought I could do Atlas Shrugged in one summer. The problem is that the book is so huge I get intimidated and discouraged. Which is why this will be my third summer with the book. If halfway through the summer I decide (as usual) that I want something lighter as a beach read, I’ll probably read some Chelsea Handler books.

My parents are huge Dave Ramsey fans too! I’ve been meaning to check out that book for awhile. Could always use more help with finances.

@Rebekka Holman@facebook - Holden is seriously flawed, but he has an accurate view of the problems with this society, much akin to T.S. Eliot, or Thoreau. His English teacher points out how he’s poorly dealing with what he sees–that the problem is definitely there, but that we should strive to change that as much as we can, not give into it or hide from it.

It *is* a good, excellent book. Not everyone will like Holden, and I don’t blame them. But I’m talking more about the point of the book, the themes, that is what I liked. And it’s the same theme in many of Salinger’s other works, that I think he does just as well, if not better, here. I disagree with you, and so would many others who are not “lesser read”.

And, I read for character and good writing, not for popularity and forced plot. Just because certain characters have flaws doesn’t mean the overall point isn’t well made, or the writing isn’t good. To dismiss the book just because you don’t like the personality of a character, to say it isn’t a good book for that reason alone, is “intellectually dishonest and pompous”, not, as I was doing, pointing out the discrepancies in such blanket criticism. 

But, am I right that you probably did only read it once in high school? My saying that wasn’t meant to be any sort of blow to others’ intelligence. It’s more talking about the point at which we are in life to understand some of the things Holden sees, and cannot stand. Normally we have to be out from under our parents into the real world, to see the sort of “phoniness”, the sort of hopeless waste of life he sees. It hit home with me after the second and third read. That’s all I meant by that.

As for the plot vs. character “quip”–that is the manner of poor literature, I’m afraid. That’s not *my* opinion, and not one born of being “lesser read”. Good literature is driven by good characters. Not good in a moral sense, but good in the sense that they are realistic, developed, and show us something about the world around us in a way that we’ve never seen it before. Not pawns caught up in something bigger than themselves. Once again, that’s not my opinion–but the common belief of those far “better read” than myself. 

But, please, keep making assumptions of my intelligence.

Also–this isn’t my favorite book. But I do defend excellent work if it is being unfairly dumped on, if I can. I don’t mind someone disliking a good book. What I do mind, is someone unfairly saying something is bad or ineffective, just because it isn’t their cup of tea, when it is actually very good. For instance, I cannot stand “Hunchback of Notre Dame”. But I will sure as hell say it’s well written, and deserves its place among the classics, and is in fact “good”. It just isn’t my particular cup of tea. See the difference?

Les Miserables–now, that is a Hugo novel I could get behind. It is very well-written, and beautiful. (Just a side thought)  

@Rebekka Holman@facebook - If you think I was mean for pointing out the recipe for what most good writers would require of a good book, I’m sorry. As I said multiple times, it’s not my opinion, and it’s not my bubble you’re attempting to burst. It’s the opinion of multiple scholars, writers, and critics. But, maybe you could provide some examples for what you think are critically acclaimed, good books that are driven on plot alone. I am all ears.

I am not being dishonest. That’s really all I can say. I wouldn’t have put myself out there to defend a piece I didn’t believe deserved defending. 

Also, once again–I didn’t get offended by your disliking a book that I happen to like. I got offended by your saying it was a “terrible book”, which I took to mean (though I may have been mistaken), what you thought of it objectively. 

I am totally fine with people not liking different things. No one’s taste is the same. But it’s a lot more honest, if we’re going for honesty, to note all the good qualifications of a piece that has earned it, while saying it’s not your thing, if it is not your thing. For example, my husband and I like extremely different types of books–he wasn’t too keen on Catcher in the Rye himself. But he admits it was, in an objective sense, a good book. Good in the sense that it is well-written, it has relevant, well-presented themes, and is beautifully crafted. And it’s stood the test of time.

Also, I give props to people who like things that are truly good, in an objective sense, even if I don’t like them at all. I gave the example of Hunchback of Notre Dame–I’ll give another: “Far From the Madding Crowd”. Beautiful book. Excellent writing. But I HATED the main heroine. Boy, I could have ripped her head off. For the life of me, I couldn’t finish it. I hated the book, in a way. But I would still hail it for all its good qualities–it is by no means a “terrible” book.

“Lesser reader” and “lesser read” are different things. Duly noted. I was using it in different instances in cohesion with the idea you were trying to convey. Both as an adjective and noun as I went. 

Also–I am not sure how you were attempting to curb meanness, as I was never trying to be mean. I don’t think you did a good job, though. 

@Rebekka Holman@facebook - Sorry that I came off bitchy. I can see how I might have. Just know, that wasn’t my intention. My feathers were ruffled, because I hate when I something that is good is called terrible. That even goes for things I hate, that I know are good. I would call someone out for saying Far from the Madding Crowd was terrible, too.

Also–maybe I need to clarify myself. (I am getting the creeping feeling that we may have missed each other at some point..me, too, not meaning to imply just you at all). I don’t think plot is a bad thing..! Heck, without plot, things wouldn’t happen..obviously! But, when plot is all you have, the characters come off as one-dimensional, or only show one single quality as the story permits. That’s at the very worst. If a story leans more on plot muscle than character-developement-muscle, that doesn’t always mean it’s a bad book. It just seems that the people who prefer those types of books don’t like Catcher in the Rye very much. They would be types to like Pilgrim’s Progress, or something more…a to b to c. Pilgrim’s Progress is hailed as a classic, too. It definitely isn’t driven by *just* plot, but it’s about as close as you can get while still remaining good. And, man, it’s just not my preference. 

But, if we’re both being honest–and this is my main point–a book can meet qualifications for being good, even if the both of us hated it. There are outside standards for what makes a book “great”, separating it from the more mediocre or less-thought-out books.If you liked it and I hated it, it would still be good, and I would have to admit it. Just a thought.

@Rebekka Holman@facebook - Character development and use of themes aren’t subjective. You just have to know enough about them to know whether or not they are done well, or aren’t.

And by your own rationale, all books are on the same playing field for being good or bad. But that simply isn’t so. Some books are just not as artistic, well thought out, or excellent. And little of it has to do with opinion. It’s the ability to recognize elegance and skill from a literary standpoint. That *is* possible. And I wasn’t arguing ad populum–I was arguing that *experts*, people who know a lot about good writing, a lot more than you or I, would argue that Catcher and the Rye is an example of excellent writing. Even if the majority of people thought otherwise because of their lack of knowledge of what makes a literary piece good, that doesn’t change what does indeed make a literary piece good; and the fact that experts, because they have studied it, *can* tell what makes a literary piece good doesn’t make their stance less valid because there are less of them–thus, there is no way I was arguing ad populum. In short: Just because it goes over some people’s heads, doesn’t make it bad. And it doesn’t change the objective stance that some books are good just because some who are less inclined to recognize its objective value say it is bad.

There are ways of telling whether or not something is a good piece of writing, beyond whether or not I like it or not. Take Shakespeare: Shakespeare is good. Even people who say they can’t stand Shakespeare have to admit he was a good writer. He has elegant uniqueness, precision of language, an ability to use themes and paint pictures with words that stands out from the crowd–this goes way beyond grammar. Also, he’s stood the test of time.

So, you’re saying that after critics and scholars and playwrights have hailed him as a great writer, that you can stand up and say after no research into his time period, after only reading just one of his books, after no knowledge of his themes or writing style, that if you disliked him that that makes him “bad”, end of story?

You would be laughed out of the English department. 

@Rebekka Holman@facebook - Listen. I’m definitely not an English expert. Heck, I haven’t even studied English literature under an official expert, outside of highschool that is. I’ve studied it on the side, but I am no authority on any of this.

I wasn’t trying to name drop–I haven’t even read all of Shakespeare, myself! I was trying to use examples of books that *others* have hailed as being excellent, and for good reason, that may or may not appeal to others for various reasons. But to show, that they are still good and use literary devices well, even if I don’t like a particular story or character for my own personal reasons. I wasn’t trying to prop them up to show how much I’ve read or anything. I have a long way to go in the reading department,  to be honest.

I feel like you’re not getting me, and that is likely my fault.

 All I’m trying to say is there is an objective way of telling whether or not a piece of literature is good (as in, it uses literary methods in a beautiful, elegant, unique way to speak truly and insightfully to the human condition). That’s why people are able to study it–because there are objectives to study. It’s a heck of a lot more than their own opinion they’re getting a degree in, after all. Just because someone doesn’t understand the intricacies of a certain literary piece doesn’t mean they’re stupid–it just means they aren’t aware of some vital information that would help them understand it. But, it’s completely possible for anyone to make themselves aware of it, and study on their own. In a word: the inaccessibility of any given piece of writing, whether through its complex use of language or allusion or abstract use of literary tools, doesn’t mean it is bad. It just means the reader needs to uncover these things on their own, understand them, and then the piece will no longer be inaccessible. 

For instance, let’s say, there’s a poem that is beautiful and full of gorgeous language and meaning and depth, but it’s written in French and I can’t understand, because I don’t know a lick of French. Does that mean the poem isn’t beautiful anymore, because I can’t read or pick up on yet what makes it beautiful? Certainly not! I would have to translate it somehow to understand its beauty, but that doesn’t mean it’s not beautiful before I am able to understand it. And it doesn’t mean I’m stupid, either. It just means I need to make myself aware of what I’m not yet aware of. 

That’s all I’m trying to say. 

asylum sounds really interesting! :3 ahh I love reading~

@raspberryjade@xanga - You should definitely pick it up! It’s really good
@aheartofglitter@xanga - I wanted to make this post a little different than typical ‘beachy reads’ post I also had my iPod with all the HP audio books! I listed to Order of the Phoenix on the way to the beach!