wrathofkublakhan

Indulge me if you will .... which one?

Well, then. I'll have to try this tomorrow!

Gadzooks, samgrosser! Well written!

It seems that the things we avoid tend to be genre based and/or we get clues from the covers of the books. I sometimes wish I could have a best of list in the genres I tend to avoid. It was a fluke when I read Lonesome Dove; and I enjoyed it. Chances of me browsing the "westerns" section are slim. Later it won a Pulitzer Prize and then was made into a popular mini-series. Now, some may avoid genres because they have had crummy experiences dabbling in the arena, others may avoid an area because it simply isn't in their interest. In general, the idea of a vampire book seems darn silly - especially in the modern world! However, if you wanted to dabble in the genre for a taste, ahem, you might try: Anne Rice Kim Harrison Laurell K. Hamilton Mario Acevedo

If a book can make me cry (and it happens) I embrace it and just love each and every word that got me there. We, as world-weary readers, tend to be rather cynical - if an author can strike that chord, bless us all.

I hope M*A*S*H won't be left out the conversation -- that book changed my life.

Welcome to this forum, Roger - hope you enjoy the visits. We are http://bookclubforum.co.uk/ ... bookmark it! peace.

Hmmmm, that's interesting ... can you name a couple?

Well, I think some predictably is necessary: I mean, the hero has to kiss the girl in the end! Don't we want justice served and know that the villain got his own? Yet, I can understand some people getting tired simply from reading the same type of books over and over again. Usually in a mystery it won't be a stranger sneaking about, it'll be a character that our sleuth interacts with: so we anticipate, narrow it down to two or three; when the solution is given we felt we knew it all along. I mean, Red Herrings exist for a reason - a well written mystery should surprise us but we should at least get it. Sure, there is a lot of dime store crap out there. There must be a million publishing houses now. Yet, when I read The Time Travelers Wife - I had no idea what would happen even though I had been told throughout the book what would happen! Maybe the lesson is: stick with novels and avoid cookbook genre trash that some author spits out in six weeks. Some guys (like Agatha Christie and Louis L'Amour) published a LOT of books, up to a hundred I'd guess; and these were pretty good authors in my opinion -- however, certainly predictable once you've read the first twenty.

"I hate her, she's dead AND her ghost writer!" that's pretty funny, kell

I avoid ... stepping in dog poo. However, when I'm browsing in a book store, I don't even wander into non-fiction or biographies unless looking for a specific book. In the fiction sections, I head straight for the fantasy/sci fi, then over to the mysteries, then I'll drift through the novels, romance and young adult areas. I've listened to a few audio books, but wouldn't buy one unless going on a long trip - which I should've done today since I drove from Los Angeles to San Francisco today and am typing on my little laptop in a motel room.

I can certainly agree with the "formula" part of the writing - I think it is inherent with these sub-genres. Mystery novels, westerns, romance all have certain expectations (it seems to me). If, by saying crime/thriller we are talking about the mystery genre; I think the hook is almost always how eccentric the sleuth is in the books. Hercule, Marple, Sherlock, Nero Wolfe all had quirks that we enjoyed just as much as the mystery - I'd go so far as to say the mystery itself becomes secondary. This gets taken to the extreme in television - Monk, for example or even Columbo. The only real thriller that I think have read have been spy thrillers - James Bond or Jason Bourne, page turners full of peril. They're fun, yet exhausting!

My problem with ... horror ...is... books.... like..... The Silence of the Lambs. Now, I've only seen the movie and once was enough! I completely acknowledge that it's a brilliant work but I don't want to go through THAT again! What an experience. A friend of mine read the book. She told me that the scene where the girl is kidnapped, the guy is so twisted that when she speaks all he hears is the sound of bees buzzing! He has zero sense of the girl as a person, human, whatever. Yikes! I don't know if I want to go there, y'know?

This makes a lot of sense to me. A global attitude shift, revolution, the emergence of the United States as a world player, even rise of industrialization bringing workers from the fields into the cities - brought up and really created a middle class - the sense of independence and opportunity - must've had a huge impact on the point of view of authors. Much like the artists post-1912, no longer the creators are of the higher classes - works no longer necessarily by commission. I don't know if this applies to the writers but it certainly was true for the painters and musicians. What's fun to me is the broadening awareness of the context in which these books have been written - and so, understanding that context, brings a fresh appreciation to said literature. In this, I think I might enjoy the pre-1920 classics even more. In general though, I think the perception of a "classic" probably won't be defined so easily in the minds of most; many may think Victorian, some may think vintage, some may think arcane language. For me, I like the idea of understanding the broader scope of a style of literature and setting it within the context -- and then promptly ignoring all that: and simply enjoy the book.

Wow, even today I suppose. I'd've thought that readers, (ahem) being readers, would be more open minded. I can't imagine letting my fat head get in the way of my good friends; Agatha Christie, Anne McCaffrey, Sue Grafton, Janet Evanovich or Jennifer Roberson.

They change the entire book in some cases, here is a quote I found on one of the Harry Potter books. http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/gf/differences-gf.htmlhttp://www.wizardnews.com/story.20050308.html

Oh my, welcome to the forum! That's quite a list; maybe we can redefine you as a "valuable new member"! Hope you enjoy weaving the various threads running through this forum.

Breathtakingly brilliant, Andy. This has made me do some exploration via wikipedia on Modernism. While I was fully aware of the impact via the Futurists and eventually Dada on art forms such as Dance, Theater and Music (Erik Satie, Laban, Loie Fuller, Picasso, Diaghilev come to mind) I had no real grasp of it's impact on literature. I'd not made the connection (I think I have now tho) of James Joyce, T. S. Eliot, Sam Beckett, DH Lawrence actually applying the tenets of the art form to their work. It kind of fits now in a new way. I remember reading the wonderful little book; Eats, Shoots and Leaves where she describes such fun things as George Bernard Shaw wanting to reject the 'b' in dumb and bomb, if I remember right Gertrude Stein wanted to ban commas and the Futurists wanted to toss out all punctuation altogether. It's much more fun to think of it now in the context of a broader art movement. Maybe now I'll appreciate Jack Kerouac more...

Yikes, my ex used to take me shopping; she'd visit five stores to look at the same thing and then finally decide (or not). In fact, we "shopped" for a sofa for five years and never bought one! I've decided I like buying more than shopping..... So ... it's a really a book about shopping. Egads, thanks for the tip and I think I'll pass!

Reading through this thread, am I right that there is some consensus that a classic is defined pre-1920? Is this something that is generally understood of which I've never seen before? Maybe there is a break down of classifications?

Marketing for the most part; though I think the entire book may be re-edited as well!

BTW -- I'll be first in line for the new Nancy Drew movie, the trailers look great!

Well, take a look at: http://www.recipenet.org/health/recipes/recipkit/slow_cooker_bread1.htm and: http://www.recipenet.org/health/articles/crockpot.htm remember -- it's supposed to be fun, otherwise why bother?

Wow, a LOT of people in this thread are mentioning the Shopaholic series -- can someone write a review? Is it recommended for a rough and ready Manly Man like myself?

Argh, you mean the 1970's and 1980's? Child, that was just last year to this old fool. Thanks to this fine book forum, I've been reading some of the children's classics that slipped under my manly radar as a youth - stuff I'd never have touched as an insecure boy, but now that I'm a man I can embrace childish things (a small paraphrase from I Corinthians 13). Some really good classics that I have found so far: Anne of Green Gables - what a great story! I know it's a series as Anne grows up and goes to college, so far I've not read them. The first was superb. The Secret Garden - brilliant use of language and insightful into any child's early experiences. Black Beauty - it was part of this forum's Reader Circle and received some criticism from the group, justly so: but it felt great to have "experienced the read" as I knew so many others had read it. National Velvet - next on the list, but I'm tangenting in other areas right now: can't read kids books ALL the time, y'know. My Side Of The Mountain - I loved this book as a kid, I think it's a classic but I'm not sure - I actually bought a copy for a friend. I dunno, it's a tough call -- when does a Kid's Book become a Children's Classic? What's the difference between Charlotte's Web and Nancy Drew and the Mystery of the Brass Bound Trunk? For me, it's a blend of nostalgia and an exploration of things timely, if it can hit true on an emotional note: so much the better.