Hello Gentle Reader
From the looks of what i have made a list of, i have eleven books that i should read. However i shall get to them when i get to them. As of right now i need to take a break from reading books and just let my mind relax. i know i have started: "Savage Detectives," by Roberto Bolano, and "The Black Prince," by Iris Murdoch but i will get to them when i get to them. i guess it does not help that i have a library card now, and can rent out books like crazy. but for the time being i know i should just stop and take a breather. Try to focus on my writing and et cetera.
****
I have known of the novel by Kazuo Ishiguro for quite a while (the novels name is "Never Let Me Go,"). Now sometime in 2010 a movie adaption is set to be released. i must admit as a person who prefers the detailed and richly characterized form of novels over the rather shallow and often surface view of movies, i have little to no expectations.
Though the movie adaption of this novel may be worth something. that however should be tested upon its release. Some people are avid movie watchers and could tell you the director, and the actors and rate the actors on a scale from 1 - 10. I on the other hand am not that kind of person. I can see past the notion of the shallow depth and find myself often disappointed with the lack of depth and detail in a movie.
I can think of a few movies made from novels that were just dreadful for those that have actually read the novels.
"The Golden Compass," by Phillip Pullman was dreadful. The book was far better. the Movie adaption was dreadful, just dreadful. The ending was wrong, which pissed me off the most. I mean how can you get the ending wrong? Start the movie right, and end it right. I guess some people just don't see that.
"The Cat in The Hat." Lets just face it a book that is based on pictures, and some word play. you just can't turn that into a feature film.
"The Blind Assassin." I must confess that i have never seen this movie personally, but i will say that i have read the book, and i don't think that a movie could even try to do this novel justice. its a story within a story, with a novel written by a character in the novel itself. honestly you may enjoy the book but leave it at that.
However there have been some movies that have been adapted from books, that were done quite well, i think.
"Fight Club." Done quite well, and presented Chuck Palahniuk's novel in an interesting light. The acting was amazing, and not shallow however you still knew that the characters where the actors (mainly because its Brad Pitt, Edward Norton, and Helena Bohemian Carter)
"Trainspotting." Hard to understand, but great set of characters and actors to play them. The adaption certainly did this novel some justice.
"Requiem for a Dream." With the Kronos Quartet playing the strings, that is both haunting and unnerving this movie adaption hit me in the stomach and was more chilling then any horror movie i have ever seen.
I suppose Hollywood has its good points and its bad points. That being said, i still have no to little expectations for this up and coming movie adaption of "Never Let Me Go," will i be disappointed? I can't say as of right now. Will i go see the movie theatre’s? I don't know. if i do, i do. If i do not, then i do not. What i do know as of right now is that if i go i go. What i will say as of right now though, is that i have no expectations.
If the movie is successful I suppose Mister Kazuo Ishiguro's wallet will get a bit thicker.
Take Care Gentle Reader
Thank-you for reading Gentle Reader
And As Always
Stay Well Read
Morose-Mary
Thursday, 17 June 2010
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
Rant: A Novel
Dear Reader:
With nothing to write about last week, i come this week (a day early as well) i come today with something to write about.
Recently i came to the conclusion that i have ten or more novels to read, that i have bought. however i'll get around to them when i get around to them. Kind of like when i was a kid, and i used to ask my parents all the time "are we there yet?" when were all stuck in the prison cell of a moving vehicle. the answer was always the same: "No. we'll get there when we get there." The same can be applied with these novels. I will get to them when i get to them.
Recently however i came across a novel at the library by a author by the name of Chuck Palahnkiuk (yes the same author i went and saw) the novels name was "Rant," or more formally known as: "Rant: An Oral Biography of Buster Casey."
Certainly an interesting tale, and an interesting style that the novel was written in. What i did enjoy was the subject of how the stories that people told of there fellow characters and history itself often contradicted with someone else’s. That is a lot like life. A neo-nazi's views on the Holocaust would certainly be very different then that of a Jewish person, or anyone who was affected by the slaughter of World War II. But this history is less, tragic and more . . . farm town, boring, with a kid who enjoys getting bitten by coyotes, badgers, pit vipers, rattlesnakes, and black widow spiders (among the many animals that he uses to get high). Certainly no other junkie in this world could ever be stranger.
But this novel is not in the genre of just another low life junkie getting high (in a rather unique and original way). But instead this little redneck small town boy, finds himself, in a dystopian future. A dystopian future where two groups of people exist, but are cut in two by a curfew. A curfew of day and night. “Daytimers”: are the respected -- rather they are the normal people of society who actually keep it working. As well as the “Nighttimers”, the very disgusted underbelly of this dystopian future.
One of the most interesting part of this novel thought, is that it shows different perspectives of people, based on the opinions and perceptions of a person. A good case would be Buster "Rant," Casey's parents. His mother calls him "Buddy," who his father calls him "Buster." Through out the novel though there are many examples of the different perceptions of the characters from the opinions of others characters.
Rant (Buster Casey) finds himself swept up in the deep dark underbelly of this future dystopian world. But he also starts some other problems with his own addiction, and soon all hell (which is bound to happen) breaks loose, and soon a firm and radical stance of oppression is forced to come.
However this novel is about Rant (Buster Casey) who never makes a real appearance in a speaking part so to speak, but rather lets others perceptions form a rather interesting and character for us to see. The question is: who is the real Rant (Buster Casey)? A question i doubt that will be answered but dear Mr. Chuck Palahniuk makes an interesting observation of showing us, how the different views of people can often show a different character that another may view.
Though the ending is slightly . . . . strange and probably the least enjoyable part (for me that is) of the entire tale, i did find it interesting, and some interesting idea's where offered for me to chew on. Though i am sure there for more entertaining purposes that something to be taken seriously. Kind of like those crazy conspiracy theorists.
A good novel overall. some people may find the style not as amusing as i did, while others will jump for joy at it. Some may find the characters unlikable. While others may enjoy them. the point is this novel will be one to like or to hate. I personally liked it.
if you decide to pick up this novel and read it i hope you enjoy it as well.
Take Care Gentle Reader
Thank-you for reading
and stay well read
Morose-Mary
With nothing to write about last week, i come this week (a day early as well) i come today with something to write about.
Recently i came to the conclusion that i have ten or more novels to read, that i have bought. however i'll get around to them when i get around to them. Kind of like when i was a kid, and i used to ask my parents all the time "are we there yet?" when were all stuck in the prison cell of a moving vehicle. the answer was always the same: "No. we'll get there when we get there." The same can be applied with these novels. I will get to them when i get to them.
Recently however i came across a novel at the library by a author by the name of Chuck Palahnkiuk (yes the same author i went and saw) the novels name was "Rant," or more formally known as: "Rant: An Oral Biography of Buster Casey."
Certainly an interesting tale, and an interesting style that the novel was written in. What i did enjoy was the subject of how the stories that people told of there fellow characters and history itself often contradicted with someone else’s. That is a lot like life. A neo-nazi's views on the Holocaust would certainly be very different then that of a Jewish person, or anyone who was affected by the slaughter of World War II. But this history is less, tragic and more . . . farm town, boring, with a kid who enjoys getting bitten by coyotes, badgers, pit vipers, rattlesnakes, and black widow spiders (among the many animals that he uses to get high). Certainly no other junkie in this world could ever be stranger.
But this novel is not in the genre of just another low life junkie getting high (in a rather unique and original way). But instead this little redneck small town boy, finds himself, in a dystopian future. A dystopian future where two groups of people exist, but are cut in two by a curfew. A curfew of day and night. “Daytimers”: are the respected -- rather they are the normal people of society who actually keep it working. As well as the “Nighttimers”, the very disgusted underbelly of this dystopian future.
One of the most interesting part of this novel thought, is that it shows different perspectives of people, based on the opinions and perceptions of a person. A good case would be Buster "Rant," Casey's parents. His mother calls him "Buddy," who his father calls him "Buster." Through out the novel though there are many examples of the different perceptions of the characters from the opinions of others characters.
Rant (Buster Casey) finds himself swept up in the deep dark underbelly of this future dystopian world. But he also starts some other problems with his own addiction, and soon all hell (which is bound to happen) breaks loose, and soon a firm and radical stance of oppression is forced to come.
However this novel is about Rant (Buster Casey) who never makes a real appearance in a speaking part so to speak, but rather lets others perceptions form a rather interesting and character for us to see. The question is: who is the real Rant (Buster Casey)? A question i doubt that will be answered but dear Mr. Chuck Palahniuk makes an interesting observation of showing us, how the different views of people can often show a different character that another may view.
Though the ending is slightly . . . . strange and probably the least enjoyable part (for me that is) of the entire tale, i did find it interesting, and some interesting idea's where offered for me to chew on. Though i am sure there for more entertaining purposes that something to be taken seriously. Kind of like those crazy conspiracy theorists.
A good novel overall. some people may find the style not as amusing as i did, while others will jump for joy at it. Some may find the characters unlikable. While others may enjoy them. the point is this novel will be one to like or to hate. I personally liked it.
if you decide to pick up this novel and read it i hope you enjoy it as well.
Take Care Gentle Reader
Thank-you for reading
and stay well read
Morose-Mary
Thursday, 27 May 2010
If you write shit, it is shit, and people like shit
Hello Gentle Reader
Recently on the television (i was watching crude humor of South Park) and i saw the new trailer of the next "Twilight," movie comming out. I found myself almost busting a gut.
However i started to think about this. think very carefulyl about this indeed. because i started to note, that these "twilight," movies are comming out like a mormon pops out babies. They come out one after another after another after another after another. i find it hillarous. Because with "Harry Potter", and "The Lord of the Rings," and even C.S. Lewis's: "The Chronicles of Narnia," each movie took its individual time. Each came out a few years after the predecessor. Each one was amazing in its own individual way (well to a degree, i still find "The Lord of the Rings," long and boring.). But i notice with this "Twilight," phemenonm, is that they are pushing the movies out as fast as they can. I come to wonder, whats the hurry?
Does each movie need to be popped out of the oven, placed on the counter, and decorated horribly then sent to theaters with a bunch of over blown media hype? I find myself laughing. Stupidity seems to be a virus, that seems to spread amongst people faster then the common cold, or the flu. But i cannot expect to much from people who read such trash, let alone watch it.
Perhaps Martin Amis (in his interivew "No More Illusions: An Interview With Martin Amis) said it best:
"Also Gwyn stands for the culture: if Gwyn writes shit, and if the world likes shit, then the world is shit."
Ta-Da From the words of Martin Amis himself (though i doubt any younger ignorant and self-absorbed and borderline narssastic children of today would recongize that name) If people like shit (Twilight) then there you have it -- the world is shit -- personally, i find that a rather disturbing thought. However, i also find this playfully amusing as well.
Because it is both true, and real. People are animals. animals often gather in packs. What happens in packs? Mob/Pack mentallity and from there, you have a bunch of people who cannot think for themselves because they are to stupid or to ignorant to do so.
The wrold is full of a few types of things. Two of which are Shepards and Sheep. You are either a Shepard who dispese the shit for the Sheep to eat, or you are a Sheep, who eats the shit that is spread for you to eat. Surely something to think about, though i doubt that'll happen.
"Too much thought is bad for the soul, for art, and for crime. It is also a sign of middle age."
— Patrick Hamilton
And if i may add -- to much lack of thinking is bad for the mind, because you end up enjoying mind numbing bull shit, of what everyone else enjoys -- Which is Shit!
Thank-you for reading Gentle Reader
Take Care
Morose-Mary
(link to the Martin Amis Interview below):
http://www.altx.com/int2/martin.amis.html
Recently on the television (i was watching crude humor of South Park) and i saw the new trailer of the next "Twilight," movie comming out. I found myself almost busting a gut.
However i started to think about this. think very carefulyl about this indeed. because i started to note, that these "twilight," movies are comming out like a mormon pops out babies. They come out one after another after another after another after another. i find it hillarous. Because with "Harry Potter", and "The Lord of the Rings," and even C.S. Lewis's: "The Chronicles of Narnia," each movie took its individual time. Each came out a few years after the predecessor. Each one was amazing in its own individual way (well to a degree, i still find "The Lord of the Rings," long and boring.). But i notice with this "Twilight," phemenonm, is that they are pushing the movies out as fast as they can. I come to wonder, whats the hurry?
Does each movie need to be popped out of the oven, placed on the counter, and decorated horribly then sent to theaters with a bunch of over blown media hype? I find myself laughing. Stupidity seems to be a virus, that seems to spread amongst people faster then the common cold, or the flu. But i cannot expect to much from people who read such trash, let alone watch it.
Perhaps Martin Amis (in his interivew "No More Illusions: An Interview With Martin Amis) said it best:
"Also Gwyn stands for the culture: if Gwyn writes shit, and if the world likes shit, then the world is shit."
Ta-Da From the words of Martin Amis himself (though i doubt any younger ignorant and self-absorbed and borderline narssastic children of today would recongize that name) If people like shit (Twilight) then there you have it -- the world is shit -- personally, i find that a rather disturbing thought. However, i also find this playfully amusing as well.
Because it is both true, and real. People are animals. animals often gather in packs. What happens in packs? Mob/Pack mentallity and from there, you have a bunch of people who cannot think for themselves because they are to stupid or to ignorant to do so.
The wrold is full of a few types of things. Two of which are Shepards and Sheep. You are either a Shepard who dispese the shit for the Sheep to eat, or you are a Sheep, who eats the shit that is spread for you to eat. Surely something to think about, though i doubt that'll happen.
"Too much thought is bad for the soul, for art, and for crime. It is also a sign of middle age."
— Patrick Hamilton
And if i may add -- to much lack of thinking is bad for the mind, because you end up enjoying mind numbing bull shit, of what everyone else enjoys -- Which is Shit!
Thank-you for reading Gentle Reader
Take Care
Morose-Mary
(link to the Martin Amis Interview below):
http://www.altx.com/int2/martin.amis.html
Thursday, 13 May 2010
Chuck Palahniuk: Tell-All Book Tour
Hello Gentle Reader
May 12 2010
Chuck Palahniuk comes to Calgary aka Cow Town.
An exciting experinece that i was given the oppurtunity to share with others. I now have a signed copy of Chuck Palahniuks new book "Tell-All." Which he personalized. How kind of him to do. He only did that for a hundred people. The first hundred in line. i was number 69 and i was able to be given the oppurtunity to have it done, and so i did.
When i first was lined up waiting for the tiem to come, i found myself listening to the conversations of others. some were about meaningless things that i had no interst in. others were from hardcore fans. at one point i thought i was at some Star Treck convention at times at how they spoke so highly of him. They spoke of his infamous story called "Guts," as well as his novels such as "Fight Club," (no suprise there) among others.
Upon entering and waiting, i found myself bored somewhat. the first 50 of the first 100 would get their books personalized. 51 to 100 would get there's personalized after the show. whatever right? so i waited, and read some of "Tell-All," though the place was rather loud and i found my ears were trailing off to hear conversations rathern then my eyes focusing on the words in front of me.
So Mr. Palahniuk came in, from the entrance in which we all came in from before. what a shcok really. i thought he would come in through the back or through the curtains of the stage and whatever else. however he didn't. a sign of common modesty? or a sigh of symbolic equality? perhaps. I am not sure. Nor do i care. speculating is easy because you will most likely know the real answer or reason.
I was suprised (to a degree) how well he dressed. so simple and professional. i knew he dressed like a normal person. with dress pants shoes et cetera. Quite a far cry from the way some of his fans and readers had dressed. He had normal dark brown hair. he wore black dress pants (or where they navy blue?) wore black socks, black shoes, and a white undershirt or a wife beater (who knows) and a pale blue dress shirt tucked into his pants.
Quite a far cry indeed. Well some fans were covered in tattoo's, and had pink hair, and dressed outlandishly he was dressed like some normal person of society. someone who could easily walk out on the street's and barely get a second look. how intersting that his image and his novels differ so much. But i suppose that you should never judge a book by its cover.
A great tour in all. I found it fun and enjoyable. i greatly am happy that Chuck Palahniuk came to Calgary to do that. his only Canadian stop for this tour. i am very happy that i was able to go. Well worth the thirty three dollars (had better be!) and it was. i was impressed, and sure enough i will have memories of the event.
What i do admire is Chuck Palahniuks involvement in with the crowd. throwing blow up turkies, blow up hearts, and blow up oscar trophies.
He read a unpublished short story (though the rights were bought by play-boy who will surely publish the story in an issue.) which one? i do not know. i am sure you can find out if you search on the internet.
In all this was a thoroughly beatuiful exerperience. i was unsure of what to expect. but i was not suprised to see it lively full of rather dark/macabre humor. lets just say Chuck Palahniuk knows how to use paradox's rather well shall we?
Any one who would ever want a memorable experience i would suggest they go see Chuck Palahniuk. he is lively and fun, as well as a very polite person.
thank-you Gentle Reader for reading.
Thank-you Chuck Palahniuk for comming to Calgary.
Thank-you to word fest for hosting the event and oragnizing it
Thank-you To the Calgary Public Libary for allowing the space to be used.
Stay Well read my dear Gentle Reader
Take Care
Morose-Mary
May 12 2010
Chuck Palahniuk comes to Calgary aka Cow Town.
An exciting experinece that i was given the oppurtunity to share with others. I now have a signed copy of Chuck Palahniuks new book "Tell-All." Which he personalized. How kind of him to do. He only did that for a hundred people. The first hundred in line. i was number 69 and i was able to be given the oppurtunity to have it done, and so i did.
When i first was lined up waiting for the tiem to come, i found myself listening to the conversations of others. some were about meaningless things that i had no interst in. others were from hardcore fans. at one point i thought i was at some Star Treck convention at times at how they spoke so highly of him. They spoke of his infamous story called "Guts," as well as his novels such as "Fight Club," (no suprise there) among others.
Upon entering and waiting, i found myself bored somewhat. the first 50 of the first 100 would get their books personalized. 51 to 100 would get there's personalized after the show. whatever right? so i waited, and read some of "Tell-All," though the place was rather loud and i found my ears were trailing off to hear conversations rathern then my eyes focusing on the words in front of me.
So Mr. Palahniuk came in, from the entrance in which we all came in from before. what a shcok really. i thought he would come in through the back or through the curtains of the stage and whatever else. however he didn't. a sign of common modesty? or a sigh of symbolic equality? perhaps. I am not sure. Nor do i care. speculating is easy because you will most likely know the real answer or reason.
I was suprised (to a degree) how well he dressed. so simple and professional. i knew he dressed like a normal person. with dress pants shoes et cetera. Quite a far cry from the way some of his fans and readers had dressed. He had normal dark brown hair. he wore black dress pants (or where they navy blue?) wore black socks, black shoes, and a white undershirt or a wife beater (who knows) and a pale blue dress shirt tucked into his pants.
Quite a far cry indeed. Well some fans were covered in tattoo's, and had pink hair, and dressed outlandishly he was dressed like some normal person of society. someone who could easily walk out on the street's and barely get a second look. how intersting that his image and his novels differ so much. But i suppose that you should never judge a book by its cover.
A great tour in all. I found it fun and enjoyable. i greatly am happy that Chuck Palahniuk came to Calgary to do that. his only Canadian stop for this tour. i am very happy that i was able to go. Well worth the thirty three dollars (had better be!) and it was. i was impressed, and sure enough i will have memories of the event.
What i do admire is Chuck Palahniuks involvement in with the crowd. throwing blow up turkies, blow up hearts, and blow up oscar trophies.
He read a unpublished short story (though the rights were bought by play-boy who will surely publish the story in an issue.) which one? i do not know. i am sure you can find out if you search on the internet.
In all this was a thoroughly beatuiful exerperience. i was unsure of what to expect. but i was not suprised to see it lively full of rather dark/macabre humor. lets just say Chuck Palahniuk knows how to use paradox's rather well shall we?
Any one who would ever want a memorable experience i would suggest they go see Chuck Palahniuk. he is lively and fun, as well as a very polite person.
thank-you Gentle Reader for reading.
Thank-you Chuck Palahniuk for comming to Calgary.
Thank-you to word fest for hosting the event and oragnizing it
Thank-you To the Calgary Public Libary for allowing the space to be used.
Stay Well read my dear Gentle Reader
Take Care
Morose-Mary
Thursday, 6 May 2010
Is peace possible? (a short message about Mr. Palahniuk)
Hello Gentle Reader
May 12th (6 days from today) Chuck Palahniuk comes to town to promote his new book "Tell All." I have tickets to go see him, and i am very pleased to be able to see this literary figure. Mind you he is not Margaret Atwood, or won a Nobel Prize for Literature, but what he makes up from not being that, he makes up for being a rock star like writer. While having fun, and being as much an entertainer and a writer he also posses a lot intelligence, and that i know from the interviews i have read. I must admit that i have not read any of Mr. Palahniuks books, but i have known about him for a while, but its now that i will finally see him, and read one of his books, and be sure to pleased and entertained. This will be the first time i go to see a author on a book tour. I am sure i will be pleasantly pleased, and i know i will enjoy this very much.
Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader
Take Care
And As Always
Stay Well Read
*And Remember: Downloading Books Illegally is Thievery and Wrong.*
M. Mary
May 12th (6 days from today) Chuck Palahniuk comes to town to promote his new book "Tell All." I have tickets to go see him, and i am very pleased to be able to see this literary figure. Mind you he is not Margaret Atwood, or won a Nobel Prize for Literature, but what he makes up from not being that, he makes up for being a rock star like writer. While having fun, and being as much an entertainer and a writer he also posses a lot intelligence, and that i know from the interviews i have read. I must admit that i have not read any of Mr. Palahniuks books, but i have known about him for a while, but its now that i will finally see him, and read one of his books, and be sure to pleased and entertained. This will be the first time i go to see a author on a book tour. I am sure i will be pleasantly pleased, and i know i will enjoy this very much.
Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader
Take Care
And As Always
Stay Well Read
*And Remember: Downloading Books Illegally is Thievery and Wrong.*
M. Mary
Thursday, 15 April 2010
Iris Murdoch
Hello Gentle Reader
Recently from Amazon.ca i had ordered three novels (one is a large collection of three novels in one large novel) one of the novels that i ordered was "The Black Prince," by Iris Murdoch.
This young, life full filling author and philosopher has been said to be one of the greatest British writers since 1945 ranking number twelve (#12). i am both excited and pleased to receive this novel, by Iris Murdoch. I have looked hard in book stores for one of her novels, and so far i was unable to find one that carried one of her novels, but now that i have a novel written by this dear lady heading my way (i should be expecting this novel around April 16 - April 21st).
I do like to get rather close to the author (or as close as i can) when i read one of their
novels. Usually upon reading about the author, is how i come to the judgement, of whether or not i want to read one of their books. To me a book is just as important as the author.
I first stumbled upon Iris Murdoch by goofing around on wikipeda, by searching for philosophical novels, and i came across the curios title: "The Sea, The Sea," I read over the page about this book, and from there i discovered Iris Murdoch. A few years later, i stumbled upon this writer again, on another website:
http://www.vintage-books.co.uk/authors/8249/iris-murdoch/
Where i came across other novels written by the dear, Ms. Murdoch. Many of them i thought would be fascinating reads, and entertaining. For literature and philosophy go hand in hand, they are also different in many aspects as well, and Iris Murdoch, and other novelists of her time such as Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, Ayn Rand, James Joyce, Marcel Proust, and even Franz Kafka, could entertain the reader and mix in some philosophical discussions without becoming tedious and boring like a text book.
Now maybe half a year later i find myself, going to read a novel, by Iris Murdoch, for i have already some works by Jean-Paul Sartre, and Ayn Rand. One (or i shall anyhow) admit that i do enjoy philosophy and literature especially, and i do think that the two mix well together, creating both an entertaining novel, but also idea approaching novel as well, in order to help the reader, with their lives, or give them at least a new understanding of life itself.
Back to Iris Murdoch though:
Iris Murdoch was born July 15 1919, and was educated in progressive boarding schools where she read the classics of literature, ancient history and philosophy. From 1938 (like other Oxford contemporaries) Iris found herself engaged in the communist party. However after her philosophical thoughts started to form on their own, Iris left the party. Though she remained very close towards the "Left," of the political spectrum (like Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre.) This party affiliation made it very difficult for Iris Murdoch to receive a visa into the United States (you know the entire fear of communism, can't have any outsider coming in and spreading any Stalin ideologies). Years later Iris Murdoch had commented on her membership to the party: "how strong and how awful (Marxism) is, certainly in its organized form."
In 1954 saw the debut novel of Iris Murdoch titled "Under the Net," from there she would publish 25 more works of literature in novels, and drama (not 25 each may i add.). Iris Murdoch then met her future husband Jonh Bailey in 1956. Skip years ahead to 1995, when the first effects of the horrible disease of alzheimer's took form as a writers block. Iris Murdoch then perished in February 8 1999.
In 2003 a nasty little biography came out, written by A.N. Wilson, titled "Iris Murdoch as I Knew Her." which was quick to through dirt and mud on the poor dead woman's face. the writer A.N. Wilson did write about his affections for the dearly departed Iris Murdoch, he did not hesitate or even show restraint when talking about her "disloyalty's," and "promiscuity." Truly in my opinion its just someone trying to get even with someone else who did not share the same affection in my opinion. This writer further went to defiling the memory of Iris Murdoch in 2009 on BBC Radio 4 by saying that her philosophical works amounted to nothing but "GCSE-style"(General Certificate of Secondary Education) essays on Plato. However another biography came out in 2001 by Peter J. Condari which was well more received, and did not mud sling or soil the memory and works of Iris Murdoch.
Iris Murdoch, love her or hate her, or even have no opinion on her, it is undoubtedly, noticeable that her impact on the 20th century is apparent, and well seen, by those with eyes and can look far enough into it. As Thomas Davies and Margaret Atwood have done for Canadian Literature, Iris Murdoch had done roughly the same.
Thank-you for your Time Gentle Reader
Thank-you for reading
i look forward to writing a review on "The Black Prince," as soon as i get it done.
Morose-Mary
All Information has come from these sources:
http://www.vintage-books.co.uk/authors/8249/iris-murdoch/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_Murdoch
Recently from Amazon.ca i had ordered three novels (one is a large collection of three novels in one large novel) one of the novels that i ordered was "The Black Prince," by Iris Murdoch.
This young, life full filling author and philosopher has been said to be one of the greatest British writers since 1945 ranking number twelve (#12). i am both excited and pleased to receive this novel, by Iris Murdoch. I have looked hard in book stores for one of her novels, and so far i was unable to find one that carried one of her novels, but now that i have a novel written by this dear lady heading my way (i should be expecting this novel around April 16 - April 21st).
I do like to get rather close to the author (or as close as i can) when i read one of their
novels. Usually upon reading about the author, is how i come to the judgement, of whether or not i want to read one of their books. To me a book is just as important as the author.
I first stumbled upon Iris Murdoch by goofing around on wikipeda, by searching for philosophical novels, and i came across the curios title: "The Sea, The Sea," I read over the page about this book, and from there i discovered Iris Murdoch. A few years later, i stumbled upon this writer again, on another website:
http://www.vintage-books.co.uk/authors/8249/iris-murdoch/
Where i came across other novels written by the dear, Ms. Murdoch. Many of them i thought would be fascinating reads, and entertaining. For literature and philosophy go hand in hand, they are also different in many aspects as well, and Iris Murdoch, and other novelists of her time such as Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, Ayn Rand, James Joyce, Marcel Proust, and even Franz Kafka, could entertain the reader and mix in some philosophical discussions without becoming tedious and boring like a text book.
Now maybe half a year later i find myself, going to read a novel, by Iris Murdoch, for i have already some works by Jean-Paul Sartre, and Ayn Rand. One (or i shall anyhow) admit that i do enjoy philosophy and literature especially, and i do think that the two mix well together, creating both an entertaining novel, but also idea approaching novel as well, in order to help the reader, with their lives, or give them at least a new understanding of life itself.
Back to Iris Murdoch though:
Iris Murdoch was born July 15 1919, and was educated in progressive boarding schools where she read the classics of literature, ancient history and philosophy. From 1938 (like other Oxford contemporaries) Iris found herself engaged in the communist party. However after her philosophical thoughts started to form on their own, Iris left the party. Though she remained very close towards the "Left," of the political spectrum (like Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre.) This party affiliation made it very difficult for Iris Murdoch to receive a visa into the United States (you know the entire fear of communism, can't have any outsider coming in and spreading any Stalin ideologies). Years later Iris Murdoch had commented on her membership to the party: "how strong and how awful (Marxism) is, certainly in its organized form."
In 1954 saw the debut novel of Iris Murdoch titled "Under the Net," from there she would publish 25 more works of literature in novels, and drama (not 25 each may i add.). Iris Murdoch then met her future husband Jonh Bailey in 1956. Skip years ahead to 1995, when the first effects of the horrible disease of alzheimer's took form as a writers block. Iris Murdoch then perished in February 8 1999.
In 2003 a nasty little biography came out, written by A.N. Wilson, titled "Iris Murdoch as I Knew Her." which was quick to through dirt and mud on the poor dead woman's face. the writer A.N. Wilson did write about his affections for the dearly departed Iris Murdoch, he did not hesitate or even show restraint when talking about her "disloyalty's," and "promiscuity." Truly in my opinion its just someone trying to get even with someone else who did not share the same affection in my opinion. This writer further went to defiling the memory of Iris Murdoch in 2009 on BBC Radio 4 by saying that her philosophical works amounted to nothing but "GCSE-style"(General Certificate of Secondary Education) essays on Plato. However another biography came out in 2001 by Peter J. Condari which was well more received, and did not mud sling or soil the memory and works of Iris Murdoch.
Iris Murdoch, love her or hate her, or even have no opinion on her, it is undoubtedly, noticeable that her impact on the 20th century is apparent, and well seen, by those with eyes and can look far enough into it. As Thomas Davies and Margaret Atwood have done for Canadian Literature, Iris Murdoch had done roughly the same.
Thank-you for your Time Gentle Reader
Thank-you for reading
i look forward to writing a review on "The Black Prince," as soon as i get it done.
Morose-Mary
All Information has come from these sources:
http://www.vintage-books.co.uk/authors/8249/iris-murdoch/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_Murdoch
Sunday, 11 April 2010
The Blind Assassin
Hello Gentle Reader
I had just finished, and by just i mean roughly ten minutes ago, finished reading Margaret Atwood's Booker Prize winning novel: "The Blind Assassin."
I could have waited until roughly Thursday to write this review but i enjoyed it so much that i feel that it would be best to write it right now, while the tale, was still fresh in my head, and the lingering enjoyment; like the sweet taste of sugar lingers on your tongue, lingers in my mind.
The metaphor of "The Blind Assassin," by Margaret Atwood is compared to has been used so much that i thought i would used it as well. Alot like a matryoshka doll (Russian Doll), Margaret Atwood removes the many shells of this tale of a woman looking back on her life, and her sister, and their relationship, and the destruction of the family as they know it, and the slow deterioration of their lives, so perfectly that a person cannot help but feel as the characters do, and get emotionally charged and willing to defend them at all costs, knowing full well that they cannot.
The characterization is so deep that even though as the reader the would think of doing something, and says its justified the character would/will not be able to do it, because that would go against their characterization, though as the reader may get a certain satisfaction of it being done, the results would be bitter, and not feel to right. However, certain "things," do go around and around and when the time is right to strike, it is more then perfect, and the enjoyment and pride one (the reader) may feel swells inside of their (your) stomach and they just cheer with a sense of repaid justice.
The novel itself is rather large depending on which one you buy the one i had was roughly six hundred and thirty-five pages (635 pages) long, while another copy (if my research proves correct) is five hundred and thirty-six pages (536 pages) long. Relatively a large and detailed novel.
Genre wise this novel is Historical Fiction but also what critics call "Southern-Ontario Gothic," -- a genre that focuses on moral hypocrisy, the grotesque, mental illness, and is harsh realism (sometimes there is some supernatural aspects thrown into this genre but none in "The Blind Assassin,")
Many historical events, as the two World Wars, the great depression, and other historical events play into this novel, which give it a very realistic and historical setting with characters that are fictional, but could still be your neighbor, your grandmother, granddaughter, aunt, uncle, brother, sister, mother, or father.
There is no surprise after reading this novel that it did win the Booker Prize for its realistic, earth bound, and emotional narrative. It truly was a beautiful novel, and is a novel written at Margaret Atwood's finest point, and i hope another one will be put out, of the same quality after it.
This novel had made me angry at the villainy of the pastel wearing Winfred "Freedi," who was as passive aggressive and as evil as a pastel fashion wearing arrogant "new money," woman ever got/gets. Richard his sly and almost "political," disgusting motives make a person want to vomit. to the quietly powerful Iris that did her best to fight the circumstances and make do with the best she could, but then suffers immensely before taking charge and fighting back in a Iris fashion, of knowing what to do, but knowing when to do it, and even letting others sink their own ships.
I would recommend this novel to anyone who enjoys a lovely complex, emotional read, where no everyone is punished, and not everything turns out alright, but still you understand that's life, and it is still slightly beautiful in its own way. For anyone that wishes a novel like that, i recommend "The Blind Assassin," by Margaret Atwood to you. It may very well be a novel that will certainly be re-read by myself in the future; and in that future there may even be large lizard men and space crafts that the likes of Alex Thomas had envisioned.
Take Care Gentle Reader
thank-you for taking your time to read this
and keep being well read
Morose-Mary
I had just finished, and by just i mean roughly ten minutes ago, finished reading Margaret Atwood's Booker Prize winning novel: "The Blind Assassin."
I could have waited until roughly Thursday to write this review but i enjoyed it so much that i feel that it would be best to write it right now, while the tale, was still fresh in my head, and the lingering enjoyment; like the sweet taste of sugar lingers on your tongue, lingers in my mind.
The metaphor of "The Blind Assassin," by Margaret Atwood is compared to has been used so much that i thought i would used it as well. Alot like a matryoshka doll (Russian Doll), Margaret Atwood removes the many shells of this tale of a woman looking back on her life, and her sister, and their relationship, and the destruction of the family as they know it, and the slow deterioration of their lives, so perfectly that a person cannot help but feel as the characters do, and get emotionally charged and willing to defend them at all costs, knowing full well that they cannot.
The characterization is so deep that even though as the reader the would think of doing something, and says its justified the character would/will not be able to do it, because that would go against their characterization, though as the reader may get a certain satisfaction of it being done, the results would be bitter, and not feel to right. However, certain "things," do go around and around and when the time is right to strike, it is more then perfect, and the enjoyment and pride one (the reader) may feel swells inside of their (your) stomach and they just cheer with a sense of repaid justice.
The novel itself is rather large depending on which one you buy the one i had was roughly six hundred and thirty-five pages (635 pages) long, while another copy (if my research proves correct) is five hundred and thirty-six pages (536 pages) long. Relatively a large and detailed novel.
Genre wise this novel is Historical Fiction but also what critics call "Southern-Ontario Gothic," -- a genre that focuses on moral hypocrisy, the grotesque, mental illness, and is harsh realism (sometimes there is some supernatural aspects thrown into this genre but none in "The Blind Assassin,")
Many historical events, as the two World Wars, the great depression, and other historical events play into this novel, which give it a very realistic and historical setting with characters that are fictional, but could still be your neighbor, your grandmother, granddaughter, aunt, uncle, brother, sister, mother, or father.
There is no surprise after reading this novel that it did win the Booker Prize for its realistic, earth bound, and emotional narrative. It truly was a beautiful novel, and is a novel written at Margaret Atwood's finest point, and i hope another one will be put out, of the same quality after it.
This novel had made me angry at the villainy of the pastel wearing Winfred "Freedi," who was as passive aggressive and as evil as a pastel fashion wearing arrogant "new money," woman ever got/gets. Richard his sly and almost "political," disgusting motives make a person want to vomit. to the quietly powerful Iris that did her best to fight the circumstances and make do with the best she could, but then suffers immensely before taking charge and fighting back in a Iris fashion, of knowing what to do, but knowing when to do it, and even letting others sink their own ships.
I would recommend this novel to anyone who enjoys a lovely complex, emotional read, where no everyone is punished, and not everything turns out alright, but still you understand that's life, and it is still slightly beautiful in its own way. For anyone that wishes a novel like that, i recommend "The Blind Assassin," by Margaret Atwood to you. It may very well be a novel that will certainly be re-read by myself in the future; and in that future there may even be large lizard men and space crafts that the likes of Alex Thomas had envisioned.
Take Care Gentle Reader
thank-you for taking your time to read this
and keep being well read
Morose-Mary
Thursday, 25 March 2010
Kafka on the Shore
Hello Gentle Reader
Recently i was able to finish the pleasing novel "Kafka on the Shore," by a very talented Japanese novelists Haruki Murakami. The tale is as much metaphysical, and fairy tale quality as it is as serious and enjoyable read as well. At times i have always found that sometimes novels that deal with some form of philosophical, political, metaphysical, et cetera, undertones can often become a tedious read, because the author will focus more on those aspects of the tale/story rather then the plot as well. However Kafka on the Shore is anything but a boring and tedious read. Haruki Murakami keeps a very fresh, tale, and keeps his characters always appear to be new to you, and yet you grow some attachments to them at the same time.
Though the tale is surreal at times, and absurd, even rather shocking at times, yet a person (i am sure) will continue reading because they want to see how the events that had just happened are going to affect the future of one character or all characters. Its difficult to truly describe the feeling this novel will leave on a reader; because Haruki Murakami, is leaving a lot of the work of interpretation up to the reader themselves. what the reader gets out of this most fascinating novel is most likely going to be determined on how they read it, there opinions, and other factors that have surrounded the reader at that point in time, most likely will also influence the experience the reader is given after they read the novel.
One of the interesting aspects of the novel is that the first time a person reads the novel, they get a introduction into it. then years later, the person might read the novel again, and though the plot is the same, they get a new appreciation, some of the riddles makes sense, some of the more surreal parts or strange parts, fit into the puzzle of the novel a bit more gently rather then sitting on the edge of the puzzle, and looking awkward.
In many ways "Kafka On the Shore," is going to be like other novels of the world, that only get better and more entertaining as a person reads it. Haruki Murkami's novel will be like fine wine, as it gets older, it grows more dignified and shows a different side of itself, with every read; unlike other novels, that age like milk, and after the second time leave a soured taste in your mouth.
One thing i will say on this novel, is that, i wouldn't go in reading it, and start thinking that its about a young boy who runs away from home, to find his mother, has crazy adventures, and all the evil people are punished. its anything but that. Haruki Murakami made that quite clear, that sometimes evil people get away with their crimes, and the real people who get punished are the good people. As well as this novel does not really, tie in all the loose ends at the end, that becomes the readers job, and that's what makes Haruki Murakami's novel such a fun read, is its not going to do all the work for the reader, the reader is expected to make their own conclusions. there is a rather general plot, but the entire novel itself, is made to allow the reader to ask questions, and wonder. For anyone out there that doesn't like a novel like that, this is not one for you.
For those that do enjoy a novel that pushes you to think, and wonder, and yet are never truly given any answers, this is a novel for you. With a almost fairy tale quality (old fairy tale quality like the Brothers Grimm among others) and often absurd ideas, and surreal situations, and metaphysical questions, with a sense of reality this novel will have many questioning the novel over and over again.
Thank-you for reading gentle reader
Morose-Mary
Recently i was able to finish the pleasing novel "Kafka on the Shore," by a very talented Japanese novelists Haruki Murakami. The tale is as much metaphysical, and fairy tale quality as it is as serious and enjoyable read as well. At times i have always found that sometimes novels that deal with some form of philosophical, political, metaphysical, et cetera, undertones can often become a tedious read, because the author will focus more on those aspects of the tale/story rather then the plot as well. However Kafka on the Shore is anything but a boring and tedious read. Haruki Murakami keeps a very fresh, tale, and keeps his characters always appear to be new to you, and yet you grow some attachments to them at the same time.
Though the tale is surreal at times, and absurd, even rather shocking at times, yet a person (i am sure) will continue reading because they want to see how the events that had just happened are going to affect the future of one character or all characters. Its difficult to truly describe the feeling this novel will leave on a reader; because Haruki Murakami, is leaving a lot of the work of interpretation up to the reader themselves. what the reader gets out of this most fascinating novel is most likely going to be determined on how they read it, there opinions, and other factors that have surrounded the reader at that point in time, most likely will also influence the experience the reader is given after they read the novel.
One of the interesting aspects of the novel is that the first time a person reads the novel, they get a introduction into it. then years later, the person might read the novel again, and though the plot is the same, they get a new appreciation, some of the riddles makes sense, some of the more surreal parts or strange parts, fit into the puzzle of the novel a bit more gently rather then sitting on the edge of the puzzle, and looking awkward.
In many ways "Kafka On the Shore," is going to be like other novels of the world, that only get better and more entertaining as a person reads it. Haruki Murkami's novel will be like fine wine, as it gets older, it grows more dignified and shows a different side of itself, with every read; unlike other novels, that age like milk, and after the second time leave a soured taste in your mouth.
One thing i will say on this novel, is that, i wouldn't go in reading it, and start thinking that its about a young boy who runs away from home, to find his mother, has crazy adventures, and all the evil people are punished. its anything but that. Haruki Murakami made that quite clear, that sometimes evil people get away with their crimes, and the real people who get punished are the good people. As well as this novel does not really, tie in all the loose ends at the end, that becomes the readers job, and that's what makes Haruki Murakami's novel such a fun read, is its not going to do all the work for the reader, the reader is expected to make their own conclusions. there is a rather general plot, but the entire novel itself, is made to allow the reader to ask questions, and wonder. For anyone out there that doesn't like a novel like that, this is not one for you.
For those that do enjoy a novel that pushes you to think, and wonder, and yet are never truly given any answers, this is a novel for you. With a almost fairy tale quality (old fairy tale quality like the Brothers Grimm among others) and often absurd ideas, and surreal situations, and metaphysical questions, with a sense of reality this novel will have many questioning the novel over and over again.
Thank-you for reading gentle reader
Morose-Mary
Thursday, 18 March 2010
Science Fiction and Literary Merit
Does Science Fiction have literary merit?
Margaret Atwood, George Orwell, Kazuo Ishiguro, Kobo Abe, William Gibson, Ursula K. Le Guin, and others have or are said to have written science fiction. Though the question is: does science fiction have any literary merit.
Literary Merit apparently goes to more "realistic," or "naturalistic," novels which may take place in the past or present, but are also fictional, and have themes that are rather relevant to the plot of the novel. When a person thinks of science fiction, its set in the future which can be either far far far into the future, or in the near-future. Science fiction usually deals with advanced technology, and sometimes rather bleak futures that are caused by the current events of the present. Totalitarian governments, loss of freedoms, the human races close extinction, and of course many other aspects that are seen as bleak. though i am sure some science fiction shows some Utopia's that are shining, clean, and full of happiness. Of course those aren't read much; as Leo Tolstoy put it:
"Happiness is an allegory, unhappiness a story."
Just because science fiction is set into the future does it mean that has less literary merit?
not really. I think what people fear about science fiction is its, often compared to Fantasy. The difference between Fantasy and Science Fiction though is as Brian Aldiss wrote in a Times article called: "Why don't we love science fiction?" (a link will be provided at the end) is the following (quoted by Brian Aldiss from the article):
"In a fantasy story," Aldiss says, "there's a big evil abroad, but, in the end, everything goes back to normal and everybody goes home to drink ale in the shires. In a science-fiction story, there may be a terrible evil aboard, and it may get sorted out, but the world is f***ed up forever. This is realism. Its certainly not beach reading, unless you can find a really nasty, shingly beach."
In other words does that mean Science Fiction have literary merit because its realism in the future? In my opinion yes. It does have literary merit. Aldous Huxley, wrote "Brave New World," George Orwell wrote "1984," they had literary merit, and can be (are) considered Science fiction.
Though one wonders why the Superiors of the Literature world, look down on Science Fiction as just another bunch of "penny dreadful," novels? Most likely because of their close proximity to Fantasy. Lewis Carroll the author of "Alice Adventures in Wonderland," and "Through the Looking Glass," are generally seen as nonsensical novels for children, and are completely illogical. however, underneath the child's amusement of the novel, of the cute quirky feelings we see a deeper hidden meaning that the child does not see but what we see. In many ways that is what Science Fiction might be like in many ways. It has the enjoyment of the plot, and also explores themes that might reflect human nature, culture, and society; yet instead of reading like a long drawn out text book, it comes across as reader enjoyable and scholar worthy.
"Frankenstein," by Mary Shelly, is often considered the first Science Fiction, and is often well regarded as a great novel. i do agree very much with that statement in many ways, for i have read the novel, many years ago. I do think that Mary shelly Had an act at creating a wonderful, tale of what it means to be human, and what it means to play the role of "God."
However, there are two different kinds of science fiction in my opinion. There is Science Fiction that has Literary Merit and explores themes of technology and sciences impact on society, the individual, families et cetera. Then there is the science fiction that would bore me to death, and remind me more of a Physics, Biology, Chemistry or general science text book from high school or even a more advanced course in the science department. You know the stuff that some really, really, really big science buff would read. But literary merit in the end and final point is not rare, or not even non-existent.
In closing, Science Fiction has literary merit, its just often pushed aside as second rate, compared to other literary genres. Though a few novelists and their novels, have pushed past that literary ghetto, and moved forward, to have influenced culture and literature itself. Its not impossible, and the merit and outstanding achievement is there, its just a matter of putting aside the prejudice and discrimination, one can see the themes and influence it can have.
Thank-you for reading Gentle Reader
Stay safe and stay smart
Morose-Mary
(the promised link)
wont copy on to my blog i apologize i'll figure it out how to get on here somehow. i apologize for the inconvenience
Bibliography:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2961480.ece
Margaret Atwood, George Orwell, Kazuo Ishiguro, Kobo Abe, William Gibson, Ursula K. Le Guin, and others have or are said to have written science fiction. Though the question is: does science fiction have any literary merit.
Literary Merit apparently goes to more "realistic," or "naturalistic," novels which may take place in the past or present, but are also fictional, and have themes that are rather relevant to the plot of the novel. When a person thinks of science fiction, its set in the future which can be either far far far into the future, or in the near-future. Science fiction usually deals with advanced technology, and sometimes rather bleak futures that are caused by the current events of the present. Totalitarian governments, loss of freedoms, the human races close extinction, and of course many other aspects that are seen as bleak. though i am sure some science fiction shows some Utopia's that are shining, clean, and full of happiness. Of course those aren't read much; as Leo Tolstoy put it:
"Happiness is an allegory, unhappiness a story."
Just because science fiction is set into the future does it mean that has less literary merit?
not really. I think what people fear about science fiction is its, often compared to Fantasy. The difference between Fantasy and Science Fiction though is as Brian Aldiss wrote in a Times article called: "Why don't we love science fiction?" (a link will be provided at the end) is the following (quoted by Brian Aldiss from the article):
"In a fantasy story," Aldiss says, "there's a big evil abroad, but, in the end, everything goes back to normal and everybody goes home to drink ale in the shires. In a science-fiction story, there may be a terrible evil aboard, and it may get sorted out, but the world is f***ed up forever. This is realism. Its certainly not beach reading, unless you can find a really nasty, shingly beach."
In other words does that mean Science Fiction have literary merit because its realism in the future? In my opinion yes. It does have literary merit. Aldous Huxley, wrote "Brave New World," George Orwell wrote "1984," they had literary merit, and can be (are) considered Science fiction.
Though one wonders why the Superiors of the Literature world, look down on Science Fiction as just another bunch of "penny dreadful," novels? Most likely because of their close proximity to Fantasy. Lewis Carroll the author of "Alice Adventures in Wonderland," and "Through the Looking Glass," are generally seen as nonsensical novels for children, and are completely illogical. however, underneath the child's amusement of the novel, of the cute quirky feelings we see a deeper hidden meaning that the child does not see but what we see. In many ways that is what Science Fiction might be like in many ways. It has the enjoyment of the plot, and also explores themes that might reflect human nature, culture, and society; yet instead of reading like a long drawn out text book, it comes across as reader enjoyable and scholar worthy.
"Frankenstein," by Mary Shelly, is often considered the first Science Fiction, and is often well regarded as a great novel. i do agree very much with that statement in many ways, for i have read the novel, many years ago. I do think that Mary shelly Had an act at creating a wonderful, tale of what it means to be human, and what it means to play the role of "God."
However, there are two different kinds of science fiction in my opinion. There is Science Fiction that has Literary Merit and explores themes of technology and sciences impact on society, the individual, families et cetera. Then there is the science fiction that would bore me to death, and remind me more of a Physics, Biology, Chemistry or general science text book from high school or even a more advanced course in the science department. You know the stuff that some really, really, really big science buff would read. But literary merit in the end and final point is not rare, or not even non-existent.
In closing, Science Fiction has literary merit, its just often pushed aside as second rate, compared to other literary genres. Though a few novelists and their novels, have pushed past that literary ghetto, and moved forward, to have influenced culture and literature itself. Its not impossible, and the merit and outstanding achievement is there, its just a matter of putting aside the prejudice and discrimination, one can see the themes and influence it can have.
Thank-you for reading Gentle Reader
Stay safe and stay smart
Morose-Mary
(the promised link)
wont copy on to my blog i apologize i'll figure it out how to get on here somehow. i apologize for the inconvenience
Bibliography:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2961480.ece
Thursday, 11 March 2010
Does Margaret Atwood Write Science Fiction?
Hello Gentle Reader
It were to appear ever since the release of "Oryx and Crake," by Margaret Atwood; a famous and stunning Canadian author, that the great debate about whether or not Margaret Atwood writes science fiction has come about.
Yet a person now must wonder: "what is science fiction?"
Personally when I hear the term Science fiction, I think of complex theories, long winded stupid names, for technology, mankind’s pessimistic side of the distant future, as wells as mankind’s optimistic side of the distant future. Though there is more to it then meets the eyes that is for sure. Aliens, space squids, planets, space travel, time travel, "Star Wars," and "Star Trek," are among the quick idea's that pop into my head when I think of Science Fiction.
Though the question remains: "what is Science Fiction?"
According to this link here:
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GPEA_enCA289CA289&defl=en&q=define:science+fiction&ei=n6qZS5PWKIHqtQOhn_CuCQ&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAkQkAE
Science Fiction is:
"Literary fantasy involving the imagined impact of science on society."
"Science fiction is a genre of fiction. It differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative...”
"Fiction in which advanced technology and/or science is a key element; Technology which, while theoretically possible, is not yet practical."
Point taken; Science Fiction deals (generally) with individuals and societies, that deal with the impact of technology. Okay . . . that’s pretty vague in my opinion. Margaret Atwood's novel, does deal with the biological advancements, of a not too distant future, that is possible, of a super disease that could wipe out the entire world. Remember the swine flu scare? (No Mexico we still haven't forgiven you for that!) But at the sometime, it really doesn't primarily focus, on the characters interactions with technology in my opinion. It focuses on many different levels, with a lot of interaction with characters themselves, that don't even have to deal with technology all the time. Was "Oryx and Crake," science fiction? To some it may have been, to others not; and maybe to some I was even a "slipstream," novel that crossed the borders of two different literature worlds, and combined two elements to create a "genreless," novel.
Yet the debate has continued. Ursula K Le Guinn a science fiction and fantasy author (according to 'wikipedia) has even weighed on the debate. She disagrees with Margaret Atwood on the subject, and has said that she does think that Margaret Atwood does write science fiction (though not entirely) but cannot blame Margaret Atwood for not accepting the label and being thrown into the Literature Ghetto; by the Literary Bigots of the world.
However, a very famous novelists, who won the prestigious Nobel Prize for Literature in 2007 had written a series of science fiction novels, and has not backed down from choosing to do so. her name? Doris Lessing.
Is Science Fiction placed in the Literature Ghetto? perhaps at times, but life has always shown that there are exceptions, and leniency to terms.
Yet the question remains: "Does Margaret Atwood write Science Fiction?"
The answer I find myself saying is this:
Does it matter? The point is Margaret Atwood writes novels. Her novels, are special and beautiful, and are her own, as are Stephen Kings, as are Ursula K Le Guin, as are Doris Lessing, as are Yukio Mishima, as are Jonathan Carroll as are William Gibson. The real debate is not whether or not Margaret Atwood writes science fiction, the real debate is for these people in my opinion, is: Is Margaret Atwood selling out on us? Is she going to write bubblegum realism novels, for teenyboppers? Is she going to write the next Harry Potter franchise? that scares literary big wigs. they don't want a great author, going "Juvenille," in their eyes. they want a great author to remain where they are, and those Literature Bigots, see science fiction as a form of "Juvenille," literature. Which I highly disagree, some is yes. But not always. In fact, as Doris Lessing said in her own words:
"What they didn't realize was that in science fiction is some of the best social fiction of our time. I also admire the classic sort of science fiction, like Blood Music, by Greg Bear. He's a great writer."
Whether or not Margaret Atwood writes science fiction, is the problem; or perhaps the world of Literature is afraid of the outcome. But what does count is that Margaret Atwood is a great writer, and will continue to be that way. She has her own way of writing, and in my opinion defies, the pigeonhole, jam jar labels of her work as "science fiction," or "literary fiction," by simply being her. The debate of whether or not she is a Science Fiction is not what scares people, its than they are afraid that she maybe, and may no longer be the Margaret Atwood that they have come to love. When truth is told she is still being her, they just don't like how they labeled her. The bottom line on the matter is no Margaret Atwood is not a science fiction author. Margaret Atwood is just writing because that’s what she loves to do. She explores themes, in her novels, and social situations, some of them may be in a not so far future, and some maybe, in the present, the point is, Margaret Atwood writes, and her work is her work. They are novels. They have themes. They have memorable characters. They make us think. Margaret Atwood is who she is, and even if she did write a Science Fiction novel, I would still enjoy her work, because it’s just Margaret Atwood being Margaret Atwood.
Take Care Gentle Reader's
Morose-Mary
It were to appear ever since the release of "Oryx and Crake," by Margaret Atwood; a famous and stunning Canadian author, that the great debate about whether or not Margaret Atwood writes science fiction has come about.
Yet a person now must wonder: "what is science fiction?"
Personally when I hear the term Science fiction, I think of complex theories, long winded stupid names, for technology, mankind’s pessimistic side of the distant future, as wells as mankind’s optimistic side of the distant future. Though there is more to it then meets the eyes that is for sure. Aliens, space squids, planets, space travel, time travel, "Star Wars," and "Star Trek," are among the quick idea's that pop into my head when I think of Science Fiction.
Though the question remains: "what is Science Fiction?"
According to this link here:
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GPEA_enCA289CA289&defl=en&q=define:science+fiction&ei=n6qZS5PWKIHqtQOhn_CuCQ&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAkQkAE
Science Fiction is:
"Literary fantasy involving the imagined impact of science on society."
"Science fiction is a genre of fiction. It differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative...”
"Fiction in which advanced technology and/or science is a key element; Technology which, while theoretically possible, is not yet practical."
Point taken; Science Fiction deals (generally) with individuals and societies, that deal with the impact of technology. Okay . . . that’s pretty vague in my opinion. Margaret Atwood's novel, does deal with the biological advancements, of a not too distant future, that is possible, of a super disease that could wipe out the entire world. Remember the swine flu scare? (No Mexico we still haven't forgiven you for that!) But at the sometime, it really doesn't primarily focus, on the characters interactions with technology in my opinion. It focuses on many different levels, with a lot of interaction with characters themselves, that don't even have to deal with technology all the time. Was "Oryx and Crake," science fiction? To some it may have been, to others not; and maybe to some I was even a "slipstream," novel that crossed the borders of two different literature worlds, and combined two elements to create a "genreless," novel.
Yet the debate has continued. Ursula K Le Guinn a science fiction and fantasy author (according to 'wikipedia) has even weighed on the debate. She disagrees with Margaret Atwood on the subject, and has said that she does think that Margaret Atwood does write science fiction (though not entirely) but cannot blame Margaret Atwood for not accepting the label and being thrown into the Literature Ghetto; by the Literary Bigots of the world.
However, a very famous novelists, who won the prestigious Nobel Prize for Literature in 2007 had written a series of science fiction novels, and has not backed down from choosing to do so. her name? Doris Lessing.
Is Science Fiction placed in the Literature Ghetto? perhaps at times, but life has always shown that there are exceptions, and leniency to terms.
Yet the question remains: "Does Margaret Atwood write Science Fiction?"
The answer I find myself saying is this:
Does it matter? The point is Margaret Atwood writes novels. Her novels, are special and beautiful, and are her own, as are Stephen Kings, as are Ursula K Le Guin, as are Doris Lessing, as are Yukio Mishima, as are Jonathan Carroll as are William Gibson. The real debate is not whether or not Margaret Atwood writes science fiction, the real debate is for these people in my opinion, is: Is Margaret Atwood selling out on us? Is she going to write bubblegum realism novels, for teenyboppers? Is she going to write the next Harry Potter franchise? that scares literary big wigs. they don't want a great author, going "Juvenille," in their eyes. they want a great author to remain where they are, and those Literature Bigots, see science fiction as a form of "Juvenille," literature. Which I highly disagree, some is yes. But not always. In fact, as Doris Lessing said in her own words:
"What they didn't realize was that in science fiction is some of the best social fiction of our time. I also admire the classic sort of science fiction, like Blood Music, by Greg Bear. He's a great writer."
Whether or not Margaret Atwood writes science fiction, is the problem; or perhaps the world of Literature is afraid of the outcome. But what does count is that Margaret Atwood is a great writer, and will continue to be that way. She has her own way of writing, and in my opinion defies, the pigeonhole, jam jar labels of her work as "science fiction," or "literary fiction," by simply being her. The debate of whether or not she is a Science Fiction is not what scares people, its than they are afraid that she maybe, and may no longer be the Margaret Atwood that they have come to love. When truth is told she is still being her, they just don't like how they labeled her. The bottom line on the matter is no Margaret Atwood is not a science fiction author. Margaret Atwood is just writing because that’s what she loves to do. She explores themes, in her novels, and social situations, some of them may be in a not so far future, and some maybe, in the present, the point is, Margaret Atwood writes, and her work is her work. They are novels. They have themes. They have memorable characters. They make us think. Margaret Atwood is who she is, and even if she did write a Science Fiction novel, I would still enjoy her work, because it’s just Margaret Atwood being Margaret Atwood.
Take Care Gentle Reader's
Morose-Mary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)