What do the public really think of literature?

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by duke o' york
Although there is no Academie for English, then is it really desirable that language is set to certain rules, and cannot adapt to suit people's needs? Or even peoples' needs?

Uh.. like ... well... yeah ... whatever dude. Huh-huh syntax sux0rz y'know. R0l3z are for like lo0ozers. We shu b aybul to tork un spel l1k3 we wonts.

[Barnabas]

But the public is a bunch of people? oh well



And yes, it would be good for the english language something like a "Royal institute of the English Language" for saying what is good and accepted and what is not.

[duke o' york]

Have in it your country. The last thing we need is another quango.

Originally posted by Cort Haus

Uh.. like ... well... yeah ... whatever dude. Huh-huh syntax sux0rz y'know. R0l3z are for like lo0ozers. We shu b aybul to tork un spel l1k3 we wonts.

Well I understood that, even if I'd rather not understand leet-speak. So if a few people use it, it's weird and stupid, but if everyone else uses it then will you still think that, or will you find yourself joining in?
I've lived in Yorkshire for 11 years now (I know, I know), and have so far managed to resist using "while" instead of "until" (Thank god), but am also alarmed by the nationwide habit of using "yourself" and "myself" as direct objects.

"How are you?"
"Fine. And yourself?"

If this is set to prevail (and it is used on the BBC now too), then I'll resist as long as I can, but may well have to give in one day. But that's the nature of language. I don't use forsooth when I speak to people, but it was all the rage many years ago. Likewise, I grew up in a generation for whom "public" was (and is) plural, despite the fact I know that grammar says otherwise. Who these days says: "My team was useless last night"? Everyone uses "were useless" - especially Newcastle fans.

[Barnabas]

Originally posted by duke o' york
Have in it your country. The last thing we need is another quango.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Academia_Espa%C3%B1ola

The Real Academia Española (Spanish for "Royal Spanish Academy", RAE) is the institution responsible for regulating the Spanish language. It is based in Madrid, Spain, but is affiliated with national language academies in 21 Spanish-speaking nations. Its emblem is a fiery crucible, and its motto is Limpia, fija y da esplendor, roughly translated as "[The academy] cleans, steadies and gives splendor".

Also, english spelling should be reformed, otherwise in 200 years, it will resemble more the chinese writing system, than an alphabetic one.

[lord of the mark]

Re: What do the public really think of literature?

From Charles Stross´ blog Take that Nobel Prize Committee!
---

What do the public really think of literature?

Here are some examples, in the form of reviews culled from the reader comments on Amazon.com.

1984 by George Orwell:

Caitlyn from Atlanta, GA, wrote: "1984 is the worst book I have ever read. I would advise anyone who is thinking about reading this book to reconcider! George Orwell is not a bad writer, however, this book he does not do evry well on, as some of his others. Prehaps he was getting old and lost his touch. Animal Farm was okay, but 1984 was horrible. It took him forever, it seemed like, to get into the accual book. If someone were to take out all of the useless part of 1984, it would be half as long. Why would he wirte so much about nothing? I havent ever meet someone who could wirte such a boring book about the goverment. I have meet many people who have loved this book, but i dispised it. I am not at all intrested in the goverment. This may be part of the reason that I didnt like it. I would advise you not to read this book."


LOTM - if one isnt interested in politics, at some level, I would say 1984 really ISNT the best book to read.


One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez:

R. Vanderhoof wrote: "I spent several weeks slogging through this book and found it to be very repetitive and tedious in the extreme. Keeping track of the family tree is a constant effort. At best, Marquez reveals an egalitarian attitude that seems to pervade the Americas south of the Rio Grande (no wonder those countries are in constant economic trouble). Marquez should study supply side economics as described by Milton Friedman, another Nobel Prize winner, in order to give his book better balance."

LOMT - LOL! on the economics, hes actually got a point. But of course thats not the point of the novel. Its been a while, but IIRC it WASNT that easy to follow the family tree. But it was all worthwhile for the "the day my father took me to discover ice" or whatever. plus the last of the line being eaten by ants, and all that.

A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens:

goosedog 69 (New York) wrote: "if you don't like reading books with way too much detail than don't buy this book. when i was reading it i couldn't understand anything it said. if you are older maybe you wouldn't think it's boring, or if you like this author's books, but i thought it was very boring and it took me forever and a half to read."

A reader wrote: "I found this book difficult to follow and hard to hold my interest. I am an English teacher so I don't think it's me. I was revved about the book and started it immediately unpon receipt. I didn't even finish it--which is something I can say about few books..."


LOTM - paid by the word. Paid by the word. Works for some not for all. Theres no shortage of quite literate people who think Dickens was a bit of a hack. These guys are picking up something real.


Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare:

Son of Sammy wrote: "i just read this book. everybody like always talks about how great it is and everything. but i don't think so. like, it's been done before, right?? soooo cliched. omg."


LOTM - LOL!!!! damn that Shakespeare, stealing his ideas from Sondheim and Bernstein!! {starts snapping fingers}



Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy:

A reader wrote: "I love classic novels. Some of my favorites: Gone with the wind/The catcher in the rye/Huck Finn/The Iliad..I adore Shakespeare... this book was B-O-R-I-N-G!!! I stopped reading at 400 pages. I am someone that almost never stops reading books. I couldn't stand it any longer. I don't mind the parts the were actually about Anna and human relationships. I could not stand all of the boring Russian politic talk or Levin and his boring farming or hunting talk. AHH! I do not recommend this book. If I truly hated someone, I would them to read this book."

LOTM - never read it, but did read War and Peace. Now I LIKE russian political talk, but I could see someone wouldnt like it. As for boring hunting, I wonder if the above writer has every waded through hemingways "Big Two Hearted River"


The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck:

Jef4Jesus wrote: "So, I'm only on page 478 of 619, but I've been disgusted at the amount of profanity. So far I've found more than 500 uses of profanity! On average every page (with relatively big writing, even) has more than one swear. Yikes! I'm never going to read Grapes of Wrath again, and won't be recommending it to anyone. If you don't like profanity, be careful."

M. Landis wrote: "This book was 600 pages written purly about a bunch of hicks from Oklahoma starving. Thanks, but no thanks."

LOTM - as ive said elsewhere only Steinbeck Ive read is "The Pearl" and I came away distinctly unimpressed. Folks say "read Cannery Row" Im not sure where Grapes falls on that scale.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by duke o' york
A Texan who doesn't understand linguistic evolution? Language is in a permanent state of flux, and who can say that "public" is singular or plural any more if enough people use it as both? Similarly, many nouns become verbs.
Although there is no Academie for English, then is it really desirable that language is set to certain rules, and cannot adapt to suit people's needs? Or even peoples' needs? Should I really go and correct anyone who spells colour "color" or vice versa? Besides, the vast majority of Francophones don't give a stuff about what the Academie says anyway, and go on adapting their language as they see fit. I suggest everyone does the same, whatever their nationality or language.

Yes, I verb nouns all the time

Seriously, if linguistic change is real, part of linguistic evolution is mockery of new forms. Thats why its evolution, dude. Only the fittest survive. Some new uses are the linguistic equivalent of being born with not enough chromosomes (or whatever) and among many of the forces of linguistic darwinism, the language equivalents of being killed by predators, is mockery by language conservatives of what sounds frankly "barbaric". If its such a useful innovation, or natural development, it will survive mockery.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by duke o' york
Have in it your country. The last thing we need is another quango.



Well I understood that, even if I'd rather not understand leet-speak. So if a few people use it, it's weird and stupid, but if everyone else uses it then will you still think that, or will you find yourself joining in?
I've lived in Yorkshire for 11 years now (I know, I know), and have so far managed to resist using "while" instead of "until" (Thank god), but am also alarmed by the nationwide habit of using "yourself" and "myself" as direct objects.

"How are you?"
"Fine. And yourself?"

If this is set to prevail (and it is used on the BBC
now too), then I'll resist as long as I can, but may well have to give in one day. But that's the nature of language. I don't use forsooth when I speak to people, but it was all the rage many years ago. Likewise, I grew up in a generation for whom "public" was (and is) plural, despite the fact I know that grammar says otherwise. Who these days says: "My team was useless last night"? Everyone uses "were useless" - especially Newcastle fans.

My team WAS horrible two weeks ago, and it will probably lose this Sunday. Seems like the usage you refer to is specific to your side of the pond. Not that that makes it wrong.


yup -[edit] "Singular and plural for nouns
In BrE, singular nouns that describe multiple people are often treated as plural, particularly where one is concerned with the people constituting the team, rather than with the team as an entity. The singular form is usually used in American. For example, British "the team are worried"; American "the team is worried". Americans may use the plural form when the individual membership is clear, for example, "the team take their seats" (not "the team takes its seat(s)"), although it is almost always rephrased to avoid the singular/plural decision, as in "the team members take their seats". The difference occurs for all collective nouns, both general terms such as team and company and proper nouns (for example, where a place name is used to refer to a sports team). Proper nouns which are plural in form take a plural verb in both AmE and BrE. Examples:

BrE: "The Clash are a well-known band." AmE: "The Clash is a well-known band." Both: "The Beatles are a well-known band."
BrE: "Pittsburgh are the champions." AmE: "Pittsburgh is the champion." Both: "The Steelers are the champions".
Use of the singular verb is not wrong in such instances in BrE. At least one authority (E. Gowers, The Complete Plain Words, 1986) indicates that either is acceptable (provided that usage is not mixed or inconsistent within the same document), and that (as implied above) the choice of verb form may be chosen according to whether the emphasis is on the body as a whole or on the individual members (for example, "A committee was appointed ...; but "the committee were unable to agree ...")."

Odd that we have an Indian preferring American usage. Is Bangalore English becoming Americanized?

[Last Conformist]

Public? Think?

[SlowwHand]

Group is a collective singular, and groups is a collective plural.


The group doesn't want to go to Mingapulco.
The groups don't want to go to Mingapulco.

[Whaleboy]

[Barnabas]

It is surely no surprise then to read the following assessment of the Marxist author Gabriel Garcia Marquez :

Magical realism expands the categorizes of the real so as to encompass myth, magic and other
extraordinary phenomena in Nature or experience which European realism excluded.
-(from Gabriel García Márquez, eds. Bernard McGuirk and Richard Cardwell)

As a writer of the Left, it is Marquez's mission to annihilate the Western belief in Reason and realism and to erect in it's place a belief in idealized Nature, the innate wisdom of the proletariat, and utopian political ideologies. In this, his most renowned novel, Marquez tells the history of the Buendia family, or of the imaginary town of Macondo, or of his own home town, or of Colombia, or of Latin America, or of the world, depending on your perspective and ability to follow his rather obscure allusions--it's equally difficult, despite Rabassa's excellent translation, to follow the Buendias from one generation to the next since everyone is named either Jose Arcadio or Aureliano. Added to the familiar epic multi-generational chronicle epic is Marquez's own contribution to literature : magical realism. Thus we get a woman ascending into heaven while hanging out laundry, an amnesia plague, alchemy, etc. And at the end of the story, it is discovered that a pre-existing scroll written one hundred years before foretold the whole tale.

The elements of fantasy, while adding nothing to the story, serve to reimagine history from an anti-Western perspective. Meanwhile, the scroll suggests that historical determinism has been at work and that the players were not even in control of their own lives. All of this quite naturally won him a Nobel Prize in 1982, sort of the politically corrupt committee's way of dissing Ronald Reagan and siding with the communists in Latin America.

Everytime I pan one of these "world classics" I end up getting angry emails telling me that "everyone" knows it's a "great" book, so let me just put this as clearly as I can : I understand that many people think that this book is the greatest thing since canned beer, but I find it nearly unreadable. Moreover, as if his continued adherence to Marxism wasn't sufficiently off-putting, Marquez has recently written editorials for American publications comparing Bill Clinton to Hester Prynne and lamenting the plight of Elian Gonzalez, not when he was shipped back to Cuba, but while he was safe here in America. I find this magical realism stuff almost uniformly annoying, but I admit that I'm willing to humor the great conservative novelist Mark Helprin when he resorts to it, though not happily. In Gabriel Garcia Marquez's case, a man who still consorts with Fidel Castro and does his vile bidding, I'm not even willing to make the effort any longer (this is my third time reading this one book and I always end up skimming.) Literature, intentionally or not, serves political purposes and the literature of Gabriel Garcia Marquez serves evil purposes. Pity me if you will, but I'll stick to the dead white males of the Western Canon who have served us so well. After all, we won the culture war and the Cold War, we live in the Hobbesian world, not that of Rousseau, can't we finally stop reading the other side's propaganda ?

[Colon™]

I don't have the attention-span to read books.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Yes, I verb nouns all the time

Verbing weirds language

[Ming]

Zoid...

Thanks for pointing out a new form of entertainment. Based on this thread, I've been surfing some reviews at Amazon. Some of them are simply unbelievable. The classics get trashed, and the trash is well liked.

Great stuff!

[Dis]

So you guys should give your reviews. I'm not familiar with 100 years of solitude. Is it any good?