raefinlay

I agree with the Anne Bishop and Harry Potter. Harry Potter is my guilty pleasure.

No wait. My guilty pleasure is the Tenjou Tenge manga. XD (Which has been licensed by DC, can you believe it?? Although I have to wonder how that goes since the early volumes are a bit heavy on the sex.)

From:

jmeadows.livejournal.com

I bought the Blood Trilogy, but it's still in Texas. Somehow it didn't make it to VA with me. :S

I read the Blue Sword... Loved it.

Harry Potter... I read the first four. I haven't gotten to the fifth one yeat.

Narnia, of COURSE!

And the Riftwar Saga. Pretty. I must read it again. :D

I also liked Mark Anthony's The Last Rune series (www.thelastrune.com) and The Last Dragonlord and Dragon and Phoenix (www.weredragon.com).

:)

From:

Yes! Loved Dragonlord and Dragon & Phoenix! Not familiar with The Last Rune. Must.Read.

From:

h'm. i notice your single example of a brilliant book is "literary" and your entertaining books are all "genre" books.

something in this nags at me. i think brilliant and entertaining can meet, and i turned to my bookshelf to find proof. but i'm hesitant to throw anything out because one man's brilliant is another man's gagging, yes? and without a list of books you find brilliant-but-not-entertaining i can't gauge why you're not being entertained.

but i'll toss out an example anyway, genre and literary both -- lee's "to kill a mockingbird"? shakespeare (particularly when seen as a play, the way the man intended [and yes, i think luhrman's R&J counts amongst that criteria])? LOTR? moorcock's "behold the man"? herbert's "dune"? donaldson's "the real story" (although i only liked book 1 and thought the rest of the series undid the brilliance and point of book 1; others i've spoken to *hated* book 1 and got on with the rest of the series happily).

i think maybe i'm being a bit more liberal in my definition of entertainment -- i'm willing to go with engaging instead of "just" fun.

did you go read the neal stephenson interview that was posted to the mailing list? he talks about "literary" and "commercial" writers in that, and the purpose and intent of each; i found it brilliant stuff.

From:

For a recent "literary" offering, I really love Takashi Matsuoka (A Cloud of Sparrows & Autumn Bridge). They're so much fun to read and follow the exploits a Japanese clan of seers. Matsuoka has a very readable style and it's so slyly humorous, it makes me "SQUEE!" like a pathetic fangirl. Which is rare, because I usually only "SQUEE!" over manga or "commercial" genre fiction.

Even though Richard Matheson's I Am Legend is genre, I also think that's brilliant stuff. But I'm also a biology dork and loved his explanation for vampirism.

From:

haven't heard of either of those, will have to look them up. thanks for the tip. muchly looking forward to a biological explanation for vampirism >;]

i guess as sff writers we're a pre-biased to consider genre capable of brilliance. i know a lot who consider the genre incapable of being entertaining, let alone of any story-merit like the "literary" stuff. but they trundled along to the LOTR multiple times happily enough. and one day when it's not so stupidly early i'll think of a genre-book they consider of literary merit; but for now i guess i'll go with margaret atwood *g*

From:

Re: Matheson & I Am Legend
Don't be too thrown by the fact that the end of world occurs in 1974. LOL He wrote it several decades ago. I am very amazed though at how "current" it reads. It doesn't feel dated at all, save for the dates and a couple niggles I had with the biology. (Sometimes this biology degree gets me in trouble. It makes me completely unable to enjoy certain forms of media.)

Margaret Atwood seems to be the most commonly cited author, doesn't she? It's a shame she tends to make disparaging remarks about genre.

Have you read Across the Nightingale Floor and the other Otori novels (which is vastly inferior, IMO) by Lian Hearn? They're very much fantasy (imaginary land that's basically feudal Japan), but they're shelved in the literary section.

From:

atwood is certainly well-cited, which is why she sprang to mind. but i know she gets nitpicky about being labelled as part of the genre. another one that crawled to the surface once i'd woken up more was isabel allende. she gets shelved in literary, but "like water for chocolate" was definitely on the speculative side of things for my money.

i've read Across the Nightingale Floor, but stopped there. Enjoyed the idea of it, but mostly found it frustrating: that style of writing, so sparse and transparent and sort of telling, always leaves me nettled and unsatisfied.

From:

The style itself bothered me less than the switching of perspectives from 1st to 3rd. That distracted me too much and irritated. It's just as well you stopped there. The characters began to frustrate me completely in the 2nd novel and I couldn't stand any of them in the 3rd.

Not to mention that deus ex machina ending.

From:

funny, the third/first didn't bother me at all, although it irritated me that the girl got the first person when she was the lesser-developed character (for my money). the guy, who ended up in third, was a much stronger protag. maybe that's why she chose first for the girl, to force the reader closer? didn't work for me, though.

From:

Actually, Kaede was the third person and Takeo was the first person. By the end of the second novel, I wanted kill Kaede; she was no so annoying and well, stupid.

From:

really? truly? :checks book: :slaps self in forehead:

well. there ya go. just goes to show how deeply the book touched me, eh? ie, not really at all!

From:

And I really shouldn't comment when I've just woken up. That should read "she was so annoying and well, stupid." >.<;

From:

Cool response!

EEEE! How could I forget LOTR? Or Dune??? *flogs self*

Yes, I focused on genre books because most of my writer buddies are sff oriented, but my list could be much longer. Hmmm...I think "entertaining" is far more subjective than "brilliant." So, yes one man's trash... For me, entertainment is escapism. I love to lose myself in rousing adventure, romance, and the highly unlikely. I am a simple non-intellectual at heart.

I used Steinbeck as an example of what turns me off because it is sooo gritty. If I wanted to immerse myself in hopelessness, I'd take a walk downtown. But I do understand that others find his take on the human condition absolutely "engaging." Cool beans. I'd just rather spend my time at Hogwarts. :P

From:

hee. i know what you mean. i find myself overly critical of books, and tend to read only the entertaining-and-engaging stuff; just entertaining leaves me wanting more. frex deerskin: i didn't dislike it, but i found it so forgettable i promptly forgot i'd read it. picked it up at the library a couple years later and it wasn't until i was halfway through that i realised i definitely had read this before. strange stuff. the riftwar novels, otoh, i loved. which just proves you right: entertaining is far more subjective a label.

i'm much much more tolerant of movies -- i think that's where i go for pure escapism, because i don't notice the commas in movies >;]

From:

everyonesakitty.livejournal.com

doooode. you be careful of those spiders! they're evil and must be stopped!

From:

maac.livejournal.com

Well, I LIKE Steinbeck, just to be the odd man out. I've never forgotten Grapes.. and I would have said it was enjoyable. However, Uncle Tom's Cabin is sitting on my desk and remains pecked at. But I'll admit to also liking Narnia and Eddings, so perhaps I shall escape a lynching in present company. :)

From:

You like Steinbeck???? Weirdo.

Naw, just kidding. He wouldn't be considered a literary genius if you were the only one who thought that way. No lynching for Ant. Not today anyway. :p

From:

aaron-mag.livejournal.com

I went for a period where I would read only 'literary giants'. Turns to book shelf: Crane, Dickens, Pasternak, DH Lawrence, Steinbeck, Hemmingway, etc.

But then I realized that I read these books to maintain my 'intellectualism' after college and wasn't really enjoying them that much. Besides...there was no one to discuss them with. People knew the names but *no one* ever read such things around the offices I worked at.

Now I usually read autobiographies, thrillers, and some fantasy/sci fi. But most fantasy I find severely lacking. Was David Eddings the book with Polgara and some other old dude who was basically Gandalf? If so I hated it and many others that people recommended to me.

Seriously dudes...I like the writing that you guys give me on OWW so much better than alot of the published fantasy out there. People on OWW really try to push the envelope. Probably because they get ripped to shreds if they get caught in cliche fantasy. :D

From:

Hee! I read the Eddings stuff when I was in high school and loved it. His second series was merely Eddings-lite...His latest stuff (with wife Leigh) is truly dismal. I can't bring myself to finish a single book.

But to high-schooler Rae, he was a genius!

From:

aaron-mag.livejournal.com

Oh...fantasy I do like:

Dune (although Chapter House Dune he started to ramble...and I don't like the new Dune stuff written by his son and the other guy).

LOTR (of course)

Books written by MAR Barker (Flamesong and Man of Gold). These books are out of print, but they describe this weird world that was totally captivating.

I liked the old Conan books...

I liked Michael Moorcock because Elric was an interesting sort of hero.

*smacks head*

And the original Foundation trilogy by Isaac Asimov!!! Best sci fi book ever. The later ones I didn't like as much. But those first three....oh man were those good.

Okay...I'm sure there were others, but I'll shut up now.

From: