Books I Love

[raefinlay]

My sister, Rebekah, and I were chatting the other night about books--one of our favorite topics--and we started making distinctions between really BRILLIANT books and really ENTERTAINING books. And how nary the twain shall meet. Or at least rarely. Case in point: The Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck. Can I appreciate it? Absolutely. Do I like it? No way. *makes gagging noise* I've seen lists and lists and lists of brilliant, earth-shaking books. So here, briefly, is a list of books I love for no other reason than the fact that they are fun!!! (A few ARE truly brilliant, but that's not why I list them here.)

Emphasis on sf&f, of course. No particular order:

Deerskin by Robin McKinley
The Blood Trilogy by Anne Bishop
The Belgariad by David Eddings
Ender's Game, Ender's Shadow, Shadow of the Hegemon by Orson Scott Card
The Blue Sword by Robin McKinley
Harper Hall Trilogy by Anne McCafferey
Harry Potter, (years 1-3) by J.K. Rowling
Doomsday Book by Connie Willis
Beggars in Spain by Nancy Kress
The Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis
The Princess and the Goblin, The Princess and Curdie by George MacDonald
The Riftwar Saga by Raymond E. Feist

By no means exhaustive, but there you are, straight from Rae's library. If there's anything I need to add to the collection, let me know!

Hmmm...after looking at that list...*reconsiders postulate*...I guess it IS possible to write something brilliant and fun. Like Beggars in Spain. Wow and Wow.

Bugs: We found a black widow in my house!!! *dies* Luckily, my dad was visiting and killed her. He is my hero.

Comments

[junaras.livejournal.com]

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.

[dark-geisha.livejournal.com]

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.

[junaras.livejournal.com]

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*

[dark-geisha.livejournal.com]

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.

[junaras.livejournal.com]

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.

[dark-geisha.livejournal.com]

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.

[junaras.livejournal.com]

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.

[dark-geisha.livejournal.com]

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.

[junaras.livejournal.com]

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!

[dark-geisha.livejournal.com]

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

[raecarson.livejournal.com]

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

[junaras.livejournal.com]

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 >;]