junomoule (post: 1486566) wrote:@ bigsleepj -
Guess that means that Darkness Falls could set him off, even if it doubles a narrative of recent events... We could try to pretend that it's really just a landmark, but that doesn't seem quite right either.
Well, at least he doesn't mind 'The Dark Knight'. But that's only in the same way that someone named Jackson would not mind 'The Jack Knight'.
junomoule (post: 1486566) wrote:Just wish it was as fresh over here in the States!
Its not that fresh over here too, unless you buy the loose-leaf variety. You also get something here called 'red espresso', which is rooibos tea prepared in a way similar to coffee esprsso. The espresso can than be used to create either espresso, lattés or cuppacinos, as well as ice-tea. Its quite popular but it hasn't penetraded outside markets at all. If you like your tea strong then you should try it.
junomoule (post: 1486566) wrote:Agree that his fiction [in particular the Naria series] has elements that are a bit hit and miss as well, but as an allegory and a premise I find it pleasant.
That is true, though I've found that trying to judge them on a whole as one large allegory, or even trying to take its internal theology too seriously is a wrong approach. Lewis poured much of himself into it but he did not really always think them through (or so the evidence suggests). His other works were more complex and thoughtful, I feel.
junomoule (post: 1486566) wrote:Have not Fyodr Dostoevsky, and will shamefully admit that googling him was important to learning his identity. After brushing up on the man, got to conclude that he sounds terribly interesting and his writings do too. Thank you for telling me about him!
Dostoevsky is a very good author but can be difficult]Crime and Punishment[/i], and only got through it during the third try. He is difficult, but well worth the trouble as many of his various fans in this forum would attest. Best place to start would be C&P, though his best work is The Brothers Karamazov by far.
Just a word of caution: if you come across one of his books that is translated by someone named Constance Garnett then I suggest heaving it to the other side of the room (into a lit fireplace if possible), then cower in the corner and wait for the horror to pass you by.
junomoule (post: 1486566) wrote:Hmm, what do you think is most important to making a fictional story interesting
I believe that it must have something more to it. It must not just be a good story or an entertaining read, but it must have something else to it. It must either have (a) an emotional punch (one that the story earns and not manipulate the reader into), (b) an important lesson or view that the author wants to impart or (c) an entertaining, well-written story, or (d) maybe just be something stylistic that is admirable. A, B abd C are basically very common, but D can be trickier and harder to come by in a form that doesn't fall into pretension. To use an example, there is a constantly out of print author named R.A. Lafferty who is considered by many to be either a crank or a genius. I (as well as other authors including Neil Gaiman) considers him a genius. Lafferty wrote non-fiction, historical fiction, fantasy and science fiction but focused mainly on short stories that are usually filed under science fiction but should be a genre unto themselves. He also wrote several novels, the only one being in print currently is a historical fiction called Okla Hannali, but it is his short stories that assure him his cult status. One the surface they seem to be humorous tales in sci-fi settings written mostly to amuse the author. And that assessment would be correct. But Lafferty's jagged style, which seems blunt and unrefined, if studied carefully, reveals several carefully placed layers. Some layers play both subly and overt with the narrative by playing with the reader's expectations of the prose and story while other layers hide carefully hidden 'easter eggs' that give the story an added layer. These easter eggs tend to be historical in-jokes or language-jokes (Lafferty had working knowledge of several languages, living and dead). In fact, etymological humour is one of his easier to facets to get and enjoy. Some stories have layers of satire (particularly or sci-fi genre conventions) while others have social criticism, or devolve into something darker. Some can even change, by the drop of a hat, from a comedy into a horror without the change seeming jarring. Sometimes his unique style fails, which results in a story that basically sucks. Either you'll enjoy a Lafferty story, or you wont. There is no middle ground here. If you can get your hands on a short-story collection called Nine Hundred Grandmothers then you'll be in for a very strange treat. If you want to try before you buy, check out these two links.
Sorry for lapsing into an informercial state of mind. I just love Lafferty.
:)
