That's perfectly fine. Thanks for the update.
22-Jun-2010 20:32:05
Forums
Lunar Eclipse
Quick find code: 49-50-305-56396878
While I do not doubt that you literary knowledge of both the new and old is no doubt surpassing my own, I do like to think I know a thing or two about the piano and its composers. I have been playing the instrument for ten years and have been subjected from composers from ancient to modern day and the one thing I notice is that instrumental music has evolved.
Compare Bach. His music is clear in tone, which seems to generate a perpetual motion. Recently I have heard many of Prokofiev’s works of the 20th century, and they seem to have an alien feel, with chords and progressions I have never heard before from any Baroque, Classical or even Romantic composer.
Go even more modern and we have Alexina Louie, a Canadian composer who wrote such works like Fast Forward and Warrior contain new time signatures and rhythms, things that composers of 400 years ago would never dare to try, because it was different age and time.
You have mentioned that the past has produced many great works that will stand the test of time. Well, I believe that in 200 years, people will be studying the literary works of our own time, studying the way the flow of our writing can emotional connect better with their readers. I don’t think literary classics are better or worse then the writers we have now. Just different.
Anyways, nice talking to you. I am planning to resubscribe to Runescape so I shall finish your story then.
Compare Bach. His music is clear in tone, which seems to generate a perpetual motion. Recently I have heard many of Prokofiev’s works of the 20th century, and they seem to have an alien feel, with chords and progressions I have never heard before from any Baroque, Classical or even Romantic composer.
Go even more modern and we have Alexina Louie, a Canadian composer who wrote such works like Fast Forward and Warrior contain new time signatures and rhythms, things that composers of 400 years ago would never dare to try, because it was different age and time.
You have mentioned that the past has produced many great works that will stand the test of time. Well, I believe that in 200 years, people will be studying the literary works of our own time, studying the way the flow of our writing can emotional connect better with their readers. I don’t think literary classics are better or worse then the writers we have now. Just different.
Anyways, nice talking to you. I am planning to resubscribe to Runescape so I shall finish your story then.
23-Jun-2010 17:37:34
Kylebooker1,
Hello. I just want to say before I respond to any of your points that just yesterday I was re-reading your original posts about the story and responding to the review. I really respect and appreciate the time you took to make those, and all of the following, posts. Regardless of whether or not I agree with your points, I respect them. But more than that, I respect you for taking such care in preparing feedback. This forum is full of many things, but readers who respond are far from that list.
Now, to respond in kind to each of your points.
Edgar Allan Poe wrote The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket. It was the only novel he wrote, as, like you said, he primarily wrote in the short story and poem genres.
The fact that you consider Rowling and King to be your favourite authors predisposes you to a defensive role. I dislike this. It has already made you read into my comments far too much and my meaning, if I am reading your own correctly, far too little. I say this because I don't recall ever "slandering" these authors. I merely defined the differences in style between the popular modern author and the popular classic author.
I am really hesitant to define one style as better than another. I am but one perspective on the vast array of opinions, and I see no qualification that I have to determine the superiority of one set over another. Instead, I explain my point of view. Thus, in my opinion, formula fiction is less desirable than other styles of literature because it holds itself to a lower literary standard.
The explanation as to why I listed and look primarily in antiquated authors as opposed to their contemporary counterparts is, to be frank, quite simple. There is a great concentration of the style I prefer in older literature than in modern literature, so finding something I find exceptionally enjoyable is more likely when searching in that demographic.
Hello. I just want to say before I respond to any of your points that just yesterday I was re-reading your original posts about the story and responding to the review. I really respect and appreciate the time you took to make those, and all of the following, posts. Regardless of whether or not I agree with your points, I respect them. But more than that, I respect you for taking such care in preparing feedback. This forum is full of many things, but readers who respond are far from that list.
Now, to respond in kind to each of your points.
Edgar Allan Poe wrote The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket. It was the only novel he wrote, as, like you said, he primarily wrote in the short story and poem genres.
The fact that you consider Rowling and King to be your favourite authors predisposes you to a defensive role. I dislike this. It has already made you read into my comments far too much and my meaning, if I am reading your own correctly, far too little. I say this because I don't recall ever "slandering" these authors. I merely defined the differences in style between the popular modern author and the popular classic author.
I am really hesitant to define one style as better than another. I am but one perspective on the vast array of opinions, and I see no qualification that I have to determine the superiority of one set over another. Instead, I explain my point of view. Thus, in my opinion, formula fiction is less desirable than other styles of literature because it holds itself to a lower literary standard.
The explanation as to why I listed and look primarily in antiquated authors as opposed to their contemporary counterparts is, to be frank, quite simple. There is a great concentration of the style I prefer in older literature than in modern literature, so finding something I find exceptionally enjoyable is more likely when searching in that demographic.
24-Jun-2010 02:20:34
"I believe that the world is based on evolution. We experience it in everything, from music, to clothing and yes, literature. Furthermore, as the world progresses into this day and age, literature has evolved from stories that make us want to think, to stories that make us emotionally connected too. I have read Edgar Allan Poe, and I don’t feel sadness or pity for his characters. I love his imagination; it just doesn’t seem to touch my emotions."
I think that you and I differ fundamentally in our views of the world. As I said in the prologue, I think the world is based on cycles. Literature hasn't necessarily evolved from stories that make us think; it has merely changed. If you look at a comprehensive graph of the liberality of literature since, say, the Greeks, you'll notice a repeating pattern. Its timeframe is inconsistent, which is to, ironically, make it consistent. If I may, I'd like to describe this cycle:
No liberality,
Some liberality,
More liberality,
Most liberality,
All liberality,
Descending liberality,
No liberality.
Note: extremes are impossible in terms of liberality.
Simple, eh? I think the 1830s-1850s were a period of "more" and "some liberality" whereas we are currently experiencing a period of "descending liberality". After the recession ends, I wouldn't be surprised if we approached the brink of no liberality, say, by 2025, give or take five years.
Liberality can be defined as the tendency and willingness of authors to veer from what is deemed the "social norm" or literary status quo.
If you'd like, I can explain why I view this way and explicate the causes. Simply ask if you're curious. (I'd like to hear your input on this particular theory, as it is more my own that someone else's
)
I think that you and I differ fundamentally in our views of the world. As I said in the prologue, I think the world is based on cycles. Literature hasn't necessarily evolved from stories that make us think; it has merely changed. If you look at a comprehensive graph of the liberality of literature since, say, the Greeks, you'll notice a repeating pattern. Its timeframe is inconsistent, which is to, ironically, make it consistent. If I may, I'd like to describe this cycle:
No liberality,
Some liberality,
More liberality,
Most liberality,
All liberality,
Descending liberality,
No liberality.
Note: extremes are impossible in terms of liberality.
Simple, eh? I think the 1830s-1850s were a period of "more" and "some liberality" whereas we are currently experiencing a period of "descending liberality". After the recession ends, I wouldn't be surprised if we approached the brink of no liberality, say, by 2025, give or take five years.
Liberality can be defined as the tendency and willingness of authors to veer from what is deemed the "social norm" or literary status quo.
If you'd like, I can explain why I view this way and explicate the causes. Simply ask if you're curious. (I'd like to hear your input on this particular theory, as it is more my own that someone else's
)
24-Jun-2010 02:43:22 - Last edited on 13-Jul-2010 21:17:38 by Yrolg
With regards to Poe's empathetical strength, I think that again we must differ, but only slightly. Authors of this style do not relate the characters to the audience; instead, they relate the plot.
"How can you possibly scare people when they are confused about everything that is happening?"
I'm afraid I don't quite understand this quote. The stories aren't confusing, so I have difficulty understanding why you would assume Stephen King's would be.
Stephen King, without a doubt, writes formula fiction. It's not nearly as "bad" as some other authors, but it is nonetheless a quality of his works.
"You have mentioned that the past has produced many great works that will stand the test of time. Well, I believe that in 200 years, people will be studying the literary works of our own time, studying the way the flow of our writing can emotional connect better with their readers. I don’t think literary classics are better or worse then the writers we have now. Just different. "
Most of the works that we view as superior classics now were indeed not popular during the period in which they were written (an exception being Les Misérables). I think that in 200 years, we won't be discussing Twilight or Stephen King; we'll be discussing the works that are hidden behind the concealing veil of popularity. We don't always remember the past for what was popular, but for what was great. There is a distinct difference.
I think the biggest difference in our views is that you think that contemporary works which are popular connect with the audience whereas I think they manipulate the audience. The unfortunate part of this thought is that I think they manipulate them in a bad way. It isn't the manipulation that evokes a connection but the manipulation that makes the readers think there is a connection. In an essence, it's like letting someone convince you that cigarettes aren't bad for your health -- that someone is usually, in some form or another, a corporation.
"How can you possibly scare people when they are confused about everything that is happening?"
I'm afraid I don't quite understand this quote. The stories aren't confusing, so I have difficulty understanding why you would assume Stephen King's would be.
Stephen King, without a doubt, writes formula fiction. It's not nearly as "bad" as some other authors, but it is nonetheless a quality of his works.
"You have mentioned that the past has produced many great works that will stand the test of time. Well, I believe that in 200 years, people will be studying the literary works of our own time, studying the way the flow of our writing can emotional connect better with their readers. I don’t think literary classics are better or worse then the writers we have now. Just different. "
Most of the works that we view as superior classics now were indeed not popular during the period in which they were written (an exception being Les Misérables). I think that in 200 years, we won't be discussing Twilight or Stephen King; we'll be discussing the works that are hidden behind the concealing veil of popularity. We don't always remember the past for what was popular, but for what was great. There is a distinct difference.
I think the biggest difference in our views is that you think that contemporary works which are popular connect with the audience whereas I think they manipulate the audience. The unfortunate part of this thought is that I think they manipulate them in a bad way. It isn't the manipulation that evokes a connection but the manipulation that makes the readers think there is a connection. In an essence, it's like letting someone convince you that cigarettes aren't bad for your health -- that someone is usually, in some form or another, a corporation.
24-Jun-2010 03:41:23 - Last edited on 27-Jun-2010 16:25:14 by Yrolg
I also think that there's more to being a good piece of literature than establishing an emotional connection.
Anyways, this was a nice discussion (hopefully it will continue to be). It's nice to see you're coming back; familiar faces are always welcome back.
Thanks again for your comments. I do appreciate your effort.
Anyways, this was a nice discussion (hopefully it will continue to be). It's nice to see you're coming back; familiar faces are always welcome back.
Thanks again for your comments. I do appreciate your effort.
27-Jun-2010 16:31:39
Time to be honest. I leave Friday, so I won't be able to get your review done until *at least* August. Sorry.
I really hadn't planned on all of this stuff popping up, but just when I think I'm free, something else happens or another thing comes up. I'm terribly sorry about this.
I promise that I'll review it eventually. Yup. Eventually. I'm a bit to stressed to deal with it before I leave Friday.
Thank you for dealing with all these delays. I really appreciate your being so understanding. Can I promise that the review will be extra spectacular?
~Reegena
I really hadn't planned on all of this stuff popping up, but just when I think I'm free, something else happens or another thing comes up. I'm terribly sorry about this.
I promise that I'll review it eventually. Yup. Eventually. I'm a bit to stressed to deal with it before I leave Friday.
Thank you for dealing with all these delays. I really appreciate your being so understanding. Can I promise that the review will be extra spectacular?
~Reegena
12-Jul-2010 00:33:36 - Last edited on 12-Jul-2010 00:35:16 by [#BPN2TQMFI]
Yrolg, your thesis is unclear to me. Are you stating that Liberality is what makes a story legendary, or that you are just contradicting my beliefs. Because the way you are discussing it, it seems like you believe that the only good stories are those from the past and contain liberality. I could've, and probably have, taken this the wrong way, so I wouldn't mind some explanation, as well as towards the reasoning towards your thesis.
I just feel it's hard to be original nowadays when everything seems to be related to something of the past. We might creat new styles, or new inventions, but it all seems to have been based on some preexistent thing.
While you mentioned Stephen King though I think comparing him to Poe is Apples to Oranges. He was probably one of the first to develop horror into something with more depth then just ghost stories. Poe, as I'm sure you know just rarely, if ever has sub-plots. So I don't really see how Stephen King's works can be formula fiction, if he writes in style that has never really been developed until his time. (And please correct me if I'm absurdly wrong, which after hearing your response I'm sure I will be).
Before I finish, is there any novels of the living that you believe will become "timeless classics". Just wondering.
It's Kyle, if you haven't guessed.
I just feel it's hard to be original nowadays when everything seems to be related to something of the past. We might creat new styles, or new inventions, but it all seems to have been based on some preexistent thing.
While you mentioned Stephen King though I think comparing him to Poe is Apples to Oranges. He was probably one of the first to develop horror into something with more depth then just ghost stories. Poe, as I'm sure you know just rarely, if ever has sub-plots. So I don't really see how Stephen King's works can be formula fiction, if he writes in style that has never really been developed until his time. (And please correct me if I'm absurdly wrong, which after hearing your response I'm sure I will be).
Before I finish, is there any novels of the living that you believe will become "timeless classics". Just wondering.
It's Kyle, if you haven't guessed.
13-Jul-2010 04:08:07 - Last edited on 13-Jul-2010 04:09:22 by Dark Enmity
I am Reegena,
You really have no idea just how much I understand.
Whenever I say I'll have a review done by any date, something always comes up to stop it. I'm capable of waiting however long is necessary for a review. This is a gratuity on your part, and I would be sorely out of place to demand that you take time out of a stressful life to write a review for a person you barely know over the internet.
I'm leaving for a ten day trip in a week or two, so it's probably good timing on the universe's part that our lives are so jointly hectic.
You really have no idea just how much I understand.
Whenever I say I'll have a review done by any date, something always comes up to stop it. I'm capable of waiting however long is necessary for a review. This is a gratuity on your part, and I would be sorely out of place to demand that you take time out of a stressful life to write a review for a person you barely know over the internet.
I'm leaving for a ten day trip in a week or two, so it's probably good timing on the universe's part that our lives are so jointly hectic.
13-Jul-2010 21:09:47
Quick find code: 49-50-305-56396878 Back to Top