RE: [MMouse]: coupland and authors
We had an entire discussion in class about that same idea...the value in things that are "transitory", that they enter mass culture, influence, shape it, and when the change has been made, the piece of literature (for example) is then viewed as trite and/or devalued... I somehow don't see people rushing the library bookshelves for Coupland in 100 years, though he has certainly done a lot of work on our current culture. Dostoevsky on the other hand seems to have made a very powerful impact on many, many people throughout the world, over 100 years after his death. It's hard to say which is "greater". Another thought...how pertinant are some of these authors outside the U.S., where we have the time and money to be so vague and cynical? I didn't really pay attention to this thread..but good literature is timeless. If the source of somethings relevance is only in its timeliness, then it probably isn't that wonderful of a work. __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
[MMouse]: coupland and authors
From: "kat love" [EMAIL PROTECTED] yes, girlfriend in a coma sucked (despite all the smiths references) and generation x was damn good. but didn't anyone read Microserfs? i love that one. (sorryjack ;p) You and yr Coupland. I think Coupland should be exterminated - but Leyner is definitely pretty good. Leyner has a strong Burroughs influence and more of a sense of self-deprecation about him, whereas Coupland is like the gen-x equivalent of Annie Dillard. As far as modern writers... Irvine Welsh is fantastic... Tom Robbins is still good... and then you have Neal Stephenson, Orson Scott Card, and William Gibson, who are usually called "science fiction" writers but really their work is also most definitely literature - especially Gibson. Very few books have painted as perfect a picture of This Is Who We Are as his novel "Mona Lisa Overdrive". But when you get right down to it, Miller's Tropic of Cancer is really where it's all at, and no one has done better yet. np:Jessamine, "22:30" -- ...extensive liner notes and make-believe alien languages... Rev. Jack Godsey. http://members.tripod.com/~spill/index.html Spiritual counsel and webmaster for Pegasi 51. http://members.tripod.com/pegasi51/index.html
Re: [MMouse]: coupland and authors
But when you get right down to it, Miller's Tropic of Cancer is really where it's all at, and no one has done better yet. No one, ever? J. D. Salinger, Franny and Zooey Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle Joseph Heller, Catch-22 Nikos Kazantzakis, The Last Temptation of Christ Hermann Hesse, Steppenwolf to cover 20th century authors, and before that, Fyodor Mikhailovich D., any and all... and so on, and so on... Of course Mr. Miller had the advantage of knowing/fucking Anais Nin which gives anyone cool points, but I have to strongly disagree that he's the best author ever. Keight __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
[MMouse]: coupland and authors
Kathryn McDonald wrote: But when you get right down to it, Miller's Tropic of Cancer is really where it's all at, and no one has done better yet. No one, ever? J. D. Salinger, Franny and Zooey The "Franny" part I liked immensely, but the "Zooey" part I found somewhat annoying for the first half at least. Catcher in the Rye was better, and I'd say it's very nearly as good as Tropic of Cancer. Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle Mmm... beyond Breakfast of Champions, I'm not much of a Vonnegut expert/fan. Joseph Heller, Catch-22 Nah... decent, about on par with something like William Golding's "Darkness Visible" (except in the opposite direction). Nikos Kazantzakis, The Last Temptation of Christ Not a big fan... something about it bothers me. Hermann Hesse, Steppenwolf Haven't read... to cover 20th century authors, and before that, Fyodor Mikhailovich D., any and all... I really am almost exclusively interested in modern writing - which is not to say anything bad about pre-20th century work, just that I'm not in 2 it. I'm interested in literature that explores who we are, who we've become recently - not who we were, because I don't believe it's possible to truly comprehend who we were just by reading literature - the only reason I can comprehend "who we are" (humanity) in modern works is because I already know - in a sense I think literature should be self-affirming or, more precisely, meditative - literature should be gospel, not documentary. Of course Mr. Miller had the advantage of knowing/fucking Anais Nin which gives anyone cool points I'm not entirely convinced of this. Her writing is mediocre at best, and her promiscuity is always presented in a kind of wide-eyed "I'm having this sexual awakening, I don't know what to do, blah blah blah" way, ignoring the fact that she was essentially a slut - I don't think she should be admired for cheating on a loving husband - and by the same token, I don't admire certain aspects of Miller's attitude towards women. That said, I don't think she was a terrible person either - somewhere between Marrianne Faithful and Courtney Love, perhaps. but I have to strongly disagree that he's the best author ever. Well, I mean, that's cool. No one can ever say who is or isn't the "best" author, or musician - only who is best to him or herself. As I often say, I would never make the statement "Godspeed You Black Emperor! are better than the Spice Girls" - just that *I* happen to like them more. np:Flying Saucer Attack, "Since When (Part Two)" -- ...extensive liner notes and make-believe alien languages... Rev. Jack Godsey. http://members.tripod.com/~spill/index.html Spiritual counsel and webmaster for Pegasi 51. http://members.tripod.com/pegasi51/index.html
Re: [MMouse]: coupland and authors
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ah, your muddled comments are amusing me. Dostoyevsky hits human nature better than 90% of the hacks that pass for "modern writers." SOME of human nature, yes. There are some aspects of human nature that are timeless - but there are also many aspects which are contingent upon the era they're written in. Anytime society undergoes radical change, its literatures/mythologies change in ways which reflect the ways in which the society changes. And no time period has had more radical change than the past 100 years. But, I think you missed my point somewhat, because I would consider Dostoevsky to be a "modern writer" anyway. np:Mogwai, "Christmas Song" -- ...extensive liner notes and make-believe alien languages... Rev. Jack Godsey. http://members.tripod.com/~spill/index.html Spiritual counsel and webmaster for Pegasi 51. http://members.tripod.com/pegasi51/index.html
RE: [MMouse]: coupland and authors
Well said. I didn't really pay attention to this thread..but good literature is timeless. If the source of somethings relevance is only in its timeliness, then it probably isn't that wonderful of a work. Dostoyevsky and writers/philosiphers like him knew what it meant to be human, that it extended far beyond monitary greed and shallow desire, that at its heart, humanity was in a constant search for what was "right" and what was "wrong". This thought is one of my passions at the moment actually..so I thought i'd just say..hell yeah dostoyevsky rocks. mark I'm sorry about the phone call, and needing you, some decisions you don't make. I guess its just like breathing but not wanting to, ya there are some things that you can't fake. VM19085475090 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 2:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [MMouse]: coupland and authors Ah, your muddled comments are amusing me. Dostoyevsky hits human nature better than 90% of the hacks that pass for "modern writers." It isn't "who we were," it's who we are... that's the nature of good literature, it doesn't limit itself to the time in which it was written. Self-affirmingly meditative, J. "Public opinion is always right, especially when it's really idiotic." L.F. Celine to cover 20th century authors, and before that, Fyodor Mikhailovich D., any and all... I really am almost exclusively interested in modern writing - which is not to say anything bad about pre-20th century work, just that I'm not in 2 it. I'm interested in literature that explores who we are, who we've become recently - not who we were, because I don't believe it's possible to truly comprehend who we were just by reading literature - the only reason I can comprehend "who we are" (humanity) in modern works is because I already know - in a sense I think literature should be self-affirming or, more precisely, meditative - literature should be gospel, not documentary.
Re: [MMouse]: coupland and authors
Well, I guess if you were to get specific, mythologies do change, but the act of creating mythologies is timeless. And the "extent" to which they actually "change" is debatable. I tend to think it's the same few tired ideas that keep coming up, only they always seem to have some new spin on them--making them appear changed. And, perhaps, that is what you are concerned with in literature? SOME of human nature, yes. There are some aspects of human nature that are timeless - but there are also many aspects which are contingent upon the era they're written in. Anytime society undergoes radical change, its literatures/mythologies change in ways which reflect the ways in which the society changes. And no time period has had more radical change than the past 100 years. As far as the last 100 years: technologically speaking, it has been extremely radical. But, as for meditative reflecting the essence of humanity, let's not forget the Age of Reason or the Renaissance. Though I won't kid you, I'd rather read Celine or Kundera before I'd pick up a book of Shakespeare. But, I think you missed my point somewhat, because I would consider Very possible. I do that a lot. Dostoevsky to be a "modern writer" anyway. Oh, I thought you were saying 20th cent. Dostoy was long gone by the 1900's. np:Mogwai, "Christmas Song" Great song!
Re: [MMouse]: coupland and authors
Thank you, thank you, thank you... Somehow hearing that Miller had more insight into the human condition than Dostoevsky kind of made me feel like retching. Kate Ah, your muddled comments are amusing me. Dostoyevsky hits human nature better than 90% of the hacks that pass for "modern writers." It isn't "who we were," it's who we are... that's the nature of good literature, it doesn't limit itself to the time in which it was written. Self-affirmingly meditative, J. "Public opinion is always right, especially when it's really idiotic." L.F. Celine to cover 20th century authors, and before that, Fyodor Mikhailovich D., any and all... I really am almost exclusively interested in modern writing - which is not to say anything bad about pre-20th century work, just that I'm not in 2 it. I'm interested in literature that explores who we are, who we've become recently - not who we were, because I don't believe it's possible to truly comprehend who we were just by reading literature - the only reason I can comprehend "who we are" (humanity) in modern works is because I already know - in a sense I think literature should be self-affirming or, more precisely, meditative - literature should be gospel, not documentary. __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
