Well, hello again. I hope your week was pleasant, gentle reader. It is time now for us to discuss, once again our (my) poignant observations of the week (and by “discuss” I, of course, mean that I am going to talk at you and you are going to listen and like it).
As you can see from the title of this post, I have finished Fallout 3. I say finished not only in the sense that I reached the end of the game, but also in that I have no intention of ever touching the damn thing again.
Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of good things happening in Fallout 3. The V.A.T.S. system that lets a player stop the combat to choose what body-part to shoot at complete with a display of the chance to actually hit that part is pretty sweet. The game also features an hugely open world to explore and plenty of missions to undertake, meaning that one can spend massive amounts of time enjoying the game and never play any story missions (which is exactly what I did).
There's some other shit in there that damn infuriating, however. At the beginning of the game, the player picks his or her stats for the rest of the game. Those stats only change with a few perks, but for the most part, they are what they are. You never get to increase those stats when you level up. This wouldn't be so bad if there had been a sign somewhere that said “WARNING: You're stuck with these stats for the next 50-100 hours.” I got about half-way through the game before I realized that I should have just dumped all my points in Charisma and Intelligence into my Strength and Dexterity (I played as a combat character). Rest assured, reader, min/maxing is what you have to do. If you try to play an evenly-balanced character, you will quickly come to a point where you can't do anything. The enemies will be too tough for you to fight, but you aren't good enough to sneak past them. You won't be able to pick any locks nor hack any computers because your skill just won't be high enough. There is some good in the specialization it forces you to take.
There are some good points to the character creation system, though. The skills the game gives you are pretty varied and the player chooses three to be higher than all the others at the start, which means that if the player knows what kind of character he or she wants to play, he or she just has to use the appropriate stat configurations. I played a combat character, so I put mine into Small Guns, Melee, and Repair, but as the game went on, I also gave myself plenty of points in Big Guns. Other characters might want an assassin-type character which would need Sneak, Lockpick, and either Melee or Explosives. There are plenty of other archetypes to go off of as well. One might decide to take Big Guns, Science, and Medicine and make a supervillain.
What really angers me, however, is the end. I played a good character and at the end I was given the option of sacrificing myself for the greater good. I took that option, but I couldn't find the button I was supposed to push to save the world. So there was an explosion and I was shown the ending cutscene where I was a great hero who failed in the end. Pretty disappointing, eh? I saved right before I went in there, of course, but as I understand it, I need some type of code that I guess was plastered to some arbitrary wall somewhere as I strolled passed. Even if I had the code, I still don't feel like bothering to boot the game up just to see. I'm tired of Fallout 3. It was fun for a while, but it felt like I was just wandering through the story, doing whatever I was told by the people who know what the fuck is going on, but I never felt like I was getting the whole story which meant that I didn't have much stake in it.
In the end. It never felt like my character got any better. My statistics go up, but he still played just the same. Part of the appeal of an RPG is that the player-character become ridiculously awesome in ways that simply cannot be imagined. The closest thing that I came to that was getting a perk that made people explode.
So thanks, Bethesda. It was a good try, but maybe the problem here is that your game is too damn realistic, and I just don't want realism. I want awesome-ism.
Did I really just say “awesome-ism?”
Zac
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
Underworld: Rise of the Lycans: Werewolves > Vampires
Yet again, I have been unable to devote the massive quantity of time necessary finish Fallout 3. If only such pesky things as class and social interactions would grant me some leeway so that I may dispense my scathing criticism or rousing approval.
In lieu of Fallout 3, I partook in another, less lengthy form of electronic entertainment. I went to see a movie. “Underworld: Rise of the Lycans” was an interesting flick about rebellion. About the oppressed rising up to unshackle themselves and cast down their oppressors. It's about vampires and werewolves kicking the crap out of each other for your amusement.
Let's start by ironing out the kinks. First of all, everyone in the film is wearing period garb (more or less) with the exception of the vimpiress council members who skipped out on costume day to go to Hot Topic. They look as if they got lost on the way to a rave and ended up in a Renaissance Festival.
Secondly, in the first film, vampires and werewolves were simply a part of the (incoming title) underworld, the world beneath the surface that nobody knows about. However, in “Underworld: Rise of the Lycans,” they are not in the underworld at all, in fact, they are ruling. I'm all for suspension of disbelief, but to ask me to accept the fact that there was an extended period of time in the Medieval Era in which vampires were the ruling class and werewolves were routinely eating mass quantities of people (including nobility) simply went unrecorded is pushing it.
Finally, the climax of the film contains a major plot hole. Sonya is chained to a post in a room with a mechanical dome that will reveal the sun and burn her to a very shapely husk of ash while Lucian is chained to the floor. After Sonya is dead and Victor comes in the chamber that night, Lucian freaks out, transforms, and escapes. This begs the question: why the fuck couldn't he have done that a few hours earlier? Because Sonya had to die to keep continuity in the other films. That's pretty weak.
Do these things ruin the movie? No. One doesn't go to a movie like “Underworld” for the story, not really. It's an action movie at it's core. People see movies like “Underworld” to watch vampires and werewolves go at it (in both a violent and carnal sense), and that's just what “Rise of the Lycans” delivers. It's a fun movie that explores the events that initiated the drama of the other movies so that you, the viewer, may revel in your monster vs. monster gore.
I liked it, and I recommend it. Just don't expect to much out of if.
Oh, and never ever watch Babylon A.D.
-Zac
In lieu of Fallout 3, I partook in another, less lengthy form of electronic entertainment. I went to see a movie. “Underworld: Rise of the Lycans” was an interesting flick about rebellion. About the oppressed rising up to unshackle themselves and cast down their oppressors. It's about vampires and werewolves kicking the crap out of each other for your amusement.
Let's start by ironing out the kinks. First of all, everyone in the film is wearing period garb (more or less) with the exception of the vimpiress council members who skipped out on costume day to go to Hot Topic. They look as if they got lost on the way to a rave and ended up in a Renaissance Festival.
Secondly, in the first film, vampires and werewolves were simply a part of the (incoming title) underworld, the world beneath the surface that nobody knows about. However, in “Underworld: Rise of the Lycans,” they are not in the underworld at all, in fact, they are ruling. I'm all for suspension of disbelief, but to ask me to accept the fact that there was an extended period of time in the Medieval Era in which vampires were the ruling class and werewolves were routinely eating mass quantities of people (including nobility) simply went unrecorded is pushing it.
Finally, the climax of the film contains a major plot hole. Sonya is chained to a post in a room with a mechanical dome that will reveal the sun and burn her to a very shapely husk of ash while Lucian is chained to the floor. After Sonya is dead and Victor comes in the chamber that night, Lucian freaks out, transforms, and escapes. This begs the question: why the fuck couldn't he have done that a few hours earlier? Because Sonya had to die to keep continuity in the other films. That's pretty weak.
Do these things ruin the movie? No. One doesn't go to a movie like “Underworld” for the story, not really. It's an action movie at it's core. People see movies like “Underworld” to watch vampires and werewolves go at it (in both a violent and carnal sense), and that's just what “Rise of the Lycans” delivers. It's a fun movie that explores the events that initiated the drama of the other movies so that you, the viewer, may revel in your monster vs. monster gore.
I liked it, and I recommend it. Just don't expect to much out of if.
Oh, and never ever watch Babylon A.D.
-Zac
Monday, January 19, 2009
Sandman: Volume One of Awesome
Hello there, gentle reader. I hope your week has been pleasant. For my part, classes have started once again, and they have prevented me from keeping up with my daily regimen of Fallout 3. This unfortunate circumstance means that I have not yet finished the game and cannot do a review of it just yet. I was fortunate enough, however, to have a copy of Neil Gaiman's Absolute Sandman Volume 1 fall into my lap for only fifteen dollars. This was too good an offer to pass up.
For those of you who don't know of him, Neil Gaiman is a writer. He is responsible for such interesting bits of literature as American Gods, Anansi Boys, Neverwhere, and Stardust. Gaiman also has two collections of short stories and has been known to occasionally pen the odd screenplay (please forgive him for “Beowulf”). Most of my friends and I would consider him to be one of the best contemporary novelists writing in English (note that he is not one of the fantastic but boring novelists) and I would consider the Sandman comics among his best works.
I have only read a quarter of the total series, but I believe that I have finished enough story arcs to render a fair judgment. The Sandman follows the anthropomorphic personification of dream (for those of you who do not study literature on a daily basis, that means that the main character is the idea of “dream” given a body). This character has many name including Sandman, Dream, Morpheus, and others. He is one of several siblings that are also personifications such as Destiny, Death, and Desire. All of these so-called “Endless” are immortal and god-like, which makes for an interesting protagonist.
Gaiman confronts a challenge with the character of Dream himself. This is a character who never dies and has complete control over dreams and the sleep of all of humanity. In many ways, Dream is inhuman, which makes it hard for the reader to connect and empathize with him. Gaiman usues the nature of his protagonist to his advantage, though by making Dream a sort-of mysterious anti-hero. In many scenes, Dream is a powerful demi-god who speaks very archaically and goes about his errands with little regard for the individuals within humanity. This makes an interesting character for a while, but without a human side, no reader would actually care what happens to Dream because he would be impossible to connect with. Gaiman intersperses many scenes that humanize the character of Dream, though. After he finishes his initial quest, he becomes moody because he has no goal to strive for anymore, so his gentle and caring sister, Death pays him a visit and he goes with her as she does her work. They discuss a few things and at the end, Dream's spirit is uplifted.
The work is written very subtly, and a reader must pay close attention to catch everything that is happening, but this makes for a very rewarding reading experience. There is also quite a bit of interesting philosophy embedded within the strange mythology of the work. These two aspects, which characterize the better part of Gaiman's entire body of work force the reader to actually think, and anything that does that is worthy of great accolade.
Of course, there is no such thing as a perfect piece of literature, so if I am forced to find a problem with what I have read thus far, it would have to be the artwork. While the words that fill the text bubbles amaze me, the pictures that fill the panels underwhelm me. There are parts where it all works really well, such as when the reader is looking into the dark eyes of Dream, or when a particularly abstract bit of the Dreaming (Dream's realm) is being depicted, but overall, the art style leaves much to be desired. I would elaborate more fully on this point, but, frankly, I don't know how. I'm a writer, not an artist, and I'm not knowledgeable enough in the field to really critique that aspect of the work.
Sandman is a fantastic piece of literature that needs to be read despite the lackluster artwork. In addition, I would recommend reading Neil Gaiman's novels and short stories. They represent the work of a master of the craft.
Now go forth and read,
Zac
For those of you who don't know of him, Neil Gaiman is a writer. He is responsible for such interesting bits of literature as American Gods, Anansi Boys, Neverwhere, and Stardust. Gaiman also has two collections of short stories and has been known to occasionally pen the odd screenplay (please forgive him for “Beowulf”). Most of my friends and I would consider him to be one of the best contemporary novelists writing in English (note that he is not one of the fantastic but boring novelists) and I would consider the Sandman comics among his best works.
I have only read a quarter of the total series, but I believe that I have finished enough story arcs to render a fair judgment. The Sandman follows the anthropomorphic personification of dream (for those of you who do not study literature on a daily basis, that means that the main character is the idea of “dream” given a body). This character has many name including Sandman, Dream, Morpheus, and others. He is one of several siblings that are also personifications such as Destiny, Death, and Desire. All of these so-called “Endless” are immortal and god-like, which makes for an interesting protagonist.
Gaiman confronts a challenge with the character of Dream himself. This is a character who never dies and has complete control over dreams and the sleep of all of humanity. In many ways, Dream is inhuman, which makes it hard for the reader to connect and empathize with him. Gaiman usues the nature of his protagonist to his advantage, though by making Dream a sort-of mysterious anti-hero. In many scenes, Dream is a powerful demi-god who speaks very archaically and goes about his errands with little regard for the individuals within humanity. This makes an interesting character for a while, but without a human side, no reader would actually care what happens to Dream because he would be impossible to connect with. Gaiman intersperses many scenes that humanize the character of Dream, though. After he finishes his initial quest, he becomes moody because he has no goal to strive for anymore, so his gentle and caring sister, Death pays him a visit and he goes with her as she does her work. They discuss a few things and at the end, Dream's spirit is uplifted.
The work is written very subtly, and a reader must pay close attention to catch everything that is happening, but this makes for a very rewarding reading experience. There is also quite a bit of interesting philosophy embedded within the strange mythology of the work. These two aspects, which characterize the better part of Gaiman's entire body of work force the reader to actually think, and anything that does that is worthy of great accolade.
Of course, there is no such thing as a perfect piece of literature, so if I am forced to find a problem with what I have read thus far, it would have to be the artwork. While the words that fill the text bubbles amaze me, the pictures that fill the panels underwhelm me. There are parts where it all works really well, such as when the reader is looking into the dark eyes of Dream, or when a particularly abstract bit of the Dreaming (Dream's realm) is being depicted, but overall, the art style leaves much to be desired. I would elaborate more fully on this point, but, frankly, I don't know how. I'm a writer, not an artist, and I'm not knowledgeable enough in the field to really critique that aspect of the work.
Sandman is a fantastic piece of literature that needs to be read despite the lackluster artwork. In addition, I would recommend reading Neil Gaiman's novels and short stories. They represent the work of a master of the craft.
Now go forth and read,
Zac
Saturday, January 10, 2009
On "On Writing"
Welcome back, gentle, faithful, reader. Welcome back to my little rant page, where you and I shall once again plumb the depths of whatever the fuck I'm talking about. I'm excited about today's entry. I want to discuss what everyone else says about writing.
As you may have noticed by the fact that you're reading this, I am a writer; a writer who has yet to publish anything and who will likely stave to death promptly following his college graduation, but a writer none the less. I have read a few books on writing and I must say that that is a perilous endeavor. Each book I have read offers differing advice with only a few similarities among them. I propose to save you some time, gentle reader, by compiling the similarities here, within the safe confines of my blog, that you will not be forced to venture out into the perilous land of advice-books.
Firstly, one should keep in mind why all these books offer different advice: because there is no “trick” or “secret” to writing. Every writer has his or her own way of going about it. Some writers compose work in their minds before putting it to page, others sit at a blank screen and start typing to see what comes out. This is actually the first similarity among most books on writing: figure out your own style. This is typically found at the beginning of the book (which seems foolish since it begs the question “so why should I bother reading the rest of this book?”). Since there is no set way to write, each writer must figure out what makes him or her comfortable and productive. If working out stimulates your creative mind, then have a work-out before writing, or keep a pad and pen nearby to jot down ideas. If you feel that your writing comes from a place deeper in your psyche, then do some meditations or prayer before writing. If you feel like increased blood-flow to the brain will help, then suspend yourself upside down while you write. Whatever works.
The second thing that nearly all writers advise is to write daily. The amount of time writing differs. I understand that Neil Gaiman, author of American Gods and the Sandman series of comic-books, aims for 400 words every day. Other writers try to write for a certain period of time. Steven King in his On Writing says that if you don't have time to write daily, you don't have time to be a writer. There is a lot of truth to that; after all, one cannot be a writer if one does not write.
The final common piece of advice is to read. Almost every writer advises novice writers to read extensively. One should find a writer that one likes, and read in order to understand his or her style so that what one likes about it can be emulated. For my blog entries, I really like the way Tycho of Penny Arcade writes. I also like Yatzee of Zero Punctuation. I read most of Tycho's posts and I watch Zero Puncuation every week when the new episode comes out. I take what I like about each and mix it with my own style to create what is (I hope) a different style all my own.
For my part, I find that it helps to never look at a blank page until I know exactly the words I want to start out with. I don't need to start at the beginning, or have anything particularly voluminous composed in my head, but I need a sentence at least as a starting point so that I'm not staring at a blank page. A page with a line of text at the top is infinitely less intimidating than a completely blank page. From that point, I might just go from there and progress the scene or I might work my way back to find out where that bit of text came from by asking questions like “who is this person I'm talking about” or “how did this person get here”. These questions start vague, but they become more specific as I ask more questions and then I have a place to write from.
I have never finished even a short story in one sitting. If I don't have anything to start, I tweak older works that I haven't finished in my mind yet. I may spend days or weeks just playing with older works while an idea ferments in my head, and when it comes to fruition, I then concentrate on it for several days until I have finished writing it. I will then play with it for a while, editing mechanical things like grammar and punctuation, and changing words to make sure they carry the context I'm looking for. I often delete entire sentences and paragraphs and re-write them or move them, or I start adding bits to the middle of it to flesh an idea out more clearly. Using this type of editing, it would take me hours to fill 400 words, so that type of writing doesn't work for me. I try to write for one hour a day, unless I'm really busy with the semester, and even then I go for half an hour. I also stop after I reach a stopping point. When I finish a short story, I stop and get up from my computer. I leave the editing process for the next day or even a few weeks later, once I've gotten some distance from the work.
For what it's worth, I hope that this helps with your writing (assuming that you would like to write), but keep in mind that I'm not yet published, so as far as you know, this entire post could be rubbish.
That about rounds up my hour for the day,
Zac
As you may have noticed by the fact that you're reading this, I am a writer; a writer who has yet to publish anything and who will likely stave to death promptly following his college graduation, but a writer none the less. I have read a few books on writing and I must say that that is a perilous endeavor. Each book I have read offers differing advice with only a few similarities among them. I propose to save you some time, gentle reader, by compiling the similarities here, within the safe confines of my blog, that you will not be forced to venture out into the perilous land of advice-books.
Firstly, one should keep in mind why all these books offer different advice: because there is no “trick” or “secret” to writing. Every writer has his or her own way of going about it. Some writers compose work in their minds before putting it to page, others sit at a blank screen and start typing to see what comes out. This is actually the first similarity among most books on writing: figure out your own style. This is typically found at the beginning of the book (which seems foolish since it begs the question “so why should I bother reading the rest of this book?”). Since there is no set way to write, each writer must figure out what makes him or her comfortable and productive. If working out stimulates your creative mind, then have a work-out before writing, or keep a pad and pen nearby to jot down ideas. If you feel that your writing comes from a place deeper in your psyche, then do some meditations or prayer before writing. If you feel like increased blood-flow to the brain will help, then suspend yourself upside down while you write. Whatever works.
The second thing that nearly all writers advise is to write daily. The amount of time writing differs. I understand that Neil Gaiman, author of American Gods and the Sandman series of comic-books, aims for 400 words every day. Other writers try to write for a certain period of time. Steven King in his On Writing says that if you don't have time to write daily, you don't have time to be a writer. There is a lot of truth to that; after all, one cannot be a writer if one does not write.
The final common piece of advice is to read. Almost every writer advises novice writers to read extensively. One should find a writer that one likes, and read in order to understand his or her style so that what one likes about it can be emulated. For my blog entries, I really like the way Tycho of Penny Arcade writes. I also like Yatzee of Zero Punctuation. I read most of Tycho's posts and I watch Zero Puncuation every week when the new episode comes out. I take what I like about each and mix it with my own style to create what is (I hope) a different style all my own.
For my part, I find that it helps to never look at a blank page until I know exactly the words I want to start out with. I don't need to start at the beginning, or have anything particularly voluminous composed in my head, but I need a sentence at least as a starting point so that I'm not staring at a blank page. A page with a line of text at the top is infinitely less intimidating than a completely blank page. From that point, I might just go from there and progress the scene or I might work my way back to find out where that bit of text came from by asking questions like “who is this person I'm talking about” or “how did this person get here”. These questions start vague, but they become more specific as I ask more questions and then I have a place to write from.
I have never finished even a short story in one sitting. If I don't have anything to start, I tweak older works that I haven't finished in my mind yet. I may spend days or weeks just playing with older works while an idea ferments in my head, and when it comes to fruition, I then concentrate on it for several days until I have finished writing it. I will then play with it for a while, editing mechanical things like grammar and punctuation, and changing words to make sure they carry the context I'm looking for. I often delete entire sentences and paragraphs and re-write them or move them, or I start adding bits to the middle of it to flesh an idea out more clearly. Using this type of editing, it would take me hours to fill 400 words, so that type of writing doesn't work for me. I try to write for one hour a day, unless I'm really busy with the semester, and even then I go for half an hour. I also stop after I reach a stopping point. When I finish a short story, I stop and get up from my computer. I leave the editing process for the next day or even a few weeks later, once I've gotten some distance from the work.
For what it's worth, I hope that this helps with your writing (assuming that you would like to write), but keep in mind that I'm not yet published, so as far as you know, this entire post could be rubbish.
That about rounds up my hour for the day,
Zac
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Popular Literature
Welcome back, gentle reader. I hope your Christahanakwanzica was as relaxing as mine (for those of you who don't feel like breaking down the above insane jumble of letters, that's Christmas, Hanukkah, and Kwanzaa forced together until they form one monstrously mutated holiday, begging in a distorted voice for it's own death).
Oh, and happy New Year, too.
We discussed high literature a few weeks back, and I feel that today is a good day to discuss books again (because I haven't gotten through enough of Fallout 3 to make a review of it). This time, however, I would like to talk about popular literature.
Perhaps you are considering rolling your eyes and preparing yourself for my devastating criticism of your favorite books, but rest assured: I can't stand the know-it-all pricks who like to shit on everything everyone else likes, just because everyone else likes it. Those guys are assholes.
The waves of immensely popular books that have been seen over the last few years are very good things. Book series like Harry Potter, Eregon, or Twilight are great because they get people to read who normally wouldn't. They are interesting stories that are written well enough to hook readers and keep them reading. This will, hopefully, get the reader to branch out once that series is finished and read other books.
There are problems with this kind of popular literature, the largest of which is that one cannot talk about the problems of popular literature openly because big brother is watching, and he is an obsessed Harry Potter fan. Note the comic care of Derek Barnett. The sad part is that this is not a gross deviation from an actual conversation.
I'm not saying that these books aren't good, because if that were true, no one would ever read them, but the authors are not Homer and their works are not perfect. Authors such as Ken Follet or Phillip Roth are much more skillful in the craft and when Rowlings or Paolini are compared against them, there is no comparison.
I read all seven Harry Potter books and I liked them all (some more than others). I also read the first two Eldest novels and I liked the first one (the second one was crap), and my girlfriend (also an English major) really enjoyed all the Twilight books, but I will not allow myself to think that these authors are perfect when they are not. Rowlings needs to work on the way she describes her interesting world and just because Paolini published a novel when he was nineteen doesn't mean that he can't grow as an author anymore.
I brought up Ken Follet and Philip Roth earlier, and Derek's comic mentions Joyce and Faulkner. Popular literature is nothing like the works of these three, but here's the thing: that's okay. When I was a child, I read Goosebumps. These short, scary novels for children are nowhere near high literature, but I wouldn't read one and say to myself “these characters are terribly developed and the plot lacks any real depth” because the books are a hundred pages long (if that) and meant to be read by third-graders. I read Goosebumps because they entertained me as a child and made me want to read more so that the whole broad world of literature was opened up to me.
Popular novels open up the world of literature for those that may not have been interested in it before, and that's a great thing, but it must be remembered that they don't have the same quality of writing as other, more prestigious authors have. Enjoy them for what they are, but know that they are not made of gold, and they were never intended to be.
Oops, I fell out of the high writing style I usually adopt,
Zac
Oh, and happy New Year, too.
We discussed high literature a few weeks back, and I feel that today is a good day to discuss books again (because I haven't gotten through enough of Fallout 3 to make a review of it). This time, however, I would like to talk about popular literature.
Perhaps you are considering rolling your eyes and preparing yourself for my devastating criticism of your favorite books, but rest assured: I can't stand the know-it-all pricks who like to shit on everything everyone else likes, just because everyone else likes it. Those guys are assholes.
The waves of immensely popular books that have been seen over the last few years are very good things. Book series like Harry Potter, Eregon, or Twilight are great because they get people to read who normally wouldn't. They are interesting stories that are written well enough to hook readers and keep them reading. This will, hopefully, get the reader to branch out once that series is finished and read other books.
There are problems with this kind of popular literature, the largest of which is that one cannot talk about the problems of popular literature openly because big brother is watching, and he is an obsessed Harry Potter fan. Note the comic care of Derek Barnett. The sad part is that this is not a gross deviation from an actual conversation.
I'm not saying that these books aren't good, because if that were true, no one would ever read them, but the authors are not Homer and their works are not perfect. Authors such as Ken Follet or Phillip Roth are much more skillful in the craft and when Rowlings or Paolini are compared against them, there is no comparison.
I read all seven Harry Potter books and I liked them all (some more than others). I also read the first two Eldest novels and I liked the first one (the second one was crap), and my girlfriend (also an English major) really enjoyed all the Twilight books, but I will not allow myself to think that these authors are perfect when they are not. Rowlings needs to work on the way she describes her interesting world and just because Paolini published a novel when he was nineteen doesn't mean that he can't grow as an author anymore.
I brought up Ken Follet and Philip Roth earlier, and Derek's comic mentions Joyce and Faulkner. Popular literature is nothing like the works of these three, but here's the thing: that's okay. When I was a child, I read Goosebumps. These short, scary novels for children are nowhere near high literature, but I wouldn't read one and say to myself “these characters are terribly developed and the plot lacks any real depth” because the books are a hundred pages long (if that) and meant to be read by third-graders. I read Goosebumps because they entertained me as a child and made me want to read more so that the whole broad world of literature was opened up to me.
Popular novels open up the world of literature for those that may not have been interested in it before, and that's a great thing, but it must be remembered that they don't have the same quality of writing as other, more prestigious authors have. Enjoy them for what they are, but know that they are not made of gold, and they were never intended to be.
Oops, I fell out of the high writing style I usually adopt,
Zac
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)