I wish you could find them too, because they sound rather uninformed on the subject.
Why Are so Many of the Great Writers in Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror Falling into Neglect ?
- Thread starter BAYLOR
- Start date
Just ask yourself if the name Scrooge is known to the general public--and ditto for Frankenstein. Compare them with characters in Pride and Prejudice and Great Expectations.
Or, check how many derivative works of Frankenstein exist vs Pride and Prejudice. I am surprised this is even considered debatable since it is so obvious. I bet Chris Frayling would be gobsmacked to even see this being debated.
We don't know how GoodReads reviews are affected by school curriculums. How likely is Lovecraft part of any school programs vs the other authors? It would be much more telling to see which authors are read on their own. The fact that no one, including academics, could bother to post examples of Hemingwayesque suggests a lack of enthusiasm--and enthusiasm for an artist's work is primary to what I am talking about. Mandatory reading in a school program is not.
Or, check how many derivative works of Frankenstein exist vs Pride and Prejudice. I am surprised this is even considered debatable since it is so obvious. I bet Chris Frayling would be gobsmacked to even see this being debated.
We don't know how GoodReads reviews are affected by school curriculums. How likely is Lovecraft part of any school programs vs the other authors? It would be much more telling to see which authors are read on their own. The fact that no one, including academics, could bother to post examples of Hemingwayesque suggests a lack of enthusiasm--and enthusiasm for an artist's work is primary to what I am talking about. Mandatory reading in a school program is not.
I think it’s the sign of a weak argument not to answer any of the counter-arguments, and instead simply repeat the same dubious statements repeatedly. I don’t agree with you. I think your examples do not prove your point, they are by no means ‘obvious’ and the rationale behind them is fundamentally flawed. The fact that Scrooge is a widely recognised character proves nothing either way. Oliver Twist is as well known - there have been innumerable films and even a west-end musical in honour of that Dickens book and character. The most famous character from the Victorian era, I would guess, would be Sherlock Holmes. But Doyle’s stories are not fantasy, they are fiction set in the real world. But I think I’m done with this now, it’s gotten a little old - let’s agree to disagree and move on.
I would have quoted text but there appears to be a problem with my quote function. I was going to mention Agatha Christie actually, but since you bring up SH, I understand that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle preferred writing about American history--but his most popular work was his detective. And it does qualify as fantasy--it certainly is not slice of life in the sense that it is about people engaged in mundane activities. I mean, the Red Headed League is mundane? I do not understand why this is even a topic for debate. Now, if you can provide actual concrete evidence that Oliver Twist and Fagin are better known than Scrooge I will concede the error but I do not envy anyone with the task of trying to make that case. Nowhere did I say that intimate knowledge of an author's text was a prerequisite for artistic success. Cultural impact on society is my criteria. I would be tempted to ask Frayling if he thinks Austen had a greater impact in culture than Shelley but I can imagine his reaction.
Fantasy and escapism have always been more attractive than the mundane-to artists and the public. Academics and literary critics? I am sure they would want to do everything to distinguish themselves from the public (Frayling being an exception--and he said that when he first started to write about fantasy cinema and literature he was chided by colleagues).
The most famous character from the Victorian era? It is a contest between Dracula, Jekyll and Hyde, and Holmes. I think someone did compile a list of movies based on Dracula vs SH somewhere.
Fantasy and escapism have always been more attractive than the mundane-to artists and the public. Academics and literary critics? I am sure they would want to do everything to distinguish themselves from the public (Frayling being an exception--and he said that when he first started to write about fantasy cinema and literature he was chided by colleagues).
The most famous character from the Victorian era? It is a contest between Dracula, Jekyll and Hyde, and Holmes. I think someone did compile a list of movies based on Dracula vs SH somewhere.
Extollager
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2010
- Messages
- 9,241
If someone's comparing name recognition of one character with another, there really needs to be some defining of parameters. What constitutes "name recognition," to begin with? To "recognize" Jekyll-and-Hyde, for example, do we mean Robert Louis Stevenson's conception thereof, or some other version(s)? What's the population being considered -- people alive today? Where -- in the US? In Great Britain?
"Slice of Life" hasn't been defined. From my own studies, I would have taken that to refer to fiction with close surface realism and probably written in the first half of the 20th century or so by American authors. To refer to any of Dickens's novels as belonging to slice-of-life is an idiosyncratic usage that would need some explanation, since certainly Dickens didn't aim for the same effects as authors everyone would regard as slice-of-lifers.
Then, too, and not meaning to be all pedantic, but how's "fantasy" defined for the purposes of discussion? (Usually, it seems to come down to meaning "what is published today as fantasy," if that helps.)
This thread has needed clarification before.
www.sffchronicles.com
www.sffchronicles.com
"Slice of Life" hasn't been defined. From my own studies, I would have taken that to refer to fiction with close surface realism and probably written in the first half of the 20th century or so by American authors. To refer to any of Dickens's novels as belonging to slice-of-life is an idiosyncratic usage that would need some explanation, since certainly Dickens didn't aim for the same effects as authors everyone would regard as slice-of-lifers.
Then, too, and not meaning to be all pedantic, but how's "fantasy" defined for the purposes of discussion? (Usually, it seems to come down to meaning "what is published today as fantasy," if that helps.)
This thread has needed clarification before.
Why Are so Many of the Great Writers in Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror Falling into Neglect ?
I think so .:unsure::( Would anyone care to respond more helpfully to my question? I would like to see sincere responses to the following questions and points. Are many of the great writers in sf, fantasy, and horror falling into neglect? What does "falling into neglect" mean? I would say...
www.sffchronicles.com
Why Are so Many of the Great Writers in Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror Falling into Neglect ?
A quick look on Amazon shows a number of fairly recent collections of his work (which include introductions and analysis), plus some older books one can buy used. Among them is The Supernatural Tales of Fitz-James O'Brien, a two book set I bought used, and which I think may have everything...
www.sffchronicles.com
Well, you are comparing two very different types of book, which attract a different sort of notice. What is obvious to me is that you do not read romance novels, and are not, therefore, aware of what is currently available, in bookstores and online. There are many, many derivative works for Pride and Prejudice. Hundreds even. More of them, it seems, every single day. Sequels to P & P, prequels, re-imaginings (in which Darcy and Elizabeth first meet under a variety of different circumstances, steamy versions, Darcy as a vampire, etc.). And then there are stories about the Darcy children all grown-up and ready to venture into society, and do not let us forget Darcy's cousin, Colonel Fitzwilliam—he's a hero, he's a villain, since nobody knows what his future holds he is a character who offers ample opportunity for speculation. Jane and Bingley are far from neglected, and of the Bennett sisters, many a book has been written devoted to Mary, possibly because she is so unprepossessing in the original book and they want to Cinderella-ize her and provide a happy ending.
Once upon a time (I am old enough to remember) there were only a handful of derivative literary works, and of course there were the movies. But there is now a great tidal wave of P & P inspired books.
I think Pride and Prejudice and Zombies or some other fantasy derivative is further proof of my point. If on the other hand we see a wave of Frankenstein-inspired stories which remove the creature-making entirely and focus on his relationships and family intrigues then I may revise my opinion.
You don’t appear to have read Teresa’s post very carefully.
The thing is, as mentioned much earlier in this thread, these things go in cycles. Writers are often most popular during their own era. They are alive; they are doing interesting things; everyone is anticipating their next book. It keeps them on people's minds. But then there are the writers who achieve a much greater popularity long after their own time. This may last, or it may be fleeting. I really doubt that the white-hot heat of Austen's current popularity is going to continue. She was not, of course, a Victorian writer, so none of her characters are in competition for honors there with the three characters mentioned above.
(But as for Jekyll and Hyde, I think relatively few people now are familiar with Hyde as he appeared in the book. The character they know, the character they think of when the name is mentioned, is largely an invention of Hollywood, and therefore not Victorian either.)
(But as for Jekyll and Hyde, I think relatively few people now are familiar with Hyde as he appeared in the book. The character they know, the character they think of when the name is mentioned, is largely an invention of Hollywood, and therefore not Victorian either.)
I agree that it can go in cycles--and I should say that there may be an overlap of ideas I didn't intend. My original point was that in the 20th century, there appeared to be a schism that developed with the rise of literary criticism as a profession in which realism or slice of life or whatever you want to call it was heavily emphasized and fantasy (including crime novels and mysteries) became something else--no longer respectable (unless it fit some narrow qualifications like championing a social engineering agenda (or perceived to). A similar thing happened with visual art where the likes of Picasso were heavily promoted while traditional representational art was deemed quaint. These trends were not dictated by public tastes from what I can see, but by publishers and media experts (what qualifications they had for such expertise is anyone's guess).
Hemingway, Faulkner, Steinbeck etc. We were instructed to read them in school but I do not recall them achieving much popular acclaim outside of school programs. They did not lend themselves to cinematic interpretation so readily as Edgar Rice Burroughs or Johnston McCulley. Most producers did not see money in slice of life stories. There is a reason for that I believe.
While it is possible that Of Mice and Men or The Sun Also Rises may suddenly become popular, I just cannot bet on that happening since the original publishing success was due to the tastes of the publishers. I would say there is a lack of universal appeal to these writers--they do not appeal to all ages like some other writers with a fantasy or adventure focus might.
Now, I do not lump Dickens or Austen in the same category as Faulkner or Hemingway. My point with them was that fantasy works of the same era became better known. Jules Verne, HG Wells, etc. as proven by cinematic adaptation which was the popular art form of the time.
In Frayling's book on Victorian Horror he mentioned that Robert Louis Stevenson's wife wanted to promote Treasure Island as his greatest work, but it seemed that Jekyll and Hyde had struck more of a chord. I would not consider Treasure Island slice of life BTW. I just think the idea of Jekyll and Hyde was more interesting than Long John Silver even though the pirate became culturally recognizable.
I would not try to guess which Victorian character (Dracula, Sherlock Holmes, Jekyll and Hyde, Scrooge etc) would have the greatest impact in culture. I *think* it is a contest between Dracula and SH but that is just my first impression since Dracula turns up in countless interpretations as well as internationally. But vampires existed before Dracula and he was also a historical figure so perhaps Holmes has the edge since he was made pretty much from scratch.
It is certainly possible that slice of life-mundane stories are incredibly popular. Perhaps there are even equivalent sites to this where fans discuss the fine details of poverty and failure, but somehow I doubt it. The MundaneChronicles?
Hemingway, Faulkner, Steinbeck etc. We were instructed to read them in school but I do not recall them achieving much popular acclaim outside of school programs. They did not lend themselves to cinematic interpretation so readily as Edgar Rice Burroughs or Johnston McCulley. Most producers did not see money in slice of life stories. There is a reason for that I believe.
While it is possible that Of Mice and Men or The Sun Also Rises may suddenly become popular, I just cannot bet on that happening since the original publishing success was due to the tastes of the publishers. I would say there is a lack of universal appeal to these writers--they do not appeal to all ages like some other writers with a fantasy or adventure focus might.
Now, I do not lump Dickens or Austen in the same category as Faulkner or Hemingway. My point with them was that fantasy works of the same era became better known. Jules Verne, HG Wells, etc. as proven by cinematic adaptation which was the popular art form of the time.
In Frayling's book on Victorian Horror he mentioned that Robert Louis Stevenson's wife wanted to promote Treasure Island as his greatest work, but it seemed that Jekyll and Hyde had struck more of a chord. I would not consider Treasure Island slice of life BTW. I just think the idea of Jekyll and Hyde was more interesting than Long John Silver even though the pirate became culturally recognizable.
I would not try to guess which Victorian character (Dracula, Sherlock Holmes, Jekyll and Hyde, Scrooge etc) would have the greatest impact in culture. I *think* it is a contest between Dracula and SH but that is just my first impression since Dracula turns up in countless interpretations as well as internationally. But vampires existed before Dracula and he was also a historical figure so perhaps Holmes has the edge since he was made pretty much from scratch.
It is certainly possible that slice of life-mundane stories are incredibly popular. Perhaps there are even equivalent sites to this where fans discuss the fine details of poverty and failure, but somehow I doubt it. The MundaneChronicles?
Danny McG
Lid closed, monkey dead.
*Rubs his pot belly and looks confused*
"Your point being?"
But a slice of life / mundane story doesn't have to be about failure or poverty. They can be about people of all conditions.
When Austen and Dickens were writing, they wrote about life as they knew it. (In the case of Dickens exaggerated sometimes for effect, but he was writing about his contemporaries, and his novel-length works were grounded in the realities he saw around him. And that included rich people and poor people and everyone in between. Yes, for the holidays he wrote some excellent fantasy novellas, of which I would say the best are A Christmas Carol and The Haunted Man. But that was part of a tradition of telling supernatural tales at Christmas. A lot of his contemporaries, best-known these days for their slice of life novels wrote ghost stories, and some excellent ones, too, though whether anyone who doesn't have a penchant for either 19th century writers or ghost stories specifically is likely to be able to name any of those, I take leave to doubt. Lots of folks here can, of course, but that's because ghost stories are a subset of what this site is about.)
When Austen and Dickens were writing, they wrote about life as they knew it. (In the case of Dickens exaggerated sometimes for effect, but he was writing about his contemporaries, and his novel-length works were grounded in the realities he saw around him. And that included rich people and poor people and everyone in between. Yes, for the holidays he wrote some excellent fantasy novellas, of which I would say the best are A Christmas Carol and The Haunted Man. But that was part of a tradition of telling supernatural tales at Christmas. A lot of his contemporaries, best-known these days for their slice of life novels wrote ghost stories, and some excellent ones, too, though whether anyone who doesn't have a penchant for either 19th century writers or ghost stories specifically is likely to be able to name any of those, I take leave to doubt. Lots of folks here can, of course, but that's because ghost stories are a subset of what this site is about.)
I need evidence to counter the opinion, and it has not been provided. When I cited the wikipedia entries, this was dismissed along the lines that those who appreciate Hemingway are not as enthusiastic about his work to the point where they would talk about it online or wish to contribute to wikipedia. Shrug ok. I am surprised academic students didn't feel compelled to add to it though. Then the GoodReads stats were brought into it--but as we know, Hemingway and other 20th century authors championed by literary critics are often required reading in school--while Lovecraft is not. The fact that Lovecraft has such enthusiasm for his work without all the media boosts enjoyed by Hemingway etc is impressive.
Anyone who believes that Austen's work had a bigger cultural impact than Frankenstein is welcome to attempt to make their case--I wish them well however I don't envy them the task. I do not recall the 200th anniversary of Pride and Prejudice getting the notoriety that Frankenstein got last year (even a biopic on Mary Shelley).
I don't mind being proven wrong, I just wish there was more to a rebuttal than "I don't agree" since that isn't really providing an argument for analysis.
Anyone who believes that Austen's work had a bigger cultural impact than Frankenstein is welcome to attempt to make their case--I wish them well however I don't envy them the task. I do not recall the 200th anniversary of Pride and Prejudice getting the notoriety that Frankenstein got last year (even a biopic on Mary Shelley).
I don't mind being proven wrong, I just wish there was more to a rebuttal than "I don't agree" since that isn't really providing an argument for analysis.
I suppose it depends on what you call a cultural impact. I didn't even know there was a biopic centered on Mary Shelley and I certainly would have been interested! (there were a couple of movies, several years ago, about the summer the Shelleys spent at Lake Geneva with Byron, but those were ensemble pieces and Mary Shelley was not a major focus), but there have indeed been fairly recent biopics on Austen and Dickens.
The thing is, we tend to be aware of the same things are friends are aware of—movies, books, events, etc. It gives us the impression that everyone knows all about X and practically nothing about Y. But meanwhile, some other group of people is completely into Y and doesn't give a thought to X.
The thing is, we tend to be aware of the same things are friends are aware of—movies, books, events, etc. It gives us the impression that everyone knows all about X and practically nothing about Y. But meanwhile, some other group of people is completely into Y and doesn't give a thought to X.
No doubt drawing room romance has its fans. I was thinking more about wide appeal. I would just say that Frankenstein has larger audience appeal than Pride and Prejudice. Intuitively I just know this to be true. I know children and adults have been interested in Frankenstein-derived works for ages, but I am completely baffled as to the appeal Austen's work would have for children. Where's the fun in drawing room romance for kids? I just do not see it.
anno
Well-Known Member
If goodreads is used as any kind of ranking in terms of validity or taste could the last person to leave please turnoff the light?
Popular never meant good, see UB40...
Popular never meant good, see UB40...
Why are you asking the rest of us for evidence (and when we provide it you dismiss it) but you base your own convictions on intuition?
Certainly at Halloween there will be adults and children dressing as Frankenstein's monster, but how many of them have even read the book? It's a movie version of the monster they are creating. But how much do they think about him the rest of the year? The monster is often parodied, but in what has that to do with the books that Shelley wrote, which was a serious, philosophical work, examining deep questions? What has that grunting beast who can barely put together a decent sentence to do with the intelligent, sensitive, self-taught genius of the book? At least some of us were assigned the book in school.
I imagine that children are not much interested in drawing room romance. But I've met a ton of adults who are, and they weren't all of them, or even mostly, women. Georgette Heyer (a 20th century writer of historical romances, most of the Regency) used to have a big following right in the heart of SFF fandom in the US. I always say one hasn't really lived until they've danced a English country dance with a Klingon. But an elegant evening of dancing is an adult activity. But neither, I think, would children be interested in the monster as Shelley actually portrayed him. And since when has the ability to attract children been a prime measure of cultural impact by a book, movie, or work of art?
Certainly at Halloween there will be adults and children dressing as Frankenstein's monster, but how many of them have even read the book? It's a movie version of the monster they are creating. But how much do they think about him the rest of the year? The monster is often parodied, but in what has that to do with the books that Shelley wrote, which was a serious, philosophical work, examining deep questions? What has that grunting beast who can barely put together a decent sentence to do with the intelligent, sensitive, self-taught genius of the book? At least some of us were assigned the book in school.
I imagine that children are not much interested in drawing room romance. But I've met a ton of adults who are, and they weren't all of them, or even mostly, women. Georgette Heyer (a 20th century writer of historical romances, most of the Regency) used to have a big following right in the heart of SFF fandom in the US. I always say one hasn't really lived until they've danced a English country dance with a Klingon. But an elegant evening of dancing is an adult activity. But neither, I think, would children be interested in the monster as Shelley actually portrayed him. And since when has the ability to attract children been a prime measure of cultural impact by a book, movie, or work of art?
Sorry KGeo777, you are doing some top-quality trolling. You claim you need 'evidence to counter an opinion', yet barely an hour later you state an opinion saying 'Intuitively I just know this to be true'. And if any evidence is provided, that you don't agree with, it appears you also dismiss it with some intuitive 'fact' that you can't provide evidence for either. Pot calling kettle black.
There are surveys out there of the general public's reading tastes and what they like - and Jane Eyre tends to do extremely well. The Big Read, run by the BBC here in the UK had three-quarters of a million respondents from the public and they put it as the number 2 favourite book of the UK's reading public, just behind Lord of the Rings.
Look, I do like HP Lovecraft. although frankly as a storyteller and writer - he's really a bit subpar - it's his mythos that was unique and influential, and so I do recognise this influence in other works, but then I've read a hell of a lot of SF/Horror/Fantasy. But then I've read every novel by Dickens, as I like his work too, and recognise this influence in other works too.
Thus I recognise that's there's a wide world outside each person's bubble. Call it about 50 years experience living and interacting with loads of other people. I don't see it as a conspiracy theory, I just know, from these interactions, that my literary tastes are largely niche.
There are surveys out there of the general public's reading tastes and what they like - and Jane Eyre tends to do extremely well. The Big Read, run by the BBC here in the UK had three-quarters of a million respondents from the public and they put it as the number 2 favourite book of the UK's reading public, just behind Lord of the Rings.
Look, I do like HP Lovecraft. although frankly as a storyteller and writer - he's really a bit subpar - it's his mythos that was unique and influential, and so I do recognise this influence in other works, but then I've read a hell of a lot of SF/Horror/Fantasy. But then I've read every novel by Dickens, as I like his work too, and recognise this influence in other works too.
Thus I recognise that's there's a wide world outside each person's bubble. Call it about 50 years experience living and interacting with loads of other people. I don't see it as a conspiracy theory, I just know, from these interactions, that my literary tastes are largely niche.
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
How many characters? | Writing Discussion | 36 | |
| J | Plural Possessive 's s's too many sss | Grammar & Spelling | 12 | |
|
Bronze Age Sword Discovered in Germany That Still Shines | Science & Nature | 2 | |
| O | How many Protagonists (or are they)? | Writing Discussion | 23 | |
| D | Old fashioned Sherriff story, too many themes? | Writing Discussion | 10 |
Similar threads
-
-
-
Bronze Age Sword Discovered in Germany That Still Shines
- Started by Valtharius
- Replies: 2
-
-