What are you currently reading?

[Florestan]

Ah! Of course!

With recourse (once again) to the Wikipedia, I see what you're talking about.

My only excuse??  Robert Schumann is probably my leasted favourite of all the well-know composers.  And I'm no fan of the Romantic era in general.

And now I see why you were puzzled. 

Kind of a favorite name among bishops, ain't it? 

[The Diner]

DROOD by Dan Simmons is off to a fine start.

[Bogey]

DROOD by Dan Simmons is off to a fine start.

Yo, Dave, have you ever given this a try.  Just got the first one from the library and hope to start it this weekend after finishing the Reacher novel (which has been entertaining...not great, but entertaining):



http://www.amazon.com/Berlin-Noir-Violets-Criminal-Requiem/dp/0140231706/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1299122040&sr=8-1

[The Diner]

Yo, Dave, have you ever given this a try. 

No, sir. Hope you like it.

[The Diner]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/dec/12/genre-versus-literary-fiction-edward-docx

[DavidRoss]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/dec/12/genre-versus-literary-fiction-edward-docx

Sour grapes from a literary novelist so obsessed with whining about the plebeian tastes of the masses that he's unable to distinguish the differences in both quality and kind between Dan Brown and Steig Larsson, writers indicted mostly for failing to measure up to the impeccable taste, skill, and genius of the piece's author.  </sarcasm>

[Brahmsian]

IT - Stephen King

The first 2/3 or 3/4 of the book were great.  The final 200 pages were a big waste of time and a major let down.  I was anticipating a major confrontation being Bill, Beverley and Audra and Tom, which never materialized.  It was built up, and almost like King forgot about it and let it fall by the wayside. 

[bwv 1080]

Sour grapes from a literary novelist so obsessed with whining about the plebeian tastes of the masses that he's unable to distinguish the differences in both quality and kind between Dan Brown and Steig Larsson, writers indicted mostly for failing to measure up to the impeccable taste, skill, and genius of the piece's author.  </sarcasm>

kind of the same argument in favor of Andre Rieu & John Tesh vs.  James Levin & Pierre-Laurent Aimard

lets get rid of all those pointy-headed intellectuals who won't pander to the lowest common denominator

[Scarpia]

kind of the same argument in favor of Andre Rieu & John Tesh vs.  James Levin & Pierre-Laurent Aimard

lets get rid of all those pointy-headed intellectuals who won't pander to the lowest common denominator

There is a different between creating great things and writing idiotic "think pieces" about how "my stuff is better despite the fact that no one has ever heard of me."

[DavidRoss]

kind of the same argument in favor of Andre Rieu & John Tesh vs.  James Levin & Pierre-Laurent Aimard

lets get rid of all those pointy-headed intellectuals who won't pander to the lowest common denominator

I wouldn't attack a hamburger for not being filet mignon, a grill cook for not being a Michelin chef, nor the fellow who grabs an In-and-Out burger on the fly as a congenital moron incapable of appreciating what a sophisticated palate might prefer.  Doing so would reveal much about my shortcomings and nothing at all about those I attack.

Docx doesn't compare Rieu (faux classical) and Aimard but Manilow (genre pop) and Mahler. 

Edit: typo corrected.

[Scarpia]

I read Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code (actually listened to it on a cross-country drive).  There is nothing particularly artistic or literary about his prose but it was a very engaging suspense story.  But I take it he hasn't written anything else which is anything other than a less successful application of the same formula.   

[bwv 1080]

I wouldn't attack a hamburger for not being filet mignon,
Edit: typo corrected.

neither does docx

[Philoctetes]

A very practical and applicable read.

[Lethevich]

Is Hawthorne's Fanshawe worth reading or is it juvenilia?

[Grazioso]

Recently finished Antony Beevor's Stalingrad. He eschews the operational nitty-gritty you find in writers like Glantz, instead opting very effectively to meld grand strategic concerns with vividly told anecdotes illustrating the tragedy on a human scale. Beevor does an excellent job conveying the colossal ugliness and stupidity of Barbarossa, the battle for Stalingrad, and its aftermath, as well as the great bravery, fortitude, and suffering of individuals caught in the vast mess.

[Scarpia]

Is Hawthorne's Fanshawe worth reading or is it juvenilia?

Well, Hawthorne renounced it, so you'd be justified in skipping it, but I think anything written by Hawthorne is worth reading once.

[lisa needs braces]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/dec/12/genre-versus-literary-fiction-edward-docx

The thing about these sorts of critics is that they take great pains to criticize popular authors for writing pedestrian sentences but would never credit these sort of authors for weaving imaginative plots, convincing characters or for simply managing to involve the reader. The ability to construct great sentences of lasting beauty is one sort of talent whose lack does not make an author capable of generating wonderful plots, ideas and images any less significant than an author who generates beautiful sentences and dull everything else. And oh yea, I tried to listen to "The Da Vinci Code" on audio-cd and it seemed too hammy for me and couldn't even make it 20 minutes of the movie version of "The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo." But I write this because it's likely that Edward Docx holds the same view towards many novels I appreciated and enjoyed -- James Clavell's Shogun and King Rat, Frank Herbert's Dune, Stephen King's The Shining, the science fiction of Isaac Asimov, etc.  These works have a far better chance of being read by subsequent generations than any of the literary award winners from the last fifteen years yet the likes of Edward Doxc are simply blind to them. This wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for the insistence that it is the readers of popular fiction who are the blind ones. 

[lisa needs braces]

Furthermore, the writing in modern literary fiction is often simply downright atrocious:

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2001/07/myers.htm

[eyeresist]

Furthermore, the writing in modern literary fiction is often simply downright atrocious:

I agree with this. Contemporary "literary" fiction is a genre like any other, and as with any other genre, most of it is not worth reading. But, somehow, having obtained a "degree" in creative writing automatically elevates anything you write to a higher plane.

[SonicMan46]

The Civil War of 1812 (2010) by Alan Taylor - not a 'general' book on the War of 1812, i.e. not about Andy Jackson & New Orleans, burning of the White House, or the writing of the US national anthem in Baltimore.  This narrative concentrates on the war revolving around the American-Canadian border - just starting; reviews on Amazon HERE, which are quite good.