Progressive Literature
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Bands, Artists and Genres Appreciation
Forum Description: Discuss specific prog bands and their members or a specific sub-genre
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6961
Printed Date: November 23 2024 at 17:30
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Progressive Literature
Posted By: Arteum
Subject: Progressive Literature
Date Posted: June 03 2005 at 00:31
|
How would you define progressive literature? To me, literature ŕ la Clancy, Grisham, King etc is associated with commercial, low-quality pop-music. Giants such as Dickens, Scott, Shakespeare are likened to classical rock (Queen and Deep Purple). But there are also "progressive" authors -- John Fowles, for example. Or good old Laurence Sterne. Or maybe Huxley, although I've not read him yet, but I suspect he must have a "progressive" touch. Of course, I am naming only English (or British) authors, but this is because I am only embarking on other nations' literature (my French is getting stronger every day, and my Swedish and Czech too; curiously although I know Russian, I never read much in Russian) ... Although recently I was told that Alain Robbe-Grillet is as special as Fowles -- maybe he's progressive too. I only started to read him two days ago, in French, of course. What do you think? Which authors are "progressive" to you? How to define progressiveness in literature?
|
Replies:
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: June 03 2005 at 00:43
|
Jorge Luis Borges, Julio Cortazar, Mario Vargas Llosa, Gabriel García Marquez and most of the representatives of the Latin American Real - Wonderful genre. Outside Latin America I would mention George Orwell, Franz Kafka, Isaac Asimov, etc Iván ------------- 
|
Posted By: NetsNJFan
Date Posted: June 03 2005 at 00:48
|
grisham and clancy suck, (although clancy is techmically brilliant when it comes to the military, in that w**king DT sense), but I wouldn't classify Stephen King as strictly commerical. His stuff is pretty damn scary, and some of his more poetic stuff can chill me like nothing else. ------------- 
|
Posted By: CaincelaOreinim
Date Posted: June 03 2005 at 00:59
|
Heh...you asked the right person for this one, least I think, if I don't say so myself... Try: William Faulkner, David Foster Wallace, James Joyce, William Gaddis, Thomas Pynchon, William S. Burroughs, Samuel R. Delany, Arthur C. Clarke, Samuel Beckett, Clive Barker, Stephen King, Dean Koontz, Mary Coponegro, Ursula K. LeGuin, Herman Melville, Vladimir Nabokov, Neil Gaiman, Kurt Vonnegut, Jorge Luis Borges, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Franz Kafka, Josephn Conrad, Umberto Eco, William H. Gass, Aldus Huxley, Tom Robbins, Andre Breton, Albert Camus, Paul Auster, Barth... All I can think of at the moment. |
Posted By: NetsNJFan
Date Posted: June 03 2005 at 01:14
Urusla K. LeGuin is wonderful -------------
|
CaincelaOreinim wrote:Posted By: Arteum
Date Posted: June 03 2005 at 01:29
Thank you. Most of the names from this list I certainly know. But I read only a handful of these authors. Nabokov I am planning to start studying very seriously. LeGuin -- I once read some hundred pages of her novel when I was a kid, and now I think about it as childish nonsense ... But of course, my opnion is based on this single remembrance only ... and of course on 100 pages of her single novel. I often heard that Clancy and Grisham should not be put in the same bundle with King, although each of these three may be found on the same shelf at every Wal-Mart. Maybe I should overcome prejudice and read some King after all? Kafka -- I have no doubt he's "progressive" but I know no German and it is against my prinicples to read in translation. Well, maybe I will learn German some day. Dostoyevsky -- I simply must read him!! I have about ten of his novels in Russian on my shelf -- and I know Russian! Camus -- yes, yes! When I was a kid, I read something by him in translation -- I don't remember what it was -- but even then it made me shiver. Vonnegut -- yes ... I read one silly novel by him "Slapstick ..." but I think he wrote more powerful novels than that. Conrad ... I don't know if "Nostromo" would be considered progressive, but it was certainly a pleasure to me, especially closer to the end! And I am not mentioning Joyce ... Once, when I was 18 I started his "Ulyssus" ... but I could not hold out longer than 100 pages. I need to try a second attack on him. For other names -- big "thank you"! I will make some research on them! |
Posted By: Arteum
Date Posted: June 03 2005 at 01:38
You know, somebody (person whose opinion I respect) told me to read Robert Heinlein, "Puppet Masters" and it was so weak and silly ... maybe the worst novel I read in the last 5 years. 0 stars out of five! OK, maybe a half! But some Mr. More-Brawn-Than-Brains saving the Earth from a stupid alien invasion ... with the president of US involved ... and with people in 2014 having neither computers nor internet yet! Now this person is set to have some heavy thrashing from me! Can you recommend some more progressive science fiction than that? I can recommend you the Strugatsky brothers - they are 120% literary prog -- wrote more than 10 volumes of sci-fi novels. They should be translated into English from Russian. In Russia and Ukraine they are immensely popular in intellectual circles. |
Posted By: Matti
Date Posted: June 03 2005 at 01:49
|
|
Posted By: NetsNJFan
Date Posted: June 03 2005 at 18:13
|
you are biased againt Stepehn King because he sells well. That is like saying all prog in the 70s that sold well (Yes, Floyd, ELP) was crap, and should be bundled with disco and the like. Just cause he is popular it does not mean he is bad. Seriously, some of his earlier stuff is terrifying. And ursula K leguin is not childish, she is a professor/ph.d in Anthropology and writes some really interestign stuff about foreign cultures and gender relationships. -------------
|
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: June 03 2005 at 18:27
|
Stephen King is an awful writer. He has a good idea and expounds it to death. "Needful Things" is a good example of that. What could have been made of that idea! But no, he overdoes it. A great author of science fiction is Stanislaw Lem. His "Memoirs Found in a Bath Tub", "Star Diaries" and "The Futurological Congress" are hilarious as well as frightening. "Memoirs Found in a Bath Tub" is very kafkaesque. -------------  BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: June 03 2005 at 18:35
|
Yes, Lem is great. Unfortunately most of his works have not been
translated into English. But almost all of his books are available in
German. The list of CancelaDrainim is (mostly) excellent, let me add a few more: Jonathan Swift, Lawrence Norfollk, Virginia Woolf, Gustav Meyrink, Leo Perutz, to name just a few. -------------  A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: Ben2112
Date Posted: June 03 2005 at 18:43
|
Stephen King is not an awful writer IMO. The Dark Tower Part IV is one of the most beautifully written things I've ever read (and I've read a lot). He has definitely matured over the years, even if his stories aren't as riveting as they once were. He IS very very verbose, but that is one of the things I like about him.
If you want to see an awful author, check out some of King's clones, such as Dean Koontz or John Saul. I like some of their books, but they are so dry and lacking personality compared to King (plus they are almost exactly alike in content/style). |
Posted By: CaincelaOreinim
Date Posted: June 03 2005 at 19:29
|
I think I'll admit to King's overall work being pretty sub-par OUTSIDE of his work relating to The Dark Tower (for those who don't know, a good chunk of his work coincides with it). Saul, to me at least, is more a doppelganger and subaltern to King more so than Koontz is. Koontz tackles a lot more governmental cabalistic mind-control arenas that I'm sure King hasn't touched as frequently. And Saul, haven't read much, but what I have was pretty somnolent I thought. Arteum, in terms of Joyce, I've always looked at reading him (and perhaps somewhere in his grave he'll agree with me or turn over; one or the other hah) as whatever YOU want to make of it; he wrote for himself mostly - ahah he started writing Finnegan's Wake using crayons on little slips of paper as a smack in the face to literary Academics - and I respect that...no holds barred modernist "madness." Like Surrealistic literature, when you read him you just have to let go of reason, comprehensibility, and the "so called do's" of literary standards heh. A note on LeGuin; I've read around 3-4 of her books, mainly her sci-fi...and knowing her background (+ see her poetry) I think it gets to the point where they're more mediums to express her poltical views/ideas than they are...out there. Haven't read much of her fantasy stuff. Also meant to mention Mark Z. Danielewski's House Of Leaves if you want to go on a rollercoster ride of veneer, belletristic, and gimmicky literature (it's more fun than serious). Paul Bowles is also an interesting read for the most part (I base this on two reads) dealing with culture shock and annihilation of self really heh. One more even though I'm not a huge fan: Ayn Rand. |