| Author | Message | ||
     Thumper Rating: N/A |
Hello All, Have you all been reading your fair amount of classics books lately. I ask because I'm curious. Last night, when I attended the Jewell Parker Rhodes reading, I finally had the chance to browse QBR's Sacred Fire. True enough, I hadn't read every one of the books highlighted in their listing, but I came pretty close. While I don't agree with every selections, there's plenty of books that should have been mentioned and wasn't... in my opinion. *smile* Y'all know, here lately when I go out, I hear folks talk about how they are gettling a little tired of reading the same ol, same ol, yet many won't pick up a classic book because they have the false impression that the book will be difficult to read. There's something to that. When I was younger, folks liked to say that "as long as he/she is reading, that's good, even if they're reading only comic books, it's still good." I ain't buyin' that. It ain't good. Why that's like drinking watered down milk constantly, by the time the person gets a taste of whole milk, they're stomach don't know how to act. It's not use to it. The same can be said about going from bad, and so-so books to off-the-chain supremely written books. It may take you a minute to adapt, get the dictionary out to look up a word or two, but its all good in the end. Frankly, I really believe that a lot of authors today don't want us reading the classics, for fear that we will compare their books to those written by people who inhaled and exhaled the mechanics of the English language. Many of these new authors SHOULD BE SCARED for their works don't measure up. and the last thing they want is for us, the reading audience to KNOW IT! So, while it's easy for us to shout, we want BETTER books, WE have to know what BETTER truly is. If you ever decide to give the high road of our literature a shot,Sacred Fire is an excellent starting place. | ||
| Yvette Rating: N/A |
Hi Thumper, I'd be interested in knowing what books you think should be added to the QBR Sacred 100. I totally agree with you about the substandard quality of some of the stuff that's being published these days. I definitely find myself searching for high quality literature, I don't care what era it was written in. There are too many good books out there to waste time reading trash. I've been disappointed in the last two or three "highly touted" recently published books that I've read. One of them is "Leslie" by Omar Tyree. This is the first time that I've read Tyree, and I must say, if the others are similar to Leslie, I'm just not that interested in reading him again. I am in the process now of trying to read at least one book per month from the QBR 100. Next up is The Autobiography of Malcolm X. | ||
| Thumper Rating: N/A |
Hello Yvette, I could be wrong in my selections since I only glanced at the book and haven't read it thoroughly. If I am wrong, please correct me. 1.) And Then We Heard Thunder by John Oliver Killens 2.) Infants of the Spring by Wallace Thurman 3.) The Living is Easy by Dorothy West 4.) dem by William Melvin Kelley 5.) The Narrows by Ann Petry 6.) Just Above My Head by James Baldwin 7.) Black No More by George S. Schuyler There were some that I wouldn't have selected for not enough time has passed in order to determine if the books really are classics, i.e. Waiting To Exhale, is the book really that good or is it only significant because of what many believe it did for the publishing industry? The Autobiography of Malcolm X is off the chain. Let me know what you think. I hope you are enjoying these books. I know I need to brush up on my non-fiction reading, so the Sacred 100 should come in handy for that. | ||
| Brian Egeston Rating: N/A |
Classics Schmassics Thump and Yvette, Interesting dialogue you’ve initiated. This was a very popular topic at the Black male fiction writers symposium last week--quality of writing. Interestingly enough, there were English professors that brought their classes to take part in the symposium and then there were English professors that refused to bring their classes because they thought that the writers in attendance weren’t literary enough. This brings me back to the point of your post. While am a lover of Ellison, Wright, enjoy Hemmingway and some of Faulkner, I am more so a lover of people. All people. Especially people with needs. If we’re honest with ourselves, we cannot honestly say that if we walked into the projects and asked people to read a book, Invisible Man or Bluest Eye would be their first choice. While I can appreciate Moby Dick and The Great Gatsby, Pookey on the corner and Ray-Ray in Riker’s Island may not give a rat’s tooty about classic literature. Are we to disavow their existence as readers because they don’t agree with scholars about what a good book is? Can we not hook them with Ice Burg Slim and watch them grow to Mat Johson or Tayari Jones? Is not the popularity of Donald Goines a legitimate reason to pay attention to pulp fiction? During the symposium it was concluded that the masterful writer will look for the common ground of pulp literature. Very much the way Nicehlle Tramble did, be it intentional or not, in Dying Ground. The common ground in reading is important because it seeks to erase the class boundary slowly swallowing the book community. Common ground is necessary because the price for reading has been paid many years ago and the freedom associated with reading is purely in the hands of the person with the book, but first we must find the right book for the right person. I contend that every writer should read the classics so that they might learn what lasts. By the same right, I contend that every writer should read the pulp so that they might learn what sells. In the words of a poet, If there were only one way to write a book, we’d need only one writer. | ||
| Sandra Rating: N/A |
I'm torn on this one. Yes, I think that "classics" are important and that folks (including myself) should be introduced to them at least--if not required to read them for good measure. I *don't* think that every book that I pick up has to be some earth-shaking-life-changing-eye-opening-literary work of ficton--or nonfiction. I do have "standards" when comes to what I read; however, they are probably more based on what I like versus what is considerd "high quality" by most folks. I like Baldwin, Mosely, Wright and Walker because I like their writing style and their stories. And I do have my days when I want to good quick commercial mass market paperback. Sometimes you like it fast and rough, sometimes you like it slow, thoughtful and easy. But with a wish list as long as mine, there is no shortage of something good to read. | ||
| Thumper Rating: N/A |
Hello Brian, How are you doing? Let's not get it twisted. I didn't say anything about pulp fiction...just bad fiction! Quiet as its kept, there's plenty of books that would fall into that pulp fiction categorization in the time of their publication only to be classified as classics 50-100 years later, i.e. Charles Dickens' novels. So, its not pulp fiction, or even popular fiction, but good fiction versus bad. Now, onto the other topic you brought up, there's nothing wrong with a writer writing what he knows, to explore roads less traveled. I, for one, would deeply appreciate it if our authors did just that. Instead, we are get bombarded with the Tornleisha Tales. Frankly, there's more to life than reading over and over and over and over and over again how Stella lost her groove and then got it back again. And then there's the I-was-a-ho-but-now-I-found-Jesus novels. There's more to us than that! And while I got you, why should I have to settle for less than reading writers that know the English language? A subject and verb still got to agree. A narrative voice is either boring or it ain't. Don't get mad at me cause I know not to end a sentence with a preposition, or dem dangling participles and shit. *LOL* At the risk of repeating myself, the classics have stood the test of time (well, some of 'em), and more and likely will go to the heart of the human condition; thereby, making the book timeless and universal. That's why we still respond to The Autobiography of Malcolm X some 40 years after it was initially published. That's why we still read Their Eyes Were Watching God some 70 years after it first hit the shelves. Come at me right, now. So, its not that its a different era, or setting, that makes a difference, people are still people. A baby in 1940 is no different than a baby in 2002, he still cries to get feed, change diaper, and attention. Same, same. And a good book is still a good book, no matter when its written. | ||
| Brian Egeston Rating: N/A |
Dolemite- The Human Tornado is a Classic too… But we don’t see it as a classroom study in film school. I would have to disagree with you here on this point Thump: “…why should I have to settle for less than reading writers that know the English language? A subject and verb still got to agree.” I often come across “classic” writers that break the rules all the time. For instance Phillip Roth-- Pulitzer Prize, National Book Award, and Pen Faulkner award winner --breaks so many rules of grammar and composition that it is unbelievable. In his latest offering Human Stain(2002 Pen Faulkner Award), he wrote one sentence containing 98 words and only one single punctuation mark. He also switches POV and tenses often (which I know you are a big fan of--*wink*, )and makes the narrator disappear without reason. And perhaps all of this can be done because the reader still understands what’s going on in the story. The art of storytelling is still preserved. As I travel and speak to students I impress upon them the ability to manipulate rules of English but first we must have a firm grasp on how and why the rules work. I probably will disagree with this assessment as well: “A narrative voice is either boring or it ain't.” In the words of Travis Hunter, “What makes writing good or bad is so subjective, no one has the ability to judge a work for the masses.” Again, I point to Phillip Roth and a question I posed to several writers. How does one balance narrative with dialogue? Roth goes on forever in Human Stain for pages at a time without dialogue and it becomes monotonous never hearing from the character. It begins to read almost as propaganda. But for some reason he does it and he’s on top. I would wager that he’s not the only one that does it. As for this statement,I think we have to be careful: “the classics have stood the test of time (well, some of 'em), and more and likely will go to the heart of the human condition; thereby, making the book timeless and universal.” While I agree that many of the classics speak to the heart of the human condition, what is universality because it would NOT be hard to find massive numbers of people that would respond to Their Eyes Were Watching God like this “Zora Neal Who? I don’t know nobody names Zola.” Do we leave these people behind or do we give them books to read that might catch their interest. And this ,unfortunately, I have to disagree also: “…So, its not that its a different era, or setting, that makes a difference, people are still people. A baby in 1940 is no different than a baby in 2002, he still cries to get feed, change diaper, and attention. Same, same. And a good book is still a good book, no matter when its written.” While the Negro baby(did I just use just say Negro?) born in 2002 will cry, eat and poop, he/she will eventually be pacified by videos, later entertained by TV shows, and then enthralled by Playstation II. And the Black baby born in 1940 may not have had these luxuries and distractions therefore turning their attention to what was available--books. Big books, classic books. But now, how can you get a kid to get excited about a book in 2002, especially a young black kid, and more specifically a young black boy? Does it takes more than great grammar composition and matters of human condition. Do you think there is indeed a faction of people who need to read certain types of books that address THEIR own personal human condition even if it is labeled as bad fiction by others? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not condoning the haphazard habit of slapping letter on pages, throwing a cover on top and calling it a book, however I do feel that the time has come that we as a reading and writing community begin to put ALL readers and potential readers in the driver’s seat. B | ||
| Thumper Rating: N/A |
Hello Brian, Alright, here we go... Come on, Brian, you're peein' on my leg and tryin' to tell me that its rain. I read and understood your points of disagreement with my previous post...I ain't swayed. I won't rehash my position on many of the points of contention, for they still stand. What I will say is this here...I don't condone "dumbing it down" when it comes to literature. The focus should not be, how can you get people who don't read to read. Quite the contrary, the objective should be, how do I get the people that's reading TO KEEP READING! Honestly, from where I sit, its getting uglier and uglier by the minute. Now what am I suppose to do UNLEARN good writing. I'm suppose to make myself slow because folks out here "calls" themselves writers and in order to make them feel good, fatten up their pockets, stamp of approval their no-writing-skills-this-book-suck-selves, I'm to turn a blind eye? That ain't going to happen. If a book is on point, a master of the game, it will catch readers, even readers that don't normally read books. Do you honestly think that it was easier for a black person to read a book back in 1940 than it is today? *eyebrow raised* You're kidding right? Recall the difficulties Richard Wright wrote in Black Boy what he had to go through in order to read a library book? *eyebrow raised* Or, how about being subjected to bad teachers, or teachers who didn't care if you learned to read or not. Do you honestly think that our non-reading people will become reading folk by reading The Tornleisha Tales, and that's it...they won't aspire to read something else? I won't make any bets on that if I were you. Although I haven't been to many conferences and stuff, I can say that folks are always telling me, without fail, Thump, I'm so tired of reading the you-go-girl books...whatchu reading? I kid you not. And then I turn them on to some real good books, and they're hooked. Like Sandra indicated, I'm like this as well, every now and then, I want to read a trite, commercial, good trashy novel, but then it's back to my regular books. After you're have real butter, its hard to go back to margarine. The Zora point acutally proves my argument than yours. I don't know of any person who is born with the knowledge of Zora Neale Hurston where they intutively know who she is? I said Zora who, my own self before I read Their Eyes Were Watching God. Matter of fact, it was one of the first book that turned me away from the Waiting To Exhale type books. Good writing can do that. There's no need in twisting my words around to make it fit your needs. You wrote,"Do you think there is indeed a faction of people who need to read certain types of books that address THEIR own personal human condition even if it is labeled as bad fiction by others?" Why can't their own personal human condition be written in an excellent book? You mentioned Nichelle Tramble's The Dying Ground before. The Dying Ground is an excellent book! Excellent. I love it! It's a well written novel. Here's another one that I loved as well, Dark by Kenji Jasper. OK, now here's two books that speaks to the audience you're trying to capture AND that happens to be EXCELLENT! This is what I'm talking about it good writing! That's all I want. There's no dumbing it down. Let's stop dancing around the pink elephant...you don't sound as if you want the reading audience to know good writing from bad writing. Why is that? | ||
| Yvette Rating: N/A |
Hi Brian, I definitely didn't mean to step on any toes when I stated that some of the stuff written these days is of substandard quality. I'm sure there has always been substandard stuff published. All I'm saying is that I, personally, am not interested in reading it. That doesn't mean that I'm gonna stop another person from reading it if that's what they want. I just hate to see a book that's thrown together for the express purpose of trying to make a quick dollar, and don't even mention those that are poorly edited. I think this does more harm than good. Brian, I have a reading list that just won't stop and it has some of everything on it. I'm sure when I get around to reading most of them, there'll be some that I love and some that I don't care for, but I will give all of them a shot and try to be openminded. Shoots, I even have both of your books on my list, just haven't gotten a chance to read them yet. Brian, I don't think you should assume that people in the ghetto wouldn't want to read classics. I think you're selling them short. | ||
| brianwrites Rating: N/A |
Thumper (aka Kool Mo Dee) “…Come on, Brian, you're peein' on my leg and tryin' to tell me that its rain…” Now THAT is funny. Good one Thump. I’m afraid that we are going in two different directions here. I never mentioned dumbing it down. What I am simply trying to convey is that everyone is not like you, Thumper. You are obviously very well read and in my estimation you are not the average reader. Not being the average reader isn’t a good or bad thing. But I must say that the bigger issue is that you are in the minority. I mean look at the list of books you’ve reviewed and those are just the ones you have reviewed not all the ones you’ve read. I don’t think you could walk down College Street, I mean the OTHER end of College Street and find 20 people who have read as much as you have. I don’t think that you could go to the Lafayette Square Mall stand outside and talk to 20 people who have read as much as you have. Therefore in order to address the concern of the masses, we have to remove ourselves and our habits from the equation in order to derive the proper solution. Thus being said, I hope we agree that you are not the typical reader. I’m not sure how we got to dumbing it down when it comes to literature, but here again we come across a subjective term-- literature which Webster defines as: ‘Writing of lasting value and excellence’ If this is the case, Ice Burg Slim and Donald Goines is literature. Reason being, both of their books are still in print, but you would be hard pressed to find a wide selection of Jean Toomer at your local black bookstores. “…Now what am I suppose to do UNLEARN good writing. I'm suppose to make myself slow because folks out here "calls" themselves writers and in order to make them feel good, fatten up their pockets, stamp of approval their no-writing-skills-this-book-suck-selves, I'm to turn a blind eye?” No one’s asking you to do anything of the sort. This is not about Thumper because as we established earlier you are ahead of the pack. It’s about the people that don’t read. The people that will want some Yo-Yo Love, True to the Game, Addicted type of books. I’ve not read any of these selections, but I am well aware of them in case someone, some first time reader, some guy that wants to escape, no matter what the writer does and wants a specific story I can recommend a book…any book. I too will admit that the Sister Girl genre is a bit saturated, but publishers exist to make money not impact the human condition. (That’s another post all together.) In my estimation the Sister Girl Genre has given us larger sections in bookstores, heck it’s given us sections in bookstores. I attended a symposium where a panelist tried to break down Waiting to Exhale as classic lasting literature. And who are we to say that he was wrong? If we look at Flyy Girl, whether we like it or not, that book is a classic and it will be on the shelves forever. Regardless as to what we think about Omar as a writer, that book sparked a generation of writers that will some day outgrow OT and THEN they will move on to Zora, Nichelle, Mat, Brian Keith Jackson. But what if Flyy Girl never existed? What would we do about that gap between inquisitive interest in reading and passionate obsession reading. Are we to assume they would have eventually crossed the Red Sea had it never been parted? I’ve had the good fortune recently to attend events and social functions that are on both ends of the reading spectrum. I’ve been exposed to a world where people spend their whole lives trying to publish literature just to say “I’m published” and add a line on their resume not caring for one second if they addressed the human condition. I’ve been exposed to writers and readers that believe self-published writers should be put in Section 8 housing and never heard from again. On the other end, I’ve been around readers that don’t care if a book is stapled together, has 13 typos per page and missing the page numbers. I’ve been around writers who proclaim that writing is just a vehicle to become rich and famous. I’ve been exposed to writers that have no other plight than to get rich quick. I have been around writers that would care less about narrative flow and believable dialogue. What I have learned from this experience is that both groups have no regard for the other. Those scholars that publish finely crafted verses and perfected plots could care less about what your people on the OTHER end of College avenue think or read. In fact they don’t realize or care that our people who don’t read exist. They are without question pompous and out of touch, albeit pompous and talented, but they have no concern for people who don’t read as many books as you, Thumper. Writers need to improve, that goes without question. Every writer can get better no matter how old or how established. However, that does not negate the issue that people need different material to choose from poorly written or award-winning. How does one know good writing? Not because we sit on a pedestal with a sword dubbing writing as good and bad. Instead people read a book and the next one is better or worse in their own opinion. We should be careful when we give broad generalizations of good and bad writing. What if someone reads a book you have labeled as poorly written? What if that book changed their life, brought them out of a trying situation and someone stands in front of them stating what a terribly written you-go-girl-book it was. Is that not insulting to the reader? I’m just curios. Or do we then say, “If you like that you should try Jamaica Kinkaid.” We also must be aware of the power that writers with large audiences have regardless as to whether we think their writing is good. Let’s look at Zane who has a gargantuan audience. No matter what you think of her as a writer, she has the ear of thousands. And it’s just been learned that she has signed a MAJOR distribution deal with Simon & Schuster and they will distribute all of the books she publishes. Word on the street says that she’s getting into Christian Fiction. A clear example of grabbing a new breed of readers and eventually taking them to a different level of reading. I hold fast to the theory that we cannot start every new or potential reader what we, as seasoned readers, label as good writing or good books, it’s not for us to judge, we can critique and give objective opinions but we can’t judge writing. There are no clear parameters or variable data only attribute data which is always suspect. We wouldn’t go to a homeless shelter and give people caviar and champagne would we? We wouldn’t go to the projects and give people catalogs on fine furniture would we? We’d start them out slow, wouldn’t we? Fruit and water. Rebuilding your credit and finding a job, right? I’m not sure how books got to this place where it seems we have separation of the classes, but let these people write want they want and how they want. They will get better, or their work will parish, but we can’t setup concentration camps and throw what we think is bad into gas chambers, can we? ANSWER TO YOUR YES OR NO QUESTIONS “..Do you honestly think that our non-reading people will become reading folk by reading The Tornleisha Tales, and that's it...they won't aspire to read something else?” Of course they will. I am a living witness. I read and hated the classics in high school and college, but read Waiting To Exhale in 1992 and now I’m intrigued by Stephen L. Carter, Brian Keith Jackson, and Colson Whitehead. Lo and behold I got back a revisit the classics that I hated. But this isn’t about Brian Egeston. My frat brother just finished A Do Right Man and he’s on to The Hearts of Men and next he wants to try Stephen Carter. My amazing wife loved ‘Disappearing Acts’ way back when and now she’s enthralled by ‘Leaving Atlanta’ So yes of course I think people’s reading will evolve, you don’t? “…Do you honestly think that it was easier for a black person to read a book back in 1940 than it is today? *eyebrow raised* You're kidding right? Recall the difficulties Richard Wright wrote in Black Boy what he had to go through in order to read a library book?” If I remember correctly Native Son was written in 1940 which meant the problems Wright had going to the library where in the early 1920’s or even prior to. Therefore, I need a bit more clarification on your argument here. In 1940 he was rich and famous—the Tiger Woods of Writing. He could go into just about any library he wanted in 1940. “…The Zora point acutally proves my argument than yours. I don't know of any person who is born with the knowledge of Zora Neale Hurston where they intutively know who she is?” Trust me Thumper they exist. They exist outside of BEA, Writing Conferences, corporate offices, and college educated friends. They are out there and they need something to read. “Let's stop dancing around the pink elephant...you don't sound as if you want the reading audience to know good writing from bad writing. Why is that? Who is the reading audience? Are you disregarding people who have not been exposed to the privileges you and I have? Are we not concerned about the people we haven’t met that know not the existence of Zora Neal Hurston? What is the definition of good writing, who defined it and what qualifies them to define it? What case and examples will back that definition? By the way, that’s not urine on your leg, that’s the warm sensation of the truth climbing its way into your soul. Hee heee Brian Egeston (aka LL Cool J) | ||
| Brian Egeston Rating: N/A |
Yvette, Chile please, you ain't steppin on no toes. However, I read back over my previous post and I cannot find where I wrote the following assumption. "..Brian, I don't think you should assume that people in the ghetto wouldn't want to read classics. I think you're selling them short..." I don't recall writing that. Have I missed something? Thanks for the post! Brian | ||
| Cynique Rating: N/A |
Excuse me, Brian and Thumper, for eavesdropping on your verbal sparring, but I would think it's pretty obvious to anyone that reading and writing are subjective endeavors. One man's literature is another one's trash. Reading is a personal experience, and there's no accounting for taste. Nowadays, even "professional" critics don't agree on what's good. Yes, the "classics" have endured, but that's because they have become inured in the annals of literature, and no one has dared to challenge whether certain books are really that great. Just because a book has been anointed as a classic doesn't mean that everyone is obligated to enjoy reading it. A reader has to be on the author's wave length, and it's no crime for one not to be impressed by what has been labled a "classic". A person can get lessons in life by reading what he or she can relate to, be it trite or profound, because some messsages are universal no matter what their context. Anyone looking to be inspired and enlightened should turn to reading non-fiction. I'm also curious is to why you 2 are bemoaning the decline in the mechanics of writing, when both of you, in fact, expressed yourselves in an idiom that bordered on Ebonics! I suspect you would both claim that when the occasion arises, you know how to use proper grammar, but I also suspect that you would continue to commit the unforgiveable sin of using "that" when it should be "who". e.g. John is a person "that" reads classical leader; this should read: John is a person "who" reads classical literature. "Who" is, in this instance, a reflective personal pronoun. "That" is an impersonal pronoun, one which designates an object, not a person. BTW ending a sentence with a preposition is now gaining acceptance when to not do so sounds stilted and pedantic... Anyway, I'm guessing that the opinions I've just expressed won't sway either of you in your contentions, but I'm also sure that you are both intelligent enough to consider another point of view. Who else but "Cynique" | ||
| Thumper Rating: N/A |
Hello All, Brian: All right Brian, one more time for the folks in the back row...I think I've been pretty clear in my previous post, as I'm going to attempt to be crystal one mo' time, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT SUBJECT MATTER, I'm talking QUALITY! Brian you wrote, "It’s about the people that don’t read. The people that will want some Yo-Yo Love, True to the Game, Addicted type of books. I’ve not read any of these selections, but I am well aware of them in case someone, some first time reader, some guy that wants to escape, no matter what the writer does and wants a specific story I can recommend a book…any book." Why recommend a book to anyone that you haven't read? And just because that person says he's not a reader, what makes you think he would want to read books of this genre? See, that's insulting. In your post you tell me not to make broad generalizations about people, but then you do it, and to make matters worse, its a backhanded compliment at that. To recommend a book to a person that you have deemed unworthy of your time, since you haven't read them yourself, is wrong. Of course, people aren't me. People aren't you either. We are who we are. But that does not mean that you give people substandard works because you THINK they won't know better. But, you need to treat every potential reader like they are me, for one day, they will be me. Frankly, you come on to this discussion board and there are thousands of Thumpers that hits this board everyday. We all had to start somewhere. I started with To Kill A Mockingbird. The only difference between today and 24 years ago is that I can give another person Their Eyes Were Watching God or a host of other books written by AA authors, who's books are 10 times easier to find today than in 1978. Here's an analogy: I'm having dinner with a person who has never tasted beef. Have never had a piece of steak or a hamburger in their life. Tonight at dinner the person is willing to have his first taste of beef and ask me for a recommendation. I have a choice of recommending Filet mignon or a McDonald's cheeseburger. I will recommend the filet mignon, hands down, without a question. And I feel the same way about books. I make no apology for that. Because I would want that same consideration and treatment. If I adhere to your way of thinking, I would be left open to, "you know, I asked him to tell me what my first taste of beef should be and that son of a bitch gave me a flat, hard-ass cheeseburger when I could've had a steak!" Am I right or am I wrong? If you're going to be a spokeman for the masses, it would be best if you not take them for imbeciles. You wrote, "Who is the reading audience? Are you disregarding people who have not been exposed to the privileges you and I have?" By privileges, you mean what...an education? *eyebrow raised* Now, of course what one like and don't like is subjective. I loved David Anthony Durham's Gabriel's Story. I know a couple of people who hated it. I respect their opinion. But, in their not liking the book, there was no denying that they believed that the book was well written, it just wasn't their cup of tea. Then there's books that Carey or Linda or Chris liked, and I didn't. Different strokes for different folks. My opinion is no more valuable then theirs, but is our likes and dislikes because we didn't care for the book or the style in which the book was written? There is a difference. Cynique: Cynique, Cynique, Cynique...you know Cynique, you remind me of the kid that just happens upon a fight in progress and can't wait to jump in and get a lick in. You wrote, "I'm also curious is to why you 2 are bemoaning the decline in the mechanics of writing, when both of you, in fact, expressed yourselves in an idiom that bordered on Ebonics!" ...because we can. *eyebrow raised* | ||
| Cynique Rating: N/A |
Thumper, Thumper, Thumper, I am a kid who just happened upon a fight and took the liberty of heckling from the sidelines. What's a good fight without a few hecklers? And permit me to observe that you and Brian are traveling on parallel courses. I doubt if you will have a meeting of the minds because you are advocates of 2 different schools of thought. And that's what an exchange of ideas is all about. Me, I find points of agreement with both of you. Rap on, Ebonics and all. >> eyebrows not raised << | ||
| Brian Egeston Rating: N/A |
Yes, yes, yes! This is great dialogue! What a wonderful thread. Good punch, Thumper. You’re a nice debater, after all. Keep ‘em comin’! Okay. Ding ding. YOUR STATEMENT “..I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT SUBJECT MATTER, I'm talking QUALITY!” Is there a definition for writing quality and if so, are there examples to back it up? YOUR STATEMENT “…Why recommend a book to anyone that you haven't read? And just because that person says he's not a reader, what makes you think he would want to read books of this genre? See, that's insulting.” I’m gonna have to disagree with this one, dear friend. If I met a middle aged house wife who said she wanted to read a book about a sex crazed house wife, why wouldn’t I recommend Addicted although I haven’t read it. If I met a person that wanted a book on slavery and genealogy why wouldn’t I recommend Roots even though I haven’t read it? Is not a person’s knowledge base comprised of personal experiences, encounters by way of interacting with others, and the objective notions of others we meet. I’m not sure if you attended, but would you recommend IUPUI to someone interested in continuing education at a local school in Indy? I don’t think it’s an insult at all. It most certainly was not intended that way. YOUR STATEMENT “…In your post you tell me not to make broad generalizations about people, but then you do it, and to make matters worse, its a backhanded compliment at that. To recommend a book to a person that you have deemed unworthy of your time, since you haven't read them yourself, is wrong.” I checked back over my previous post and don’t recall naming books that were not worthy of my time. Did I miss something? And I really don’t see the backhanded compliment you made mention of. Am I missing something here also? Was there perhaps something you misunderstood? I’ll be more than happy to clarify my argument if need be. YOUR STATEMENT “…But that does not mean that you give people substandard works because you THINK they won't know better.” Again, I’ve gotta seek some type of clarification on these subjective terms on which you continue base your theories, Thump. What’s substandard and who’s qualified to make that judgement? What is the standard? YOUR STATEMENT “…But, you need to treat every potential reader like they are me, for one day, they will be me.” Quite frankly…uh…Thump…I’m gonna let you reflect back on this statement a bit longer. This is a tad bit…frightening. With regards to your burger steak analogy which was somewhat clever I must admit—but it has perhaps few holes. One being, you cannot be sure, there is no way to possibly know that every person in that scenario will prefer the steak, you just can’t make that hypothesis. Hence the basis for my argument. We cannot sit back and determine what every one will like. Case and point. Close friends of mine who are college educated and well traveled will readily admit that they would prefer fried chicken fingers or a big burger as opposed to Chicken Cordon Bleu or a big fancy steak. People like that exist, Thumper so here’s where you profanity-peppered analogy fails: If that person tasting beef for the first time rejects the Filet, then they perhaps have rejected all beef and based on your analogy have rejected all books. Here’s where your analogy can be improved: Know when to suggest the Filet and know when to suggest that flat, hard-a#@ cheeseburger. YOUR STATEMENT “…If you're going to be a spokeman for the masses, it would be best if you not take them for imbeciles” Gotta ask here, if this is something else I missed for I don’t recall a post where I wrote about being a spokesmen for the masses. And I certainly don’t remember referring to anyone as an imbecile. YOUR STATEMENT “..By privileges, you mean what...an education?” Privileges: Education Good parent(s) Exposure to the arts Food everyday at every meal Things that we often take for granted. YOUR STATEMENT “…Frankly, you come on to this discussion board and there are thousands of Thumpers that hits this board everyday.” Are you sure about that?- “thousands of Thumpers” YOUR STATEMENT “…My opinion is no more valuable then theirs…” Thump, this statement seems to be a direct contrast to one you made earlier namely this one: “…But, you need to treat every potential reader like they are me, for one day, they will be me.” That’s still very frightening. CYNIQUE: Welcome to the party and thanks for your astute observation accompanied by the detail of mechanics. Nice touch! However, I would like to reflect upon a theory I use when lecturing to middle and high school students which highlights the brilliance of Paul Laurence Dunbar. Dialect is what we are and how we came to be. To create, write, and reproduce dialect is nothing short of grasping the art of informal language. That informal language is, after all, what gives us a ghetto pass when we need it. That informal language is that icebreaker when trivial conversation about the weather will not suffice. That informal language is the connection of strangers in search of comfort by way of simply understanding one another. Mechanics will often times produce good grades, yet it sometimes fails, when one is trying to change the world one word at a time. If we read the writings of Dunbar, we acquire an appreciation for cross-cultural communication instead of yet another lesson in mechanics. And perhaps a more concise theory offered by my country-cousin at the family reunion who is a self proclaimed butcher of the English language. He has been quoted as thus: “People run just as fast when they hear somebodies says ‘I am gon’ cut cha or I is gon’ cut cha’ .” Please, please. More heckling. Brian Egeston | ||
| Brian Egeston Rating: N/A |
CYNIQUE: Hi, I just read your post again and stumbled across this statement: "...Anyone looking to be inspired and enlightened should turn to reading non-fiction." Are you implying that fiction does not enlighten or inspire? Just curious. Looking forward to your thoughts. Brian | ||
| Cynique Rating: N/A |
Brian: First of all, I don't really have a big problem with Ebonics in its "pure" form. It's only when people are trying to talk "proper" but are fracturing grammar in the process, that I find it a little off-putting. Dialect is, of course, a very legimate variation on the English language, although I must confess I find dialect a lot more interesting to hear, than to read in its phonetic form. BTW, Paul Laurence Dunbar in his later years tried very hard to distance himself from his earlier poems and was very frustrated because his audiences wouldn't allow him to do so. Now, street slang is something else. What can I say? It's creative, imaginative, alliterative, crude and, above all, "cool", and every black man should be bilingual enough to be fluent in it. As for relying on non-fiction for enlightenment and inspiration, that's a way to get these motivations in their unfettered form. When fiction enlightens, it can sometime become philosophical; when fiction inspires, it can sometimes get maudlin. But that's just my opinion because, lately, I've become a big fan of biographies and documentaries. Finally, thanks for not getting offended by my intrusion on your debate. "Cynique" | ||
| Thumper Rating: N/A |
Hello Brian, Allow me to indulge in the cut-and-paste thang one last time...you wrote, YOUR STATEMENT “…If you're going to be a spokeman for the masses, it would be best if you not take them for imbeciles” Gotta ask here, if this is something else I missed for I don’t recall a post where I wrote about being a spokesmen for the masses. And I certainly don’t remember referring to anyone as an imbecile" Well Brian, you most certainly did and have been since the start of the thread. Yvette wasn't the only one to pick up on it. But, lets cease all this because we aren't getting anywhere fast. As Cynique said, we are on parallel planes. Not to worry, I have a remedy. I have a proposal. How's this: since you obviously have a problem with the classics, their relevance to the non-reading audience, etc. How about you tell me what books in the QBR Sacred Fire book is not a classic, or holds no relevance to today's AA non-reading audience. Post the books and your reason, and I'll contradict it if I disagree with your selections. You've been doing a lot of talking, put something down on it. I have no problem listing the books that are recognized as classics, and you can tell me why you disagree with my assessment. AND...if either one of us had not read the book(s) posted, the other has to read the book in order to determine if he agrees or disagrees. Let's do it for say 10 books. Are you game? *eyebrow raised* Ready to kick this up a notch? Cause ain't no shame in my game. | ||
| Soul Sister Rating: N/A |
Wow, I can't believe I missed this conversation. I have to say that the folk Pooky and RayRay should not be sold short. There is an appreciation for art regardless of its percieved value. There is Chester Himes writing to the brother in trouble - from a vantage point. The classics should be read and are being taught in classrooms and reading groups - heck they even have some groups in prison far more articulate than most - so what is that about. Classics are a must -- and yes the new stuff needs to go through the tests of time and merit. Me, I have picked up Infants of Spring and Im working on some academic titles -- yawn bore - tee hee. Oh well peace out errybody | ||
| Brian Egeston Rating: N/A |
Thump, buddy, pal (aka Slim Daddy) I’ll agree with you on one thing, we are on different paths and it seems our railroad tacks are slowly beginning to separate with each state line we cross. For instance: YOUR STATEMENT How's this: since you obviously have a problem with the classics, their relevance to the non-reading audience, etc. How about you tell me what books in the QBR Sacred Fire book is not a classic, or holds no relevance to today's AA non-reading audience. Thump, amigo, road dog, I gotta tell ya, I looked back over my first post and didn’t find any mention of me having a problem with the classics. What I did find was this: Brian’s first post: “…While am a lover of Ellison, Wright, enjoy Hemmingway and some of Faulkner...” And then later I recall writing: “…While I can appreciate Moby Dick and The Great Gatsby...” After rereading this, I’m not sure how you can logically argue that I have a problem with the classics. Was there somewhere else I made a statement saying I don’t like the classics? But this…this is a very good portion of your argument you make—very interesting. Let’s see. "…their relevance to the non-reading audience.” Hmmm, the classics relevance to non-reading audience. Before we even get into the notion that this is another subjective and yet –to-be defined term, are we calling Ray-Ray and Pookey non-reading? If so I think that is selling them short more than anything. But that’s another debate within itself. Let’s see. I do believe the classics are relevant to those people you may personally describe as the non-reading audience. However, I don’t believe that we have the ability to tell them what is good or bad writing, good or bad fiction as you described in your 11/16/2002 post where you wrote “…I didn't say anything about pulp fiction...just bad fiction!” I think Ernest J. Gaines is completely relevant to people who aren’t avid readers or people that may read less than five books a year. I think Chinua Achebe is a great writer for people who would rather not read at all. But in my humble opinion, there is a good possibility that these books might be a turn off to people who cannot relate to the subject matter and yes yes yes I know in your 11/17/2002 post you yelled to me quite clearly that it’s not about subject matter. But when I think of two factors that would attract or discourage less than avid readers to become more enthused about reading, in my humble opinion(IMHO), I believe those peresons would be more attracted to subject matter and less concerned about what someone else thinks is good or bad writing. Let’s see what else did you beat me up for on your last post..oh Yeah, I got it! YOUR STATEMENT “…Well Brian, you most certainly did and have been since the start of the thread. Yvette wasn't the only one to pick up on it.” Sorry about this one Thump, but I just don’t see it. Was it this line I wrote. “… I am more so a lover of people. All people. Especially people with needs.” Is that what caused you to think I was trying to be a spokesman for the masses. Just trying to get some clarity because although that issue is not one of my arguments for debate, I’d like to have my position cleared before we stray off to tangents. If you don’t mind, could you point out where you took on this notion, seriously. Oddly enough Thump, I was thinking about this discussion/debate/thread/dialogue while atop a roof cleaning gutters(what a life I lead) and I think it’s pertinent that for the sake of this debate I express my official position for I fear that my views may have become misinterpreted in all of this spirited dialogue. So here we go: A. Classic Literature(whatever that means) is an important aspect of not only our history, but our writing history as well. B. While the classics have their place, as do all books, they may not necessarily be the best means to increase reading audiences and encourage non-avid readers(less than five books per year IMHO). I still contend if we walked into 8th grade classes across the country and gave black boys a choice of books “Kill A Mocking Bird” or “Bling Bling”. I think an overwhelming majority of those young squires would go for Bling Bling. I could be wrong. If we further turned to them and said, Kill A Mockingbird is better writing, which do you want to read? I still believe they would go for Bling Bling. In the same sense, if we approached a single woman desperately searching for love, who was less than an avid reader, gave her two choices, ‘Their Eyes Were Watching God’ and ‘Your Prince Charming is in Prison’ I’m thinking she would go for the later. If we once more said hey, Zora is a wonderful writer and this is a classic, once again I think she may go for the prison drama. And this is in no way an attempt to slight the decision making ability of women, for I am married to the World’ most beautiful decision maker. C. There’s nothing like a well-written book. It’s breath-taking, it’s enlightening, it’s entertaining and it’s also very subjective. My sincere hope is that people will begin to read whatever they choose and begin reading more books, and begin to grow as readers, thereby asking writers to grow. You said it best in an earlier post, Thump some people have told you they want to read something else besides another go-on girl book. Well, what would have happened if there wasn’t that go on girl book? Would they have been reading the classics…honestly? D. And last, why am I harping on this issue? With absolute candor, I used to think like you Thump. I used to believe that all writing should be done to a certain quality standard. I used to believe that Wright had a point when he wrote his Blue Print for Negro Writing. I used to bash books and criticize writers. Not critique, but criticize. I’m not referring to what you do in your reviews, because you are passionate about that and I think AALBC has grown because of it. What I am referring to is standing on a mountain top and barking orders for Gladiators to go and sever the heads of writers who didn’t do this or didn’t do that. I’m referring to taking my personal opinions, unleashing them to all who cared, or cared not, to listen. I used to do all of the stuff, Thump. But then I started traveling, meeting people, talking to readers, listening to people who said their lives where changed by books I’d bashed. I met people that didn’t care one way or the other if a book had one period or one million periods. I even bashed my own book in front of lady after she said she’d read it and loved it. She looked as though I had spit in her face and called her mother a heifer. And that’s when I realized, I can’t judge what good writing is to people. I can’t tell people what a bad book is regardless as to how it’s written. I have no right to tell a person what’s good or bad for them. The best I can do is be as knowledgeable as I can about books, writing style, subject matter and make suggestions in hopes that I can do my part in maintaining and expanding reading audiences. Thump, I swear there was a time when I would have been on the other side of this wonderful and fulfilling debate, but then I came to the realization…that I was wrong. Brian Egeston (aka J.J. Evans) P.S. Ooo weee!!!! I would love to take part in your QBR exercise, but first I hate to pull your debate coattail, but there are a few questions and issues I’ve presented and you haven’t addressed them. *shaking by finger* Namely: -But now, how can you get a kid to get excited about a book in 2002, especially a young black kid, and more specifically a young black boy? - I attended a symposium where a panelist tried to break down Waiting to Exhale as classic lasting literature. And who are we to say that he was wrong? - If we look at Flyy Girl, whether we like it or not, that book is a classic and it will be on the shelves forever. Regardless as to what we think about Omar as a writer, that book sparked a generation of writers that will some day outgrow OT and THEN they will move on to Zora, Nichelle, Mat, Brian Keith Jackson. But what if Flyy Girl never existed? What would we do about that gap between inquisitive interest in reading and passionate obsession reading. Are we to assume they would have eventually crossed the Red Sea had it never been parted? - I’m not sure how books got to this place where it seems we have separation of the classes, but let these people write want they want and how they want. They will get better, or their work will parish, but we can’t setup concentration camps and throw what we think is bad into gas chambers, can we? - Who is the reading audience? Are you disregarding people who have not been exposed to the privileges you and I have? Are we not concerned about the people we haven’t met that know not the existence of Zora Neal Hurston? - What is the definition of good writing, who defined it and what qualifies them to define it? What case and examples will back that definition? - Is there a definition for writing quality and if so, are there examples to back it up? - If I met a middle aged house wife who said she wanted to read a book about a sex crazed house wife, why wouldn’t I recommend Addicted although I haven’t read it. If I met a person that wanted a book on slavery and genealogy why wouldn’t I recommend Roots even though I haven’t read it? Is not a person’s knowledge base comprised of personal experiences, encounters by way of interacting with others, and the objective notions of others we meet. I’m not sure if you attended, but would you recommend IUPUI to someone interested in continuing education at a local school in Indy? - What’s substandard and who’s qualified to make that judgement? What is the standard? Go Thumper go! This is GREAT FUN!!! SOUL SISTER: I ain't forgot about you. Come on in here chile, and jump in this fire. Nice comments. | ||
| Thumper Rating: N/A |
Hello Brian, So Brian... as to my QBR classic proposal -- I take it that the answer is "no"? *eyebrow raised* | ||
| Brian Egeston Rating: N/A |
Hey Thump, Hope you and yours have a wonderful Thanksgiving. In regards to your QBR proposal, it's seems you must have missed some things in my last post. See below: FROM LAST POST: P.S. Ooo weee!!!! I would love to take part in your QBR exercise, but first I hate to pull your debate coattail, but there are a few questions and issues I’ve presented and you haven’t addressed them. *shaking my finger* Namely: -But now, how can you get a kid to get excited about a book in 2002, especially a young black kid, and more specifically a young black boy? - I attended a symposium where a panelist tried to break down Waiting to Exhale as classic lasting literature. And who are we to say that he was wrong? - If we look at Flyy Girl, whether we like it or not, that book is a classic and it will be on the shelves forever. Regardless as to what we think about Omar as a writer, that book sparked a generation of writers that will some day outgrow OT and THEN they will move on to Zora, Nichelle, Mat, Brian Keith Jackson. But what if Flyy Girl never existed? What would we do about that gap between inquisitive interest in reading and passionate obsession reading. Are we to assume they would have eventually crossed the Red Sea had it never been parted? - I’m not sure how books got to this place where it seems we have separation of the classes, but let these people write want they want and how they want. They will get better, or their work will parish, but we can’t setup concentration camps and throw what we think is bad into gas chambers, can we? - Who is the reading audience? Are you disregarding people who have not been exposed to the privileges you and I have? Are we not concerned about the people we haven’t met that know not the existence of Zora Neal Hurston? - What is the definition of good writing, who defined it and what qualifies them to define it? What case and examples will back that definition? - Is there a definition for writing quality and if so, are there examples to back it up? - If I met a middle aged house wife who said she wanted to read a book about a sex crazed house wife, why wouldn’t I recommend Addicted although I haven’t read it. If I met a person that wanted a book on slavery and genealogy why wouldn’t I recommend Roots even though I haven’t read it? Is not a person’s knowledge base comprised of personal experiences, encounters by way of interacting with others, and the objective notions of others we meet. I’m not sure if you attended, but would you recommend IUPUI to someone interested in continuing education at a local school in Indy? - What’s substandard and who’s qualified to make that judgement? What is the standard? *eyebrows lowered* | ||
| Thumper Rating: N/A |
Hello Brian, This is actually my second time answering your posts. I will try it one more time. You wrote: "-But now, how can you get a kid to get excited about a book in 2002, especially a young black kid, and more specifically a young black boy? " Ask a young black boy what he's interested in, I would think. C'mon dawg, it ain't that deep. The trick is, would you have a book ready for him to read on that subject that he finds interesting. But before all of that happens, make sure he knows how to read in the first place. You wrote: "- I attended a symposium where a panelist tried to break down Waiting to Exhale as classic lasting literature. And who are we to say that he was wrong?" Despite the fact that I can speak on my likes and dislikes for myself, in my opinion, the essential component for determining whether a book is a classic is time. Frankly, not enough time has passed between now and Waiting To Exhale's initial publication, to say whether its a classic or not. I can say if I think the book is a good book or not, no one can take away my individual judgement, the same as no one can take yours. You wrote: "- If we look at Flyy Girl, whether we like it or not, that book is a classic and it will be on the shelves forever. Regardless as to what we think about Omar as a writer, that book sparked a generation of writers that will some day outgrow OT and THEN they will move on to Zora, Nichelle, Mat, Brian Keith Jackson." As I addressed in your earlier statement, and it applies here, time will determine whether Flyy Girl is a classic or not. First you're being presumptious. If from Flyy Girl grew out a whole new generation of writers, who are they? How do you know that the mysterious, yet often talked about "they" will then go from Flyy Girl to Zora? I beg to differ. Can you offer any proof, examples, or anything that goes on more than just your say so. You wrote: "But what if Flyy Girl never existed? What would we do about that gap between inquisitive interest in reading and passionate obsession reading. Are we to assume they would have eventually crossed the Red Sea had it never been parted? " Who said we had to do ANYTHING to bridge the gap between the inquisitive interest and the passionate obsessive reader?? Duh...I don't get it. You wrote: "- Who is the reading audience? Are you disregarding people who have not been exposed to the privileges you and I have? Are we not concerned about the people we haven’t met that know not the existence of Zora Neal Hurston?" Brian, you can't make a mud puddle into an Olympic size swimming pool. The reading audience is the people who read books. If a person ain't reading the books, they ain't a memeber of the reading audience. You know, it really ain't that deep. Again with the priviledges. Well, let me tell you, that list of priviledges you wrote, they all don't apply to me. Now what? You wrote: "- I’m not sure how books got to this place where it seems we have separation of the classes, but let these people write want they want and how they want. They will get better, or their work will parish, but we can’t setup concentration camps and throw what we think is bad into gas chambers, can we? " We most certainly can throw the bad ones away. I'm not suppose to have my own mind to judge what a good book from a bad one. Two, I'm not here to allow authors to get better and better when they start off bad. For example, in my younger days, I would get my haircut at the barber school or my dental work done at the dental school because I couldn't afford to pay full price for these services and the charge for these services were considerably less...sometimes damn near free. Now let's apply this same notion to many of our authors that you believe we should support and wait on them to get better at their writing. Shouldn't I have to buy their books for LESS money than the books by authors who know what they're doing, that knows how to write? *eyebrow raised* The new authors are learning right? Why should I pay the same full price for their books as I would for say Toni Morrison's books? *eyebrow raised* You wrote: "- If I met a middle aged house wife who said she wanted to read a book about a sex crazed house wife, why wouldn’t I recommend Addicted although I haven’t read it. If I met a person that wanted a book on slavery and genealogy why wouldn’t I recommend Roots even though I haven’t read it? " Simple, I'll break it down for you. The reason you shouldn't recommend a book that you haven't read is that that person may ask you about the book and you won't have an answer. Even though reading is a solitary act, there are times when we would like to discuss the book, especially with the person that recommended it. "Hey Brian, you know that part on page 156, why did Annabelle do so and so?" And you would not have a clue as to what that person is talking about. It also is insulting because that would lead that same person to ask, and rightfully so, why would he tell me to read a book that he ain't read himself? Another thing, you keep mentioning how you read Fitzgerald, Hemingway and some of Faulkner. Really? Which books? I notice that most people, in an attempt to impress folks will throw out names of author to appear as if they are in the know, when they don't know anything. Now, I'm done. | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
Hello Brain and Thumper You know, at times I enjoyed your little arguement, but as it fizzled down to a high class game of "the dozens", more than a debate, I wanted it to stop. Thumper's low blow in his last paragraph illustrates my point. A good debate has a defined issue and the debaters generally take a position in regards to that issue. What was the issue and what the heck were you two arguing about. Talking about trying to impress gezzzz. Some people argue to show off or display what they know. Others do it to enliven a discussion. I know you two knew you weren't going to win the other over his side so spare us next time.......pleasssssse. I will say Brain gets a point for being open and honest, a good debate needs to be approached in that manner. Thumper gets points taken away for not answering the questions asked of him (in a timely manner, if at all) and misquoting Brain on several occasions. All in all it was a so-so battle but one of the combatants didn't really want to fight, they just wanted to throw things *LOL*. | ||
| Thumper Rating: N/A |
Hello Anonymous, It perhaps is time to call it a day on this thread, especially since I won't change my mind on the subject. PS, you know just FYI, as we have stated previously, a person's writing style is as distincitive and unique as their fingerprints or DNA, more so when the person in question writing has been read for a long period of time. *eyebrow raised* So, the low blow is really a person who chooses to post on a thread, deliver a couple of sucker punches and then has the nerve to post as Anonymous. Funny, I notice that your post doesn't concern any of the topics that Brian brought up? I wonder why...*eyebrow raised* And because of our new format...guess what...if you didn't want to read anymore of this thread...you don't have to. You could've bypassed the whole thing without skipping a beat. But, I'm done, I have a feeling this is the type of reaction you were looking for since you have nothing of your own to contribute. Oh and don't keep posting as Anonymous or any of your other made up alaises...because that has really gotten tired. *big smile* | ||
| geavonnie Rating: N/A |
Happy holidays. My name is Geavonnie. my book has recently been released for publication! You can now order “Time Out” only online at http://www.timeoutbook.com with only a check or money order. Go to the site and click on “Order Book Here” follow the prompts until you reach “payment options” choose check/money order and continue until you reach the end. Print out the invoice and mail your payment to the address provided. Your book will arrive in a couple of days. Credit Cards orders cannot be taken until December 6, 2002. If you would like your book personally autographed by author please email author at bookorders@timeoutbook.com with your message and order number. Be the first to get your copy. Quantities are limited. Books will not be in stores until March 2003. Thank you and I appreciate your support. Part of the proceeds of this book will go to the fight against Breast Cancer. Don’t forget to refer a friend and help make “Time Out” a best seller. Geavonnie. Direct Link http://timeoutbook.com/_time_out_.html | ||
| Sandra Rating: N/A |
It really would be nice if authors gave a synopsis of their book in the message posted here while giving order and payment details. A synopsis would really peek interest and draw perspective readers to your website. Just my 2 cents. | ||
| Brian Egeston Rating: N/A |
Hey Thump, Sorry I took so long to reply to the post. Just been released from the wrath of family, friends, and leftovers. Thump, ouch buddy, you done pulled out yo’ knife and tried to cut a brotha, ain’t cha? This is great fun. I love it. And thanks for going back and addressing my concerns. Very much the gentleman you are. Let’s take your issues from the bottom up, shall we? Which books have I read? Fitzgerald- I may be mistaken, but I don’t recall posting that I’ve read Fitzgerald. If memory serves, I think I posted “…While I can appreciate Moby Dick and The Great Gatsby…” although there is a copy of The Great Gatsby on my night stand with dog-eared pages. Hemmingway- Stories From Kilmajaro Faulkner- Sound and the Fury And this is a perfect transition for one of your other arguments. Namely this one: YOUR STATEMENT: “I'm not here to allow authors to get better and better when they start off bad...” You know, the book world thought Faulkner was a complete idiot until he wrote The Sound and the Fury which was his third or fourth book. It was widely noted that he was ‘finding his way’ as a writer. What if everyone would have sad, “William, you suck. You shall banished from ever picking up another pen and as of today you will be dropped into an abyss of bad books?” I think it would have been a travesty to write him off as a bad writer early in his career. And speaking of “bad writing” I was shocked at the simplistic style of Faulkner’s dialogue in Sound & Fury. Nichelle Trimble and I had a conversation about the elementary use of his tags after characters spoke. And this, I think, is a prime example of people not having the ability or wherewithal to judge what bad writing is. Here I am thinking Faulkner stinks and years later, its’ taaa daaaa…a classic? YOUR ARGUMENT: “Simple, I'll break it down for you. The reason you shouldn't recommend a book that you haven't read is that that person may ask you about the book and you won't have an answer. …It also is insulting because that would lead that same person to ask, and rightfully so, why would he tell me to read a book that he ain't read himself?” REBUTTAL # 1: Boy, I have to vehemently disagree with you on this one. Here’s why. If I approached you and said, “Thump, buddy, pal, warrior of my words…Can you recommend a premium steakhouse, where I can go and smoke a cigar in some historic downtown Indianapolis restaurant ?” If you had never been to St. Elmo’s Steakhouse in downtown Indy, but heard good things about it, do you mean you wouldn’t recommend it to me? If you did recommend it and had not been there, I would not think it was an insult at all. REBUTTAL # 2 If I came to you asking for a nice place to eat and watch a movie at the same time, even it you hadn’t been to The Hollywood Bar & Film Works, but had heard good things about it—you mean to say you would not recommend it to me? If you did recommend it, I’d be appreciative not insulted. Even though we could not talk about the dining experience, I would most assuredly call you and express my gratitude. REBUTTAL # 3 Lastly, I have never read any of Victoria Christopher Murray’s books, but I meet women who want to read Christian Fiction. I’ve met Victoria, interacted with readers that have read her books. Can you honestly say that I am insulting these women by recommending Victoria’s books? I mean can you honestly say that? I don’t think so, because the women come back and thank me for the recommendation. And with regards to the book discussion, I’m not so sure that the dialogue between recommender and recommendee(yes I just invented those words) is as important as the dialogue between the reader--who has identified with the book--and their family or friend or enemy which begins some type of healing process. YOUR ARGUMENT: The reading audience is the people who read books. If a person ain't reading the books, they ain't a memeber of the reading audience. CLARIFICATION: Thumper, are you implying that people who don’t read should not be encouraged to read? If you are, and I’m not presuming you to be, from a humanistic standpoint that sounds a bit disturbing. From a business standpoint of growing the book industry that notion seems suicidal. CASE & POINT: Had IBM structured their business goals to only those using computers some 20 years ago, where would they be know? Had Microsoft limited their scope to using their computer codes only for IBM instead of envisioning bringing more people to the product (analogous to bringing more people to books) where would Microsoft be today? Here is a better perspective. What if Troy structures AALBC.com to only those people that are reading now and does not concern himself with who will read books tomorrow, next month, or the next decade? Where will AALBC.com be in ten years? Who will be the next Thumper and Brian fighting with words in this type of open forum? It is that forward thinking of AALBC that has spawned its growth. Thumper, I strongly contend that we must appreciate and embrace those that read now, while growing, finding, and making another generation of readers. Here’s why. I spent an hour this past weekend playing my nephew’s Nintendo Game Cube. It was if I were controlling my own movie. The game had headphones and I was completely enthralled playing, shooting, running in stereo. Then I put myself in a young kid’s mindset and I asked the question: “If I have this type of entertainment, this type of escape, why would I read a book?” And that, dear Thumper, is the non-reading audience that should not be forgotten. Note: These points listed above also address your statement here: “Who said we had to do ANYTHING to bridge the gap between the inquisitive interest and the passionate obsessive reader??” YOUR STATEMENT: “…Again with the priviledges. Well, let me tell you, that list of priviledges you wrote, they all don't apply to me. Now what?” Not that I am being presumptuous, Thump. But are telling me that none of the privilege listed below apply to you? Education (K-12 and or college) Good parent(s) Exposure to the arts (Going to a play during a school field trip.) Food everyday at every meal (There were plenty of times when we had burnt bologna so that counts) Things that we often take for granted. I’m not saying that it’s unrealistic for you to have arrived at your current station, but it’s just a persnicketous technicality. (You know, keeping in line with the debate and all.) YOUR ARGUMENT: How do you know that the mysterious, yet often talked about "they" will then go from Flyy Girl to Zora? I beg to differ. Can you offer any proof, examples, or anything that goes on more than just your say so. Very good move here, Thump. Nicely done. Call for facts and examples. I like that. *patting you on the back* REBUTTALS: Thump, I know and interact with one of the “Theys”. Once again I must refer to the examples of my buddy who was formally educated and works in Corporate America, but he never got into reading until now. His first book was Do Right Man by Omar Tyree, then he moved on to Travis Hunter, and now he’s looking at Stephen Carter’s new novel. He is a living example of the They. When he and I last talked, he mentioned “Now I see the difference of commercial fiction and what is perceived as literary fiction.” There’s your best example right there. Thump. Another example: While in Roanoke, VA I addressed a book club trying to decide on their next book and there were several members who expressed interest in not reading another ‘Go on girl book’. Ironically, the book club was initially started to discuss “Go on girl books.” There is another example of a person’s reading interest evolving. I meet these type of readers all the time, Thump. Therefore, it behooves me to say that this hypothesis is not based on my say so, but instead it is rooted in the everyday interaction with readers. YOUR ARGUMENT “As I addressed in your earlier statement, and it applies here, time will determine whether Flyy Girl is a classic or not.” Thump, ole buddy, I hate to tell you but I’ve got some actual data to back up this rebuttal. As an independent publisher I have access to the Ingram Book Company’s inventory of every book that they stock. I pulled the numbers for Eyes were Watching God and Flyy Girl: Zora’s Inventory- 113 Omar’s Inventory – 193 It is widely believe that Ingram’s numbers represent 10% of total sales for a specific print run. Therefore evaluating these numbers we see that Zora has stocked 113,000 books vs. Flyy Girl’s 193,000. Thump, not only has he surpassed Zora (which is a classic) but his book is five years old and still showing demand. Most books lose demand after the first three months. If that’s not an indication of its classic status I don’t know what is. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not promoting Omar, just showing the points of my argument. This once again, I believe, proves that we can not be accurate judges of good and bad writing nor can we determine what good and bad books are. YOUR STATEMENT: “I can say if I think the book is a good book or not, no one can take away my individual judgement, the same as no one can take yours.” REPLY: Most profound statement you’ve made for the duration of this debate. *eyebrows cocked like The Roc* YOUR STATEMENT: Ask a young black boy what he's interested in, I would think. C'mon dawg, it ain't that deep. The trick is, would you have a book ready for him to read on that subject that he finds interesting. But before all of that happens, make sure he knows how to read in the first place. REPLY: We have asked them and guess what NONE of them said peeked their interest…The Classics. Essentially you have answered your question, Thump and surmised the debate “The trick is, would you have a book ready for him to read on that subject that he finds interesting.” More often than not, we don’t have these books for these readers and perhaps it is because we are busy telling writers they stink, their book is bad, they are brilliant, their books is extraordinary. Perhaps were are too busy debating what is or is not literature instead of debating what means we can use to inspire people to use that right which was earned by blood sweat and tears…the right to read—whatever they choose. ANONYMOUS: I ain’t for got about you. Thanks for your post. I do appreciate it. However, I don’t think we should dismiss what Thumper and I are doing as banter between boys. In my estimation, it is very significant dialogue which is long past due. I’m an advocate of facts a figure to show the urgency of matters so I would therefore offer the following as proof for the importance of this issue. If one were to look at all of the posts since this new board was implemented, out of all the subjects only one of them has more than 25 posts. And that is the one we’re talking about now. I hope it goes on forever, because if it does there is a glimmer of hope that reading books will too. WRITTEN WITH WARMTH Brian Egeston | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
Brian, I've been reading this discussion, just like many others, and in your lastest reply you wrote: "And this, I think, is a prime example of people not having the ability or wherewithal to judge what bad writing is." And then you wrote: "This once again, I believe, proves that we can not be accurate judges of good and bad writing nor can we determine what good and bad books are." And then your response to Thumper's statement: "I can say if I think the book is a good book or not, no one can take away my individual judgement, the same as no one can take yours." was the following: "Most profound statement you’ve made for the duration of this debate. *eyebrows cocked like The Roc*" So, do you agree or disagree that readers can determine whether a book is good or not? It appears you're been arguing that we can't say what's a good book or what's a bad book but then you say that Thumper makes a profound statement when he says that he can say or judge whether he thinks a book is good or not. Also, would you explain why you think that statement was profound? And, finally, I wouldn't think that book sales would automatically determine if a book is a classic or not. It may be one factor but surely not the deciding factor. Anonymous 2 | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
Hello Brain and Thumper Although I poked fun at your debate I have found it to be interesting and do continue. Because of the longevity of the posts and the somewhat tangential nature of some of the rebuts I couldn't quite get a grasp of the issues that were on the table. After reading over the posts several times I think I've found the positions that each of you are standing on. The following is what I understand some of the issues to be. If I'm wrong please correct me. I mentioned in my earlier post that Thumper didn't answer the questions asked of him. I think that statement was born out of the fact that I wanted to know the answers and it was not meant to be a jab at him although it read as such. The two of you are bringing up some very valid points and if I'm going to get the full effects of your aurguments it would be nice if each of you debated in an open and honest manner and not sidestep a valid question in an attempted to "win" a point. It's true that neither of you intentionally avoided a question that might have given some weight to a point stated by the other and excuse me if that was not the case. I know it's hard to "give it up" to your opponent but in doing so one gains the respect of others in attendance. I quess I am being selfish but I have read and will continue to read this thread in the hopes that I might learn a little something-something. Now: I know it's kinda late for me to jump into this little debate but Thumper shamed me into it *smile*. So, the following is a few statements made by them and what I believe to be some of their positions. Thumper started out mentioning the classics and why he thinks they should be read and why he think some authors don't want us reading them. He said that some writers are affraid that their books would be compared to books written by people that inhaled and exhaled the mechanics of the english language. He went on to say that while it's easy for us to shout we want BETTER books, we have to know what BETTER truly is. He also thought the focus should not be, how we can get people who don't read to read. But quite the contrary, the objective should be, how do we get the pople that;s reading to keep reading. He said, " if a book is on point, a master of the game, it will catch readers, even readers that don't normally read books. He also stated, amoung other things, that he has the right to say what is good and what is bad. I was going to give my opinion on each of the above mention statements but instead, I'm just going to mention a few of Brain statesments that I agree with. Brain wrote: I can't judge what good writing is "to people". I have no right to tell a person what's good or bad "for them". I think the key to Brain's statement is "for them". I agree. Brain also wrote that he used to think a certain way but he wqrote: "but then I started traveling, meeting people, talking to readers, listening to people who said their lives where changed by books I'd bashed. I even bashed my own book in front of aldy after she said she read it and loved it". She looked as though I had spit in her face and called a heifer. That's when I realized I can't judge what good writing is to people. I can't tell people what a bad book is regardless as to how it's written". Those lines won me over. He qualified his statement by saying he went out amongst the people!, who can argue with that. He basically said, what's bad to you may well be a gem to another. But then again Thumper's perspective is quite different. He's a critic and his eye is on detail. He has a responsibility to the reading public to give his opinion of good and bad writing. However I have to agree with Brain when he said that everyone is not like Thumper and that in order to address the concern of the masses we have to remove ourselves and our habits from the equation in order to derive the proper solution. I personally do not think the Classics have anything to do with a persons reading habits and therefore are not essentail reading. It's also my opinion that a person has to start somewhere....anywhere and if you-go-girls and pimp daddy is the ticket, so be it. Hey, it's all about individual reading taste. That's my little take on some of the issues. | ||
| Brian Egeston Rating: N/A |
Great post,Anonymous. Well said and well articulated. Thanks for the dialouge. Written With Warmth, Brian Egeston | ||
| Brian Egeston Rating: N/A |
Anonymous 2 (Do you mind if I call you A2 ?) What the…. two anonymous people? I can’t keep up. I’m in a dark room getting hoodwinked….AND I LOVE IT!! Okay here we go let’s see here… YOUR INQUIRY So, do you agree or disagree that readers can determine whether a book is good or not? RESPONSE: Sure I agree that readers can determine whether a book is good or not. The issue I have is when we try and determine what is good what is not quality for a large audience. I would love to hear you tell me about a book that changed your life or a book that you couldn’t get through the first chapter. However, I would not enjoy you grabbing a microphone and yelling to the Himalayas, “This book is bad. Don’t read it! No one should write this way! Burn that writer at the stakes. Only read books that have a writing style like Toni Baldwin or Octavia Mosley!” While we are blessed to have the constitutional right of free speech, it seems unfair to tell a group, a generation, a tribe of people that certain kinds of writings are “bad.” YOUR ARGUMENT It appears you're been arguing that we can't say what's a good book or what's a bad book but then you say that Thumper makes a profound statement when he says that he can say or judge whether he thinks a book is good or not. REBUTTAL: Hmmm, I gotta tell ya. I just did a quick check back over the posts and I didn’t read where I’d written that “We can’t say what’s a good book or a what’s a bad book” If you can point those words out SPECIFICALLY, I’d be more than happy to address it. What I did find is that my contention over all the posts has consistently pointed to us not generalizing what is good or bad writing. Furthermore, I have also continually asked for a definition of good or bad writing. The fact alone that it has yet to be defined speaks volumes to the subjectivity of attaching labels to writers and books. Also, there should be some clarity here. Thumper pointed out early on that his quam was with the writing not the books. Thus being the case, I think we should argue that point before we delve into books or before we begin to misconstrue the points of the arguments. If you want to call a book bad, who can stop you? If you want to say that someone can’t write, that’s your right. But when you start yelling it out without the use of objective candor, beware that there will be consequences and most of the time the consequences will be someone disagreeing with you or you may offend some people. Now, when you express your likes and dislikes with objective candor as in a book review, you will spark dialogue which is always a great thing. This may also be a good time to restate my official position as it may have gotten swept out to sea in the tumultuous tide of debate. Good and bad writing is subjective. The enjoyment of a book is subjective. When we begin campaigns to banish books and writers based on our personal opinions we do an injustice to people who may have been moved by the artists we have stoned to death. The classics are great for history and give good snapshots of how writing and reality collided many years ago. However, those same classics may not necessarily be the appropriate tool to ignite more readers to fuel our fire of illuminating words. People that don’t read on a regular basis be it for lack of material, lack of interest, accessibility, lack of knowledge, should not be sent to the lion’s den. I contend that they should be approached or approached again if necessary, shown the new offerings we’ve gained since their high school English class, and pulled aboard the train of words departing every day all day. More than anything, the promotion of reading will surpass all opinions and decisions. The promotion of reading for an always growing. always expanding, always diversifying reading audience. And last, I still challenge someone to DEFINE good and bad writing to the extent where it can be defended instead of debated. Let’s see what else did you ask me…oH yeah, Thumper’s PROFOUND PROCLAMATION<trumpets> YOUR INQUIRY: Also, would you explain why you think that statement was profound? RESPONSE: To read that from Thumper felt like a glimmer of change or at least him considering a new perspective. Let’s look at his statement: (thump’s statement) "I can say if I think the book is a good book or not, no one can take away my individual judgement, the same as no one can take yours." This came from a proponent who once wrote: (more of thump’s soundbites or should I call them writebites) “…But, you need to treat every potential reader like they are me, for one day, they will be me.” And he also wrote: “…Frankly, you come on to this discussion board and there are thousands of Thumpers that hits this board everyday.” “Let's stop dancing around the pink elephant...you don't sound as if you want the reading audience to know good writing from bad writing. Why is that?” I labeled his statement profound because it is a clear departure from some of these passionate philosophies he’s made over the course of the debate. The above quotes are clear proclamations of self yet his profound statement is inclusive of someone else’s perspective. Oh Thumper…I think I feel a tear. *jab in the ribs* Wait there was one more issue you raised. About the sales and classics: YOUR ARGUMENT And, finally, I wouldn't think that book sales would automatically determine if a book is a classic or not. It may be one factor but surely not the deciding factor. RESPONSE: That’s a good observation A2, but that data was presented to show not just sales, but a trend. I think trends (numbers not fashion) are indicative of a product’s staying power. Flyy Girl was clearly a very contemporary book. When it was re-released in 1997 the landscape in that book was already out of style, yet today there is still an upward trend for its demand. This can only mean that another generation of readers is starting to pick it up. Young girls that read it in ‘97 are grown, but maybe they are telling younger girls to read it because it has relevance to their plights. I honestly think it will be in print 20 years from now. In 2022, if it’s not feel free to smack me upside the head, but I don’t think I’m wrong about this one. A2, Thanks very much for jumping in. I’m glad that you and other have been reading. This is of great significance to us all and will no doubt begin discussion beyond this website. I never minimize one single post, attack, inquiry, or argument. It all matter. It all counts. WRITTEN WITH WARMTH Brian Egeston Am I crazy or am I debating online at 3:00 in the doggone morning? | ||
| Anonymous 1 Rating: N/A |
Hello Brain Your not alone *smile*, I must also be crazy because I'm up a 3am reading it. You have done a magnificant job of stating your position and trying to find clarity when your statements have been misread and/or misquoted. Your rebuttal to Thumper analogy of the men being offered different types of meat was...well on time. Your response to the question concerning the recommendation of a book you had not read was again clear and concise and could not be denied. Boy, you got skills. I have to agree, your little story about your time playing nentendo speaks volumes. Reading a book is probably the last thing on the minds of our new generation and we need to address that. I don't think the classics are the answer. Besides, like you've said, what makes a book a classic? I didn't want to directly disagree with Thumper but one statement caught my eye and I think I'll speak on it here rather than open another post. Thumper, you stated that the focus should not be, how can you get people who don't read to read. Quite the contray you said. You think the objective should be, how do we get the people that's reading to keep reading. I have to ask you, why do you feel that way? I personally believe that true readers will always find something to read. You have to admit that even a person that reads as much as you can always find something new and exciting to read, you've said this many times. Therefore those that read less than you will surely be able to wet their appetite. So shouldn't we try to attract the others, bring them into the fold, by whatever means necessary? Anonymous 1 | ||
| Soul Sister Rating: N/A |
After reading all these posts - skimming really -- I guess both sides have merit - thus the bickering - in a friendly way. Gents and others -- I suppose there had to be some vehicle to introduce young readers in mind and spirit to books. Brian your defense of Flyy Girl is different and I see you point - however, I was a public school student and we had to read -- Im talking the 1980s so why are those hip hop gen people not reading -- when we did in elementary and highschool?? Oh well, what else can I say. Thumper and Brian - keep it up - yall give this sistah hope in the brothers - who not read, but think and feel - peace | ||
| Thumper Rating: N/A |
Hello Brian, I'm going to have to break this up into different threads, because it has gotten more than a little confusing since we're discussing more than one subject. So, I will keep this thread going discussing classics only. I hate to do this, but...I gotta cut cha. School is officially in session, just get your notebook out, make sure your pen writes, and take notes quietly... Brian wrote: "YOUR ARGUMENT “As I addressed in your earlier statement, and it applies here, time will determine whether Flyy Girl is a classic or not.” Thump, ole buddy, I hate to tell you but I’ve got some actual data to back up this rebuttal. As an independent publisher I have access to the Ingram Book Company’s inventory of every book that they stock. I pulled the numbers for Eyes were Watching God and Flyy Girl: Zora’s Inventory- 113 Omar’s Inventory – 193 It is widely believe that Ingram’s numbers represent 10% of total sales for a specific print run. Therefore evaluating these numbers we see that Zora has stocked 113,000 books vs. Flyy Girl’s 193,000. Thump, not only has he surpassed Zora (which is a classic) but his book is five years old and still showing demand. Most books lose demand after the first three months. If that’s not an indication of its classic status I don’t know what is. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not promoting Omar, just showing the points of my argument." This once again, I believe, proves that we can not be accurate judges of good and bad writing nor can we determine what good and bad books are. " First, I'm a little torn with the aspect of our argument including Flyy Girl because I believe Flyy Girl is Tyree's best book to date. But, I'm gain anyway... Actually, Brian you proved my point! I'm going to assume that when you say Zora, you're meaning Their Eyes Were Watching God, if not please correct me. I'll even use the numbers you provided. Granted, Flyy Girl is stocked at a higher number and its 5 years old. Their Eyes Were Watching God is 65 YEARS OLD, published in 1937!! And when you throw in the fact that it was out of print for a number od decades and haven't been out of print since being re-published since 1993, you tell me who the kudos should go to? *eyebrow raised* Now when Flyy Girl gets 65 and is still being read, then we can talk. You mentioned how Flyy Girl came back in re-print in 1997, well that's good. It sounds as if, its a contenda. It also speaks of the fact that despite the setting, there exists deeper meaning in the book that today's readers are responding to, in the same way that 65 years after the fact, readers are responding to Their Eyes Were Watching God. Maybe, you're not picking up on these deeper levels, and that's alright. But, its these deeper levels, the humanity in the books that today readers are picking up on and that will cause ANY book to be read today, tomorrow, 5 years, or 65 years from now. | ||
| Brian Egeston Rating: N/A |
Thump, Sorry for the delay. I'm trying desperately to finish book number five by year's end. I'll respond to your points as soon as I can. Thanks for your patience. Brian Egeston | ||
| Brian Egeston Rating: N/A |
Hey Thump, With regard to our original points of debate-- Classics and Judging writing for the sake of telling the reading audience what’s good or bad, I would like to offer this bit of historical research. Below you’ll find an account of the spats William Faulkner had with Ernest Hemingway: In March 1947, while continuing to work on his Christ fable, Faulkner wrote letters to the Oxford newspaper to support the preservation of the old courthouse on the town square, which some townspeople had proposed demolishing to build a larger one. In April, he agreed to meet in question-and-answer sessions with English classes at the University of Mississippi, but he invited controversy when his candid statement about Hemingway — “he has no courage, has never climbed out on a limb ... has never used a word where the reader might check his usage by a dictionary” — was included in a press release about the sessions. When Hemingway read the remarks, he was hurt, moved even to write a letter answering the charge that he lacked “courage,” but when it grew too long, he asked a friend, Brigadier General C.T. Lanham to write and tell Faulkner only what he knew about Hemingway’s heroism as a war correspondent. Almost immediately, Faulkner replied, apologizing for the misunderstanding and pain caused by his remarks, explaining that it was a garbled, incomplete version of what he had said, but he defended his comment by saying that it referred only to Hemingway’s craftsmanship as a writer and told how he was judging the quality of writing on its degree of failures, that Hemingway was next to last because he didn’t have the courage to risk “bad taste, over-writing, dullness, etc.” He wrote Hemingway also, including a copy of the letter to Lanham, again apologizing and saying, “I hope it wont matter a damn to you. But if or whe[ne]ver it does, please accept another squirm from yours truly.” From this excerpt we can clearly see that these two classical writers disagreed on what was good writing and how writing should be accomplished. This argument is proven even more so when Faulkner writes: “…because he didn’t have the courage to risk “bad taste, over-writing, dullness, etc…” Faulkner is saying you’re scared to write something bad in order to be good. And if a master(not my opinion, but history’s opinion) like Faulkner will call his own writing bad, how can we judge what’s good and bad. If these classics, Sound & The Fury are Old Man & The Sea are bashed for their insignificance by the very writers of those times, how can we sit here almost 80 years later and insinuate that classics are the way the truth and the light for encouraging people to read. Furthermore if these guys are calling each other’s stuff crap, how can we tell the masses of the reading audience what’s good and what’s bad? Brian Egeston | ||
| Thumper Rating: N/A |
Hello Brian, You're not picking up what I'm putting down. Some books, yep even classics, can inspire or encouraging folks to read. The people that should be inspired and encouraged by the classics are writers. Funny, you haven't answered my initial thought in my first and original post --"Frankly, I really believe that a lot of authors today don't want us reading the classics, for fear that we will compare their books to those written by people who inhaled and exhaled the mechanics of the English language. Many of these new authors SHOULD BE SCARED for their works don't measure up. and the last thing they want is for us, the reading audience to KNOW IT! So, while it's easy for us to shout, we want BETTER books, WE have to know what BETTER truly is." What's up? *eyebrow raised* The post was originally written for members of the reading audience who would express to me how they are tired of reading the same ol' stuff. There's nothing wrong with sprinkling a few of the classics in their reading lists. I see nothing wrong with that. None of your posts have persuaded me otherwise. I have also had a number of your peers express to me that they did not want their books compared the classics. Why is that? Could it be that they know their books will come up lacking when placed in the same company as Hurston or Richard Wright? *eyebrow raised* These objectors would be correct, their books are lacking. The good news is that there are plenty of our authors today who can stand proudly in the company of Wright, Hurston and others. | ||
| Brian Egeston Rating: N/A |
Ooops, I’m sorry. I didn’t see this part of your post. --"Frankly, I really believe that a lot of authors today don't want us reading the classics, for fear that we will compare their books to those written by people who inhaled and exhaled the mechanics of the English language. Many of these new authors SHOULD BE SCARED for their works don't measure up. and the last thing they want is for us, the reading audience to KNOW IT! So, while it's easy for us to shout, we want BETTER books, WE have to know what BETTER truly is." What's up? *eyebrow raised* I’ll address it here. I gotta tell ya Thump, I think the road you’re continuing to travel will dead end at more subjective issues. While the mechanics of the English language are important, I don’t think you can disagree with the notion that the writers who prevail are ones that intentionally break the rules. I took a poetry class where the instructor (a world renown poet) said, “Bold writing is breaking the rules.” Here are some facts to back up this claim as opposed to subjective opinions. 1. What is bell hooks known for? Refusal to accept the mechanics of capitalization. 2. What made Paul Lawrence Dunbar famous? The use of dialect, utilizing words that were not within the realm of English mechanics. He invented words. 3. In Slap boxing with Jesus by Victor Lavalle, what writing mechanic does he abandon? The use of quotations when writing dialogue. 4. What does Phillip Roth do in Human Stain? He changes POV like the wind. There’s a narrator then there’s a3rd person omniscient view point. He won the Pen-Faulkner award for that book by the way. 5. Ralph Ellison had a 98 word sentence in Invisible Man which is clearly a run on. 6. William Faulkner has one sentence that lasts 35 pages in his novel The Bear. These are six very accomplished writers and six solid examples of disregarding or manipulating mechanics which I believe nullifies your argument. How many times have you seen great writers use one word sentences? I’ve lost count myself. When you mention measuring up, that is still subjective propaganda in my humble opinion. Measure up to what? Richard Wright? As brilliant as he was, he was slashed by critics and the only reason his work is used as a standard is because of the timing of its publication. Where do you think Wright would have been today? He would be on a mediocre book tour, trying to push his books longing to be heard and understood like so many writers today. What REALLY separated Wright is that he was vocal, outspoken, and refused to accept theories and arguments with which he did not agree. As was Baldwin, loud, daring didn’t care what other people thought when he wrote. WAIT, I’M SORRY, I’M GOING OFF ON TANGENTS AND I PROMISED MYSELF I WOULDN’T DO THAT AGAIN. Thumper, strike that from the record. And lastly Thumper (this speaks to more subjectivity of your arguments) can you define what a better book is? It is my contention that whatever you personally define as ‘better’ or an improvement, it can refuted with a tangible example in which history says otherwise. By the way, mad props for that “Jesus Be Fence All Round Me” Now THAT was funny! Written With Warmth Brian Egeston | ||
| Thumper Rating: N/A |
Hello Brian, Now, I think you're finally gettin' it. Of course those authors, and others that wasn't mentioned, broke some rules, expanded the borders of English. But, watch me close now, they knew the rules in order to BREAK them. Which, I'm sure you will agree is vastly different than not KNOWING the rules! *eyebrow raised* Right or wrong? Let's use Faulkner as an example; the sentence you mentioned, and there were plenty more in his other books, is not a run on sentence. The sentence is grammatically correct. Paul Laurence Dunbar, is the language grammatically incorrect or is it a true representation of oral communication? Is it art? Evaluating the books is subjective. I've never deny that. There are different strokes for different folks. You wrote: "When you mention measuring up, that is still subjective propaganda in my humble opinion. Measure up to what? Richard Wright? As brilliant as he was, he was slashed by critics and the only reason his work is used as a standard is because of the timing of its publication." Right, right and right again! Now, you are catching on. Yeah, he was slashed by some of the critics of his day, but today is not that day. And that's why TIME makes the classic. His critics? I don't know why some hated his works or loved it, but after 50 years, those critics of the initial publication is more than likely dead and gone. Their motives for their opinion may be tied into the fact that some thought Wright was arrogant, hateful, didn't like the fact that he was married to a white woman, I don't know. I do know that when many of us TODAY pick up, ie Native Son, all that we are going to judge the book on is the merit of the book alone, and not be subjected to an onslaught of publicity declaring what a great book it is. With time comes a greater opportunity for objectivity. For it was not his critics that made Native Son a standard, I dare say, it was the readers who read it 10, 20, 30, 50 years later who made Native Son the standard. A 'better' book definition, you say. The 'better' book, as far as novel, should work on all three planes: the technical, the creative, and the emotional. You see, it has to be more than simply telling a story. The 'better' book will have hit all three planes. | ||
| Brian Egeston Rating: N/A |
Dearest Thumper, my word-wielding compadre, I’m not getting it now, I’ve had it all along. What you’re feeling is the truth, awareness, reevaluation of what you once believed. Thumper, I know, I sincerely hope, you are not going to sit there and justify a sentence 35 pages long as technically correct. “Jesus I want you to protect me as I travel along the way.” Thumper, a 35 page sentence is not technically correct, it is an abstract risk. One that may or may not work. Thumper I hate to say it, but you have just put yourself in checkmate(which you can’t really do) with this statement: YOUR STATEMENT ‘Right, right and right again! Now, you are catching on. Yeah, he[Wright] was slashed by some of the critics of his day, but today is not that day.’ If this is your stand, if this is really and truly how you feel then this is actually an admission that we cannot accurately judge what is good or bad and convey that message to the reading audience. For more proof I offer an example of the aforementioned Richard Wright. In Margaret Walker’s 1988 non-fiction work, “Richard Wright Daemonic Genius: A Portrait of the Man A Critical Look At His Work” she quotes a review of Richard Wright’s Native Son upon its 1940 publication. ‘The book was called many uncomplimentary things. There was much nit-picking by the new critics about Wright’s style and awkward sentence structure. “Mr. Wright is intently concerned with everything but the writing,” said R. P. Blackmur.’ Do you see that, Thumper? A critic told the country, told the world that Richard Wright could not write! This guy is telling us and shouting it from the mountaintops that Wright does not have an appreciation for writing mechanics! He said Wright had awkward sentence structure! It’s right there in black and white documented by a close associate of Richard Wright. Thumper, the guy shouted as loud as he could that it was bad writing and guess what, HE—WAS—WRONG. Thumper, with this historical data right here, sitting right in front of us, are you still going to take the position that we have the ability, the know-how to tell the reading audience what is good and what is bad? Or do you now see the value of providing people with OBJECTIVE concepts of a book and allowing them to decide for themselves if it would be a good read for them? Written With Warmth(as is everything) Brian Egeston | ||
| Thumper Rating: N/A |
Hello Brian, Faulkner sentence: Brian, what is grammatically incorrect about his sentences. Could you please point it out. A more accurate example of a run on sentence is Terry McMillian's How Stella Got Her Groove Back. But, I'll wait on you showing me the grammatic inaccuracy of the Faulkner sentence in question. It is a risk of a sentence that long becoming a run on sentence. Did Faulkner know the rules of grammar when he composed that sentence? I dare say he did. And he expanded, although it doesn't seem correct that a sentence should be that long, there's no rule written to say that it can't be. Thereby, by working within the mechanics of English, he extended a boundary, breaking a convention. Sounds like he's a bad boy to me, dawg. Now, your next statement proves two points that I have maintained throughout our discussion. " A critic told the country, told the world that Richard Wright could not write! This guy is telling us and shouting it from the mountaintops that Wright does not have an appreciation for writing mechanics! He said Wright had awkward sentence structure! It’s right there in black and white documented by a close associate of Richard Wright. Thumper, the guy shouted as loud as he could that it was bad writing and guess what, HE—WAS—WRONG." Damn straight the critic was wrong. 62 years later, 50 years later, 40 years later, etc, a whole host of people know that the critic was wrong. Just as many will agree with him. But, the critic has his right to state how he feels about a book. That's the role of a critic. We are all critics! The thing is Native Son is still HERE. It is mentioned in debates and discussion all over this country, the world. How many books do you know can withstand that type of scrutiny? Or, that time has been that kind to? Second, as I stated before, what was the motive for the review? Not saying that the reasons for disliking a book was not valid, but it must be given some weight. For this example you provided a quote from Margaret Walker's “Richard Wright Daemonic Genius: A Portrait of the Man A Critical Look At His Work". I'm not surprised that Walker wrote her non-fiction work, since, as discussed in Richard Wright biographies, the latest being Richard Wright by Hazel Rowley, Margaret Walker was in love with Wright and he did not return it. Walker was bitter. Now, was her work based on hurt feelings or a solid literary foundation? Which is why, I say, time is the primary determining factor of a book being deemed a classic or not. Everyone is entitled to have their own opinion of what they consider good or bad, and to express their opinion if they so choose. A critic's positive or negative response to a book does not stop anyone from reading it. Come on Brian, you've been around here for a minute, plenty of folks disagree with my opinion of books. That's the whole beauty of the discussion board, book clubs, or passing books among friends and family. I can't say what will be a good read for anyone but myself. I have made efforts to refrain from doing that. As our reading audience grows and matures, authors have to be aware of a couple of things. One, even though it may take a writer a year or so to write a book, it does not take us the audience that long to read it. Thereby, even the casual reader, will read more than one book in a year's time. If an author puts out so-so books, books with a tired, unimaginative storyline, one filled with grammatical errors and typos, one that was just thrown together; he runs the risk of blowing his own good thing. Because there are other authors that will publish excellent books, one that will hit the three planes that I discussed earlier, once a person reads two or three of these books -- the reader will not tolerate the others. It is imperative that when an author hits the scene, hit it correct, cause you may only have that one chance to make that first impression. | ||
| Anonymous Rating: |
Brian wrote in part: In Margaret Walker’s 1988 non-fiction work, “Richard Wright Daemonic Genius: A Portrait of the Man A Critical Look At His Work” she quotes a review of Richard Wright’s Native Son upon its 1940 publication. ‘The book was called many uncomplimentary things. There was much nit-picking by the new critics about Wright’s style and awkward sentence structure. “Mr. Wright is intently concerned with everything but the writing,” said R. P. Blackmur.’ Do you see that, Thumper? A critic told the country, told the world that Richard Wright could not write! This guy is telling us and shouting it from the mountaintops that Wright does not have an appreciation for writing mechanics! He said Wright had awkward sentence structure! It’s right there in black and white documented by a close associate of Richard Wright. Thumper, the guy shouted as loud as he could that it was bad writing and guess what, HE—WAS—WRONG. Thumper, with this historical data right here, sitting right in front of us, are you still going to take the position that we have the ability, the know-how to tell the reading audience what is good and what is bad? Brian, Seems there were many who thought the book was good when it was published as thought the book was bad. Some have been proven to be wrong yet others to be right. Source: http://cityhonors.buffalo.k12.ny.us/city/reference/English/butler/butnat.htm A Summary of Critical Responses to Native Son An Excerpt from The Critical Response To Richard Wright Edited by Robert Butler Greenwood Press 1995 Reprinted with written permission from the editor. pp. xxvii-xxviii …Wright was well on his way to literary success with the publication of Uncle Tom’s Children in 1938 and his being awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship a year later to complete another novel which he had been working on since 1937. When this novel appeared in 1940 as Native Son, Wright did indeed achieve the monetary and artistic success for which he had hungered for most of his life. Not only was the novel a Book-of-the-Month Club selection which sold over 200,000 copies and became the number one best seller in America during its first month of existence, but it was clear to many initial reviewers of the book that it was a seminal novel which was to change the course of modern literature. The reviews of Native Son caused a fire storm of debate the burns brightly to the present day. Focusing sharply on fundamental issues which subsequent generations of critics would energetically discuss for more than fifty years, these reviews may be categorized into three basic types: 1) enthusiastic celebrations of a groundbreaking and paradigmatic novel; 2) vigorous denunciations of the book; and 3) troublingly split responses. Many reviewers who praised the book did so because they saw it in a new and disturbing vision of black life in America which previous writers lacked either the background, understanding, or artistic skill to present in literature. Henry Seidel Canby (Book- of- the- Month- Club- News, Feb. 1940) boldly asserted that Native Son was “the finest novel written by an American Negro,” a book so deeply grounded in black American experience that “only a Negro could have written it.” Several other commentators explained the originality and depth of Wright’s racial vision in terms of his creating a new kind of central character, a black person whose story provided a fresh perspective on African-American life. Milton Rugoff (New York Herald Tribune Review of Books, 3 March 1940) stressed that “the first extraordinary aspect of Native Son is that it approaches the tragedy of race, not through an ‘average’ member but through a criminal” and that such a character is skillfully probed by Wright to “connect one individual’s pathology to the whole tragedy of the Negro spirit in a white world.” Sterling Brown (Crisis, June 1940) praised Native Son as a “literary phenomenon” because it was the very first novel about American blacks which provided a “psychological probing of the consciousness of the outcast, the disinherited, the generation lost in the slum jungles of American civilization.” Some leftist critics, such as Samuel Sillen (New Masses, 5 March 1940), liked the book for its “revolutionary view of life” and its portrayal of the hero’s “emancipatory” struggles against a capitalistic society intent on crushing him. Many other reviewers were also struck by the novel’s extraordinary impact, its power to transform the reader’s consciousness. May Cameron (New York Post, 1 March 1940) saw Native Son as an “intense and powerful” novel that moved with “trememdous force and speed” to shock the reader into a new awareness of the status of blacks in American society. Henry Hansen (New York World Telegram, 2 March 1940) observed that Wright’s novel “packs a tremendous punch, something like a big fist through the windows of our complacent lives.” Similarly, Margaret Wallace (New York Sun, 5 March 1940) sensed a “peculiar vitality” in the book which was likely not only to challenge the reader’s views on race but which would also “father other books.” But many reviewers were equally vigorous in their condemnation of the novel. One day after its publication, Howard Mumford Jones (Boston Evening Transcript, 2 March 1940) strongly criticized Native Son on aesthetic grounds, describing its plot as melodramatic and its themes as “dull propaganda.” Burton Rascoe (American Mercury, May 1940) aggressively attacked the early positive reviews and concluded “Sanely considered, it is impossible to me to conceive of a novel being worse.” A number of reviewers faulted the book for a lack of realism, claiming that its vision of American life was overdrawn and unfair. David Cohn (Atlantic Monthly, May 1940), for example described Native Son as “a blinding and corrosive study in hate,” vehemently arguing that the actual condition of American blacks was considerably better than the book would allow. David Daiches (Partisan Review, May-June 1940) maintained that the novel failed in its attempt to be an "illustrative fable" of race relations in America because Bigger Thomas's violent actions are too extreme for him to be a representative case," Daiches felt that Native Son deteriorated into melodrama that destroyed its realism. On an even more serious level, some reviewers sharpl questioned Wright’s conception of Bigger Thomas, claiming that the character actually reinforced the brutal stereotypes which the author wanted to challenge and destroy. Reverend Joseph McSorley (Catholic World, May 1940) asserted that Bigger Thomas was a “savage moron” whose portrayal had the unintended effect of “spreading and deepening dsitrust of the Negro.” Jonathon Daniels, (Saturday Review of Literature, 2 March 1940), likewise, concluded that “the story of Bigger Thomas is the story of a rat,” a dehumanized figure manipulated by the author to develop his political “tract.” A small number of reviewers had split responses to the novel, admiring it in certain ways but being troubled by it in other ways. Clifton Fadiman (New Yorker, 2 March 1940), for example, compares Native Son favorably to Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath and Dreiser’s An American Tragedy, admiring its power and depth. But he finds that the novel has “numerous defects as a work of art,” namely its excessive repetition and stereotyped white characters. Peter Monroe Jack (New York Times Book Review, 3 March 1940) characterizes Wright’s novel as “extremely interesting” because it transcends its sociology and becomes “a memorable experinece.” But he feels that the book is marred by “much romantic nonsense” when Wright has Bigger undergo what he thinks is an unconvincing conversion at the end of the novel. Mary Carter-Roberts (Washington Star, 3 March 1940) praises Wright for writing a “splendid” story but considers Wright’s portrayal of Bigger to be confused because she is unable to reconcile his view of Bigger as a victim of white society with what she thinks is his inability to supply concrete proof of Biffer’s “supposedly crushed better nature” which would have flourished if he had lived in a just society. | ||
| Brian Egeston Rating: N/A |
Oh, Thumper I don’t even know why I read your posts anymore. They just make me wanna…respond. Lawd knows I need to be gettin’ some work done. *giggling* Thump, ole buddy. Throughout our friendly narrative quarrel, I’ve given you hard data, historical documentation, and SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE examples and you continue to retaliate with subjective opinions, reversible analogies, no proof, and no evidence to back your arguments. If that’s your style of debate, I understand and that’s okay. I have appreciated this dialogue more than you know. It’s been great. You refute my Margaret Walker example with “Wright didn’t love her back.” Come on now, Thump. I promised myself I’d try to stay away from the tangents, but I couldn’t help nullify this argument with more historical proof. YOUR ARGUMENT It is imperative that when an author hits the scene, hit it correct, cause you may only have that one chance to make that first impression. Once again, it took Faulkner four books to be appreciated. (I’ve made this point once before) -As we all know, Terry McMillan didn’t hit I big with “Mama” It was her third book that put her over the top. -Omar Tyree never got anywhere with Capital City Battle Zone, his first book. Three books later he knocks the door wide open with Flyy Girl. -Native Son was not Wright’s first book. In fact his 2nd book Tarby’s Dawn still hasn’t been published to this day. -The Firm for which Jonn Grisham’s name was made, was not his first book. A Time to Kill was his first book and didn’t do well at all. History is littered with documented examples that dispute your claim, Thump, which once again validates the opinion that one cannot not make the hypothesis of what a good and bad book or good and bad writing for that manner. I have resigned to the notion that despite presenting substantial proof, projecting influence with data and documentation, you will not take an open-hearted look at the other side of this issue. And that’s fine, I appreciate your tenacity. For all intents and purposes, this is a stalemate. Therefore, I must invoke the first line of my most favorite poem and say “I’d rather see a sermon than here one anyday.” Quite plainly, Thumper, What are we going to do? This is indeed a call for action. I think we would both agree that we have brought up pertinent issues and on occasion toyed with solutions. But the resounding question at the Black Male Fiction Writer Symposium was ‘What are we gonna do?’ Here are my personal contributions as a writer concerned about the future of black books and the reading audience. If you’d like to help with any or all of them, I’d be delighted to work with you. 1. Encouraging Young Black Boys to Read- Sponsor and conduct a book club for elementary school black boys in Atlanta. This will be an association with Timmothy McCann’s Bad Boy Book Club. 2. Write young adult novels and children’s books for urban youth despite the miniscule market. 3. Encouraging less than avid readers- Remain familiar with pertinent issues, remain in contact with large groups of people trying to decipher what will pull them into books. Knowing the power of simple writing and the passion of complex prose then always search for the happy medium. Be aware of the plethora of black books on various subjects by various types of writers and be able to recommend a book to reader no matter their taste. 4. Getting Books into the hands of readers- Give books away. To those adamant about not reading or those without the ability to get a book on their own, give them books. 5. Continue to grow as a writer. Be as diverse as readers require. Take the risk and freedom of changing writing style like the wind, and give conventional characters unconventional characteristics. And most of all keep writing. 6. Encourage other writers to constantly learn and develop as well as interact with readers. 7. Read the classics and take from them what is necessary and leave in them what is not. 8. Be approachable and open to people offering candid feedback and in search of questions. 9. Write objective and relevant critiques of books with accurate depictions of the story, free from personal biases. 10. Never forget that no one matters more than readers. All of them no matter their class, status or station. 11. Fight with you in a professional, candid, and entertaining manner. *crooked grin* Thumper, what are YOU gonna do? Written With Warmth, Brian Egeston P.S. The Faulkner run-on will follow. | ||
| Brian Egeston Rating: N/A |
Anonymous, Good Job! I would also add to your list, -Sterling Brown’s review in Opportunity Magazine -Baldwin’s Essay entitled “Many Thousand’s Gone” -Ellison’s Essay “The World and the Jug.” -Irvinng Howe’s “Black Boys and Native Sons” -J.D. Jerome’s review of the “Journal of Negro History” -James W. Ivy’s review in the Crisis -An unsigned review in the Chicago Defender -Joseph Jenkins review in Phylon All praising the book as a major accomplishment. Great Post. Thanks for your contribution! Brian | ||
| Brian Egeston Rating: N/A |
Ooops I meant: "I’d rather see a sermon than HEAR one anyday." Now I KNOW it's time for me to get some work done. Everyone, have a great holiday and a wonderful New Year. Brian | ||
| Thumper Rating: N/A |
Hello Brian, Why did I need proof? You provided all the proof I needed! Every exhibit you brought forth bolstered my view rather than yours. I'm looking at the glass as half full, you're looking at it as half empty. What was it that Miki Howard said, "It's like leading a blind horse thorugh a pasture, he can smell the grass, but he just don't know his way to it." I've seen folks debate using big words, quoting obscure sources, to have all boil down to nothing. Your Margaret Walker example...well, you walked into that one. I would encourage you to read the biography Richard Wright by Hazel Rowley, and then get back with me. How can anyone expect objectivity from a scorned hope-to-be-lover? If you feel Walker's position is valid, cool. I don't have a problem with it. I like your list, and would encourage you to follow it. *smile* If you need some suggestions, just ask, I'll help you out. *whispering* The new CWMYB reading list for 2003 will be out soon...follow it. *eyebrow raised* *smile* As my grandmother, Belzora the Great once told me, "Boy, just do as I say do." As far as my improvements, I ain't got none. I'm just about as perfect as I can possibly get. As that Mac Davis song said, "To know me is to love me. I must be a hell of a man. Oh, Lord, it's hard to humble...but I'm doing the best that I can." | ||
| Brian Egeston Rating: N/A |
Hmmm, the film industry. An artistic endeavor fueled more so by money and politics than the end result. Case and point. Ice Cube has been given the green light to do whatever he wants because anytime he comes out with ‘Friday’, ‘Saturday’ or the ‘Friday after Mama’s Funeral’ he makes good money for the studios. However, Spike Lee often finds himself asking/begging for money to finish his projects. Maybe it’s an issues of his budgeting or how much his films gross. I don’t know. With regards to your initial inquisitions about the adaptation of novels to books, the biggest dilemma is time and pacing. Novels often range from 60,000 to 100,000 words or more and it is difficult, if not impossible, to translate every facet of the book into film and often time important details and powerful scenes do not make their way from book to film. In a screenplay, one page represents one minute of film, therefore screenplays are usually 90 pages but some writer/directors have gone over limits writing 125 pages in a screenplay such as Spike Lee. And if you’ve seen the format of a screenplay you’ll note that the lines are almost triple-spaced and there are far less words on one page than on one page of a novel. So you can only image the difficulties of adapting a Tom Clancy novel into a 90-120 page screenplay. Perhaps one of the biggest discrepancies in book writing and film making is that books are a solitary act whereas film making is about power; who has it on the movie set, how they use it, and what type of vision they have. Film is a director-driven medium. Stage is an actor-driven medium. TV is a producer driven medium, and novels are basically you and the writer having a conversation. You make a connection with the writer by engaging in details, facts, and characters that you love or love to hate and when it’s done you have, in fact, produced your own mental movie. However, after you’ve watched the movie in your mind and then someone gives you their version of what the movie should be, sometimes it clashes. Hence we are disappointed. For example I offer the adaptation of Disappearing Acts which was, in my estimation, a wonderful and vivid love story. But in my mind, I never pictured an older rough looking man like Wesley Snipes making love to a young polished woman like Ms. Lathan. And I thought one of the most powerful yet frightening moments occurred in the book, when Franklin came home drunk and date raped Zora, then forced her to lay in his...secretions. To me that symbolized the rage and hate a man could inflict when he reached the extremities of his emotions. But in the movie, they touched the scene but stayed as far away from date rape and his...you know... as possible. Maybe it was a judgement of taste, but it was different story after that point. If we look at Bingo-Long and the Traveling All Star Motor Kings, the film was much different from the novel. So much that the great Negro League players who were main characters in the book protested the film. The main character was a catcher, but in the film he was a pitcher because there was no way Billy Dee William’s face—who played the protagonist on film—could be covered up by a catcher’s mask. The women viewers would not have approved at all. If we look at the Legend of Bagger Vance, the movie focuses on the relationship of Mat Damon and that girl(sorry her name escapes me) while the book’s sole purpose is to take the reader through and unbelievable golf match. The love affair is not even a small subplot in the book. But Robert Redford has been in the business a long time and he knows that people won’t pour into a theater and watch a golf match... unless it’s the FIRST Caddyshack. And if we look at the adaptation of Native Son, the version where Richard Wright played Bigger Thomas. That was clearly an example of how power can ruin a film. Richard Wright, as gifted a writer as he was, couldn’t act like a rain drop even if someone dowsed him with water. And the last part of the book which show’s Bigger’s realization that all whites aren’t bad takes up about five minutes on film, but the novel spends an eternity on the subject. But Richard Wright absolutely insisted that he have heavy influence on the project. In the film industry, novelists are often offered large sums of money so that they won’t have any input on the film. When a studio gets the rights, it’s their baby and they can raise it anyway they see fit. Pearl Cleage stated that she wouldn’t sell her book rights because she doesn’t trust anyone to treat her work fairly on film. Therefore my friends, their will always be bad adaptations, good adaptations, and works of art...as long as they keep making money or someone is willing to spend money to make them. By the way if you haven’t seen Drumline you should rush out and watch the newest black classic film. Even though there is a rumor that it’s based on an earlier independent film that didn’t do well. Written With Warmth Brian Egeston | ||
| Tee C. Royal Rating: N/A |
Brian, where ya been? Can a sista get a reply on her message? That little fax is starting to fade!!! As far as your comments, I agree about Disappearing Acts...they also had a few scenes out of sequence and that annoyed me. Now, the Legend of Bagger Vance was an EXCEPTIONAL movie and I didn't see the romance as the main plot in the story. I was more focused on Will Smith's role and the lesson he was trying to get over to Matt Damon. You know how I feel about golf, and yep Mr. Royal drug me to that movie, but I love it and have since watched it again...and it got even better. (Didn't read the book though.) Oh, I loved Drumline...and since I went to Grambling, I was definitely making a lot of noise when they came on the screen. -Tee | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
Thumper, Margaret walker was not criticizing Wright's work in her book; she was merely providing an example to show that Wright's work, when first published was not universally accepted. In fact, she helped Wright by providing him with some of the info he needed while working on Native Son. If I remember correctly she got just as big a kick out of the discomfort and anxiety Wright's book caused among "respectable negroes' of that time. So lighten up on the lady,Bro. We know she loved richard. |
