Friday, 20 April 2007

Questions, Answers 3

But, your group of critters can’t be stupid or unfeeling.


So can I.

I cringe when I think of the stuff that once went over my head.

If a story hasn’t made them weep, rage, jump and down, whatever, then can it really be THAT good?

Of course it can. We don't have to have major, excessive emotional reactions to "prove" something is spectacular.

Have you never read a simple aphorism, a little saying, or heard a quote that cuts you to the bone, that "UNDERSTANDS" you? You don't have to bleed or faint for the quote to be great.

Strong responses can be slow, deep, bubbling under. More often they are this way. The massive responses are often to melodrama, big-deal but brief and ultimately forgettable.

Surely a story has to accessible, at least to reasonably literate people, to be classed as a classic.

MY preference is for stories that are enjoyable "first pass" but that we sense there is more, and each read there IS more, and more and more… but that doesn't mean "difficult" is necessarily inferior.

Great concepts? Perhaps they can't be got over in easily digestible chunks. Have you read Stephen Hawking?

I’m not going to argue that just because “Harry Potter’ and ‘The Da Vinci Code’ are hugely popular they are therefore good writing.

They are both total, utter shit. Popularity has NOTHING to do with quality. Is the SUN better than The Independent? It sells more so must be.

And The Spice Girls must be "great" right?

No comments: