Sheesh, I'm a little overwhelmed by the literature lists--I fear it would take me all day to add mine.
As for Architecture:
Tikal--the mayan ruins in Guatemala. Been there several times, never ceases to amaze me.
Teotihuacan--the aztec ruins in Mexico City
Palenque--more mayan ruins in Mexico
World Trade Center--RIP
Cathedral of St. John the Divine in NYC
Guggenheim Museum in NYC (and I'd like to see the one in Bilbao Spain)
Brooklyn Bridge
St. Louis Arch
Things I'm about to see in Turkey:
Topkapi Palace, Blue Mosque and Aya Sofia in Istanbul
Cave cities of Cappadocia
Ruins of Ephesus (supposed to be second only to Pompeii)
Life time project - art
-
VoodooDali
- Posts: 1992
- Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2001 11:00 pm
- Location: Spanking Witch King
- Contact:
Of course...I never thought... What is actually there now? Is it barriered off, or what? Anyway, in it's glory, I don't think that the WTC would have been especially worth seeing, and if we are going for emotional impact rather than architectural merit, then I'm sure there are many more important sites...World Trade Center--RIP
Plus I'd like to add Godel, Escher, Bach; The Protagoras, and Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas to the literature list...
Love and Hope and Sex and Dreams are Still Surviving on the Street
I bump this old thread for 3 reasons: first because it contains some good literature recommendation that a certain other board member could make use of, second because I hope for more recommendations of works you think belong to the world literature and world art, and third, because of the usual debate in Sweden that goes on every year after the winner of the Nobel prize in literature has been made public.
As usual in the "did the right person win"-discussion that follows the press release, some people bring up the issue of popularity. Dottie's question
is applied to the Nobel prize as well, and some people ask: why don't Stephen King get the prize, he's one of the worlds most famous and popular writers? or why does the prize always go to writers who is not widely known? (although I guess John Maxwell Coetzee is more well known than many others who have got the prize over the last decade)
The Swedish Academy replies, as usual, that popularity does not necessarity correlate with long term value, and in Nobel's will it is stated that the prize should be given to those who:
"have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind" and "have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction."
A vague statement (the literature part of the will was incomplete), and certainly not necessarily excluding popular writers who without doubt give people entertainment and inspire many people to read more or to take up writing themselves.
So what do you think, about the Nobel prize in literature or about awards in general? Should popularity be a factor when award winners are choosen? Is it only academic elitism and snobbery that Stephen King will never get the prize?
As usual in the "did the right person win"-discussion that follows the press release, some people bring up the issue of popularity. Dottie's question
Originally posted by Dottie
I feel i have to ask a small question to the board. Is a Book/Movie/Whatever reqiured reading if it is popular enough, or must it also have other qualities?
is applied to the Nobel prize as well, and some people ask: why don't Stephen King get the prize, he's one of the worlds most famous and popular writers? or why does the prize always go to writers who is not widely known? (although I guess John Maxwell Coetzee is more well known than many others who have got the prize over the last decade)
The Swedish Academy replies, as usual, that popularity does not necessarity correlate with long term value, and in Nobel's will it is stated that the prize should be given to those who:
"have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind" and "have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction."
A vague statement (the literature part of the will was incomplete), and certainly not necessarily excluding popular writers who without doubt give people entertainment and inspire many people to read more or to take up writing themselves.
So what do you think, about the Nobel prize in literature or about awards in general? Should popularity be a factor when award winners are choosen? Is it only academic elitism and snobbery that Stephen King will never get the prize?
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
Stephen King is partly popular because he is easy - there is no trouble in reading a stephen king novel in two days without it having any impact on your other mental resources or time etc...
I think that ease of reading is not a quality at all...
But then again, maybe all the stephen king readers of the world would say that ease is a quality
I think that ease of reading is not a quality at all...
But then again, maybe all the stephen king readers of the world would say that ease is a quality
Love and Hope and Sex and Dreams are Still Surviving on the Street
-
VoodooDali
- Posts: 1992
- Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2001 11:00 pm
- Location: Spanking Witch King
- Contact:
Good question, CE. I don't know if I can state what I'm thinking about it as clearly as I would like.
I don't think that being a popular writer automatically means that you do not write good literature - if that were always the case, then I guess we could rule out Dostoyevsky, ****ens, Mary Shelley, Graham Greene, and I could name many more.
That being said, I think that what sets apart the great writers from the mediocre the same thing that sets apart great artists and composers. IMO, the great writers, etc. are well-grounded in the history of literature, and while their books can stand on their own terms, they are also responses to not only their own audience/culture, but also to the history of literature, a sort of conversation with writers of the past. I believe that the KEY aspect of great literature is that it tends to operate on many levels. I think that this factor is more obvious in poetry, where you can come away with something different from each subsequent reading of a great poem because the piece is so multi-layered. One other element that comes to mind is that great literature resists becoming dated, e.g., Shakespeare still seems relevant today.
Popular writers, on the other hand, usually are one-dimensional. If you read a Stephen King book, the main concern is the action of the plot and how the characters are going to escape from whatever monster, etc. You won't find yourself thinking about 10 things at once when you read a King novel, just what is going to happen next. It also seems likely that many King books will become very dated in the future. Datedness is more apparent in Sci-Fi books, but horror also is very much affected. I think that Stephen King is popular because he is a master at writing about ordinary people - regular old, blue-collar types and throwing them into extraordinary situations. IMO, though, he is a very sloppy writer, i.e., his books are overly long, he often uses a multi-character POV and doesn't pull that off very well (e.g., IT), and basically could use a good editor. His best books were written before he became a mega-seller (Carrie, The Shining, Salem's Lot) and were much shorter, tighter and more powerful. Yet after the success of those books, he had it written into all his contracts that his work is not to be edited.
On the other hand, I think that there are some popular writers who really have written some good literature and have been unfairly rejected by academia due to their popularity. Kurt Vonnegut and Philip K. **** come to mind. In the USA, at least, academia decides what is "literature" and that does not include any of the genre's like Sci-Fi. They are still in love with the 19th century type of novel that deals with interpersonal relationships. Most of the leaders of academia in the USA are in the Ivy League schools and a writer who does not have a degree from one of these schools has a difficult time indeed getting any recognition. The NY Times Review of Books wrote a posthumous review of Philip K. **** stating that he really was a great writer, but they failed to give him this recognition while he was still alive. I suspect the same will happen when Vonnegut dies. A similar trend can be seen in the belated recognition of pulp fiction writers like Jim Thompson, Cornell Woolrich and Raymond Chandler - where they were denigrated by academia while alive and now all of the academics are writing books about what great writers they were after they are all dead.
I don't think that being a popular writer automatically means that you do not write good literature - if that were always the case, then I guess we could rule out Dostoyevsky, ****ens, Mary Shelley, Graham Greene, and I could name many more.
That being said, I think that what sets apart the great writers from the mediocre the same thing that sets apart great artists and composers. IMO, the great writers, etc. are well-grounded in the history of literature, and while their books can stand on their own terms, they are also responses to not only their own audience/culture, but also to the history of literature, a sort of conversation with writers of the past. I believe that the KEY aspect of great literature is that it tends to operate on many levels. I think that this factor is more obvious in poetry, where you can come away with something different from each subsequent reading of a great poem because the piece is so multi-layered. One other element that comes to mind is that great literature resists becoming dated, e.g., Shakespeare still seems relevant today.
Popular writers, on the other hand, usually are one-dimensional. If you read a Stephen King book, the main concern is the action of the plot and how the characters are going to escape from whatever monster, etc. You won't find yourself thinking about 10 things at once when you read a King novel, just what is going to happen next. It also seems likely that many King books will become very dated in the future. Datedness is more apparent in Sci-Fi books, but horror also is very much affected. I think that Stephen King is popular because he is a master at writing about ordinary people - regular old, blue-collar types and throwing them into extraordinary situations. IMO, though, he is a very sloppy writer, i.e., his books are overly long, he often uses a multi-character POV and doesn't pull that off very well (e.g., IT), and basically could use a good editor. His best books were written before he became a mega-seller (Carrie, The Shining, Salem's Lot) and were much shorter, tighter and more powerful. Yet after the success of those books, he had it written into all his contracts that his work is not to be edited.
On the other hand, I think that there are some popular writers who really have written some good literature and have been unfairly rejected by academia due to their popularity. Kurt Vonnegut and Philip K. **** come to mind. In the USA, at least, academia decides what is "literature" and that does not include any of the genre's like Sci-Fi. They are still in love with the 19th century type of novel that deals with interpersonal relationships. Most of the leaders of academia in the USA are in the Ivy League schools and a writer who does not have a degree from one of these schools has a difficult time indeed getting any recognition. The NY Times Review of Books wrote a posthumous review of Philip K. **** stating that he really was a great writer, but they failed to give him this recognition while he was still alive. I suspect the same will happen when Vonnegut dies. A similar trend can be seen in the belated recognition of pulp fiction writers like Jim Thompson, Cornell Woolrich and Raymond Chandler - where they were denigrated by academia while alive and now all of the academics are writing books about what great writers they were after they are all dead.
“I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity.” - Edgar Allen Poe