Chaos Reading discussion

A. wrote: "So my girlfriend and I were chatting the other day and she asked me, "Who are the great English authors?".
I said "Dickens" and she said, "Too wet. Too communist."
"Orwell?" "Communist!"
"Will Se..."

Your girlfriend has an understanding of communism that sounds slightly more shallow than the average FOX News viewer's.

The English have a class system that has been part of their culture for a very long time. English literature will therefore reflect that by examining class systems. It sounds as if she's looking for "English literature that's American in style" to me. And the "too wet" thing....... No wonder she's having issues.

Could someone explain to me what 'wet' means? My first thought would be sex and/or violence, but since it was applied to Dickens I'm thinking that may be off base. Sentimental?

Whitney wrote: "Could someone explain to me what 'wet' means? My first thought would be sex and/or violence, but since it was applied to Dickens I'm thinking that may be off base. Sentimental?"

Yes. So apparently we're looking for a British writer who doesn't reflect British culture. Ummm..... why would you look for that? Wouldn't you just read American writers if that's what you're into?

I haven't read enough classical literature to be of any use in identifying similar writers, BTW, I'm just taken aback at the question.

I'm not normally defenses about all things American, but there are plenty of American writers with a social conscience (which seems to be enough to get one labeled 'communist' in this particular case), and also plenty who make some original use of language (apparently earning the label 'pulp').

I'm afraid I'm more that a little taken aback by the question. The writer who wrote the most well known anti-communist works of fiction in history is labeled a communist. Plus, wouldn't Shakespeare fail on criteria 1 and 4? Human beings definitely don't speak in iambic pentameter, and he did made free use of ghosts and fairies.

Maybe bank pamphlets would fit all the criteria? Or perhaps the autobiography of Roy Cohn?

Whitney wrote: "Your girlfriend has an understanding of communism that sounds slightly more shallow than the average FOX News viewer's."

My thoughts exactly.

I want to "like" half the posts in this thread.

Mark wrote: "I'm not sure which end of this one to trip over." Same here, it all sounds like a matter of individual definition to me. What I think is a work of genius and what someone else thinks are probably not the same and you can bear that out by finding critical opinions that oppose each other for the same book or author.

It kinda reminds me of this review I had forgotten about until someone added another comment today: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

Whitney wrote: "I'm not normally defenses about all things American, but there are plenty of American writers with a social conscience (which seems to be enough to get one labeled 'communist' in this particular ca..."

That's not where I was trying to go with that comment, BTW. I just meant that if you don't like British fiction........ don't read it! I wasn't trying to say that American fiction in particular isn't "wet" or "communist" (wish there was a way to make THOSE inverted comments bigger), I was just using it as an example of not-British-class-system-oriented. Sigh.

Ruby wrote: "Whitney wrote: "I'm not normally defenses about all things American, but there are plenty of American writers with a social conscience (which seems to be enough to get one labeled 'communist' in th..."

Ah, yes. I didn't really take offense, I just saw the definition of 'communist' (with giant inverted commas) as being anything that made any sort of social statement involving disparities in wealth, not just something that took place in a country with more formalized class structure. For example, I'm sure Steinbeck would easily fall under the 'communist' definition here (although I'm not sure how Garcia Marquez ends up being an example of the acceptable...).

I love the review you linked to. The 'get off my lawn comment' was exactly what I thought when I read it. Another group I belong to had a reading plan involving tackling many of the 'difficult' novels (The Waves, Ulysses, The Recognitions, Hopscotch, et. al.), one person kept posting how bad the books were because he had concluded that any kind of experimental writing was by definition unnecessary and inferior. I kept wondering why the heck they stuck around a group whose stated purpose was reading books they had long ago decided were pointless.

A. wrote: "So my girlfriend and I were chatting the other day and she asked me, "Who are the great English authors?".
I said "Dickens" and she said, "Too wet. Too communist."
"Orwell?" "Communist!"


Orwell? A communist? Sure, he was at one time a socialist, but he grew out of it (or at least out of believing any government could do a reasonable job of implementing it). (Yes, I'd agree that Steinbeck is as much a communist as Orwell).

Garcia Marquez - that's easy: "Magical realism!"

I'd say she has to stick to Austen and the Brontës. Oh, sorry, they're very wet.

Besides which, most of the great English authors (especially the poets and playwrights) are Irish or Scots ...

But really I agree with Ruby - the English do obsess about class. Just as many Black American writers write about race. If she wants to read English lit. without class issues, she probably needs to find writers from the privileged side of the line. Winston Churchill won a Nobel for literature. Introduce her to A History Of The English Speaking Peoples, and maybe she'll be so enthralled with the oratory that she won't notice it's nonfiction.

G.K. Chesterton, of course.

Adam wrote: "However, to go further afield, may I suggest;"

Not to suggest that any of these aren't worth reading, but:

Gilbert Abbott à Beckett: "As poor-law commissioner he presented a valuable report to the Home Secretary regarding the Andover workhouse scandal, ..." Oh, definitely communist.

Douglas Adams: "must write about real possible events." Well, I suppose at the heart of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is the premise that "anything's possible" :)

Richard Adams: "wet"

J.G. Ballard: Who knows what's possible? Not, I think, Mr. Ballard.

Nigel Balchin: I know nothing about this author. Nor, it seems does GoodReads. He's got to fit the criteria.

Adam wrote: "Ah, somehow I missed the bold all-caps statement of no Fantasy, I hereby withdraw Douglas Adams.

However, Watership Down, while perhaps a further violation of this oversight, surely cannot be classified as wet..."

Well, really, I agree with you. But if Dickens is "wet", what isn't?

Orwell was great. Dickens was great. Many other British authors were great. Was this point in doubt? Ever? Christ, grammatical? Really? Charles F. Dickens and George F. Orwell were f'ing impeccable in their grammar. I can't go on with this line any further.

But here's food to chew on vis a vis Orwell and Dickens.

Dickens a communist? (Message 1). Look, Dickens may have railed against the abuses of the Industrial Revolution, but he didn't call for communism or any sort of social revolution. In fact, Orwell wrote a lengthy essay excoriating Dickens for arguing that social change must be the result of reform within the hearts of men, not the destruction of unjust institutions. You can find that essay here: http://www.george-orwell.org/Charles_...

Orphans of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your gruel!

Very interesting thread.

I'd recommend George Eliot and maybe she'd like Robert Graves's historical fiction. Graham Greene might be acceptable.

I think this would be easier if we had more information about what she does like than what she objects to.