I myself haven't read the 40k lore, but from what I hear, they're the Ed Wood of books, and I mean that sincerely.
As literature, they're terrible. However, they're fun books to pick up and read. Filled with heresy, shooting, killing, stabbing, large and impressive hats, giant tanks and flamethrowers. Oh, and there's some people involved and this guy is apparently some sort of leader.
Yup. I get the names confused. Which is probably a mark in my favor... NERDS.
Though the fact that you had something else to confuse it with is a mark against you. Anyone who reads Star Wars expanded universe needs to discover real literature. The Star Trek books are forgivable, but still bad.
I don't fault anyone for reading what they enjoy. Except Ro.
I myself haven't read the 40k lore, but from what I hear, they're the Ed Wood of books, and I mean that sincerely.
As literature, they're terrible. However, they're fun books to pick up and read. Filled with heresy, shooting, killing, stabbing, large and impressive hats, giant tanks and flamethrowers. Oh, and there's some people involved and this guy is apparently some sort of leader.
So basically the "popcorn movies" of books. Nothing particularly intellectually stimulating, but still fun to read if you don't want a book that exercises your brain too much. Nothing wrong with that if you're into that sort of thing.
I myself haven't read the 40k lore, but from what I hear, they're the Ed Wood of books, and I mean that sincerely.
As literature, they're terrible. However, they're fun books to pick up and read. Filled with heresy, shooting, killing, stabbing, large and impressive hats, giant tanks and flamethrowers. Oh, and there's some people involved and this guy is apparently some sort of leader.
So basically the "popcorn movies" of books. Nothing particularly intellectually stimulating, but still fun to read if you don't want a book that exercises your brain too much. Nothing wrong with that if you're into that sort of thing.
Yep, exactly. I'm taking a break from heavier stuff after reading Ringworld and the Foundation Trilogy. I'm also trying to figure out my next "good" book to read.
I'm honestly kind of over the concept of literature in the sense of "classics" or "heavy reading" or whateverthefuck being somehow detached from "popcorn books", especially as most heavy literature is just old popcorn literature that we elevated to a higher status out of the nostalgia and clumsy literary analysis. A classic that's no fun to read is no better than a popcorn book that's trash, and if you honestly enjoy whatever you are reading, then it is good. Anything else is pretentious attempts to categorize things in a way that makes you look smarter, and while I love being pretentious, there is no point if it's reducing your enjoyment of things.
This isn't to say that the Warhammer books are all Shakespeare, but just remember that Shakespeare used to be looked at like a Warhammer book. Most of them really are just trash, but they are also not fun to read because of it; if something is enjoyable on it's merits (rather than in a so bad it's good sort of way), then there is absolutely no reason to hate on it.
It's kind of ironic that the Gaunt's Ghosts books are brought up as examples of GW's terrible literature, because they are actually quite good military sci-fi; a standout in a genre mostly dominated by insane right-wing hardware fanboys on soapboxes.
The only stuff I really consider "Heavier" is the stuff that actually inspires me to think about things, whether that be politics or science or philosophy. So that could be Carl Sagan or Socrates, the rest really doesn't matter.
Gaunt's Ghosts aren't terrible, although the first book was pretty poorly edited (there were a fair amount of spelling/grammatical errors) the rest have pretty decent storylines and characters are starting to develop. Mostly they're great at what they do - portray military action.
I really don't have a problem with the Warhammer books. It seems like everyone is getting defensive about me comparing them to one of my favorite directors. No one takes 40k books seriously. No one thinks of them as anything more than fluff, silly schlock books. The difficulty I have is when people take Star Wars fanfic as serious literature and undergo great analysis because it's got the Lucasfilm seal of approval on it.
I personally apply that to everything. For the most part, literary analysis is complete bullshit, a field entirely invented to make those practicing it look cultured. Literary analysis has always been little more than nerds thinking too hard about commercial fiction; saying it's somehow different because they are looking at 19th century serials and you are looking at Star Wars completely fails to notice that in both cases we're talking about pretentious wankers making mountains out of molehills in a written work, in both cases ignoring the often very simple intent of the author. There is nothing wrong with that, but don't fool yourself that the subject matter makes one legit and the others not.
I personally apply that to everything. For the most part, literary analysis is complete bullshit, a field entirely invented to make those practicing it look cultured. Literary analysis has always been little more than nerds thinking too hard about commercial fiction; saying it's somehow different because they are looking at 19th century serials and you are looking at Star Wars completely fails to notice that in both cases we're talking about pretentious wankers making mountains out of molehills in a written work, in both cases ignoring the often very simple intent of the author. There is nothing wrong with that, but don't fool yourself that the subject matter makes one legit and the others not.
And that is why I hated high school English class.
That said, there is a significant difference in the quality of your average "popcorn book" vs. more serious literature. Like SquadronROE said, sometimes they inspire you to think about things. Sometimes just the quality of the writing or characterization is actually superior.
I didn't mean to disparage books as "popcorn books" -- I like a good popcorn book as much as i like a good popcorn movie, but not for the same reasons why I enjoy reading a more "serious" piece of literature or movie.
I'm honestly kind of over the concept of literature in the sense of "classics" or "heavy reading" or whateverthefuck being somehow detached from "popcorn books", especially as most heavy literature is just old popcorn literature that we elevated to a higher status out of the nostalgia and clumsy literary analysis. A classic that's no fun to read is no better than a popcorn book that's trash, and if you honestly enjoy whatever you are reading, then it is good. Anything else is pretentious attempts to categorize things in a way that makes you look smarter, and while I love being pretentious, there is no point if it's reducing your enjoyment of things.
Of course, some times books that are fun and epic are very well written. Micheal Chabon, one of my favorite authors (Kavalier and Clay, Yiddish Policemans' Union, etc.) tends to work in popular genres like adventure and film noir mystery but has a very distinctive and evocative prose style for which he was recognized with a Pulitzer. I think that's what sets good literature apart for me: Whether or not the writing, not just the plot or characters, is well-crafted and beautiful.
I personally apply that to everything. For the most part, literary analysis is complete bullshit, a field entirely invented to make those practicing it look cultured. Literary analysis has always been little more than nerds thinking too hard about commercial fiction; saying it's somehow different because they are looking at 19th century serials and you are looking at Star Wars completely fails to notice that in both cases we're talking about pretentious wankers making mountains out of molehills in a written work, in both cases ignoring the often very simple intent of the author. There is nothing wrong with that, but don't fool yourself that the subject matter makes one legit and the others not.
Every main character ever is Jesus. I guarantee you'll pass every Literary Analysis class just with that premise.
In my opinion, having read the books to see if I could understand why they were popular, the problem with Twilight is not sparkly vampires, or Edward, or his family. The problem is entirely that the story is told from the point of view of an entirely passive individual with nothing even approaching a shred of character, around whom everything must rotate despite her utter inability to do anything that isn't fawning over somebody. Bella could literately be swapped for a Smarty-Pants doll with the Want-It-Need-It spell on and the story would be unchanged.
This is a damned shame, because for all her lack of writing talent and misogynistic views, the author isn't that bad at worldbuilding. Edward and his family are actually kind of awesome when Bella isn't weighing on their collective necks (however, as she is the viewpoint character, you can see how this is detrimental to their character) and the vampires are powered up exactly right to be a horrifying threat in the modern world. When looked at outside of Bella's doe-eyes, the vampires of Twilight are living, psychotic cannibalistic statues of crushed diamond who can walk on the ocean floor, move faster than the eye can follow, and tear apart steel with their bare hands, ruled by an ancient vampire mafia and engineered to be the perfect predator within human society, opposed by wolves the size of bears.
Edward himself gets a lot of flak, but the guy is actually a pretty interesting character; out of his time, struggling with his own muddled theology and sense of morality while also being essentially an engineered killing machine, attempting to employ his powers for good as a vigilante, etc. He has a meaty character arc, but it all happens before the book and is related after-the-fact; during the course of the novel, he's reduced to essentially just being a lust object for Bella.
Bella is such a god-awful character, completely devoid of, well, anything but a soul-sucking ability to knock any potentially interesting narrative off course, that the entire series quickly devolves into a series of her petty issues which she passively drifts through, letting everyone else fix it for her. She has no voice, no spark of life, and no reason to exist. It's like somebody was filming an interesting drama, and right before shooting started they decided to make the camera the main character.
Fortunately, I'm not the only one who thought this. Luminosity is an excellent re-imagining of Twlight that changes only the main character, making Bella a smart, inquisitive, and proactive rationalist hero and leaves everything else. It's really quite good, I recommend it.
Jacob is a caring compassionate guy. He actually likes Bella. Edward just looks at her funny. If you look at Twilight 10 years later, Bella is divorced and raising Edward's kid, Edward is loafing around being a free-loader, and Jacob is actually successful.
Does Jacob like Bella, or is he so caught up in the idea of "saving her" from Edward that he places her on a pedestal as a damsel to be rescued? Well, actually both. None of the relationships in Twilight are healthy because Bella is a non-person who is simply batted around the love triangle. Because she doesn't really engage with Edward on any level, it makes him come off as a weird, obsessed creep. Because she can't assert herself to Jacob at all, she essentially strings him along for two books.
Comments
This isn't to say that the Warhammer books are all Shakespeare, but just remember that Shakespeare used to be looked at like a Warhammer book. Most of them really are just trash, but they are also not fun to read because of it; if something is enjoyable on it's merits (rather than in a so bad it's good sort of way), then there is absolutely no reason to hate on it.
It's kind of ironic that the Gaunt's Ghosts books are brought up as examples of GW's terrible literature, because they are actually quite good military sci-fi; a standout in a genre mostly dominated by insane right-wing hardware fanboys on soapboxes.
Gaunt's Ghosts aren't terrible, although the first book was pretty poorly edited (there were a fair amount of spelling/grammatical errors) the rest have pretty decent storylines and characters are starting to develop. Mostly they're great at what they do - portray military action.
That said, there is a significant difference in the quality of your average "popcorn book" vs. more serious literature. Like SquadronROE said, sometimes they inspire you to think about things. Sometimes just the quality of the writing or characterization is actually superior.
I didn't mean to disparage books as "popcorn books" -- I like a good popcorn book as much as i like a good popcorn movie, but not for the same reasons why I enjoy reading a more "serious" piece of literature or movie.
This is a damned shame, because for all her lack of writing talent and misogynistic views, the author isn't that bad at worldbuilding. Edward and his family are actually kind of awesome when Bella isn't weighing on their collective necks (however, as she is the viewpoint character, you can see how this is detrimental to their character) and the vampires are powered up exactly right to be a horrifying threat in the modern world. When looked at outside of Bella's doe-eyes, the vampires of Twilight are living, psychotic cannibalistic statues of crushed diamond who can walk on the ocean floor, move faster than the eye can follow, and tear apart steel with their bare hands, ruled by an ancient vampire mafia and engineered to be the perfect predator within human society, opposed by wolves the size of bears.
Edward himself gets a lot of flak, but the guy is actually a pretty interesting character; out of his time, struggling with his own muddled theology and sense of morality while also being essentially an engineered killing machine, attempting to employ his powers for good as a vigilante, etc. He has a meaty character arc, but it all happens before the book and is related after-the-fact; during the course of the novel, he's reduced to essentially just being a lust object for Bella.
Bella is such a god-awful character, completely devoid of, well, anything but a soul-sucking ability to knock any potentially interesting narrative off course, that the entire series quickly devolves into a series of her petty issues which she passively drifts through, letting everyone else fix it for her. She has no voice, no spark of life, and no reason to exist. It's like somebody was filming an interesting drama, and right before shooting started they decided to make the camera the main character.
Fortunately, I'm not the only one who thought this. Luminosity is an excellent re-imagining of Twlight that changes only the main character, making Bella a smart, inquisitive, and proactive rationalist hero and leaves everything else. It's really quite good, I recommend it.