What are you reading now?

[french frank]

II don't know ,ff, why you find it odd that I (and many other people) choose to read widely and try to see others' points of view. I do like to be fair. And I don't want to criticise anything until I've tried to understand it. I think it's all too easy nowadays to stay in our own comfy circle and read and hear only things that confirm our previous beliefs.

I agree entirely - and approve of - the wish to read widely and to see other's points of view. But, valuing discussion, I would make two points:

i. It is indeed a good thing to read widely though I wonder (not about your individual case, may I say, but generally), what considerations inform one's choices of reading matter. Why choose to read, for example, Novel X?

ii. I think seeing others' point of view is a start towards empathy. 'Seeing' or perceiving it is a first step; then comes understanding it. You say you have 'tried to understand it'. Do you feel you succeeded?

I find this interesting in the context of phenomenology (I confess I struggle with the concepts so would willingly receive correction) which is the study of consciousness and particularly how 'phenomena' (life, the universe and everything!) are variously perceived from the subjective viewpoint of the individual. Bias stems from the individual's personal 'lived experiences'. I am as biased as anyone else when I see a world in which in many spheres men hold total power and women are as often as not entirely absent; where individuals or small groups of men are drectly responsible for the violent deaths of tens of thousands or the suffering of millions of 'ordinary' people; or where on a closer domestic level deranged men systematically hunt down women who are complete strangers to them and murder them, or who systematically victimise women for their own gratification.

I don't, as a result of reading about such cases, form any conclusion about 'men': but I might (well I wouldn't but others might) write a novel reflecting my perception of this phenomenon; and if there was a predominance of such novels by women novelists might that indicate a common shared experience of life? Possibly. Or not.

[Serial_Apologist]

I agree entirely - and approve of - the wish to read widely and to see other's points of view. But, valuing discussion, I would make two points:

i. It is indeed a good thing to read widely though I wonder (not about your individual case, may I say, but generally), what considerations inform one's choices of reading matter. Why choose to read, for example, Novel X?

ii. I think seeing others' point of view is a start towards empathy. 'Seeing' or perceiving it is a first step; then comes understanding it. You say you have 'tried to understand it'. Do you feel you succeeded?

I find this interesting in the context of phenomenology (I confess I struggle with the concepts so would willingly receive correction) which is the study of consciousness and particularly how 'phenomena' (life, the universe and everything!) are variously perceived from the subjective viewpoint of the individual. Bias stems from the individual's personal 'lived experiences'. I am as biased as anyone else when I see a world in which in many spheres men hold total power and women are as often as not entirely absent; where individuals or small groups of men are drectly responsible for the violent deaths of tens of thousands or the suffering of millions of 'ordinary' people; or where on a closer domestic level deranged men systematically hunt down women who are complete strangers to them and murder them, or who systematically victimise women for their own gratification.

I don't, as a result of reading about such cases, form any conclusion about 'men': but I might (well I wouldn't but others might) write a novel reflecting my perception of this phenomenon; and if there was a predominance of such novels by women novelists might that indicate a common shared experience of life? Possibly. Or not.

f

There's a phenomenon of "punching down" which I don't think Marx dealt with adequately when writing of the differences between exploitation and oppression. I'm afraid I've not read any Engels, who wrote more existentially than Marx on the texture of working class life in Victorian times, when oppression of women by men would have been far worse if the percentages of working class women and girls said to have been in sex work (as we call it) are to go by. Eugenics represented only the most extreme pole of a general philosophy placing women lower down the evolutionary scale then men, including within the working class, reinforcing the notion (still not entirely drained from contemporary religious thinking in some unfortunate quarters) that wives must obey their husbands. The frustrations of everyday exploitation and humiliation at the workplace, alongside failing to measure up to current social status-signifying codes, would be taken out on this "weaker sex". I've no doubt mental oppression of the kinds detailed phenomenologically by RD Laing in the 1960s in "Self and Others" and "Knots" (manipulations, put-downs, misrepresentations etc) has become a kind of masculinist substitute for direct physical abuse in many relationships. As a bloke one often had to resist giving supposedly well-meaning advice and just shut up at the expense of the other making choices that turned out to be mistaken, because we (men) are at a juncture which will not be resolved until we get a society which fully values all genders and abilities. That's my bitcoin's worth!

[smittims]

Thanks ff. I chose novels which I think I ought to read , out of fairness. I love 19th-century novels but have difficulty finding 20th-century ones I like . As I love 20th-century music i struggled to overcome this. DH Lawrence, Wiliam Golding, Mervyn Peake, John Fowles, and others have been recommended but I have found them unreadable. So I go on searching. Iris Murdoch was highly -praised , and I liked the Judi Dench film , so I thought I'd have a go.

Whether I understand what I read, I can't be sure. Bruno Walter said 'today I think I understand Mozart's G minor symphony, but tomorrow I may think diffrently'. I count not myself to have apprehended .

I'm not unsympathic to feminist writers on principle; but I expect any writer be fair and criticise them when they're not . I like Virginia Woolf, for instance , because she is fair and reasonable when writing about men. I love CP Snow's novels but I don't think he was always fair about women.

I think the predominance of novels by women for women is simply the market. One cannot blame publishers for continuing to feed it. 'It's a living, my son! '

[Ian Thumwood]

I read a wide range of authors and have come to the conclusion that 19th century writers are as inconsistent as 20th or 21st century ones. Many 19th century books are long-forgotten and I just feel that to avoid current writers is a folly. I went ages without reading a modern book but I found that some contemporary writers are 'must reads.'

If something piques my interest I will read it including female writers like Kate Atkinson and Claudia Pinero. I would recommend both even though they are very different. I have 'Kohokia jazz' and a book by Jose Rizal lined up next. Difficult to find an English language version of the latter but snapped up Penguin edition in Davao at the weekend. Smittims should try Rizal.

[smittims]

I'm sure there are as many inconsistent and forgotten writers in any century; it's the way of the world.

I have mentioned that I like CP Snow and Julian Barnes. I also discovered Patrick Hamilton (the Gorse Trilogy,etc) in my search for a good 20th-century novelist. I have read Evelyn Waugh and Anthony Powell but I don't think I want to read them again now. I enjoyed Barbara Pym's Jane and Prudence but the next one of hers I read was a disappointment. Pamela Hansford Johnson is an expert writer but I would only want to re-read one of her books now (A Summer to Decide, which is excellent). But I return to Hardy, Trollope , Scott, Conrad and Wells repeatedly with the greatest of pleasure .

As I said in an earlier discussion, I find a lot of modern novels are simply not well--written ; I think a reader has a right to expect a reasonable standard of written English. And many of them have scarcely one sympathetic character. I don't go as far as the man who said he could read novels only about people he'd be content to invite to dinner, but I do expect some pleasure from a book .

[Ian Thumwood]

I'm sure there are as many inconsistent and forgotten writers in any century; it's the way of the world.

I have mentioned that I like CP Snow and Julian Barnes. I also discovered Patrick Hamilton (the Gorse Trilogy,etc) in my search for a good 20th-century novelist. I have read Evelyn Waugh and Anthony Powell but I don't think I want to read them again now.

As I said in an earlier discussion, I find a lot of modern novels are simply not well--written ; I think a reader has a right to expect a reasonable standard of written English. And many of them have scarcely one sympathetic character. I don't go as far as the man who said he could read novels only about people he'd be content to invite to dinner, but I do expect some pleasure from a book .

Read someone like William Boyd or Ian McEwan, both of whom are well written. Granted that the likes of Tom Clancy are crap but there are plenty writers out there who are excellent. Try Claudia Pinero and start with 'The crack in the wall.'

[Petrushka]

Having recently purchased the two Warner Sir Adrian Boult boxes, I'm now reading Ralph Vaughan Williams and Adrian Boult by Nigel Simeone. Fascinating reading and many thanks to our own makropulos for writing it.

[LMcD]

I read a wide range of authors and have come to the conclusion that 19th century writers are as inconsistent as 20th or 21st century ones. Many 19th century books are long-forgotten and I just feel that to avoid current writers is a folly. I went ages without reading a modern book but I found that some contemporary writers are 'must reads.'

If something piques my interest I will read it including female writers like Kate Atkinson and Claudia Pinero. I would recommend both even though they are very different. I have 'Kohokia jazz' and a book by Jose Rizal lined up next. Difficult to find an English language version of the latter but snapped up Penguin edition in Davao at the weekend. Smittims should try Rizal.

There are some fine female North American writers, including Jodi Picoult, Annie Proulx and (my personal favourite) Anne Tyler.

[Serial_Apologist]

There are some fine female North American writers, including Jodi Picoult, Annie Proulx and (my personal favourite) Anne Tyler.

Not having been much of a fiction reader for nigh on half a century, I had not previously heard of Mary Loudon, who now guests approximately once a week on The Jeremy Vine Show, and comes across as a calm, reasonable, politically leftish lady with the kind of demeanour one might stereotypically associate with principled heads of NGOs, charities or bishops, although she is an agnostic. It surprises me that she is not and has as far as a know never been formally introduced, since having checked up I find that she has written insightfully on culture in so-called "middle England" and sympathetically on mental issues from personal knowledge close to home. I like her very much and might even be tempted to buy one of her books. "Relative Stranger" looks interesting.

[Padraig]

There are some fine female North American writers, including Jodi Picoult, Annie Proulx and (my personal favourite) Anne Tyler.

Noted, McD. I do be on the lookout for books by recommend women writers. While I'm at it, you probably know of So Late in the Day by Claire Keegan. It's a remarkable little slim volume from faber containing just the one story; remarkable also for content I think.

[LMcD]

Noted, McD. I do be on the lookout for books by recommend women writers. While I'm at it, you probably know of [I]So Late in the Day [/I]by Claire Keegan. It's a remarkable little slim volume from faber containing just the one story; remarkable also for content I think.

Noted in turn, thanks!
Two fine Canadian writers you might like to try are Carol Shields and Alice Munro.
Prize-winning Ann Patchett was born in Los Angeles and happens to be the daughter of the man who arrested Charles Manson and Sirhan)

[Ian Thumwood]

Not sure that i will return to Stephen King. 'You want it darker' is really uneven. Three of the short stories are compelling but am thinking the rest would not have been published if written by a new novelist. The pick is about a man who discovers a murder victim after a vivid dream and becomes a suspect. It is brilliant. However , the shorter stories are a bit stupid.

King is better when the stories are less sensational. I struggled with some of the nouns and cultural references . I think he can be a good storyteller but not sure tha he is the great writer suggested by Amazon reviewers.

[smittims]

I've just finished re-reading Three Sisters (Chekhov) which, for me, is Chekhov's 'problem play'. I'm unclear about what he had in mind. By the rather negative ending, one feels not a lot has happened.

[smittims]

I'm re-reading The Magnificent Ambersons, by Booth Tarkington (1918) . Orson Welles' ill-fated film of it is probably better-known than the novel itself, which I read initially to see what was cut from the film, very much against Welles' wishes. The book is very rewarding as it explains gradually and subtly (with many a hint) how and why the Ambersons fell from their eminence. As with all the best novelists (in my opinion) Tarkington is especially good on character: Aunt Fanny is my favourite, a portrait which ranks with Austen's Mrs. Norris or Trollope's Mrs, Grantly , though she is a much more sympathetic character .

[Tapiola]

Re-reading Ibsen's Peer Gynt, for the nth time. Hugely disturbing. Grieg's music, which I love, has no bearing on the play's meaning. Schnittke's ballet is far closer to the truth.