Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by Bruce from DC (B) on December 03, 2001 at 06:40:19

In Reply to: the remains of the day posted by late on December 01, 2001 at 18:49:17:

Still think this comes under the heading of what, I believe in serious literary circles was called an exemplum which translates loosely as "moral tale."

In any event, we are talking value judgments here and; whether one likes it or not -- the orginal ST and NG had, on occasion a seriousness of purpose beyond the usual TV fare. Whether you like the embodiment of the purpose, the vehicle chosen for it, etc. or whether it succeeds is another matter.

A TV audience is quite unlikely to read Dostoevsky for fun. In fact, most readers are quite unlikely to read Dostoevsky for fun.

That seems to be the essence of JD's point.

Next big discovery please!! I can hardly wait for another revelation of such blinding insight.

JD is offended that 'Phlouder makes claims for Sci-fi as a serious literary genre.

Ok.

None of us knows whether sic-fi will make it into the canon or not. Most of it is too new; and we will not live long enough for the filter of time to do its work.

But I can mention some "serioius work" that offends me as being rather empty behind a fabric of wordplay, literary allusions and insider jokes:

Anybody remember "Trout Fishing in America" by Richard Brautigan; "The Universal Baseball Club" by Robert Coover?

Then there are the Great Literary Works that are virtually incomprehensible. Examples: "Finnegan's Wake" by James Joyce and a number of lesser imitators, e.g. "Gravity's Rainbow" by Thomas Pynchon. (I did not attempt the former and failed to get through the latter.)

And finally, there is everything written by John Updike, a literary man who has made a career of verbalizing his ruminations on sex and aging in a nice package that Barnard English majors can avoid feeling guilty about reading. "Rabbit Run" was an interesting, orginal work. Soon, JU figured out that he couldn't write anything else; but as any Hollywood mogul can tell you, there is a market for sequels to hits. So JU has been writing sequels to "RR" ever since.

The last really vital serious American author that I know of who's written a significant body of work is Saul Bellow.

The rest of it is dessicated, academic stuff, written by people who wish they were poets and whose principal object seems to be a flashy display of their erudition.

Not surprisingly, nobody reads it.

BTW, Patrick Stewart said performing "Shaka when the walls fall" was a completely bizarre experience. I remember seeing that one; it was "different" to say the least. I'm afraid it appeared to me to be an incomprehensible play about incomprehensibility. There are many, many works about incomprehension, even among people who speak the same language -- viz., "Romeo and Juliet" -- that, I think, make the point better. However, the idea of taking a shot at that theme on TV is worth a point or two, at least.

You guys be nice to each other, you hear!!