Yeah, like I said it's entirely subjective if you read anything into the colour of the light in that scene. The fact it's an odd colour is almost unimportant to me - it could have just been a normal light and still pretty much mean the same thing. And yeah, lazy and heavy-handed symbolism can be really boring.
For those type of authors, I like to imagine a little toon of them jumping around the book saying, "PAY ATTENTION TO ME! PAY ATTENTION TO ME! WOOOO!"
So do I. I can't help but remember that really god-awful and pretentious film The Cell that The Nostalgia Critic reviewed, back when he was actually worth watching, and the whole thing of 'ASK ME WHAT IT MEANS! ASK ME WHAT IT MEANS! I'M SO CLEVER!'
Oh God, I watched that review once. It was very hilarious, especially with the Droopy "Be Disturbed" voice accompanied by a sarcastic scream of horror. *ahem* But yeah, that's what I hear when I read pretentious books. "Be amazed at my message. Be enthralled. Write an essay interpreting my work."
This is an interesting thread, because a novel, like a movie, is entertainment. That's the whole purpose of it. The literary artistic aspect of it are a by-product. A novel can be beautifully written and contain flawless technique, but if the story sucks then its entertainment value is zero, unless you consider the quality of the prose as entertainment. There are a lot of films out there that are beautifully directed with great cinematography, but the film itself is dog shit and extremely boring. Though, that can boil down to opinions. A novel can be quite poorly written and still be entertaining. In fact, that kind of sums up most modern literature. However, this could easily turn into a 'is modern literature dumbing down society' debate.
YES!!! I was hornswoggled to discover that query letters are expected to contain notions of the book's theme. For pity's sake. The author's job is to write and polish the book. It's everybody else's job to do the rest.
I read entertaining books all the time. For example: 'A Year in the Merde' by Stephen Clarke had me in stiches. Why should there be hidden meanings, messages/morals etc. Are you thinking 'Pepper Pig' or 'Bart Simpson' morals etc?
I'm more going for social issues- racism, sexism and the like. But I see your point, honestly I expected as much, I was just interested in whether publishers would go for unsophisticated but entertaining books, but for the sake of all-consuming commercialism, I'm sure they would.
Hi General, I saw this and had to ask: "I was just interested in whether publishers would go for unsophisticated but entertaining books, but for the sake of all-consuming commercialism, I'm sure they would." Are you knocking entertainment? There's nothing wrong or lesser or lowbrow about writing a book that makes people happy and lets them enjoy reading. Shakespear didn't write highbrow plays that were designed to push home the moral and ethical debates of the time. He wrote works that people would enjoy. He got paid if people enjoyed his work. I mean call it crass commercialism if you want, but really if the bard can do it and centuries later it becomes the gold standard, who are we to criticise? Cheers, Greg.
Exactly this. This'll be my philosophy if I ever become a published author: "I write what makes them happy. If they want to read the tenth-millionth iteration of the same thing we see in fantasy and/or sci-fi, I'll give them that. If they want to see a gritty historical novel that explores the meaning of the human condition, I'll...try to give them that as well. Or if they just want a light-hearted, fluffy mystery to read over a cup of coffee or wine, then that's what they'll get."
