I guess the ultimate test, after reading a book, is to ask yourself what it left you thinking about. If the answer is nothing ...well, it may simply have been a harmless and enjoyable waste of time. Like a game of solitaire. I think we all need these blank spaces in our lives, just to recharge batteries. However, if the book made you think about something—preferably in a different way from how you saw the issue beforehand–then I'd say it was meaningful, no matter what the author's intentions might have been when they wrote it. The book might have left you with a desire to visit the setting and see for yourself, or learn more about the period it was set in, or think about your own relationships as compared to the ones in the book, or strive to reach an understanding of the character types you just 'met' in the book. Or you could go higher, pondering social truths and untruths, politics, history, the way humans behave towards one another, etc. I'd say the more painless this process is, the more it sinks in and becomes part of your life experience. Mind you, working at understanding a book's purpose also has an effect. I remember the book I worked the hardest at was Riddley Walker by Russell Hoban. I almost gave up several times because it was impenetrable ...but something kept me going. And the payoff was huge. That book teaches a great lesson. You can't judge a whole by seeing only a snippet. We instinctively know this is true; we ask for more information on a subject we don't understand, knowing we need it before making a judgement. But when the gap between perception and knowledge is experienced like this, in a skewed manner that so imitates life, the lesson really sticks.
..errmmm ...not sure what you mean. Cloud as in floating high, basking in rays of sunshine and enjoying blue skies above ...or cloud as in enveloped in grey fog?
the latter. A very, very good book leaves a long lasting impression you can't shake off. Could be anything, doesn't even have to be definable. I think most of us here will agree that at the end of Of Mice and Men, you don't have to ask yourself what you're taking home with you. You just feel sad.
If I find myself thinking about the story, the characters, eager to get back to it - it wasn't a waste of time. If I put it down and can't remember where I left off ... Message doesn't really play into that. It's coincidental.
I think they both have a place at different times in a reader's experience. The serious, more literary stuff definitely hits you in a way that lasts, and if it's really, really good can almost shake you to your foundations. I experienced this after reading The Road by Cormac McCarthy, but not everyone feels the same way about any given book. But the real Junk (or what we define as junk/ escapist literature) has a place too, IMO. There are times when you don't want to think, dammit, and you want to hang out on a public beach somewhere with a towel and a trashy book. I don't begrudge anyone who likes to downshift on occasion, but doing it all the time might get tedious after awhile and it probably wouldn't help your writing. I find that writers like McCarthy, Hemingway, and Burgess (I'm reading A Clockwork Orange now) feed you on a level that the other books just don't. That being said, I wouldn't necessarily jump to them when I'm looking for straight out entertainment or anything. Somebody else mentioned movies, too. I also love to veg without thinking where those are concerned. I thought Napoleon Dynamite was a staggering work of genius.
Why is "escapist" seen as equivalent to "junk"? I don't care how profound the message, if I can't escape into a book, it's boring. I won't read it. The message is lost. I don't pick up books because there's a message - I pick up a book to escape, to be entertained, to enjoy. The message, if there is one, is not my primary concern. I don't grab Dickens to learn about child labor in history - I read Dickens because I enjoy his stories.
I think that a book is more likely to succeed when it's "about" something, rather than having a lesson or message. For example, I've concluded that almost all of Rumer Godden's work is "about" the longing for a place in the world, whether that "place" is a home, or a family, or a life's work. She doesn't teach some specific tidy lessson, and I don't know if she was or wasn't aware of that continuing theme through her work--or if others would agree with me that that continuing theme is there. But that longing is always there, like a flavor or color or smell, all through her work.
Story without meaning can work. Story with meaning can certainly work. I think that to trust a story to hold an entire novel by itself (not counting the quality of the actual writing, that is not what is being discussed here) is a very risky move, but if a writer wants to do it I wish them all the best.
Wait.... I could be simplifying this a bit but in most stories don't people just make their own meaning? I mean if the story, character and everything else grabs you then its good. Don't really know myself actually I just think escapism books and books with meaning is a pretty blurred line. I'm sure there are tons of books with meaning you can escape into and tons of books that are set in some sprawling entertainment epic world have meaning to them. Plus at the end of the day every book has some meaning Doesn't it? From the worst to the best. A means to make ya think, a means to entertain you, a means to make you laugh, means to make you cry or a means to do all of the above. Look I'm no literary genius, I just read what I like and if I find meaning it that grabs me in someway then AWESOME. I just think its a pretty iffy line. I mean before I joined this site like three years ago I didn't even know a lot of books weren't considered real literature. I know that sounds naive but I always just saw all books as literature, an art someone created. Its always been so odd to me, so much so that I don't even really understand the entire deal about 'Modern fiction vs Classic fiction' its very confusing to me.
Same thing. Dickens is not easy to read - but I read him for entertainment, because I love his stories, not specifically because of the social commentary. Readers who choose books for entertainment are not lazy readers and don't gravitate to "junk". It may be as simple as not wanting to be preached at, which is what I've found with many authors who emphasize "meaning" over story. The most skillful writers can make their stories entertaining and get their message across.
It just really depends on what you want to do. Commercial or Literary? Or do you even accept such a dividing line? Some take their writing very seriously and truly put out the work to make a thought provoking work of art. Then there's the schmoes like me who simply have a story in us that needs to be told, nothing deeper. It's what you make it.
I think about the books I read even if they are "junk". I might be thinking how annoying or unrealistic the characters or plot was, but I still think about them for a few days afterwards.
I come to my entertainment for brainlessness SOMETIMES (action movies are a case in point), and sometimes I want layers, meaning, and depth. It all depends on the day. The stories that stick with us longest will be more than just chains of interesting events though.
