Quote for the week

[lathany]

"I think it is good that books still exist, but they do make me sleepy." Frank Zappa.

As a reader, I'm not too fond of this. I know people who don't read books, but it's usually a part of them I don't get.

Comments

[glittertigger]

I once dated someone (a tall dark handsome stranger I met at a party) who I found had never read a work of fiction outside a classroom, and couldn't see why anyone would waste their time reading made-up stuff. He did read a lot, but it was all factual - textbooks and manuals and things. He was an awesome engineer (could fix anything from a circuit board to a tractor, and was very useful for servicing my car / fixing the flat etc), good at sports, and unexpectedly prone to arranging lovely romantic surprises, but didn't exactly fit into my group of friends... It really was an unbridgeable gulf.

[lathany.livejournal.com]

My current member of staff doesn't read books, but is a Veronica Mars fan, so we just about bridged that gap.

[splendorsine.livejournal.com]

I find books a bit archaic at this stage. It's a bit analogous to my liking music, but having no time for opera: why would I invest heavily in such a ponderous and old-fashioned means of getting a story across?

(There's an extent to which I'm playing devil's advocate here, but given that I only read a handful of books a year most years... only an extent.)

[lathany.livejournal.com]

Well DA, I still love books because of the plot. There are films and TV out there with good plot, but I find the proportion of the things I try outside of the paperbacks is a much lower hit rate. And therefore the books are better value for my time.

[splendorsine.livejournal.com]

I'm interested in plot, but I'd rather get it from TV than books!

The advantage of books is that they (tend to) have one omnipotent author, who can stay on top of the plotlines and (if she's that way inclined) make sure they hang together.

This advantage is a disadvantage too though. In, let's say a TV show, you typically have dozens of writers collaborating to create a plotline. This greatly increases the probability of plotholes and contradictions I guess; but it also vastly improves the chances of there being lots of *interesting* ideas in the mix as opposed to just one or two. Even better, instead of all the characters being distinguished only by the author's ability to "act" by varying her authorial voice, every character gets its own personal actor to bring it to life.

To be honest I think TV has gone a bit wrong in its current obsession with "plot arc" - because too many cooks often serve up a plot arc that's extremely messy. But I'd rather a show that had a ton of ideas whizzing about than one that made complete sense at every point anyway - which is why my favourite show is still Doctor Who I guess!

[lathany.livejournal.com]

I'm a big consistency fan and always have been. Which may increase my "book" vote, I guess.

I can see the advantage of lots of writers producing lots of different characters, although I wonder how often it happens it practice. I once saw the three main Heroes writers talking about the show and was struck with how similar they were to each other. I guess it means they get along, but is probably less good for the range aspect.