A Few Words on Personal Taste

The single most popular text in English before the printing press is a middle English Romance called Bevis of Hamptoun.

It's awful. Really really awful. It's . . .well, it's a Mary Sue for one thing. And it's written in a style that today would be the equivalent of writing a novel using limericks.

Bad limericks.

But there are endless versions of the story--and it was just as popular the first hundred years or so after the printing press.

Historically, it's really really interesting to see how popular it is, and why. What buttons did it push? What needs did it satisfy?

I read things I don't really enjoy that I think might, in a hundred years, be sort of like Bevis of Hamptoun is for us, now.

I think these books have something to say, even if I don't always like what, or how, they say it.

I also am very much aware that, even if I don't really like a book, even if I read it because there was pay involved, that book is some author's "child."

And I do try even in my most scathing reviews (and yes, I have been scathing of non-fiction) to remember that.

scarletpeaches said:

Why does no-one spare a thought for Rosaline?

Click to expand...

You have to read the sequel; she ditches Romeo and runs off to the Forest of Arden . . .

Medievalist said:

You have to read the sequel; she ditches Romeo and runs off to the Forest of Arden . . .

Click to expand...

From Italy?

Adventurous girl...

mscelina said:

ESPECIALLY when you then admit during the course of said heated discussion that you've never read the works in question, which has happened to me in more Harry Potter discussions than I care to acknowledge on other boards.

Click to expand...

Ohhh I hate that!

Dissing a book you haven't even read makes me livid.

It makes me so livid I created a name for the practice.

Medievalist said:

The single most popular text in English before the printing press is a middle English Romance called Bevis of Hamptoun.

It's awful. Really really awful. It's . . .well, it's a Mary Sue for one thing. And it's written in a style that today would be the equivalent of writing a novel using limericks.

Bad limericks.

But there are endless versions of the story--and it was just as popular the first hundred years or so after the printing press.

Historically, it's really really interesting to see how popular it is, and why. What buttons did it push? What needs did it satisfy?

I read things I don't really enjoy that I think might, in a hundred years, be sort of like Bevis of Hamptoun is for us, now.

I think these books have something to say, even if I don't always like what, or how, they say it.

I also am very much aware that, even if I don't really like a book, even if I read it because there was pay involved, that book is some author's "child."

And I do try even in my most scathing reviews (and yes, I have been scathing of non-fiction) to remember that.

Click to expand...

I know Wikipedia is a pathetic resource in many cases, but I googled this and if the summary is correct, I can see the appeal at a time when most people never traveled more than a few miles from their birth place. It sounds as if it had life and death situations, the hero enslaved by pirates, travels to royal courts in exotic places, and lovers who couldn't be together. Wow! I bet it pushed all the dream buttons.

I grew up in a very small town in the Midwest surrounded by cornfields, and I only wanted to read about places that were as far from that reality as possible, so I can see why that story was popular.

If you talk about how other books are trash in your query letter, that means the book you have written is not good and there is something wrong with your mind.

Your query letter is your very brief sliver of an agent's attention. You have 250-300 words to grab the agent's attention, and you need to do this by writing well, by talking about your book in a way that might excite somebody.

I can't understand the thought process that leads people to grind axes or whine about rejection in query letters.

Medievalist said:

Ohhh I hate that!

Dissing a book you haven't even read makes me livid.

Click to expand...

When people diss books they haven't read, I equate it to trolling.

That's pretty much how it is, too.

The...erm...lady that was the worst about this (on another board) would go off on page-long monologues about JK Rowling's bad plotlines, characterizations, use of verbal magic et cetera et cetera. Finally, one day, we asked her why she thought this and she said, "Well, I saw the first movie."

Order of the Phoenix had already been out for a year.

So yeah--she based her entire opinion about Harry Potter off of seeing the first movie, once, on someone's TV--instead of actually reading the darn books. Needless to say, she lost all credibility after that point.

But you'd be surprised at how many people will do that and say, "I don't need to read the books to know they're bad."

Yeah. Right.

I never called current novels "trash," but wrote a book because I wanted something I would like to read. There may have been other books out there that fit that bill, but I made a minimal effort to find them.

There's a lot of great stuff out there; then again, I don't always want to read great books. I had to read a lot of great books, and I didn't like them all.

I'd never put down other writers to elevate my own work. Mine are a whole lot of fun, but I focus on plot, spectacle, humor and ideas.

We all read for different reasons; I would never put down anyone who created something meaningful to others even if it did not appeal to my taste.

First of all, even Shakespeare didn't approve of what R & J did in his story, it was a cautionary tale, not an example of what true love is. That's the whole point of the Rosaline thing, that Romeo was so easily able to fall in love and then out of love and in love again. Even the friar warns them, "love moderately, long love does so." That being said, it isn't one of my favs either.

But R & J and obsessive love actually dovetails nicely into my point re: this thread. I agree. Calling something trash, having irrational hatred towards anything is absurd. But I think some might have reasons to "harp" on not liking certain books. Like me. I do not like Stephenie Meyer's books. For many reasons. But the reason I will explain very rationally my main issue with the book over and over again is that I think it is important for me to speak up. I do not like the representation of love/romance in the book (which, unlike R & J, IS idealised), nor do I approve of the main female character she has created, and how she has set up this character to exist in an abusive relationship. I know this is a common romantic trope, but this is something I will always speak out against, even with other novels, because it offends me so. And when I get the chance to talk to kids or teenagers about books, I will definitely address this huge issue, because I want to make sure girls understand the difference between the fantasy and the reality of having your boyfriend tell you what you can do, where you can go, who you can hang out with.

So yes, I understand that just saying, "This book is crap!" is unproductive. But just because someone might constantly point out why they don't like a work, it doesn't necessarily make them obsessive or jealous.

First of all, even Shakespeare didn't approve of what R & J did in his story, it was a cautionary tale, not an example of what true love is.

Click to expand...

I'm curious to know where along the line Romeo & Juliet became the epitome of the love story. You grow up hearing about the great love that are these two characters, then I actually read it in high school and totally didn't get it because, yeah, it's obsession not love.

When this was originally performed, did the audience think it was a love story or did they get the obsession angle? Is it only in the more modern times when the language barrier might be an issue that this is heralded as a great example of the love story?

Melia said:

It sounds as if it had life and death situations, the hero enslaved by pirates, travels to royal courts in exotic places, and lovers who couldn't be together. Wow! I bet it pushed all the dream buttons.

I grew up in a very small town in the Midwest surrounded by cornfields, and I only wanted to read about places that were as far from that reality as possible, so I can see why that story was popular.

Click to expand...

It did push all the right buttons.

And honestly, I love it. I wrote my M.A. thesis on the "trash" literature of the middle ages, the metrical romances. Despite being strongly warned against them as "trash."

They were in terms of popularity and ubiquitousness a lot like category romances.

Adventure, beautiful women, dashing men, exotic places, and true love.

Chaucer sorta makes fun of Bevis, and of other metrical romances, but he does it in such a way that you know he's read an awful lot of them, and clearly knows them terribly well--which suggests he loved them too.

There's a book called The Art of Dramatic Writing by Lajos Egri. It's recommended on just about every screen or play writing site and is praised to high heaven. His central thesis is that every successful play has a premise, and that the entire play must serve that premise. His premise for R & J is Great Love defies even death. I think I threw the book across the room. A closer fit for the premise would be Death defies even Great Love. Not that I think that's the premise, or that the play has only one premise.

I think the real message is if you're in anyway involved, or intending to be, within the publishing industry then don't ever publicly voice an openly attributable negative opinion on anything.
At worst, say 'it is wonderful, just not my kind of wonderful'

What Nathan said.

And scarletpeaches, yes, your post was that funny. So funny, I nearly chocked on the apple I was eating. For reals. You nearly killed me.