This weekend I attacked the bookshelves which were dusty and untidy: they had never been properly re-sorted into subject areas since we moved into the current house 6 years ago. (I said to friends that now that it is done, there will probably be some reason we have to move again within 6 months and the whole 6 year cycle will start again.)
Here's the broad categories I use:
* science fiction (mostly old, since there is little written now that appeals to me. I had forgotten how complete my Robert Heinlein collection was; I have even kept his crappy later novels. But I did re-read one of his "juveniles" recently, and his style stands the test of time, I reckon.)
* other fiction (a lot of Evelyn Waugh, and a smattering of other authors, none of them very recent)
* religion (CS Lewis features prominently, but quite a few books on modern theology and religion generally, including by arch non-realist Don Cuppitt.)
* the paranormal and UFO's (are J Allen Hyneks' books still in print? They were the best of their type, but I also have Allen Hendry's great UFO Handbook.) To balance that out, I also have read Phillip Klass's skeptical books.
* philosophy and psychology (not much in the way of original works by philosophers, although I have had a stab at a little bit of Kant. Clarity of expression clearly did not count for much for philosophical fame in his day.)
* general science, including quite a few autobiographical accounts of the moon astronauts.
I guess if you've read the blog for some time, you would have worked out that these are key areas of interest.
Books I threw out in this round (if clean, they will be donated to Lifeline):
* a battered copy of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: this deserves an award for the most over-praised book of the 20th Century. It is a book that simply made no impression on me at all, even to the extent that some years later I had to skim read it again to even be able to remember what it was about. It strikes me to this day as a slight work masquerading as a deep one. But happily, due to the wonders of the internet, I can read detailed criticism of it in support of my intuitive reaction 20 years ago. Yay.
* Shirley Hazzard's "The Great Fire": I dealt with this in detail in an earlier post, and it is never worth keeping a novel that you stronly dislike. That Bryan Appleyard thinks highly of her style is another of life's unfathomables.
* "Blindsight" by Peter Watts: yet another current science fiction writer who is essentially pessimistic and can't hold my interest.
On the upside, and further to my complaint about no current fiction writers interesting me, I have nearly finished my second Graham Greene, and there is a lot to like about his pared back style. I suspect that I may find his tortured Catholic themes a little repetitive though, but it's good to another author to work my way through.
UPDATE: I forgot to mention the category of "history", which contains mostly Paul Johnson books (not all of his work is immediately engaging, but he's a fine writer when at his best), assorted ones on World War 2, and a history of the bathroom.
I also forgot to note that I am giving away the first Lord of the Rings book. If you find even the movies tedious, not much point in keeping the novels, is there.
3 comments:
I make a rough division into novels, poetry, and The Rest, and file all books in alphabetical order according to the author's last name, but a second pile of 'books I have pulled out of the bookshelf or haven't begun to file yet' is building up haphazardly all over the place, and these could including everything.
Anomalies include my C S Lewis set, in the novel section, though there's a lot of essays and criticism in there as well (I couldn't bear to separate it, because some of the books are part of a recently published set that look well together). The Bible, filed away under G, for God, under the novel section. The Scandinavian sagas, which are almost like novels or novelettes in their structure, filed away amongst 'The Rest'. And a number of other books that didn't fit neatly into a category.
Robert Heinlein has a style?
Though I guess I should add that I'm sure Robert Heinlein may be worth reading anyway - it's just that I don't think he or most of his other sf contemporaries thought much about style. They used language more or less as one uses a hammer, a blunt instrument for doing a job. (And if they couldn't find a hammer, then a brick would do. (Okay, over-elaborate metaphor done now.))
You are right about Heinlein's literary style; but then again I have read where Greene has usually been described as not having any distinctive way with words either. I think all that I am getting at is a talent for good, flowing story telling, with writing does not contain jarringly bad dialogue or descriptive passages. Of course, some people forgive a lot of poor writing in authors they find to be good storytellers, especially in the genres of romantic or family epics. I sort of forgive Michael Crichton's writing myself, because I feel I am learning something interesting, and his plots are usually good. But generally, bad science fiction writing seems to me to be especially bad.
Post a Comment