--- In rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, Mark Sullivan <DJ-Anonyme@...> wrote:
>
>
> My point wasn't that TV and reading are comparable experiences, but that time shifts and intratextuality are not anathema to popularity. They're certainly part and parcel of Tarantino movies, for instance.
> Also, now that I think about it, not that I'm well read in SF, but it seems to me that time travel books are built on characters going backwards and forwards in time.
> Your "metaliterature" comment is interesting. Isn't this also symptomatic of genre fiction? In fact, the first writer I ever heard described as having written a metanovel is PK Dick. And when you think about it, even if few crime novels jump around much, series do. Think of all of the facts we carry with us when we are regular series readers. Yes, most series books can be read and enjoyed on their own, but aren't there a lot of extras, often a whole other level, a regular reader will pick up on? That's one of the main reasons i try to read series in order.
> Mark
Your point is taken. I think American readers are more often turned off by something other than jumping around in time. It's when they can't tell whether a character is "good" or "bad" that they get really nervous. This includes most noir literature, of course. That dichotomy between good and evil seems more present in this culture than in others. I know of people who reject a novel because they can't accept that a character is the way he is -- if you think about it, that is bizarre.
mrt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 10 Aug 2009 EDT