Comments on: Contagious – Novel Review

By: Flinthart

Flinthart — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:11:13 +0000

Gently does it, Mr Sigler — if you've read any of my reviews elsewhere, you'll be well aware that being classified outside of "literature" is no insult from me. In fact, I'm pretty much completely fed up with what passes for capital-ell Literature these days, and I'm quite happy to say so in public.

Having said so much — that's not an answer to the question you asked. Therefore, in an effort at fairness: I don't have a definition. There's fiction that's dull. There's fiction that's entertaining. Then there's fiction which is entertaining, complex, and thought-provoking. And then there's fiction which achieves all that and goes farther, possibly engaging layers of metaphor and symbolism to create a unique relationship between the work of fiction and recognisable elements of the human condition – a relationship which leaves the reader feeling as though they've taken on board something which has the potential to change the way they think and feel about the world.

I don't often run across books which do that, and "For Whom The Bell Tolls" wasn't one of those. "The Master And Margharita" was, yes. So was "Crime And Punishment." But then, so was "Neuromancer", and likewise the collecte output of Cordwainer Smith.

Do these things equal "Literature"? Damned if I know. But I do know I can go back, re-read these works, and continue to find new insights, new thoughts, new interpretations, and for me, that's sufficient.

Going farther, though: each and every time I sit down to one of those books I listed, I know I'm taking on a challenge. Concentration is required, and thought. And you know what? I don't always want that. Sometimes I want to sit down and enjoy a fast-moving adventure story with fluid, effective writing, reasonably interesting characters, good pace, and a cool plot.

If and when I put a full-length novel into print, if it achieves that much, I'll count myself very pleased indeed.

By: Barnesm

Barnesm — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:12:27 +0000

Yeah I too enjoyed them more as a serialised podcast, don't know it that says more about me or as they way the story is written.

By: Bruce Moyle

Bruce Moyle — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:45:31 +0000

While I like Scott's work (this is why I purchased the novels) I knew this wasn't completely your cup of tea Dirk. I must admit that I actually like the podcast versions better even though it has less content than the printed version. The reason is because of the performance that Scott put's into the presentation. It's weird, but it's like having an attachment to the first version that you where exposed too more than what people generally call the "better" version. An example would be Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, I personally prefer out of the versions the radio plays as that is what I was first exposed too, where as most people go for the books. I won't even comment about the people who saw the BBS TV series first.

Now I wonder if I should give you a copy of the Rookie I have sitting in the house (signed by Scott of course).

By: Scott Sigler

Scott Sigler — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:50:25 +0000

Thanks for the review of CONTAGIOUS, seems like you enjoyed the read. However, since CONTAGIOUS won't fit anyone's definition of "literature," that seems to indicate literature is actually defined. I'd love to know what your definition is. Please define it for me, and not by using examples such as "literature is like FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS," but give your specific definition if you could.