Comments on: A Question

By: Kovac

Kovac — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:05:20 +0000

I think that I would rather go with a sad book just because they tend to age a lot better than books of a humorous nature. While the basics of humor tend to remain the same over a long period of time, the tales and jokes that are used will usually lose their impact relatively quickly compared with other genres.

I would prefer to have my great novel survive the ages as something which people can understand and still find relevent.

By: Mara

Mara — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 20:12:52 +0000

Funny, because I love funny books. But then there would be all this pressure to be funny all the time, like at parties and such, and what if you really don’t come across as funny in real life the way you do on the page? It would be so stressful… kind of like the way Theodore Geisel (the real Dr. Seuss) was reputedly rather shy, quiet, and not very fond of children, but everybody expected him to be The Cat in the Hat, especially the kids.

By: Mother

Mother — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:09:23 +0000

Funny, I think. I don’t do sad as well as I used to.

By: Miriam

Miriam — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:00:38 +0000

Ooooh. I am tempted to say the saddest, ’cause I _like_ sad books, and when you think of the most über books they are mostly sad.

But, then, writing a funny book could also be intrinsically satisfying. One would see people reading it on the tube and snorting in a very un-British manner, which would be amusing, no doubt. And one would still be in illustrious company, albeit of a slightly different genre. One’s name would be mentioned in revered tones along with Jane Shaw, Sellars & Yeatman, A A Milne and PG at dinner parties.

I think if I had to choose, though, I would probably still go for sad.