John Banville

John Banville talks about reading books.

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• John
• Banville
• reading
• books

[Nesapstar]

He didn't say that certain sectors of society ought not to read, he said "I don't know that everybody should read books". That's hardly the same thing. I don't know why you infer that Banville harbours a "huge chip" because he did not have a university education. A university education isn't something extraordinary. There are lots of idiots with degrees. You probably have one.

[Nesapstar]

It is not essentially the same thing. Not even close. How do you come up with something like that from what he said? Don't attempt to read one of his books whatever you do. Maybe you should go back to university to better enable you to "reason complex problems".

[dunngar]

he looks like Bernie Madoff

[AngelH91]

'I think that a large majority of people get by without art of any kind they find their beauty else where, in their familes, their loved ones, sport in nature'

He says that reading and understanding the context in the proper way is an art and that there is a minority of people that can read and find the art within the pages. But that people should continue to read to become lost in the story if not fully understanding it. And that he does it for the passion and the love of creating a story.

[vivdarkbloom]

That's an awful lot of posts. Why keep coming back obsessively to this page? Is it for the same reason that you made yourself read Banville's books 'from the tedious Kepler and Dr Copernicus through to the latest Benjamin Black shit'? If you dislike Banville that much, why stop at reading every novel he's ever published? Why not go on and read the genuinely mediocre stuff, like the radio plays and the unpublished screenplays? At least have the courage to follow through on your masochism, pal.

[27106204]

And beyong some stupid fucking one-liner, you never seem to make an actual point. What IS your point? If you have one, support it.

[27106204]

Art IS sentimental. Without sentiment, art would not exist because there would be no reason for it. Every novel, painting and song tries to evoke or recreate a mood, feeling, story or in some way touch the human spirit, no matter how cold and detached the pose. No man would sit down to write a book if he were not sentimental, whether about the subject matter or his own flaccid stab at posterity. And reader and writer can never be united without sentiment.

[whieleta]

Art is not inherently sentimental. You don't know anything about art. If there is any teenage angst here it's yours.

[27106204]

Plus he looks that fucking Disney pooch from the fifties. 'Droopy', wasn't it?

[27106204]

Why is it sentimental claptrap? Why is it inaccurate?

I would guess that the Solomon Islands is not precisely the intellectual capital of the world, but make a point.

Art is inherently sentimental. That is why art exists. It exists because mankind is inherently weak and always in search of something it will never find.

Beyond the background noise and teenage angst, what are you saying?

[whieleta]

"Art is the hug of a small child" What a bunch of sentimental claptrap. Inaccurate too.

[27106204]

"They(?) don't necessarily need art. Art is a minority sport".

No. I really don't think so. Art is a flower or the hug of a small child. Art is everywhere. A simple book addressed to the less articulate, though appealing to the better angels of their nature, is every bit as 'arty' as 'Death in Venice'. Art is wholly subjective. Art is humankind. We are all art.