Faulks on fiction

[dotty2]

I didn't quite see it all, but I saw a good three quarters of it. And he cited no female novelists whatsoever! I'm not looking for slavish adherence to some sort of quota, but honestly - how can you talk about novels (of all literary forms), without mentioning any written by women??

It was the first programme in a series. I did see in the title sequence, a number of novels by female writers. Perhaps they will be discussed in subsequent weeks?

I really enjoyed it.

Maybe am being unfair. I just disliked the notion of a linear tradition of Great Novels, all of which were written by men. I see the next one is about The Lover. Maybe women get to write about The Lover, if not about The Hero.

S Faulks is clearly a wannabe Dead White Male.
It was horribly narrow in its choice of literature (and heroes).
I don't think you are being unfair dotty2

yy Mariella Frostrup took him up on this on R4. frankly I don't think he fought his corner terribly well (talking about the notion of a 'hero' as something both men and women can be, but that the character traits are essentially masculine)

I watched it and found it interseting, but certainly having heard that interview I had similar feelings to you dotty

It didn't matter! It's about the role of the hero and he didn't actually cover that many books - 7? Next week will probably be Austen, Brontes etc as it's on the lover. Can't wait!

Women novelists often write the small-scale domestic/village. Still do mostly.

Someone on here recently described Faulks as "disappeared up his own arse and is yet to re-appear".

I thought of this comment as I watched him on BBC news the other day.

I found it boring, I'm afraid. It seemed to be a series of little vignettes which, if you hadn't got the clue in the prog title, didn't really hang together. He didn't come to any conclusion unless

1. he thought we were intelligent beings who could supply our own conclusions, or
2. he did, but I had stopped concentrating by then (the heroes seemed to get less and less interesting heroic as we went through time. see point 1)

I also found it weird that he used loads of film and TV footage to illustrate points but precious little of the actual texts themselves. Should it have been a radio prog?

I was disappointed. I found myself wondering whether the book choices were made according to the availability of film/tv footage, rather than on their literary merit per se.

Yes, purpleturtle - I wondered that too. And prob a good marketing ploy for BBC DVDs. I found myself wishing I'd seen Tom Jones, for instance and wondering about getting it on DVD! Goodness me, I've come over all cynical. Must have been reading too much Jane Austen to be questioning people's motives like that...

What a LOAD of ARSE.

This was a new benchmark of twatty television.
The vanity of this man that he agreed to make something so spurious and lame.

It's like one of those crappy books you're given for xmas that you can put in the loo. "Fiction for EEjits", "The Novel for Know-nothings".
I mean that's all fine but from this guy who's very well educated and Should Know Better and thinks nothing of sneering at this kind of pop-arsed trivialisation telly nonsense.

I mean the walking about holding the book!
The terrible interviewees and the fatuous questions they're asked.
The lack of any proper unifying idea behind the series!
The trundling around... ooo LONDON a lot. But peering around Brick Lane as if it's a mine field in Afghanistan (OO LOOK Mr Faulks breaks away from Notting Hill and peers at the Simple Man from his Hansom Cab).

The watching the hillsides as clips of Tess come on as if he's watching her.. I mean it's so moronic. Who got this commissioned? What were they thinking?

ARSE.