What’s the lightest, most “fluff” kind of book you’ve read recently?
Fluff can be a very useful term when discussing literature, but everyone has their own idea of what fluff actually is. For me, the term fluff is most associated with the term easy. If a book is easy to read, has a relatively formulaic plot, and deals with a simple theme, then it is most likely fluff. Much fluff can also be called "popular fiction", mainly because it meets the criteria for "easy". Dean Koontz, Danielle Steele, Jodi Picoult, popular mystery and romance novels etc. are fluff to me. Finally, YAL is fluff, for the same reasons as stated above. I am not saying that these authors and genres are silly or stupid, but they do not require the same level of thought or contemplation as Shakespeare, Lawrence, or Bronte.
My most recent piece of fluff was The Spiderwick Chronicles. For my complete review, you can go here, but suffice it say I was not overly pleased. And I like fluff. Heck, my News Years Resolution was to read less fluff - which I tend to call guilty pleasures.
What about you guys? How do you define fluff? What's the last piece of fluff you read?
My fluff, which I call brain candy (it's not particularly good for you, but every once in a while...) are Robert B. Parker's Spenser novels. They're just fun detective fiction with a great lead character and snappy writing. They're infinitely re-readable and I'll take down one or two in a day if I really just wanna relax.
ReplyDeleteThey're especially good for a break after particularly heavy reading, but I'll grab one anytime.
Brain candy - excellent term, so much more intelligent than fluff and less sleazy than guilty pleasures. And I still have not picked up a Spenser novel. I really must get on that.
ReplyDelete