Books and shit

[Spoony]

So I guess literary criticism is an entirely intellectually bankrupt exercise if 99.9% of books have no objective qualities, then?

Although, thinking about it, it does now lack the ability to communicate with the stereotypical modern teenager, which is objective.

Well that's a fair point, yes, but as you've said a few times now, it hasn't aged terribly well; I'd say that's more of a large difference between current and past social trends.

[Galaxy Man]

I haven't read this book and don't read much fiction any more in general, but I want to add something.

I never, and will never say that a lack of action is what, alone, makes a book bad. A book about two people talking, as long as it is well written and the characters are extremely likable, would make a good book.

Not to mention, a murder? That's interesting. That's something happening.

Likeable=/= interesting. I don't always want to read or view fiction wherein all the characters are nice, reasonable or at least understandable people. Sure, such feats make a character more identifiable, but that is not always the authors goal. If you read/view a lot of fiction, all recurring character traits eventually become boring. Authors who try and write differently and try new things should at least be applauded for effort, for it's indeed more difficult to keep the viewer/reader interested when he can't identify with the characters.

Sorry, it's getting to actually be morning around here so I'm having a hard time with words.

I don't mean likable as in, "oh hey, i think this is a very fair and nice character" I meant likable as in "I want to read more of this character"

I really used the wrong word though, that's my fault.

Also GM, you shouldn't take yourself so seriously. I've noticed this before, you're very convinced of your own viewpoints about subjective things. It's coo' if you find this book dull or that you find it bad. But you have to accept that other people might have different opinions and your viewpoint isn't better than theirs.

I actually really just like arguing.

So I guess literary criticism is an entirely intellectually bankrupt exercise if 99.9% of books have no objective qualities, then?

I have never seen literary criticism that didn't involve how someone felt about a book, or if the characters were good, or if the setting felt real, ect ect.

Which are all subjective things.

[Bill Nye the Science Guy]

so recently i found my collection of Roald Dahl books
shit The Witches was a dark book how did i never notice it as a child

[Spoony]

I have never seen literary criticism that didn't involve how someone felt about a book, or if the characters were good, or if the setting felt real, ect ect.

Which are all subjective things.

Nobody can ever say "this is a good book" ever? Nothing has inherent worth?

[Galaxy Man]

I have never seen literary criticism that didn't involve how someone felt about a book, or if the characters were good, or if the setting felt real, ect ect.

Which are all subjective things.

Nobody can ever say "this is a good book" ever? Nothing has inherent worth?

Pff whatever man catcher in the rye is rad

That sounds like someone saying it's a good book.

[Spoony]

That sounds like somebody saying they enjoyed it. I enjoyed Troll 2, but it's still a terrible film. Things have subjective qualities that are not necessarily linked to subjective enjoyment. Besides, I was questioning you there; as in, whether or not you think anything can have inherent worth, whether or not you think anybody can say a book (or something else) is objectively good or bad, considering you said they have next to no objective qualities past spelling. This is the point of discussion, yes? Me asking you what you think, not what that other guy thinks?

[Shoolis]

Okay so I finished the Nancy Farmer Sea of Trolls series and it was pretty good. It wasn't the best fantasy trilogy I've read, and at some points you can tell it was geared for children, but it is still a good series.

The series starts on a good pace. Jack is an eleven year old growing up in a post-Roman time and is learning to become a bard. Suddenly plot happens and Jack and his sister are captured by Viking Berserkers and enslaved. There is a lot of plot in this story and many allusions to another epic that is set during this time, Beowulf. The main antagonist of the story is billed as the sister of Grendel's mother, but it adds more plot to the story. The story climaxes in Jack and and shield-maiden named Thorgil (real-name Jill (Jack and Jill, get it)) finding the tree of Yggdrasil and drinking for Mimir's Well. Overall it is a great book filled with plot and action like fighting dragons and the like. It also challenges the belief structure of the time, drawing lines between Christianity (Jack's father is an ardent Christian) and the Norse Religion, which makes you think.

The second book (The Land of the Silver Apples) kind of falls off the rails a bit. Jack's sister is kidnapped again, and it's up to him, Thorgil, and Jack's master The Bard to go save her from the Elves that captured her. This story kind of drags a bit, especially at the middle when Jack and Thorgil are trapped in the forest of the Elves. However at the end there is closure, as well as a good set-up for the final book.

The third book (Islands of the Blessed) revives the action of the first book, however the action is introduced by the need of a mundane task. A spirit called a draugr begins haunting the town Jack, Thorgil, and The Bard live in, and it's up to them to banish it. I can't really speak of the plot much because there are many ties to the past books, but the book climaxes well and has no shortage of the supernatural (mermaids, anyone?). Overall the series is a good read for adults, and would probably be a decent read for kids.

[Explotaro]

If I ever stop checking out manga from the library, I can focus on Vampire Hunter.

[Stranaton]

reading Tom Clancy novel
what one you ask?
the one with the terrorists, the secret US military strike team, a fictional weapon, and too much detail about the guns involved.

[Syobon]

Heh, I've read quite a few of those. They're pretty fun.

[Cafall]

In fact nothing happens.

The book starts with Holden getting expelled from another school and punching his roommate for taking his old crush out on a date, then getting beat up by a pimp when he awkwardly propositions a hooker to just sit and chat, after which he meets with a wide variety of acquaintances before returning home to face his family with another of his failures
That's hardly nothing

Geology isn't sitting around in a garden, staring at rocks.

Geology is studying the way the ground works. Staring at rocks is... staring at rocks. A geologist would stare at the rocks and wonder how they were created, and then go off and figure it out.

Much like how Holden spends a good deal of time watching and studying the people and world around him? It's his uneducated and inexperienced view of everything, but that's the whole point

Holden does not change. He does not alter. Holden is exactly the same the entire book. He's a whiner, he's a hypocrite, and he's generally a little bitch about everything. He stays this way. He doesn't change, he doesn't realize anything, the book ends with him learning nothing at all.

So no, there is no character development.

Why is this a bad thing? There has to be an overarching moral for the protagonist to learn, or it's a bad book? It's a short story describing his current state and character, mostly about his inability (or immature refusal) to get his shit together and grow up

I would also like to say that it IS actually a point with many people that Holden is a whiny, hypocritical person. I would ALSO like to point out, that since the 1970s, it's "themes of teenage confusion" has been more than obsolete, they've been crushed into the ground and buried, flowers and trees have long since grown there.

Are you really saying teen angst is dead?

[MakingLoveWithMyEgo]

We took a random family outing to Borders today, and I was heartbroken to discover the Borders chain nationwide had gone out of business. This was news to me. Our local Borders had managed to hold on longer than the others and was having an enormous clearance sale. I somehow managed to leave with even more books to put atop the pile of books I've purchased and yet to read. I got "The Internet is a Playground: Irreverent Correspondences of an Evil Online Genius" by David Thorne, the guy who writes the website 27b/6.



Headwear is unrelated.

[Galaxy Man]

In fact nothing happens.

The book starts with Holden getting expelled from another school and punching his roommate for taking his old crush out on a date, then getting beat up by a pimp when he awkwardly propositions a hooker to just sit and chat, after which he meets with a wide variety of acquaintances before returning home to face his family with another of his failures
That's hardly nothing

Yet each of these things take up about half a second.

Holden isn't even expelled yet, he just LEAVES. Why? Because he's a whiny bitch. His roommate punches him, which takes half a sentence, and then what does he do? He whines. Not only do either of these things end up not being at all important and are never mentioned again, the only reason they happen in the first place is for him to whine about them.

Then the pimp hits him again, which takes half a sentence AGAIN, and then boop more whiny crying bitch.

So yeah he does get hit in the face twice, but even that is hardly important at all except welp now he just cries about how shit's unfair and everything is everyone's fault except his! Then he gets over it and oh hey would you look at how little it actually mattered!

Geology isn't sitting around in a garden, staring at rocks.

Geology is studying the way the ground works. Staring at rocks is... staring at rocks. A geologist would stare at the rocks and wonder how they were created, and then go off and figure it out.

Much like how Holden spends a good deal of time watching and studying the people and world around him? It's his uneducated and inexperienced view of everything, but that's the whole point

>watching
>studying

Yeah no. That's really stretching it. He doesn't study anyone, to study would imply some sort of understanding or basic thought. Holden sees someone and he complains about them. Anyone, doing anything normal, he just complains. There's not a part in the book where his inner monologue isn't just whine whine whine, bitch bitch bitch.

Holden does not change. He does not alter. Holden is exactly the same the entire book. He's a whiner, he's a hypocrite, and he's generally a little bitch about everything. He stays this way. He doesn't change, he doesn't realize anything, the book ends with him learning nothing at all.

So no, there is no character development.

Why is this a bad thing? There has to be an overarching moral for the protagonist to learn, or it's a bad book? It's a short story describing his current state and character, mostly about his inability (or immature refusal) to get his shit together and grow up

One would assume a character who is more than a flat piece of paper with a smiley face written on it would undergo some sort of moral change over staying alone in a city for two days. You know, basic, third grade creative writing stuff.

Of course, Holden isn't more than a flat piece of paper, but with a frown.

I would also like to say that it IS actually a point with many people that Holden is a whiny, hypocritical person. I would ALSO like to point out, that since the 1970s, it's "themes of teenage confusion" has been more than obsolete, they've been crushed into the ground and buried, flowers and trees have long since grown there.

Are you really saying teen angst is dead?

[/quote]

I'm saying that comparing teens from the 1920s and the modern age is a futile matter. Teenagers are not the same. We cannot comprehend anything Holden does as being anything but stupid and or whiny, because by today's standards he's stupid and whiny.

I do know this, for a very simple reason. When I was, eventually, forced to read this book last year, I did so with my English class. When it was finished, we all had to write about how Holden compared to us.

My english teacher himself actually talked to the class, when all of the papers turned in (not just some, I do mean all) only talked about how we could not compare to Holden. One went so far as to say Holden was abnormally unlike anyone she had ever met. When asked if any of us would be friends with Holden, nobody said anything.

My mother and father both disliked this book as well. Why? Because they could not relate.

It is a simple fact, and as I recently thought of and pointed out, it is an OBJECTIVE fact, that this book has lost the main purpose the writer intended to give it. It can no longer commune with the average teen. Unless, of course, this teen happens to have all of Holden's traits. In this unfortunate case he would have no friends and everyone would hate him.

[Madican]

We took a random family outing to Borders today, and I was heartbroken to discover the Borders chain nationwide had gone out of business. This was news to me.

Borders didn't step into the e-market fast enough or with the required force to push back Barnes and Noble or Amazon. So they got crushed. Blockbuster and Netflix all over again.

[MakingLoveWithMyEgo]

Such a shame. I always preferred their stores to Barnes and Noble. They felt more inviting to me, warmer colors and all that. Oh well, such is business. If you don't adapt, you die.

R.I.P. Borders. NEVER FORGET!