Books

[josephpalazzo]

I know this technically doesn't count as books, but I have to say it somewhere, as it's driving me insane.
I. HATE. Shakespeare. I don't like his stories, for a number of reasons, but I realize that they were written over 500 years ago, so normally I wouldn't be so angry. The problem is that he is still held up as one of the best writers of all time, and snobs everywhere like to dismiss far more promising stories in favor of trash like Romeo and Juliet. It absolutely infuriates me to no end, and what's even worse is that far better writers of that period, such as Oscar Wilde, are nowhere near as well known or liked.

Oscar Wilde was no contemporary of Shakespeare. Aside that glitch, I generally agree with you that the "barb" is way over-rated. There's no doubt there is some good stuff in his writings, but that has been overdone, and often to the exclusion of other good works.

[DavidQuinn]

Hi, i may have posted about this before but i've just finished reading the sequel in a new series of books in the UK called the chronicles of hope. They've been pushed by dawkins and feature an atheist revolutionary politician. Very original characters and story and highly recommend - there's the first chapter of the first book free here which is worth reading for a speech on religion that's genius - http://thechroniclesofhope.com/preview/

[Insult to Rocks]

I know this technically doesn't count as books, but I have to say it somewhere, as it's driving me insane.
I. HATE. Shakespeare. I don't like his stories, for a number of reasons, but I realize that they were written over 500 years ago, so normally I wouldn't be so angry. The problem is that he is still held up as one of the best writers of all time, and snobs everywhere like to dismiss far more promising stories in favor of trash like Romeo and Juliet. It absolutely infuriates me to no end, and what's even worse is that far better writers of that period, such as Oscar Wilde, are nowhere near as well known or liked.

Oscar Wilde was no contemporary of Shakespeare. Aside that glitch, I generally agree with you that the "barb" is way over-rated. There's no doubt there is some good stuff in his writings, but that has been overdone, and often to the exclusion of other good works.

Technically he was. Not in same time period mind you, but in the same period of playwrights. The period between the start of the renaissance and before the surge in the popularity of realism, which was dominated by playwrights of the Shakespearean style and the Comedy of Manners style that Wilde wrote in. I should have been more specific.
Okay, back on the thread topic, is anyone else sick of the deluge of "teenage kid goes on a fantasy journey" style story? Christ, it's literally all I see in my age group nowadays.

[GrinningYMIR]

...any of Jack Londons stuff (sorry as a young boy I loved his work and it stuck.....sue me) ...

*Heartbroken.

Jack London is one of the greatest writer of all times and he is also a philosopher as I see it.

Does that mean people generally think he is not worthy to read in US? Go figure. Do they know what The Iron Heel is telling about?

I have fond memories of The Call of the Wild.

I loved the call of the wild, it was one of my favorite books for years even though it was sad as fuck. I'll probably end up reading it again now  that you've reminded me of it

[EntirelyOfThisWorld]

My wife reads a lot of those gimmicky crime novels written by people like James Patterson, Janet Evanovich and the like.  I managed to crawl my way through one of the Paterson ones, but could not make it past one chapter of Evanovich.  One thing I found striking, and a bit annoying was the blatant product placements.  I also wondered about why these were so popular among women, and noticed that all character introductions were accompanied with very detailed descriptions of what they were wearing.

[_Xenu_]

I loved the call of the wild, it was one of my favorite books for years even though it was sad as fuck. I'll probably end up reading it again now  that you've reminded me of it

Where the Red Fern Grows anybody?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Since we so often are criticizing a multitude of badly written holy books, I thought it might be nice to give some attention to some-non holy ones, regardless of their quality. So, post your book related stuff here.

I'm currently reading Hitchens' "Arguably", but I've got to thinking about Orson Scott Card. What do you guys think of him? I'm conflicted. On one hand, Enders Game was good, with Enders Shadow being even better, but "Pastwatch" was quite possibly one of the worst books I've ever read, and his short stories are filled with ridiculous Mormon nonsense. Anyone want to chime in?

I preferred Ender's Game to Ender's Shadow, myself. The writing was more urgent. I haven't read anything else from him.

[Insult to Rocks]

I know this technically doesn't count as books, but I have to say it somewhere, as it's driving me insane.
I. HATE. Shakespeare. I don't like his stories, for a number of reasons, but I realize that they were written over 500 years ago, so normally I wouldn't be so angry. The problem is that he is still held up as one of the best writers of all time, and snobs everywhere like to dismiss far more promising stories in favor of trash like Romeo and Juliet. It absolutely infuriates me to no end, and what's even worse is that far better writers of that period, such as Oscar Wilde, are nowhere near as well known or liked.

Don't blame Shakespeare or his work for that endless 'promotion'. He has nothing to do with it.

Shakespeare is considered as the beginning of modern literature and epitome of classic high English in poetry, since the British Empire identified the English curriculum in every country for the last few hundred years, it is the ABC of classic education. when French ruled that it was Moliere or insert here another one.

The funny thing is, the English Shakespeare used was simple 'common' English, but in the process of 'making' English poetry he has been transformed into something only 'intellectuals' and highly educated people understand by the English aristocracy. Which is bullshit. But now as the education and the cultural merit has been set on this for a very long time, now it's the culture itself. (Bernard Shaw himself has a good rant about this 'elitisation' of Shakespeare. And some is told by his grand daughter actress Fiona Shaw in BBC archives.)

The first reason for that that there is no such thing as original English Poetry to begin with. Almost every myth used by English poets, play wrights and novelists are Celtic, Irish, Scottish or Welsh. But English did a good job carrying that along centuries. For example most of the world thinks that Arthurian Legends are English, lol, because they are all have been promoted and taught in English, as English.

Shakespeare was championed beyond any other, because doesn't matter how boring the subjects seem today, bastard is very good, esp. thinking about the poetry written in his own time. It is no surprise he became godlike. Try to read the poetry of 500 years ago or just 200 years ago and what was before or after him, you'll get the perspective of seeing him as the freaky master. Also his contribution to something invented after hundreds of years later he died is priceless. The characters he created is so universal and main, today in cinema when an actor or an actress can go through it, he/she is automatically praised, because of the integrity of the characters. Last one I remember was Al Pacino in Merchant of Venice. He did a very ordinary job, but he was 'awesome' because the character Shylock is so ingrained in our head, in world culture and so solidly, it's actually impossible to screw it up. Because it is a fucking Shakespearean character.

Therefore Shakespeare's characters and stories are regarded as the way you describe, repeated over and over again in every possible medium, because you can use them in EVERY century, EVERY period or era, in EVERY culture, in EVERY corner of the world and EVERY one would relate to them. They are universal.

Like Cervantes's Don Quixote. As long as there is struggle, doesn't matter which intellectual life form and where on what planet that story will apply. Universal.

Erasmus, Praise of the Folly. Written 500 years ago, still applies. Go pick it up, you'll chuckle and laugh through it. It's everywhere.

Oscar Wilde is more easier to relate for us, but the tragic life he pursued, the way he died takes more attention than his work. With his situation he is more familiar to us and what we stand for. I definitely agree that he is underrated. But more than his work he himself inspires people, also because of the struggle and he is appreciated much later. This again is a result of the culture built on and around him.

Successful artists of any medium always became something else than they were, sometimes something entirely different several hundred years later according to their native culture's position in the world or the place they 'fill' in that culture. Be it for cultural promotion, gender promotion, political bullshit.

For example Jane Austen. I have never read anything as trivial and as stupid as "The Pride and Prejudice" as a subject, story, but as a female writer of her time that was what she could relate and write and she wrote what she observed around her. It is considered as important piece of work, because she is the part of British-American culture and mainstream is dictated by that culture. Other than that it's just crap, but it's 'old' and British and they will never let us forget it. Humanity will suffer it until another culture start to dictate the world.

Without any exceptions all poets, novelists, painters, architects, even philosophers...but mostly artists are completely turned into something else in time while the culture changes. (Best example is Mona Lisa and Leonardo, but then he is actually not even an artist, we define him as one, along with his other promoted titles. But this is not a popular look. And the culture and the minds are already shaped) This is also how things work. Without boring poems and novels, you don't get to have the revolutionary ones.

Also we are the children of the prose ages; rationality; reason; science. Poetry worked very different in 15 or 5th century BCE or 5th and 15th century CE. Poetry has been seen as a couple of ridiculous lines rhyming or a bunch of accumulation of words that doesn't make sense for a very long time now, but in development of human history it is in the root of every fucking thing. Especially in ancient Western culture. Poets are the first prophets, first philosophers. First manipulators. Philosophy started with thinking in 'poetry'. We can't do that know. We belong to an alien era, we think in prose.

Do you want to enjoy reading? I wouldn't recommend any classics (poetry or prose) if you passed 20 years old. Classics are always messy. You are supposed to read them as a kid. Seriously. They are just boring now when you grow up. I can write here two dozens of writers that I loved very much and affected me, whom I owe a lot, but if I opened one of them now it would bore me to death. And I have read some more than once. I love Raskalnikov, I would recognise him instantly if he embodied in front of my eyes, but I couldn't stand him.  

Which writer is good and which one is bad is not really the matter of good literature, also many other things. And some major works that made history of literature don't mean anything now. For example I hate Tolstoy, but love Dostoyevski. Former is a religious crack pot who can write also has been promoted by American culture besides that he is a harmless Russian writer, latter is universal.

Kafka is an underrated god. How many people read Kafka? Same with London as I see. I don't know what does that tell to you, but what these people wrote is actually happening right now. LOL.

Think about Salinger. Catcher in the Rye is just an ordinary book, ruined by the moronic culture built around it and now American children read and say "So this it?! How over rated!". And completely miss what is the book all about. But they are right, because that's what is promoted to them.

If you want to enjoy reading, pick something that would challenge you in my opinion. If you want to understand development of humanity in literary sense, go through classics. But yeah, you'll be bored a lot and find them very over rated. because they already worked, things grew beyond them and we were born in that world.

We were all born after Jules Verne ffs, what more can you want? ;)

Ya, I know part of the reasoning behind Shakespears popularity. It's just that I don't like the plays on their own, and their publicity makes them even less tolerable. Speaking of Kafka, of LA class is going to be reading him soon. I'm hoping he'll live up to the hype, but we haven't had a good track record of good books in the class, especially ones considered classics. So far we've read Cuckoo's Nest, Fahrenheight 451, Sylvia Plath, and worst of all,Romeo and Juliet. So far, Animal Farm is the only classic we've read that I actually like. I've been begging for us to read "Lord of the Flies", but nothing so far.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

My wife reads a lot of those gimmicky crime novels written by people like James Patterson, Janet Evanovich and the like.  I managed to crawl my way through one of the Paterson ones, but could not make it past one chapter of Evanovich.  One thing I found striking, and a bit annoying was the blatant product placements.  I also wondered about why these were so popular among women, and noticed that all character introductions were accompanied with very detailed descriptions of what they were wearing.

 

Though I hear that Northern European writers are making some progress with crime genre. Haven't tried any though.

I read a few by Lars Kepler last year. Pretty spooky shit...if you're into people getting chopped up and murdered n stuff.  :-D

[Insult to Rocks]

OK, you don't like him,lol.

But there is no such thing as 'living up to hype', that was what I tried to say. Ignore all the hype if you want to enjoy anything.  

May I ask how old are you, if it is OK?

It's on my profile, as well as a sort of recurring joke around here. I'm am currently 16 years old, or in APA speak, one of those damned yougins with their rock/rap/electronica music.

[Insult to Rocks]

OK, you don't like him,lol.

But there is no such thing as 'living up to hype', that was what I tried to say. Ignore all the hype if you want to enjoy anything.  

May I ask how old are you, if it is OK?

It's on my profile, as well as a sort of recurring joke around here. I'm am currently 16 years old, or in APA speak, one of those damned yougins with their rock/rap/electronica music.

Aw nice to meet you, Rocks. I am 37.

I saw your posts about Donnie Darko and Life of Brian and thought that he must be young and naturally gets disappointed by the outdated work and thought about what could I offer you to watch or read. I have no idea honestly. But Lord of the Flies is a good choice. Also give it shot to Of Mice And Men (Steinbeck).

You are at a perfect age to read classics. ;) I envy you. At that age books are eaten, not read. I wish, I was sixteen and reading all that over again.

Thank you, and nice to meet you as well. Honestly, I've kinda gotten spoiled in terms of books. I haven't really read a good fictional book in a long time, and video games have replaced them as my main form of entertainment. Trying to explain to people that video games are art, and that they have advanced considerably from Pac-Man takes up much of my art-related discussion time.

[GrinningYMIR]

Trying to explain to people that video games are art, and that they have advanced considerably from Pac-Man takes up much of my art-related discussion time.[/quote

No one gets that, so many people still view them as abnormal or a lesser form of entertainment

just look at 9.03m or some of the larger RPGs, the ones that have compelling stories and actual likeable characters. They are an art form

also I liked Lord of the Flies a lot, I'm surprised they haven't had you read it yet, that was a mainline for me in 10th grade

[Insult to Rocks]

Thank you, and nice to meet you as well. Honestly, I've kinda gotten spoiled in terms of books. I haven't really read a good fictional book in a long time, and video games have replaced them as my main form of entertainment. Trying to explain to people that video games are art, and that they have advanced considerably from Pac-Man takes up much of my art-related discussion time.

Of course video games are art. Movies are art.

However, they are also somebody else's imagination to enjoy. Hence, they art. There is nothing more powerful than your own imagination and never will be, so books are the most independent form of imagination in that sense.

But other than that games are more 'fun' in a very different way, there is action and you can enjoy it with other humans simultaneously. So I think there is no comparison. Would be like fruits and vegetables, I guess,lol.

I tend to connect with video games more as well, and they have had a long history in being more progressive than the other forms of art at the time. A good example would be the franchise YMIR and I both enjoy, that being "Mass Effect". It has had a long history of adressing complex problems, which is a (figurative) godsend at a time where the rest of the world is still struggling with dystopian stories.
To try and connect it back to the thread, YMIR and I have both discussed the Mass Effect books before, and how awful they were, as are all video game adaptions. It really should not be that hard to do, yet it seems as if game adaptions will forever be associated with the likes of Uwe Boll. :x

[biggredone]

Blood Meridian (or the evening redness in the west). I just started on Mr Mccarthy last year.That one is my favorite so far.I have to say the worst(most talked about)books I ever read were Catcher in the rye and The great Gatsby.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Of Mice and Men is a great book, short, to the point. The only problem I have with Steinbeck is he tended to end his books abruptly so I want a sequel that never happened.