Good, I don't read books for either.Uzique wrote:
nobel prizes aren't awarded for style and literary brilliance.
Dunno, did you learn anything useful?probably because ive been reading lots of non-fiction, poetry, and literature with strong stylistic elements... waste of time, right?
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-10-12 05:58:13)
and LMAO i just saw what you edited in about the book-cover... what the fuck? where did i say anything about the cover? what edition are you even talking about? hahahaha that made me laugh out loud; how incredibly neurotic and puerile you can be, dilbert. fyi the 2 editions of the book that i have read never had a photo on the cover. nor would i even deign to mention such an irrelevant thing. hahahaha wow.Uzique wrote:
yeah, that's right. all that learning and ive acquired the skill to compact every single opinion, view and taste i have into one simple-sentence utterance. that's exactly it. it's a critical skill that one acquires after many years of intense introspection and philosophical wrangling. but, i have emerged with that extremely rare talent of being able to encompass my entire world view, education and skillset into single, opinionated statements on completely irrelevant nothings.
dilbert, how adroit of you!
[i say i don't rate golding as an author because there is no consistency of quality in his oeuvre. im not saying he's a bad writer, just that in a literary sense there is nothing 'outstanding' about his work that would put it on an especially high pedestal above the other authors of the period; golding condensed many thematic concerns and created a few good cautionary tales about humanity and the human condition at a time best summarized as 'the age of anxiety'. but, for all extensive purposes, it was a rather shallow series of allegories. the characterization was extremely poor, which is not something you expect in a novel of the period-- the characters in lord of the flies were functional archetypes of given personalities, not fully evolved personalities with any sense of real humanism. that is a severe weakness, for example-- one of many. i really don't know why you're trying to suggest i have "learned nothing" after years of study just because i don't personally think william golding is up there with the best prose writers of the 20th century. the book is important for a reason, but that reason isn't especially its literary/artistic merit. as i said on the nobel prize, it's obviously political and so of course it "sucks" for gauging literary merit-- which was what i was trying to do. a more fitting prize would be the pulitzer, or even the hideously-populist man booker prize. the nobel prize for literature acknowledges books with a wider political/social/cultural agency... not books that are outstanding pieces of art in themselves. that's all im saying, and all i have said.]
Marlo Stanfield wrote:
Just ordered this book.
http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images … 811588.JPGThe Earth's leaders have drawn a line in the interstellar sand—despite the fact that the fierce alien enemy they would oppose is inscrutable, unconquerable, and very far away. A reluctant conscript drafted into an elite Military unit, Private William Mandella has been propelled through space and time to fight in the distant thousand-year conflict; to perform his duties and do whatever it takes to survive the ordeal and return home. But "home" may be even more terrifying than battle, because, thanks to the time dilation caused by space travel, Mandella is aging months while the Earth he left behind is aging centuries...
I'm in favour of intellectualism. Pretension and snobbery without substance - not so much.Uzique wrote:
sounds utterly rubbish
all good literature does have concepts, developments and comments on the human condition- that's why it becomes canonized and stays powerful, relevant and influential... come on, dilbert, you cannot be that ignorant. the book macbeth linked is an example of literature-as-commodity; wanky pulp.
Dilbert_X wrote:
I was referring to this.Marlo Stanfield wrote:
Just ordered this book.
http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images … 811588.JPGThe Earth's leaders have drawn a line in the interstellar sand—despite the fact that the fierce alien enemy they would oppose is inscrutable, unconquerable, and very far away. A reluctant conscript drafted into an elite Military unit, Private William Mandella has been propelled through space and time to fight in the distant thousand-year conflict; to perform his duties and do whatever it takes to survive the ordeal and return home. But "home" may be even more terrifying than battle, because, thanks to the time dilation caused by space travel, Mandella is aging months while the Earth he left behind is aging centuries...I'm in favour of intellectualism. Pretension and snobbery without substance - not so much.Uzique wrote:
sounds utterly rubbish
all good literature does have concepts, developments and comments on the human condition- that's why it becomes canonized and stays powerful, relevant and influential... come on, dilbert, you cannot be that ignorant. the book macbeth linked is an example of literature-as-commodity; wanky pulp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_HaldemanHaldeman's most famous novel is The Forever War (1975), inspired by his Vietnam experiences, which won both the Hugo and Nebula Awards. He later turned it into a series. In October 2008 it was announced that Ridley Scott will direct a feature film based on The Forever War for Fox.[4]
He currently resides in Gainesville, Florida and Cambridge, Massachusetts and teaches writing at MIT.
He is a lifetime member of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America (SFWA), and past-president.
Last edited by Macbeth (2010-10-12 15:58:53)
You judged a book to be 'utter rubbish' based on a pic and a few lines from Barnes Noble.Uzique wrote:
where in the fuck have i mentioned once what the cover art has to do with the quality of prose?
you're talking out of your ass - as per usual on the subject of the arts
Neither either but either?Dilbert_X wrote:
In neither example would knowing of the author have any relevance to the quality of the book.
Last edited by Pochsy (2010-10-20 06:52:05)
So buy leather bound books.Pochsy wrote:
After reading Dilbert and Uzique's exchange, I'm actually curious as to what everybody thinks about the relation between visual art and literature. I actually would prefer to see fewer books with cover art, only because I find the cover-artist usually interprets only one major theme. I am also rarely impressed with the cover art one the book is read. Sure a picture summarizes a thousand words, but the book is more complex than one or two thousand-word themes.
I also find the cover art influences my interpretation of the novel before I've even begun. C'est ne pas bon. Here we can lay down some literary theory, particularly the theory surrounding graphic novels, but I'm way to lazy to type it out.
Come at me, Dilbert.
Cover Art should be like the cover art of Silence of the Wire, in my opinion (not a good book by any literary standards, but a good technical read, just using it as an example here).Pochsy wrote:
After reading Dilbert and Uzique's exchange, I'm actually curious as to what everybody thinks about the relation between visual art and literature. I actually would prefer to see fewer books with cover art, only because I find the cover-artist usually interprets only one major theme. I am also rarely impressed with the cover art one the book is read. Sure a picture summarizes a thousand words, but the book is more complex than one or two thousand-word themes.
I also find the cover art influences my interpretation of the novel before I've even begun. C'est ne pas bon. Here we can lay down some literary theory, particularly the theory surrounding graphic novels, but I'm way to lazy to type it out.
Come at me, Dilbert.
