" if you want a plodding novel that will hold your hand all the way through, you've got 300 year's worth of them to get through."Uzique wrote:
when reading a book of the modernist period, here are several majorly stupid fucking assumptions:
a) that there will be a plot
b) that there will be any real characterisation
c) that the style and tone will be easy to understand
books of the modern period are pretty much taking up an axe to grind against the 'novel' tradition as it sat in the realist 1800's mode
once you learn to be a better reader you learn that things like telos and teleology, and external character descriptions are utterly boring and pointless. i like a novel that revels in the abstract and denies easy understanding and orientation. if you want a plodding novel that will hold your hand all the way through, you've got 300 year's worth of them to get through. i recommend 'joseph andrews' and 'clarissa'.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-04-01 15:51:45)
To me, reading a book like that sounds as pleasurable or enlightening as beating my head on a rock.Uzique wrote:
when reading a book of the modernist period, here are several majorly stupid fucking assumptions:
a) that there will be a plot
b) that there will be any real characterisation
c) that the style and tone will be easy to understand
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-04-02 04:57:35)
I liked the colours, and the glossy pages were bloody brilliant - crayon just wiped straight off.presidentsheep wrote:
I found Mr Muddle too challenging a read, the post modernist style of writing that hargreaves used (possibly a witty little allusion to the title) went completely over my head. I did however enjoy his earlier work. Mr Happy in particular appealed to my underdeveloped reading skills whilst still containing an obvious undertone hinting at the depressions involved in modern life and mental illness that, whilst not overtly discussed in the text, can be easily picked up on by even the most casual of readers.
I didn't say you were denying him his opinion. You certainly allow it...you just bash him personally if his opinion of the work doesn't align with yours. And everyone else who shares an opinion of his type. And there's no difference between "passing a subjective opinion of one's own and making a judgement on the entire book as a standalone piece of art." That's exactly what one does when one criticizes a work, whether for profit or not.Uzique wrote:
where am i denying him his opinion? i'm saying the book isn't 'shitty', he just doesn't enjoy it. there's a big difference between passing a subjective opinion of one's own and making a judgement on the entire book as a standalone piece of art. so you're reading the great gatsby expecting a traditional realist novel. well, no shit is it going to seem disappointing. the fault lies in the reader, not the book. is it snobby to tell someone that's reading a tv programme guide that they're not going to find much great drama? get real and take your over sensitivity down a notch.
dilbert why is a modernist text akin to "banging your head against a wall"? that's a strange view. and since when are modernist texts 'hip'? lol ffs
i would hope every "lit'rahtoor" student (why do we all have redneck speech difficulties? very strange...) would at least be able to appreciate the book's place in the canon on its (relative) objective merits. subjectivity and personal experience of the book is one thing, acknowledging artistic merit and achievement regardless of your own personal view is another. whether or not you find the mona lisa beautiful or meaningful, one must concede the skill of da vinci and his accomplishment. whether or not you were thrilled by the great gatsby, one can appreciate the positives of fitzgerald's prose style and the intent of his novel. that's what im arguing for. don't outright dismiss a book because it doesn't appeal to you; it's an absolute judgement more than a merely subjective view.FEOS wrote:
Do you really think that every lit'rahtoor student/PhD who ever read Gatsby liked it? I'm sure there are some who panned it. Again: all subjective, based on the reader's tastes and views of the genre. The fault doesn't lie with the reader or the book. There is no "fault" in a subjective analysis. It just is. In fact, there can't be "fault"...because it is purely subjective.Uzique wrote:
where am i denying him his opinion? i'm saying the book isn't 'shitty', he just doesn't enjoy it. there's a big difference between passing a subjective opinion of one's own and making a judgement on the entire book as a standalone piece of art. so you're reading the great gatsby expecting a traditional realist novel. well, no shit is it going to seem disappointing. the fault lies in the reader, not the book. is it snobby to tell someone that's reading a tv programme guide that they're not going to find much great drama? get real and take your over sensitivity down a notch.
dilbert why is a modernist text akin to "banging your head against a wall"? that's a strange view. and since when are modernist texts 'hip'? lol ffs
Again...time and time again...perhaps have a little more tolerance for those with differing views of books?Uzique wrote:
again... time and time again... you're the ones posting in a book club. half of literature (i.e. literary fiction, as opposed to genre-fiction) revels in the artistry of the written word. perhaps have a little more tolerance for 'difficult' books, instead of being dismissive? this is, again, a book club. literature consists of more than textbooks, instruction manuals and children's tales.
Yes, this is, again, a book club. Where you share opinions about books. Sharing opinions means that you are allowed to have differing opinions--not get beat about the head and neck by one member of the book club for having opinions that differ from that one member of the book club. Three guess who that one member is...literature consists of more than textbooks, instruction manuals and children's tales.
As someone who's so enraptured by the written word, I'm fairly sure you know what I'm doing with the intentional mis-spelling of "literature" there. Don't be so obtuse.Uzique wrote:
i would hope every "lit'rahtoor" student (why do we all have redneck speech difficulties? very strange...) would at least be able to appreciate the book's place in the canon on its (relative) objective merits. subjectivity and personal experience of the book is one thing, acknowledging artistic merit and achievement regardless of your own personal view is another. whether or not you find the mona lisa beautiful or meaningful, one must concede the skill of da vinci and his accomplishment. whether or not you were thrilled by the great gatsby, one can appreciate the positives of fitzgerald's prose style and the intent of his novel. that's what im arguing for. don't outright dismiss a book because it doesn't appeal to you; it's an absolute judgement more than a merely subjective view.FEOS wrote:
Do you really think that every lit'rahtoor student/PhD who ever read Gatsby liked it? I'm sure there are some who panned it. Again: all subjective, based on the reader's tastes and views of the genre. The fault doesn't lie with the reader or the book. There is no "fault" in a subjective analysis. It just is. In fact, there can't be "fault"...because it is purely subjective.Uzique wrote:
where am i denying him his opinion? i'm saying the book isn't 'shitty', he just doesn't enjoy it. there's a big difference between passing a subjective opinion of one's own and making a judgement on the entire book as a standalone piece of art. so you're reading the great gatsby expecting a traditional realist novel. well, no shit is it going to seem disappointing. the fault lies in the reader, not the book. is it snobby to tell someone that's reading a tv programme guide that they're not going to find much great drama? get real and take your over sensitivity down a notch.
dilbert why is a modernist text akin to "banging your head against a wall"? that's a strange view. and since when are modernist texts 'hip'? lol ffs
Last edited by Uzique (2011-04-02 07:20:30)
Last edited by Jay (2011-04-02 08:59:16)
I think it's pointless too. But if you think back to your college days, you had math professors that were the same way. They got off on solving intricate mathematical problems that really served no purpose. They simply did it for the challenge and because it gave them some form of status among their group. Is it stupid? Absolutely. But I don't see it as being all that different from other ways that people try to make themselves special. It's just part of human nature to want to separate oneself. If it wasn't, country clubs and the like wouldn't exist.FEOS wrote:
I think if you read my post re: analysis bs assessment, you'd see I don't disagree with any of that. But that's not the crux of our dispute.
this is really apparent to anyone outside of the states, isn't it? for a smart guy... calling me "obtuse".FEOS wrote:
Lit-rah-toor. It has nothing to do with rednecks and everything to do with down-the-nose academic approaches to the topic at hand. The redneck version would be "litterchur". Totally different.
