BF3s Book Club

2011-04-02 09:41:22

#901

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6729

FEOS wrote:
Of course not all writing is to tell a story (non-fiction, for example). But the author's function is to relay concepts to the reader in a way that is accessible to the reader. Otherwise, what is the point? I fully understand and appreciate pushing the boundaries of linguistics, but to be purposefully difficult just because you can, rather than to use it as a mechanism to relay the desired point, is...well, pointless.

you're completely ignoring the concept of an 'audience'. who is the 'reader'? everyone? the everyman? the layman? the educated elite? what is 'education' in terms of reading literature-as-art? what constitutes an 'elite'? some books, yes, unashamedly aim themselves at a literary cabal of well-read and well-versed readers... is this problematic? i don't think so. you have this idea that art should communicate a concept or message to everyone, universally. art has never, ever worked like that. do you really think the abstract expressionists painted on canvas for the average blue-collar worker to 'understand'? do you think the french nouvelle vague film-makers intended for every non-cinemaphile to understand their complex interweaving of allusions and filmic references? similarly, do you think t.s. eliot penned 'the waste land' to be published in the national tabloid and read and effortlessly digested by all? no... i think you are very, very wrong. a book that doesn't clearly explain itself to every reader is not 'stupid', nor is it a failure (by any means) as a work of art. art is exclusive just like any other human endeavour. art has a hierarchy like any human structure. art has an intended and inclusive target audience like any other human (cultural) product.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-04-02 10:28:34

#902

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5616|London, England

Uzique wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Of course not all writing is to tell a story (non-fiction, for example). But the author's function is to relay concepts to the reader in a way that is accessible to the reader. Otherwise, what is the point? I fully understand and appreciate pushing the boundaries of linguistics, but to be purposefully difficult just because you can, rather than to use it as a mechanism to relay the desired point, is...well, pointless.
you're completely ignoring the concept of an 'audience'. who is the 'reader'? everyone? the everyman? the layman? the educated elite? what is 'education' in terms of reading literature-as-art? what constitutes an 'elite'? some books, yes, unashamedly aim themselves at a literary cabal of well-read and well-versed readers... is this problematic? i don't think so. you have this idea that art should communicate a concept or message to everyone, universally. art has never, ever worked like that. do you really think the abstract expressionists painted on canvas for the average blue-collar worker to 'understand'? do you think the french nouvelle vague film-makers intended for every non-cinemaphile to understand their complex interweaving of allusions and filmic references? similarly, do you think t.s. eliot penned 'the waste land' to be published in the national tabloid and read and effortlessly digested by all? no... i think you are very, very wrong. a book that doesn't clearly explain itself to every reader is not 'stupid', nor is it a failure (by any means) as a work of art. art is exclusive just like any other human endeavour. art has a hierarchy like any human structure. art has an intended and inclusive target audience like any other human (cultural) product.

See? You didn't have to be a dick about it.

If he doesn't understand why a book like Gatsby is a classic or so widely revered, it's just because he's not the intended audience. It's a matter of intent. Your declarations of intellectual elitism is why people shit on you every chance they get here. Then you go 'why me?'.

Stuff like that may fly over in Merry Olde England but the very mention of the word 'elite' is a fantastic way to get the hackles to rise on nearly every American. But you undoubtedly know this already so I dub thee troll.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-04-02 10:42:23

#903

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6729

americans like to conveniently ignore the concept of elitism in their everyday life... if your attitudinal claims have any truth, galt. because america is just as much about cultural and social elitism/snobbery as 'merry olde england'. you inherited our penchant for hierarchy. the american artistic and intellectual tradition has just as much snobbery as anywhere else... perhaps you just scorn it more. over here it's celebrated (in most educated middle-class circles). seems that you spite the natural development of hierarchy over there.

again, conjecturing based on your representations of american 'cultural' life.

and why should i be shat on for intellectual elitism about books (not elitism in general, needless to point out) in a book club thread? literary fiction reigns supreme over genre fiction which reigns supreme over airport shiterature. why am i shat on for pointing that out? you all acknowledge it, in your own individual ways... begrudgingly. this idea of 'democratic' art and some sort of equal access to art is absurd. even art in the ancient classic democracies was structured on privilege and education.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-04-02 10:46:00

#904

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5616|London, England

Because your idea of what a book club is differs wildly from what we would call a book club over on this side of the pond. Here, it's just a simple excuse to have a social club and discussion of any book is secondary. It's equivalent to Super Bowl parties where the football game is less important than the cheese dip, beer and conversation.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-04-02 10:47:22

#905

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6729

perhaps that's it. well in that case feel free to continue having another riveting 'rate the last movie you have seen' thread...

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-04-02 10:48:49

#906

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5616|London, England

Also, you delight in being the pimple on the ass here. This thread was meant to simply be a depository for book reviews and you've turned it into a thread about Uzique. Get the fuck over yourself already.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-04-02 10:55:58

#907

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6729

where have i involved myself in a defense of the great gatsby, exactly? i said i've only read it once (surely a prerequisite for a post on the matter) and said i was pretty lukewarm too... impressed by the prose and recognising why it's a 'classic'. i'm hardly staging some arcane, super-academic analysis of the book and celebrating it that way. you delight in continuously bringing in details of the poster's biography in your own 'arguments'. if you knew nothing about me, my defense of literature and f. scott fitzgerald would still stand, just fine. it has nothing to do with me at all. i could be a physics grad and still stage the same reasoned defense of high-art and 'classics'. you just like to lazily connect my personal life to my posts on art because it then gives you the easy argument of "oh you're an arts student so you're clearly a self-absorbed snob". no. i'm talking about l'art pour l'art. a little less of the saint-beuve, please.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-04-02 10:56:17

#908

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5844

Since someone mentioned David Foster Wallace earlier-- the last thing he was writing before committing suicide is being published now. Despite being 500 pages long the novel is still unfinished.
Time has an interesting article on it.
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0 … 41,00.html

To be honest I heard of Wallace only after he died and never actually read anything of his. I want to read infinite jest but finding the time could be difficult since the book is a thousand pages long. I might take a shot at it this fall.

2011-04-02 10:59:14

#909

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6729

was probably me on about DFW. the greatest writer of 'our' generation, imo (that being the postmodern).

probably the best writer since joyce. way up there. i imagine his ironic, self-deprecating pessimism to be right up your street, macbeth.

infinite jest is ulysses, circa 2000. do recommend.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-04-02 14:16:50

#910

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6669|'Murka

Uzique wrote:
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.
this is really apparent to anyone outside of the states, isn't it? for a smart guy... calling me "obtuse".

It's not like it's an American colloquialism, Uzique. It was clearly a play on nasally English academic elitism a la John Houseman. Merely using the woefully inadequate tools available via the forums to spell it phonetically. And yes, you were being purposefully obtuse. I'm sure you knew exactly what I was referring to with that. You just didn't care for it.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-04-02 14:29:26

#911

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6729

i really didn't. ever thought that 'posh' pronunciation over here is different to the stereotypes of america? i grew up in what i'd consider a pretty posh english background and have never, ever once heard 'literature' pronounced as 'litrahtoor', as if they had a speech impediment. it's not elitist or posh to skip syllables.

Last edited by Uzique (2011-04-02 14:29:34)

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-04-02 14:30:25

#912

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6669|'Murka

Uzique wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Of course not all writing is to tell a story (non-fiction, for example). But the author's function is to relay concepts to the reader in a way that is accessible to the reader. Otherwise, what is the point? I fully understand and appreciate pushing the boundaries of linguistics, but to be purposefully difficult just because you can, rather than to use it as a mechanism to relay the desired point, is...well, pointless.
you're completely ignoring the concept of an 'audience'. who is the 'reader'? everyone? the everyman? the layman? the educated elite? what is 'education' in terms of reading literature-as-art? what constitutes an 'elite'? some books, yes, unashamedly aim themselves at a literary cabal of well-read and well-versed readers... is this problematic? i don't think so. you have this idea that art should communicate a concept or message to everyone, universally. art has never, ever worked like that. do you really think the abstract expressionists painted on canvas for the average blue-collar worker to 'understand'? do you think the french nouvelle vague film-makers intended for every non-cinemaphile to understand their complex interweaving of allusions and filmic references? similarly, do you think t.s. eliot penned 'the waste land' to be published in the national tabloid and read and effortlessly digested by all? no... i think you are very, very wrong. a book that doesn't clearly explain itself to every reader is not 'stupid', nor is it a failure (by any means) as a work of art. art is exclusive just like any other human endeavour. art has a hierarchy like any human structure. art has an intended and inclusive target audience like any other human (cultural) product.

Now you know my inner thoughts regarding art? Who the fuck do you think you are? You know nothing, child.

You make rash assumptions about my overall views of art because I disagree with you on one fucking book. Get some goddamned perspective, ffs.

No, I don't think the artist creates their art for a particular audience. I think they create their art to assuage their creative desires, and various people will react to it differently--based on their own predilections. Your failure to grasp the basic concept that art is an inherently individual thing (both for the artist and the observer), and the goodness or badness of it to an individual is neither good nor bad overall--it just is. The problem is that when someone has an opinion about art that varies from yours, you twist off on them, batter them with allusions that they are neanderthals (or similar), and generally make discussing books and the like a thoroughly unpleasant experience. Because you can't--for even one second--allow for the fact that there are no wrong opinions about art. It's perfectly OK to not like a classic. Just as it's perfectly OK to love pulp fiction. Or both. Or neither.

It doesn't fucking matter--it's still all just fucking candy.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-04-02 14:37:57

#913

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6729

you just said about 3 posts ago that a novelist and a book should convey a mesage. i'm quoting you verbatim. "child".

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-04-02 14:40:44

#914

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6669|'Murka

Uzique wrote:
you just said about 3 posts ago that a novelist and a book should convey a mesage. i'm quoting you verbatim. "child".

The two points do not counter each other.

But this is cute. Keep trying.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-04-02 14:53:16

#915

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6729

... erm, what? the two points do not counter each other?

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-04-02 21:25:11

#916

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6364|eXtreme to the maX

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.

'Difficult' books may simply not be very good. Its the Emperor's New Clothes syndrome, and you can't deny there's a lot of pseudish crap which is lauded in the art world.

Fuck Israel

2011-04-03 05:00:08

#917

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6729

i think there's a lot of pseudish crap, oh hells yes... like in any discipline. the stuff that rises to the top by a concensus, though, isn't crap. the academy doesn't partake in a great act of self-delusion, congratulating itself and creating a worldwide general agreement about a bad book so that it can feel important. what a silly view. if a book is still being discussed all over the world 100 years after its initial publication... chances are that's because it has something to say that's worth reading. not because professors like to partake in a giant act of self-deceiving intellectual fellatio.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-04-03 06:51:22

#918

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6364|eXtreme to the maX

Then we'll see how the Mr Men are viewed in 100 years time.

I bet they do better than Salman Rushdie.

Fuck Israel

2011-04-03 07:10:43

#919

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6669|'Murka

Uzique wrote:
... erm, what? the two points do not counter each other?

Of course they don't. An artist can still vent their artistic spleen while relaying a point. One would think they would be skilled enough to do so.

My question to you: what is the purpose of a book?

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-04-03 08:25:28

#920

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6729

to stand alone as an autonomous work of art. that is my only requirement. what that work of art says, means and is worth is up to a whole series of perspectives and critical engagements.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-04-03 12:22:41

#921

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6669|'Murka

Uzique wrote:
to stand alone as an autonomous work of art. that is my only requirement. what that work of art says, means and is worth is up to a whole series of perspectives and critical engagements.

Get deeper than that. It's not meant to just be looked at, like a painting. It's written to be read and understood. Why is that? To relay a meaning of some sort. If that meaning is not relayed because the author/artist was more focused on linguistic chicanery than on the purpose of writing, then they have failed at a very fundamental level, despite venting their artistic spleen. Writing is an art form hat has purpose as well as other, less tangible, qualities.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-04-03 12:38:05

#922

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6729

what the fuck? where did i say a book should just be stared at? no shit a book is composed of words, semantic and syntactic arrangements to communicate linguistically. wow, jesus, you're touching on some masterclass shit here. all i'm saying is that the book and its use of language is completely open-ended. if a book wants to communicate in riddles, puns and new forms of language-experimentalism, then it can... and it's still art. because it doesn't relay a 'story' to me in a straight-forward, easily digestable manner, doesn't mean it has 'failed' as a book. that's really stupid. a book and a piece of art stands autonomous: my ability as a reader and receiver does not determine whether it's 'good' or 'bad'. the failure is in ME, as a reader, rather than the book. the book DOES have a point and has a design, a purpose and an intention. because i can't understand it, because of comprehension or knowledge, is irrelevant. i cannot discredit that book because i personally lack the skills to fully understand it. what an egocentric and fickle view of the art world.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-04-03 12:41:27

#923

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6729

what do you make of non-figurative painting, by the way? painting that requires a similar amount of engagement with the ambiguity of metaphoricity and semiotic meaning. what do you make of this?

https://www.abstract-art.com/abstraction/l2_grnfthrs_fldr/g0000_gr_inf_images/g051_rothko_vbkoy-wr.jpg

it doesn't have an immediately graspable 'point' or 'message'. it isn't literal, nor figurative. has it failed as a work of art? does a book, then, fail as a work of art because its use of its own medium - the written word and semantic unit, as opposed to the visual canvas - is evasive and metaphoric? i don't think so. go back to reading mr. beck.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-04-03 12:51:02

#924

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6669|'Murka

You calling someone else egocentric...that is soooo fucking rich.

It is entirely possible that the artist failed. That they tried something and failed miserably. Is it then the "fault" of the reader that the text is incomprehensible, or that the point is utterly lost without the author explaining what they were trying to do? I think not.

You act as if every author hits it out of the park every single time. If that were the case, you would be even more hypocritical for your dismissal of Beck's work earlier--so you clearly do not believe that. Yet that's what came across in your writing...another example of the author not "getting it right."

And again we get back to the point that there is no "fault" for people not liking art when others do. It just is. It's not the "fault" of the artist, nor is it the "fault" of the reader/observer--because it is a subjective assessment as to whether they care for it. Objective analysis may help one understand better "why" one does or does not like a piece of work--but it does not change the subjective assessment.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-04-03 12:53:04

#925

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6669|'Murka

Uzique wrote:
what do you make of non-figurative painting, by the way? painting that requires a similar amount of engagement with the ambiguity of metaphoricity and semiotic meaning. what do you make of this?

http://www.abstract-art.com/abstraction … koy-wr.jpg

it doesn't have an immediately graspable 'point' or 'message'. it isn't literal, nor figurative. has it failed as a work of art? does a book, then, fail as a work of art because its use of its own medium - the written word and semantic unit, as opposed to the visual canvas - is evasive and metaphoric? i don't think so. go back to reading mr. beck.

Some I like, some I don't. It's dependent upon the individual work.

And you REALLY need to go back and read my original post on the Beck book. Really. You'll just keep making an ass of yourself, otherwise.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

BF2S Forums BF3s Book Club

FEOS wrote:

Uzique wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Uzique wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Uzique wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Board footer