BF2S Forums BF3s Book Club

i'd stick to fondling kids rather than trying to read long works of art. you'd be at UPenn if you were made for intellectual activity.

oh and it's a lot of words cause there was a three-way circlejerk forming claiming that i made some baseless comments. as if i was just flaming for the sake of it. my comments on "why are you reading wilde in the first place?" are pretty well justified, i think.

Last edited by aynrandroolz (2012-09-16 10:21:16)

aynrandroolz wrote:

But mostly, I just don't know what brings an airline pilot and a military dude to want to read aestheticism at all. Would you go along to a Pre-Raphaelite exhibition and spend a day looking at plaintive waterpainted women floating around in ponds, as well? I just feel like you've taken a wrong turn somewhere in your 'cultural education', for lack of a better set of directions. You are reading a small corner of literature that is well-known and esteemed amongst the educated as being ornate and flowery, descriptively beautiful and richly excessive... and then come away grumbling that it's flowery and richly excessive. It makes you look silly - quite literally misguided, having taken a wrong turn somewhere in your local bookstore. I know you may not like the sound of that, but really it's the literature equivalent of taking a mechanical engineering course and then dropping out, complaining there's too much math. You said in your critique you wanted him to describe how things were at that time, in a simpler way than the 3-way conversations he had. Why don't you pick up some classical naturalist fiction, then? The ultimate in realist portrayal. Try some Zola or some Flaubert. Try some Strindberg or Ibsen.

It's one of the free books for the Kindle.

Jay wrote:

aynrandroolz wrote:

But mostly, I just don't know what brings an airline pilot and a military dude to want to read aestheticism at all. Would you go along to a Pre-Raphaelite exhibition and spend a day looking at plaintive waterpainted women floating around in ponds, as well? I just feel like you've taken a wrong turn somewhere in your 'cultural education', for lack of a better set of directions. You are reading a small corner of literature that is well-known and esteemed amongst the educated as being ornate and flowery, descriptively beautiful and richly excessive... and then come away grumbling that it's flowery and richly excessive. It makes you look silly - quite literally misguided, having taken a wrong turn somewhere in your local bookstore. I know you may not like the sound of that, but really it's the literature equivalent of taking a mechanical engineering course and then dropping out, complaining there's too much math. You said in your critique you wanted him to describe how things were at that time, in a simpler way than the 3-way conversations he had. Why don't you pick up some classical naturalist fiction, then? The ultimate in realist portrayal. Try some Zola or some Flaubert. Try some Strindberg or Ibsen.

It's one of the free books for the Kindle.

Many classics do just assume this mainstream pop-cultural appeal and become completely decontextualised from their original artistic point and principle. That's why wilde fans (which I hasten to add, again, I am not one of) would get snarky if you criticised him for being too verbose. It's like... what were you expecting? You're reading Wilde. The fault honestly lies with the reader, not the artist. He doesn't 'owe' you simple explanations, or a simple portrait of the period he was writing in. He set out to do something and did it supremely well. You can take it or leave it.

[ ] an uneducated person's attitude and reaction
[ ] a good work of art

separate boxes.

i think good art should be difficult, and challenging, and demanding of concentration and serious thought.

though i don't think wilde is that, really. he is not a difficult writer. i think maybe that frustration is just because most readers never develop past a simple high-school vocabulary, or the sort of mass-market dan brown simple sentence syntax.

Last edited by aynrandroolz (2012-09-16 12:09:21)

Too bad "military dudes" can't read. I was really hoping for the "graphic novel" version instead...just couldn't find it when I got distracted by the crayons.

It wasn't too challenging for me. I completely understand the "point" of aestheticism. The fact that all that flowery discussion--which was interesting to read--occurred primarily between only two (or perhaps three) characters, rather than between several different characters and/or via narrative, is what I didn't care for. That's what I meant by saying he was trying too hard. He forced the issue, rather than letting it develop, and that made it cumbersome and unenjoyable for a large part of the book. He wasn't "too verbose"--I was fully expecting that. He was stuffing ten pounds of shit into a five pound bag and it didn't turn out well, in my opinion.

So your entire diatribe is a wasted round full of inaccurate and uninformed stereotypes...as normal.

Did I say it needed to be 2x longer? Pretty sure I didn't.

Did I say I wanted "sprawling realistic fiction that unfolds slowly"? Pretty sure I didn't say that, either.

I wanted to read it because it's considered a classic and I had never read it. I've read plenty of Wilde's contemporaries, and I thoroughly enjoy books that are challenging to read. I just didn't care for his particular mechanism of shoving everything into conversations between a couple of characters. That's all. The style of writing was fine. The use of language was enjoyable. I just didn't like the mechanism he chose.

My taste in reading is like my taste in music: very eclectic. I don't get pigeon-holed into a single genre or style--I like to explore as much as possible and make my own calls on whether I like it or not and why.

Herodotus'  Histories

Historical fiction or History?

That would apply to any period in which there is insufficient source material to derive conclusions from, in more recent periods that problem doesn't really persist. Though it's not like historians just compile facts of eras long gone and fit them into a book with some overly boring 'objective' narrative (well, most don't) - they like to debate about the reasons as to how or why change came about and what motivated people to do certain things. It's hard to be objective in this. von Ranke ('bloss zeigen, wie es eigentlich gewesen') is long gone. His methodology, while still influential, is not one that necessarily guides the historians of today.

On the topic of Herodotus and whether his accounts should be considered history or historical fiction..... the jury is still out on that one.

Last edited by Shocking (2012-09-17 11:45:33)

"To some degree", I said, not "all history is historical fiction". Are you fucking stupid? You consistently come across like you are.

http://www.blackwellreference.com/publi … 959_ss1-58

Writing history is an act of narrative. It involves organisation and the imposition of some teleology. This strays into fiction. I'm not saying history is embellished (though some is, clearly, to a social/political agenda), but what I am saying is that the process of historical writing and the historiographical process of studying historical writing is full of too-neat summaries, arcs and inferred connections that probably didn't exist in the chaos and contingency of the history's actual unravelling, and so on and so forth. Historians love to 'connect the dots', but just because they make it so in a narrative act of writing, it doesn't necessarily make it an ontic truth. History explains things a posteriori, whereas the very notion of objectivity and 'truth' is an a priori category assumption.

Also the main part of your post I vehemently disagreed with was the "in modern periods this problem does not exist". KERLOL. What the fuck?!? What sort of school do you go to? That is a dumb fucking comment. Modern periods are especially crippled by postmodern relativism, skepticism, and all sorts of modern philosophical and historical thinking that questions the validity of sources and erases the ontology of truth. In modern periods and in modern historical academic research this problem is more prelevant than at any other time in history. Modern thinking is the very stuff that informs this way at looking at history (especially in re-viewing ancient history). You talk out of your ass. Aren't you the kid hoping to do War Studies at the Uni of London? Best of luck with that piss-poor understanding of the basic principles that inform modern research.

To your below post: again, for the third time, Mr. senior reader in history, I have never said that "all history" is "historical fiction". Are you incapable of reading a simple thing? Ah yes... a lecture long ago... 'twas a pink Spring morn'... you are talking such shit. All I am saying is that history is interpretation, not solid and objective reconstruction, and the act of interpretation involves some construction of truth/meaning on the behalf of the subject. Can you grasp that, petal?

Last edited by aynrandroolz (2012-09-17 15:58:53)

Do I have to write "I know you did" again? Want me to word it differently? The view you're forwarding basically states that "the true history" always eludes us and that 'once it has been lived it's literally gone forever'. The relativist view on the historical narrative.

I do not like it. In fact I hate it. Understandable I guess because I don't think there's anyone involved in writing or researching history that subscribes to the view that what you present is essentially valueless and that it's more dependent on faith than fact (in the extreme).

To your PM; thanks for your concern but as it stands I would have no problem getting in. Also, last I checked what I'm doing does not concern itself with a philosophical view on the purpose or use of historiography.

It may disappoint you but such discussions serve only as introductions to the discipline for new history students. Beyond that you can choose courses which go in depth on the philosophical discourse surrounding historiography at your own volition.

Last edited by Shocking (2012-09-17 16:37:46)

There has certainly been plenty of great historical fiction novels throughout time and I don't hate the genre as much as I hate where it is now. My problem with historical fiction like the ones FEOS posted is how much it screws up with people's perception of history. 

It annoys me when you have historical fiction, both movies and books, that are full of anachronisms like modern atheist in 1th century Rome and discussions involving 21th century ideas of equality in 12th century Baghdad. It also annoys me when it totally distorts historical events and pushes fringe ideas like a black Cleopatra. Now you can say that my complaint that historical fiction is screwing with people's perception of history is just me whining about stupid people who are going to find a way to be stupid no matter what but these things actually matter. A lot of people seriously think Cleopatra was black because of movies and books that have pushed that idea. This may seem like nothing to get worked up about but there is a genuine movement out there to rewrite the history of Egypt as a black accomplishment when it wasn't. She was from a Greek family. We have sculptures made in her lifetime that shows her with white features. A lot of people have this idea thanks to the 300 that the Persians were monsters that wanted to destroy the advanced beautiful Greek civilization. But the truth is that the Greeks were hillbillies compared to the Persians. This idea of 'monster Persians' leads people to think and spot all sort of racist bullshit. People have it drilled in their head this idea of a 'Grand Rome'. Rome was a great Empire but compared to the empires in China and Persia at the time it doesn't compare well. Thanks to books and movies that push this grand rome idea we have idiots that post things like


Again you are probably thinking I am getting upset over something petty like people thinking things aren't true but this stuff matters. There is plenty of historical fiction books that push the 'Superman founding father' trope. Idiots then drag this into politics and our political system gets borked by people who thinks the the constitution holds all the answers for life.



As for the actual quality of historical fiction as entertainment- the vast majority isn't that great. Rather than building a unique story or something   a lot of it takes historical events, adds a love story or something, and pushes it onto people with Rome or Mongol fetishes. It doesn't take a lot of work and creativity to insert a love story into a world where most of everything you need to move the story along has already been written.

A man and woman met and fall in love in 12 century Baghdad? Need an antagonist? Bam Mongol invasion. Need to fill some pages with some scarey stuff to draw the audience in and care about the characters? Bam written accounts of the rape of Baghdad. Need a resolution to the story? Bam Mamluk counter offense. You can pump these out easily and make a ton of money.

The series FEOS posted is pretty much this. I'm not impressed that the guy posted a small chapter on what actually happened and how his story deviated from. You can get the same thing from a wikipedia entry. Considering he is running a series on Rome and the Mongols I would not be surprised if he uses wikipedia since you can't become an expert in both of those histories since they are so massively a part. You won't be able to build histrionically accurate characters from wikipedia. To understand the Mongols and the various people you are going to be making characters of you are going to have to understand the Chinese world at the time. The Islamic world. The Russian world. You would have to do the same for Rome. There is zero crossover between them.

FYI "histrionic" doesn't mean anything to do with "historical".

I probably made a typo and didn't pay attention to I which I picked as a correct one.

And I'm not much sure about your statements that you cannot be an expert in more than one historical period. Quite a lot of academics do have a broad range of topics and interests beyond one small era or country.

You can have a PHD in multiple fields but the fields have to be in at least the same ballpark when it comes to history. Mongol and Roman history are not even the same sport. It just too big and there is too much.

Roman is history is what? 400BC to 400AD Mediterranean. Mongol history is 1100AD to 1500AD Asian. Not even close to each other.