BF2S Forums BF3s Book Club

well, let me just say that nationality of the author had nothing to do with why i didn't like the book about a psychopath and pedophile.

Last edited by Shahter (2014-03-01 23:45:27)

Currently reading the 9/11 commission report. For a book written by congress, it is surprisingly readable.

Read "How to Fight Presidents" by DOB last weekend. Surprising how many batshit crazy badasses have been in the Oval Office. Except Millard Fillmore.

offense ment

I am currently reading Brave New World. I love it. Much better than 1984. Much more subtle.

Have you read Brave New World revisited? I just finished both and Revisited just convinced me Huxley was wrong on many things. A lot of liberal bunk.

Stupid hipster doesn't like Orwell because he's not hip enough.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28971276

anybody read The Stand? (I'm sure there are many here who have...)

I'm recently into the whole apocalyptic thing and I figure that one is a must.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Stupid hipster doesn't like Orwell because he's not hip enough.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28971276

I read this last year. I got the impression that it was mainly a criticism against the position that English should be an unbending language spoken and written in a mathematically simplified form. If he didn't like Orwell, he probably wouldn't have read some of his books multiple times.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Stupid hipster doesn't like Orwell because he's not hip enough.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28971276

I read this last year. I got the impression that it was mainly a criticism against the position that English should be an unbending language spoken and written in a mathematically simplified form. If he didn't like Orwell, he probably wouldn't have read some of his books multiple times.

the point is that orwell's 'rules for english' are often cited, seldom actually read. they are made in the context of plain language writing, obviously to a certain political end (i.e. the widest comprehension, democratic transparency, clear and effective communication in a practical and commonsensical world). orwell was basically writing guidelines for essayists, non-fiction writers, and, most importantly, journalists - and on a wider level, to organisations like public institutions and corporations in their correspondence. his writing tips do not apply to fiction. fiction can choose to be obscure, oblique, esoteric, even nonsensical - and still be legitimate fiction (try telling lewis carroll, an oxford professor of mathematics and a man who knew his way around a logical paradox better than anyone else, that his nonsense writing is artless rubbish).

fiction is an art that sometimes aims at a surplus of meaning and effect. orwell was never writing to say that every novel in the future of the english language should conform to a bunch of simplistic writing rules (that would be the death of the novel form, and he as a novelist surely knew it). the fact about orwell-as-artist is that he wasn't first rank, not a great stylist nor a poet, and his novels were tools to imprint an otherwise wholly worldly and political message. nothing wrong with that, but there's room for much else in the novel's potential, too. orwell was a political correspondent who simply thought that writing allegorical novels would be a more instructive - not to mention emotionally affecting - way to make his points about totalitarianism (and yes, i have read every single novel he ever wrote, and think some of them are pretty damn good, even the lesser known and even lesser popular ones: burmese days, keep the aspidistra flying, coming up for air etc.)

will self is taking exception to the way that those rules have been misinterpreted and misapplied to all avenues of writing, doing untold damage (in his view). plain writing and matter-of-factness doesn't always make great art (obviously). of course it makes fine journalism and aids in the reporting of things as they really are. there's an obvious political expediency to this urge for a transparent style. but novels should attempt to experiment and push the boundaries of language - it's part what they are for (or at least some of them: the novel ranges from detective fiction that doesn't let style intrude at all upon the spinning of a good yarn or intrigue, to dense works by the likes of joyce that seem almost exclusively concerned with how language works, and to hell with plot).

as to the 'person hates orwell because he's not hip enough' comment, orwell has always been hip in certain semi-literate circles. he's one of those 'gateway drugs' to written culture. if you go to a place like reddit, they'll always circlejerk over the same 5, tokenistic 'classic' authors. that they are good writers is perhaps beside the point: they are easy writers to read and give the illusion that all 'serious' art should be painless to interpret and digest. more hipsters love orwell than hate him, because he affords them the delusion that they are 'serious' and 'cultured' readers because they can meander through animal farm and identify the painfully obvious allegory at work.

Last edited by uziq (2015-01-13 10:08:36)

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

wow i forgot what it's like to read a post where someone actually reads into a link and dissects it.  Good stuff uzi

i think that the 140 characters or less has dumbed down our society.

you can follow me @13urnzz for some examples . . .

Kurt Vonnegut.

you surprise me at odd times, like a character from a Vonnegut novel. Slaughterhuas 5 was a war novel. Breakfast of Champions was a little over the top. Ray Bradbury and Orwell need to be taken in small doses, because the reaction could be to paint them with a broad brush, a la Frank Herbert. if you'd like a delightful, short Vonnegut read Sirens of Titan, or skip to the ending with Galapagos.

this is either your finest troll or you have found a true joy - reading fiction plainer than non-fiction from authors' that share a common ziet-giest.

My money is on a quick google search from a college sophomore's syllabus.