BF2S Forums What's your favorite novel?

VicktorVauhn wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

VicktorVauhn wrote:

The only book I have ever read with out it feeling like a chore was One flew over the coo coos nest.

Are you kidding me?

While writing music while high has undisputedly good results, literature requires coherence denied to a person with an altered state of mind.

TBH I would rather rate literature on weather or not its good, rather then what the artist had done.


And no, one thing I learned in all my semesters of JC English class is writes usually have fucked up lives and drink themselfs into the grave.

I actually didn't really know anything about Ken Kesey, we read the book in school and while his substance abuse was mentioned we didn't really hear details.

I saw a program way later on the rise of LSD, and about Ken Kesey...and heard he wrote that book after working in a metal institution so he could steal drugs...shit definitely makes sense

I hated english class so I'm not the one to rate books for you, I'm just saying it was the only one I've ever sat down and read large chunks of with out feeling like I was making myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Kesey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merry_Pranksters

nukchebi0 wrote:

Ollie wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

Are you kidding me?

While writing music while high has undisputedly good results, literature requires coherence denied to a person with an altered state of mind.

Your ignorance shows through again.

How is this ignorant? I think incoherent literature sucks, because it doesn't flow and jumps around. Ken Kesey, who wrote much of Cuckoo's Nest while high, has shown that writing high removes coherence.

The ignorant bit is the fact that you have no experience of psychedelic drugs and the effect they have on your brain.

nukchebi0 wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

As I said, I thought it was written better.

1984 isn't entirely of Orwell's own creation, though, since he obviously took inspiration from the totalitarian governments of the time he wrote it in.

Oh Lord. What a silly comment.

Oh, but he did. Think about it for a second.

I'm not disputing that he took inspiration from the events of his time. I have trouble with the idea that taking inspiration from something means that what you create isn't truely your creation. Makes no sense at all.

Last edited by Ollie (2008-04-20 23:22:34)

nukchebi0 wrote:

Ollie wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

Oh, but he did. Think about it for a second.

I'm not disputing that he took inspiration from the events of his time. I have trouble with the idea that taking inspiration from something means that what you create isn't truely your creation. Makes no sense at all.

The "creation" of 1984 is Orwell's vivid picture of the functioning of a totalitarian state, which borrows from reality. I have trouble calling that entirely his own creation.

So some mystical force wrote part of the book for him? Of course the book is entirely his creation you dim-wit.

Ollie wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

Ollie wrote:

I'm not disputing that he took inspiration from the events of his time. I have trouble with the idea that taking inspiration from something means that what you create isn't truely your creation. Makes no sense at all.

The "creation" of 1984 is Orwell's vivid picture of the functioning of a totalitarian state, which borrows from reality. I have trouble calling that entirely his own creation.

So some mystical force wrote part of the book for him? Of course the book is entirely his creation you dim-wit. (is this really necessary?)

But at the same time, Animal Farm is not? If you go by these standards, Animal Farm is entirely his creation as well. Your posts seem to suggest you believe the contrary.


Edit: Evidentially, whether a book is entirely an author's creation is a subjective analysis. Do you two consider the story to be the primary aspect of a story in terms of creation?

Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-04-20 23:32:24)

nukchebi0 wrote:

Ollie wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

The "creation" of 1984 is Orwell's vivid picture of the functioning of a totalitarian state, which borrows from reality. I have trouble calling that entirely his own creation.

So some mystical force wrote part of the book for him? Of course the book is entirely his creation you dim-wit. (is this really necessary?)

But at the same time, Animal Farm is not? If you go by these standards, Animal Farm is entirely his creation as well. Your posts seem to suggest you believe the contrary.


Edit: Evidentially, whether a book is entirely an author's creation is a subjective analysis. Do you two consider the story to be the primary aspect of a story in terms of creation?

I never said Animal Farm wasn't entirely his creation. I said, I don't care for allegory.

Nevertheless, 1984 is entirely Orwell's creation whether he took inspiration from the world around him or not.

If we are to follow with your line of thought then no book ever written is truely it's authors creation because all books contain elements which are not of the authors invention.

Ollie wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

Ollie wrote:

So some mystical force wrote part of the book for him? Of course the book is entirely his creation you dim-wit. (is this really necessary?)

But at the same time, Animal Farm is not? If you go by these standards, Animal Farm is entirely his creation as well. Your posts seem to suggest you believe the contrary.


Edit: Evidentially, whether a book is entirely an author's creation is a subjective analysis. Do you two consider the story to be the primary aspect of a story in terms of creation?

I never said Animal Farm wasn't entirely his creation. I said, I don't care for allegory.

Nevertheless, 1984 is entirely Orwell's creation whether he took inspiration from the world around him or not.

If we are to follow with your line of thought then no book ever written is truely it's authors creation because all books contain elements which are not of the authors invention.

Oh, sorry. I was referring to HOME's post, which did imply that Animal Farm wasn't.

And I don't think anything is truly one's creation, because it is impossible for someone to be completely original. I'm fine with it that way. It doesn't make a book any worse in my eyes (barring a blatant rip-off), because I know how easy it is to be subconsciously and consciously influenced by external sources.

VicktorVauhn wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

Ollie wrote:

Your ignorance shows through again.

How is this ignorant? I think incoherent literature sucks, because it doesn't flow and jumps around. Ken Kesey, who wrote much of Cuckoo's Nest while high, has shown that writing high removes coherence.

OK I'll bite....Whats wrong with a lack of coherence?
As long as its a good story, and written well...I can follow some skips. I don't mind if parts don't obviously fit into reality or dreams...
I hope for your sake you never read Johnny Got His Gun.

As we can see, literary quality is a subjective matter.

I hate a lack of coherence because it makes reading painful, and the author seem lazy. Coherent passages and sentences seem better constructed, like the author put work into making their writing elegant and clear, rather than just throwing down his ideas on the page with little concern for grammar or lucidity.

Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-04-20 23:47:44)

Thanks for all the feedback so far, some great options here. So far I'm leaning towards Northern Lights/ The Golden Compass, 1984, and The Hobbit. I will karma where appropriate later

nukchebi0 wrote:

Ollie wrote:

VicktorVauhn wrote:

OK I'll bite....Whats wrong with a lack of coherence?
As long as its a good story, and written well...I can follow some skips. I don't mind if parts don't obviously fit into reality or dreams...
I hope for your sake you never read Johnny Got His Gun.

Or Mein Kampf.

However, you're right. As long as the book is elegible and you gain knowledge from it then I don't see the problem. I don't find Cuckoo's Nest at all hard to read anyway.

nukchebi0 seems to have a stigma when it comes to having an altered state of perception, though I am sure he has drunk coffee more than once.

I hate coffee, actually. But since I know you are referring to the caffeine contained within, I have had large amount of sodas containing caffeine. To be honest, they don't affect me greatly. Getting excessively tired is about the only way I can alter my state of perception, and in that case, I can say I think much less coherently than I do energized. I only dislike altered states of perception if they were obtained illegally, or if they result in pathetically stupid or immature actions.

And, as I said, literary quality is highly subjective.

OmniDeath wrote:

Thanks for all the feedback so far, some great options here. So far I'm leaning towards Northern Lights/ The Golden Compass, 1984, and The Hobbit. I will karma where appropriate later

Go for 1984.

The biggest issue with doing 1984 is I haven't read it, and won't have time to before I need to finish it, although I'm sure I will at some point now... so I would be working entirely based off plot summary and synopsis' I find online.

OmniDeath wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

Ollie wrote:

Or Mein Kampf.

However, you're right. As long as the book is elegible and you gain knowledge from it then I don't see the problem. I don't find Cuckoo's Nest at all hard to read anyway.

nukchebi0 seems to have a stigma when it comes to having an altered state of perception, though I am sure he has drunk coffee more than once.

I hate coffee, actually. But since I know you are referring to the caffeine contained within, I have had large amount of sodas containing caffeine. To be honest, they don't affect me greatly. Getting excessively tired is about the only way I can alter my state of perception, and in that case, I can say I think much less coherently than I do energized. I only dislike altered states of perception if they were obtained illegally, or if they result in pathetically stupid or immature actions.

And, as I said, literary quality is highly subjective.

OmniDeath wrote:

Thanks for all the feedback so far, some great options here. So far I'm leaning towards Northern Lights/ The Golden Compass, 1984, and The Hobbit. I will karma where appropriate later

Go for 1984.

The biggest issue with doing 1984 is I haven't read it, and won't have time to before I need to finish it, although I'm sure I will at some point now... so I would be working entirely based off plot summary and synopsis' I find online.

Don't, then. Plot summaries and online synopsis' can't really communicate the effect of the novel, especially one as powerful as 1984.

Ollie wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

Ollie wrote:

Or Mein Kampf.

However, you're right. As long as the book is elegible and you gain knowledge from it then I don't see the problem. I don't find Cuckoo's Nest at all hard to read anyway.

nukchebi0 seems to have a stigma when it comes to having an altered state of perception, though I am sure he has drunk coffee more than once.

I hate coffee, actually. But since I know you are referring to the caffeine contained within, I have had large amount of sodas containing caffeine. To be honest, they don't affect me greatly. Getting excessively tired is about the only way I can alter my state of perception, and in that case, I can say I think much less coherently than I do energized. I only dislike altered states of perception if they were obtained illegally, or if they result in pathetically stupid or immature actions.

So it's acctually okay for Ken Kesey to write his book under the influence of LSD? Because I don't see Cuckoo's Nest as being stupid or immature in any way.

As for altered states that are aquired illigally. Why do you think these natural chemicals are illigal anyway? They help you to think outside the confines of the tiny box that the government wants you thinking inside of. You know, the one which keeps you just smart enough to operate the machines but just dumb enough so that you don't care when your rights and freedom is taken away.

There are plenty of legal plants that the government has yet to prohibit, are they morally acceptable to use to gain altered states of perception or not?


I'm not trying to score points here I'm genuinely interested in your point of view.

nukchebi0 wrote:

And, as I said, literary quality is highly subjective.

Naturally.

I was referring specifically to the comment about stigma of altered mental states, not in the context of the book. Except for the illegality of the mental state, (I guess it was legal while he wrote it, so disregard this.) I don't care that he wrote it while high. I just don't care for incoherent writing, and consequently don't like it.

As for the illegality, I don't see how doing drugs make you think more freely. Since you obviously have more experience with them than me, could you possibly explain how they help you transcend the confines of government-shaped thinking?

To be honest, I am all for legalizing marijuana, as I see the benefits to having it legalized. Less crowded jails and sorely needed tax dollars are good. However, I think it is a more mature and ultimately more successful way to effect change by following the rules and arguing in favor of their repeal, instead of just brazenly breaking them.

Finally, last time I checked, LSD is synthetic.

Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-04-21 00:13:29)

nukchebi0 wrote:

As for the illegality, I don't see how doing drugs make you think more freely. Since you obviously have more experience with them than me, could you possibly explain how they help you transcend the confines of government-shaped thinking?

If you want a scientific answer, very little is known about how "psychedelic" chemicals effect the brain. However, it is known that these chemicals become a temporary replacement/supplement to mono-amine neurotransmitters like serotonin. For example the penephylamine alkaloid mescaline  binds to the same brain receptors as serotonin does and does a better job of transmitting signals than serotonin. In short this creates quicker and clearer thinking, moments of epiphany. It's true that these chemicals make your thought patterns irregular (because the way the thoughts are manifested are wholly irregular) but they don't hinder your thoughts in any way, quite the contrary.

On a personal level I can say that thinking while under the influence of a psychedelic is like being in a state of deep meditation (only a thousand times more intense). Thoughts come quickly and dissipate slowly, you can recall previous events in clearer detail and see new meaning in them, it's a truly magical experience that really can't be justified in words. The experience transcends that. Human speech is an altogether too Private mode of communication to express the experience.

nukchebi0 wrote:

To be honest, I am all for legalizing marijuana, as I see the benefits to having it legalized. Less crowded jails and sorely needed tax dollars are good. However, I think it is a more mature and ultimately more successful way to effect change by following the rules and arguing in favor of their repeal, instead of just brazenly breaking them.

You're probably right here. I think it's kind of impractical to abstain from something in the hope of an event that might not transpire for years to come.

nukchebi0 wrote:

Finally, last time I checked, LSD is synthetic.

Well, Lysergic acid diethylamide (member of the lysergic amide family is semi-synthetic. It's extracted from ergot, a fungus that grows in rye.


A lot of psychedelics are wholly natural though (they can be consumed in their natural form for their effects), psilocybin, psilocin, mescaline, ibogaine, dimethyltryptamine...

An interesting fact is that dimethyltryptamine (DMT) actually occurs naturally in the human brain and analogous serotonin. It's also a class A/Schedule 1 drug. So technically we are all guilty of possession.

First novel I came to think of was "Lord of the Flies" by William Golding