I love Jack Keroauc and I'm very upset to see his name pop up so often!! =( try reading the Dharma Bums, its an amazing book, and i agree with Shakespeare, I'm sorry but I just can't handle him.
Printable View
I love Jack Keroauc and I'm very upset to see his name pop up so often!! =( try reading the Dharma Bums, its an amazing book, and i agree with Shakespeare, I'm sorry but I just can't handle him.
Oh man! That book was a beast! I counted once and there was one sentence that was 10 pages long! I had to bring a pencil with me whenever I read the book so I could make a mark where I finished because there were no obvious leave off points, no periods, no paragraphs, no anything. There were so many things that made that book difficult, along with the lack of puncuation was the fact that the narrator would change in the middle of these mamoth sentences and that wouldn't always be clear until a little way into the thought. But I do agree that it has it's worth, if you could deal with the format and get through it, the end feeling was very powerful. It was a disturbing book and I don't know that he could've acheived that intensity with a more conventional format.Quote:
Originally Posted by Igetanotion
Idril,
:lol: :lol: I'm glad to see someone else on here read the whole thing :lol:
Did you also feel bad for the tyrant? A little even? I fealt bad. He did a good job, Marquez, got the point across well. Nothing like reading a book with desperate punctuation to make you feel the desired effect
I was determined to finish the book, I was not going to let the beast defeat me, it became a matter of pride. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Igetanotion
I did feel bad for the Tyrant...and then I felt bad for feeling bad for such a violent, cannibalistic despot. :rolleyes: :lol: The physical effect it had on me because of the punctuation, because of the stream of consciousness type thoughts and the constant switching of narrators, was significant. It produced a sense of fevered reading and racing thoughts, it created this almost physical atmosphere of the haze of heat and it even affected my dreams. I got through the book pretty quickly, mostly just because there was no place to stop but when I was done, there was such a relief, not just because of hard task of reading the novel but also because I needed to get out of that mind set.
:Quote:
Originally Posted by Igetanotion
: Obviously his master piece is One Hundred Years of Solitude, but Autum is an enriching experience as well, anyway, please don't call him "Marquez". He is García Márquez. And yes, one of the giants!
Cheers!
I think Charles Dickens is the most overrated writer. Great Epectations and a Christmas Carol are my basis for this because, even though they were classicas of their time, they were overrated!
Could you expand on that?Quote:
Originally Posted by bakestewah
Calling him "Marquez" is a term of endearment. And do not think for one second that I hold any lack of respect for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by liberal viewer
and just so you know, his name is not "Garcia Marquez" it is "Gabriel Garcia Marquez" if you are going to make comments like that, you should make them correctly.
Maybe it is because I had to study him at school, but D.H. Lawrence for me is the most over rated writer in the English language. Dickens was turgid. But Lawrence gives banality a bad name.
Actually, if you wish to use a term of endearment for the great Colombian, you should refer to him as "Gabo", as many do, or, more correctly: "El Gabo". The "Marquez" is actually a sore spot because when he was awarded the Nobel, Singer referred to him dismissively as "Marquez", saying that he was not in the same league as Tolstoy, which of course begged the question: "What about you, Mr. Singer? You aren’t even in the same sport!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Igetanotion
I never liked Singer anyhow.
Cheers
Hey look! Here's another hair to split!
I love pointless arguments over last names. =)
What is "pointless" about trying to be as accurate as possible? If we, in a forum of literature, for crying out loud!, let these things slide, we'd just show that we aren't intellectually demanding.:sick:Quote:
Originally Posted by iloveoscar
I would never be so bold as to refer to him as "Gabo" this is a name that his friends gave him, and no matter how much I adore him, I am not lucky enough to have his personal acquaintance. And, Yes, I know his nickname is Gabo.Quote:
Originally Posted by liberal viewer
Hey, your name "liberal viewer" should be written "Liberal Viewer".Quote:
Originally Posted by liberal viewer
J.K Rowling
Stephen King *shudder* I'm all for detail, but a 5 page description of somebody brushing their teeth is not imperative to plot (obviously an exageration, but fellow Stephen Kind haters get the point)
Nothing wrong with long descriptions if it's well done. My objection to Stephen King is his lack of style and frankly, his boring and flavorless writing.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeccaT
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by bakestewah
I am afraid this is not something one can conclude based on one novel (out of at least fourteen) and one short story.
I find it interesting to find numerous typographical errors in these postings. After all, this is a literature forum. To criticize writers while using poor grammar and spelling is rather hypocritical. I enjoyed the Harry Potter series, and think that any books which encourage children to read are worth their weight in gold.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Etienne
Awesome :lol:
Awesome
Actually it is my little homage to the great e e cummings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Igetanotion
Perhaps your animosity on the topic of your "Little Homage" would be better directed towards the person who originally posted the comment on it. If you care to go on with this little tussle you seem to insist on continuing, by all means send me personal messages (which I will of course ignore) and stop filling the forum with this nonsense that should not be here in the first place. I've grown quite bored of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by liberal viewer
Cheers!:thumbs_up
Quote:
Originally Posted by pianonutty23
Please remember that not all memebers speak/write english as their first language, all are welcome.
You were the one who was jumping up and down like a goddamn cheerleader, weren't you? I mean with that "awesome" remark and all. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Igetanotion
As writing for mainstream is not an offense, "Gabriel Jose de la Conciliacion Garcia Marquez" is okey. But After writing masterpieces, one should be more consistent. For my opinion "Memories of My Melancholy Whores" just mediocre. Also Love and Demon etc.
They are not overrated, they deserve it, but fame of Borges and Marquez shadowing other great Latin American's.
I hate Charles Dickens. I've only read like 100 pages of David Copperfield, the prose is decent but it's sentimental and moronic, the characters are exaggerated, etc. It's a good children's book, nothing more
okokok
lol
After reading this thread I am thoroughly convinced that Dickens is the most polarizing figure among readers.I personally can't get into him,but I really am not qualified to make such an assessment,being that I've only really read one of his novels.However,I am optimistic about A Tale of Two Cities.
Another writer praised by the masses that I do not particularly favor is Orwell.He is a fine writer whom I've read much of his material,but I always believed Huxley's dystopian future was much more stunning in it's accuracy.All other dysopian novels pale in comparison to me.
This all,however,is a matter of personal preference.I don't normally like calling writers overrated.They all offer something I can enjoy.
I wish people like Oprah would stop kissing Dan Brown's ***. His writing sucks.
I second the above statement. Not all his ideas are bad, but what horrible prose!
"The internationally renowned professor stroked his beard".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryduce
How can alpha and delta males and females be more accurate then Big Brother and telescreens?
An industrialized pleasure driven society,the collective will favored over the individual,hypnopaedia,test tube babies,eugenics,and biological engineering?
Pretty accurate if you ask me.
It also predates Orwell's works by a good 16 years.
I didn't said it's unaccurate, I just think that Orwell's way of thinking and not just technology is more like now days.
I'm going back to one of my orig. replies way back when this thread first comes up. I am speaking just for myself, please understand, but it occurs to me as a rank amateur
(even after literally decades of writing) I am really not in the position of judging others without sounding bitter or
envious. However, we are human and therefore the thought of the mediocre receiving laurels does not sit well with our sense of justice. It's like the Cain and Abel story!
It's not accurate you say?
Let's see.
An omnipresent secret police.
A cult of personality based around one leader who is raised to the status of a God (and the subsequent elimination of religion from all culture).
The establishment of labour camps, and execution of dissidents.
Show trials and confessions forced out through torture.
A collectivised state.
Brainwashing and propaganda.
Falsifying media i.e. photographs to change the appearance of past events.
A permanent state of potential war with foreign superpowers and the use of the fear it creates to further the state's control over the people.
Ring a bell? Do you happen to know any Russian history? Don't forget Orwell's political affiliations.
Both are excellent but they make different points and are very much of their respective times. Aldous Huxley observed on the depersonalization of man that he was witnessing with the recent inventions of mass production, the assembly line and other machinery which were making skilled workers jobless. Orwell was making a direct political commentary on what he was seeing in countries like Russia and applying the situation to England. I love both books (I think I might prefer Brave New World actually, but only just) but what you have to realize is that they're actually making different points. The two books don't serve the same purpose.
Also even if you prefer Brave New World to 1984 that doesn't make Orwell overrated. He did write lots of other stuff apart from 1984 and Animal Farm. Burmese Days, Keep the Aspidistra Flying, Road to Wigan Pier, and Homage to Catalonia are superb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bazarov
What's your point? I think you got me wrong!Quote:
Originally Posted by superunknown
But when or where did I said that???Quote:
Originally Posted by superunknown
Oh, just forget it...
It appears I struck a nerve with Orwell.
*Runs out of thread*
I think it really depends on one's point of view. I also believe that Huxley's is more... accurate? Soma is more accurate than telescreen, however both have their merits. I do think that Huxley's writing is somewhat bland though and that Orwell is quite overrated.Quote:
Originally Posted by bazarov
You got me wrong bazarov. I was speaking to Ryduce, not you. I thought my defending Orwell would've made that clear.