Actually it is my little homage to the great e e cummings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Igetanotion
Printable View
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.