|
On May 29 2014 02:46 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 02:34 Nyxisto wrote:I also just finished it yesterday. I really enjoyed it, the books are just incredible fun to read every time. I think the plot was really original which made up for the lack of overarching story progress. It's quite nice to see how much better his writing has gotten if you compare book #1 or #2 to the newer ones. Changes probably remains my favorite though. Also reading this know: ![[image loading]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51s20yFX1aL.jpg) I never knew Stalker was based off a novel, please let me know how it is after you finish it I'd probably want to read it.
This is a fantastic book! The way that alien contact (or better non-contact) is described is infinitely more plausible to me than most other science fiction. It describes some episodes in the life of a treasure hunter that searches an abandoned alien landing zone for artifacts that they might have left. No one understands what these artifacts are and how they work, but most of them are deadly and the zone kills treasure like flies. An incredibly dark book but so great.
|
Baa?21248 Posts
On May 29 2014 03:14 corumjhaelen wrote:
I think it's definitely a lot less interesting than the movie, but it's still worth it, at least as a comparison. Lots more "real" sci-fi here, less focus on the "metaphysical" part. The Strugatsky brothers were the scenarists, and I read that after the first version of Stalker had a problem with the film which couldn't be developped, they chose that orientation voluntarily, for Tarkovski's great pleasure. Reading for the comparison is definitely worth it imo, but I love Stalker too much to be neutral.
Well I like "real" sci-fi a lot, whatever that means  I thought the film is great too so yeah. I'll keep an eye out for this book I guess.
On May 29 2014 03:21 123Gurke wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 02:46 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On May 29 2014 02:34 Nyxisto wrote:I also just finished it yesterday. I really enjoyed it, the books are just incredible fun to read every time. I think the plot was really original which made up for the lack of overarching story progress. It's quite nice to see how much better his writing has gotten if you compare book #1 or #2 to the newer ones. Changes probably remains my favorite though. Also reading this know: I never knew Stalker was based off a novel, please let me know how it is after you finish it I'd probably want to read it. This is a fantastic book! The way that alien contact (or better non-contact) is described is infinitely more plausible to me than most other science fiction. It describes some episodes in the life of a treasure hunter that searches an abandoned alien landing zone for artifacts that they might have left. No one understands what these artifacts are and how they work, but most of them are deadly and the zone kills treasure like flies. An incredibly dark book but so great.
Good to hear; have you seen the film?
|
On May 29 2014 03:30 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 03:14 corumjhaelen wrote:
I think it's definitely a lot less interesting than the movie, but it's still worth it, at least as a comparison. Lots more "real" sci-fi here, less focus on the "metaphysical" part. The Strugatsky brothers were the scenarists, and I read that after the first version of Stalker had a problem with the film which couldn't be developped, they chose that orientation voluntarily, for Tarkovski's great pleasure. Reading for the comparison is definitely worth it imo, but I love Stalker too much to be neutral. Well I like "real" sci-fi a lot, whatever that means I thought the film is great too so yeah. I'll keep an eye out for this book I guess. Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 03:21 123Gurke wrote:On May 29 2014 02:46 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On May 29 2014 02:34 Nyxisto wrote:I also just finished it yesterday. I really enjoyed it, the books are just incredible fun to read every time. I think the plot was really original which made up for the lack of overarching story progress. It's quite nice to see how much better his writing has gotten if you compare book #1 or #2 to the newer ones. Changes probably remains my favorite though. Also reading this know: I never knew Stalker was based off a novel, please let me know how it is after you finish it I'd probably want to read it. This is a fantastic book! The way that alien contact (or better non-contact) is described is infinitely more plausible to me than most other science fiction. It describes some episodes in the life of a treasure hunter that searches an abandoned alien landing zone for artifacts that they might have left. No one understands what these artifacts are and how they work, but most of them are deadly and the zone kills treasure like flies. An incredibly dark book but so great. Good to hear; have you seen the film?
No, I have not seen the film. I have been planning to do so for years, but somehow it just never happened.
Edit: By the way, if you see sam in the chat, you might want to ask him. If I remember well, he liked the book a lot.
|
|
|
Baa?21248 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
Baa?21248 Posts
See this thread is dead without our mini feud.
We need more. Moooooooooore.
|
Some of the basic Derridian concepts are really not that difficult to understand. Discuss.
|
On May 31 2014 04:27 farvacola wrote:
Some of the basic Derridian concepts are really not that difficult to understand. Discuss.
But to speak in terms of the "concept" is to be always-already in the logocentric nostalgia for presence. What we must investigate is, rather, the conceptuality of the concept. For this reason, I think it is already too hasty to speak of "Derridean concepts" - we will need some other language entirely, if indeed any language at all; or rather, we must, upon speaking, immediately return to interrogate the preconditions of our own speech - only in this way can we hope to, if only fleetingly, escape from the tyranny of the Signifier and cast ourselves into the play of differance (which never ceases to differ/defer).
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Bravo, that was well (de)constructed. I'd bring up the concept of trace now but I'm sure the majority of the people who read this thread already get it :D
|
"trace" is one that I've never really gotten, on the other hand, I don't care
|
Trace would be how one can read your above homage and know that somehow, in some way, David Foster Wallace is involved.
|
because of the presence of his absence?
|
If that's the direction in which the wind is blowing, sure. The absence of presence and the presence of absence can be two sides of the same coin. Where's Boblion, I'm sure he has something to add.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cFRrPfl.jpg)
easy and enjoyable to read with a clear, and still relevant, message:
a mericless criticism of naitonalism and capitalism,
and the value of the freedom for the individual
|
Almost finishing Pale Fire(finals left me with almost no time read).
Very good book. Better than Lolita, though it evokes the same feeling: "You cannot trust anything this narrator says, it is up to you to assemble puzzle together from the pieces given throughout the text". Although I'm having a lot of fun with it(Nabokov's dexterity with the english language is wonderful, he manages to craft a very elaborate prose without it becoming purple), smoke and mirrors will eventually become tiresome.
Edit: Reading Portnoy's Complaint by Philip Roth.
|
I think the presence of the absence of samizdat is what's hurting us all
Oh yeah wait this is reading thread. I must read things.
Finished: America: Empire of Liberty by Reynolds.Very comprehensive for its slight size (sure, its 500 pages, but we *are* talking about 500 years of history after all...) and charmingly well-written. Well-written as in: when he quoted other people for more than 4 lines, I would only casually glance at them because I wanted to get back to Reynolds prose. He good at it, yo.
Wanted to get Don QuiXXXote this month but I don't think I'll have the time or the money. 
|
Finished :
Arcadia (Tom Stoppard)
Quite a funny little play, the idea being that on the stage characters from 1809 and from today alternate, the present day people trying to understand what happened between the 1809 people. The idea is pretty awesome, and it is well-executed, mainly because Stoppard's humour hits the mark. The idea of talking about thermodynamics is pretty cool all in all, mainly because of the overall light tone. I'd like to see it played one day, because there's quite a complex stage game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51k4Bb9CO7L._SL500_.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/516ykBQpfPL._SL500_.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41ldGkrDvLL._SL500_.jpg)
