| Forum Index > The Shopkeeper′s Inn |
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21244 Posts
On September 26 2013 06:22 Nos- wrote: will someone please read Mercy Among the Children by David Adam Richards so we can cry about it together Sorry, it fails my test. I only read books whose authors fit at least three of the following four characteristics: Dead White European Male | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
On September 26 2013 06:11 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: I'm just bored and lonely and latch on to any excuse to talk about books on TL ;; I'm reading State of Fear right now, a Michael Crichton novel. It's not bad so far, but not one of his best. I'm under the impression that he was one of the best sci-fi writers of our time, or maybe all time. Sphere, Prey, Congo, and Andromeda Strain were some of the most fascinating reads for my childhood years, to say nothing of the obvious Jurassic Park, Lost World, and Timeline. Truly taken before his time. For anyone who hasn't read a Crichton novel, go find one. He has a large history of great novels (and some misses), you can easily find one you dig. | ||
|
Slusher
United States19143 Posts
On September 26 2013 06:24 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: Sorry, it fails my test. I only read books whose authors fit at least three of the following four characteristics: Dead White European Male so you've never read Harry Potter? yet? | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
| ||
|
WaveofShadow
Canada31495 Posts
On September 26 2013 06:25 Requizen wrote: I'm reading State of Fear right now, a Michael Crichton novel. It's not bad so far, but not one of his best. I'm under the impression that he was one of the best sci-fi writers of our time, or maybe all time. Sphere, Prey, Congo, and Andromeda Strain were some of the most fascinating reads for my childhood years, to say nothing of the obvious Jurassic Park, Lost World, and Timeline. Truly taken before his time. For anyone who hasn't read a Crichton novel, go find one. He has a large history of great novels (and some misses), you can easily find one you dig. He also did a great deal of research when writing his books and often states relevant papers (at the time) in the stories themselves. it's sci-fi but you can feel good about it because you learn a great deal. (I guess the problem might be for those who don't know where the line is crossed between fantasy/reality, but I'm pretty sure he usually addresses those points in his afterwords.) Here's something I don't mind being criticized about + Show Spoiler + (because I will tear anyone up in an argument about him) Come at me. | ||
|
Haiq343
United States2548 Posts
On September 26 2013 06:15 HazMat wrote: I'm reading Dracula in school right now, surprisingly fun book from the first 7 chapters. http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=285 | ||
|
Frudgey
Canada3367 Posts
On September 26 2013 05:50 Requizen wrote: Moonbear if you had monies out the butt what race would you collect in 40k? Edit: this question is also open to anyone. Imperial Guard all the way. I think the thing that appeals to me the most about them is that they're just regular people in a world filled with super humans, space elves, DA ORKS and daemons from the warp. I think the real reason I like them though is that they're my favorite race in Dawn of War. Off-topic, but if I recall the Orks in Warhammer 40K use their teeth as currency. And since Orks are concerned with having the biggest, bestest WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH! ever, their economy is supposedly quite stable as Orks will die before they amass a large collection of teeth. Also started reading the Horus Heresy books not too long ago. Man are they solid. | ||
|
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21244 Posts
On September 26 2013 06:25 Requizen wrote: I'm reading State of Fear right now, a Michael Crichton novel. It's not bad so far, but not one of his best. I'm under the impression that he was one of the best sci-fi writers of our time, or maybe all time. Sphere, Prey, Congo, and Andromeda Strain were some of the most fascinating reads for my childhood years, to say nothing of the obvious Jurassic Park, Lost World, and Timeline. Truly taken before his time. For anyone who hasn't read a Crichton novel, go find one. He has a large history of great novels (and some misses), you can easily find one you dig. On September 26 2013 06:25 Requizen wrote: I'm reading State of Fear right now, a Michael Crichton novel. It's not bad so far, but not one of his best. I'm under the impression that he was one of the best sci-fi writers of our time, or maybe all time. Sphere, Prey, Congo, and Andromeda Strain were some of the most fascinating reads for my childhood years, to say nothing of the obvious Jurassic Park, Lost World, and Timeline. Truly taken before his time. For anyone who hasn't read a Crichton novel, go find one. He has a large history of great novels (and some misses), you can easily find one you dig. Really? You'd rank Crichton above Asimov, Bradbury, Clarke, Dick, Herbert, Heinlein, LeGuin, Niven, Simmons, etc. etc. etc. for writing what is, at the risk of sounding like a snob, action-y pulp sci-fi novels? Crichton's novels are enjoyable (I've read a large number of his works, but probably not a majority. He wrote a lot), but don't you find them somewhat formulaic and repetitive? A group of experts (scientists, military, etc.) are assembled by the government/some other large agency to face some weird sci-fi-y task, and then they go on what is essentially an action adventure. The sci-fi in his novels is often used largely as a plot device instead of something that explores, and reveals something about, human nature, and on that count, I'd argue that Crichton's works fail to qualify as "literature." If the sci-fi was replaced by some other interesting/entertaining premise, his books would be no worse off for it, and that disqualifies him from being a great science-fiction writer imo. | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
On September 26 2013 06:29 WaveofShadow wrote: He also did a great deal of research when writing his books and often states relevant papers (at the time) in the stories themselves. it's sci-fi but you can feel good about it because you learn a great deal. (I guess the problem might be for those who don't know where the line is crossed between fantasy/reality, but I'm pretty sure he usually addresses those points in his afterwords.) Here's something I don't mind being criticized about + Show Spoiler + (because I will tear anyone up in an argument about him) Come at me. Nothing wrong with King, though I admit I've only read his big ones (It and the Shining), but I found them good. I always hear Dark Tower is a great series, it's on my long-term "to do" list. On September 26 2013 06:29 Frudgey wrote: Imperial Guard all the way. I think the thing that appeals to me the most about them is that they're just regular people in a world filled with super humans, space elves, DA ORKS and daemons from the warp. I think the real reason I like them though is that they're my favorite race in Dawn of War. Off-topic, but if I recall the Orks in Warhammer 40K use their teeth as currency. And since Orks are concerned with having the biggest, bestest WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH! ever, their economy is supposedly quite stable as Orks will die before they amass a large collection of teeth. Also started reading the Horus Heresy books not too long ago. Man are they solid. I haven't gotten around to the books, but I love 40k lore. It's so fun :3 Teef is the best currency because, since Teef rot and Orks die all the time, no one ever has too many Teef. And then if you want more Teef you can get more Teef by punching Orks or Tyranids in the face. On September 26 2013 06:32 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: Really? You'd rank Crichton above Asimov, Bradbury, Clarke, Dick, Herbert, Heinlein, LeGuin, Niven, Simmons, etc. etc. etc. for writing what is, at the risk of sounding like a snob, action-y pulp sci-fi novels? Crichton's novels are enjoyable (I've read a large number of number, but probably not a majority. He wrote a lot), but don't you find them somewhat formulaic and repetitive? A group of experts (scientists, military, etc.) are assembled by the government/some other large agency to face some weird sci-fi-y task, and then they go on what is essentially an action adventure. The sci-fi in his novels is often used largely as a plot device instead of something that explores, and reveals something about, human nature, and on that count, I'd argue that Crichton's works fail to qualify as "literature." If the sci-fi was replaced by some other interesting/entertaining premise, his books would be no worse off for it, and that disqualifies him from being a great science-fiction writer imo. I said one of, not the best. I can have multiple favorites :3 Formulaic is never a bad thing, but I can understand that criticism. The thing I like about his sci-fi is that, like Wave said, he goes to great lengths to make it understandable in the boundaries of what we consider theoretical. This is something that many great sci-fi writers (especially "hard sci-fi") do, but due to him keeping most of his stories being topical in modern times it really hits home. Even Sphere, which is, in my opinion, one of his most "out there" works, he goes out of his way to spend pages describing the science behind gravity wells and space travel. One thing that's always stuck with me. | ||
|
WaveofShadow
Canada31495 Posts
On September 26 2013 06:32 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: Really? You'd rank Crichton above Asimov, Bradbury, Clarke, Dick, Herbert, Heinlein, LeGuin, Niven, Simmons, etc. etc. etc. for writing what is, at the risk of sounding like a snob, action-y pulp sci-fi novels? Crichton's novels are enjoyable (I've read a large number of his works, but probably not a majority. He wrote a lot), but don't you find them somewhat formulaic and repetitive? A group of experts (scientists, military, etc.) are assembled by the government/some other large agency to face some weird sci-fi-y task, and then they go on what is essentially an action adventure. The sci-fi in his novels is often used largely as a plot device instead of something that explores, and reveals something about, human nature, and on that count, I'd argue that Crichton's works fail to qualify as "literature." If the sci-fi was replaced by some other interesting/entertaining premise, his books would be no worse off for it, and that disqualifies him from being a great science-fiction writer imo. Cheep what did you think of the Dune finale? | ||
|
Zess
Adun Toridas!9144 Posts
| ||
|
HazMat
United States17077 Posts
The whole time we were discussing it. "Wow Harker is really fucking ignorant." Something symbolic about Imperial Britain thinking they're superior to the small countries in Eastern Europe and how their knowledge trumps superstition I guess. | ||
|
remedium
United States939 Posts
| ||
|
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21244 Posts
On September 26 2013 06:41 Requizen wrote: I said one of, not the best. I can have multiple favorites :3 Formulaic is never a bad thing, but I can understand that criticism. The thing I like about his sci-fi is that, like Wave said, he goes to great lengths to make it understandable in the boundaries of what we consider theoretical. This is something that many great sci-fi writers (especially "hard sci-fi") do, but due to him keeping most of his stories being topical in modern times it really hits home. Even Sphere, which is, in my opinion, one of his most "out there" works, he goes out of his way to spend pages describing the science behind gravity wells and space travel. One thing that's always stuck with me. Ehhhh I wouldn't be so fast to praise Crichton's science in his sci-fi. It pales in comparison to "true" hard sci-fi authors. Crichton was generally at his best in writing believable narratives when dealing with biology/biochemistry, unsurprising given his background as a MD. When you get to stuff like Timeline and Sphere, I was unimpressed. And I don't really think Crichton was going for realistic sci-fi most of the time either (he's not, after all, a hard sci-fi author), but is rather more concerned with giving a veneer of plausibility for a general population reader. I personally wouldn't even rank him anywhere near the top 10 of "great sci-fi authors"~ On September 26 2013 06:41 WaveofShadow wrote: Cheep what did you think of the Dune finale? What finale? + Show Spoiler + no srsly what finale? that shit ended without any conclusion. Herbert peaked in God Emperor of Dune imo. On September 26 2013 06:44 xes wrote: Cat's Cradle best sci fi of all time I find Vonnegut to be highly overrated, based on my not-very-extensive experience of Slaugherhouse Five, Breakfast of Champions, Cat's Cradle. Curiously, every time I bring this up with purported Vonnegut enthusiasts, I always get a new recommendation along the lines of of "yeah I didn't really like -insert works I mentioned I've read- either, but you should really try -insert new work that is invariably different from what the last guy I've spoke to on the topic said-, it's actually his best. -insert smug look about recommending a hipster Vonnegut pick-." I have this conversation more often than you'd think, Sirens of Titan is currently the forerunner as the next Vonnegut that I "absolutely have to read" which will "change [your] mind completely." That might've been a bit hard for you to plow through, so allow me to give an example: -random stuff that ends up being a conversation on Vonnegut- Me: I never really cared much for Vonnegut. Him: Really? I personally didn't really like Slaughterhouse V. Have you read Cat's Cradle? That's his best work. Me: Yeah, I didn't really care for it either. Him: Hm. Well, you should try Sirens of Titan. It's his most underrated work and you'll change your mind about Vonnegut. Me: OK. A large reason I even read Cat's Cradle and Breakfast of Champions to begin with is conversations like this one, and I've yet to be enlightened into Vonnegut, so~ And yes, I do have this conversation with girls too, but far more often with guys. | ||
|
Osmoses
Sweden5302 Posts
Skipping over the pedigree/supposed quality literature bit because I'm not having THAT argument again. Alright so you give your own examples of oversimplified characters. And indeed, most are just that, oversimplifications. Some are not, they really are that shallow, such as the Inception sidekick, but then how important are the backstories of sidekicks in hollywood action movies? Nobody cares, and nobody said Iron Man was a work of art. KS is not an action movie. It is all about the characters. They need to be real. They can't get away with the same shit an hour and a half long hollywood flick full of explosions can. They can't just be a copy of a copy of a copy, which, sadly, is the case. Every new season a new set of anime is released, and they all have these exact characters. One quiet, one energetic, one relatively normal, etc. These are not oversimplifications, these ARE the characters. All of these are trash works because I've seen this archetype before and will see them again. Clearly the only way to make a good work is to create completely new archetypes that have never been seen and are completely non-relateable to anyone in any form of fiction that has existed. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rFTEB1x.jpg) A Song of Ice and Fire is popular because it's characters feel real, they feel like real people. You can compare them to other characters, just like you can compare real people, but they feel genuine. Every single character I met in KS I just went, "oh, template B again." MLP isn't quality television on account of it's brilliant characters. It's a bunch of pretty cartoon ponies getting into whacky adventures making funny faces. Take it for what it is. My attack on the creators was in jest, and saying so is not "backpedaling". I took, what, 6 or 7 derogatory memes and put them into one. What do you think there chief, is this guy serious? Your next couple of paragraphs is just you getting all huffy cause you didn't get the joke. I've never actually played a visual novel (unless thats what you call dating sims), but I have no problem with the concept. It's true, I wen't into KS with the preconcieved notion of it being a game, and I got a piece of fancy fanfiction. That did tick me off a bit, but that's my fault. So you keep your low opinion of OoT to yourself. How noble. Me, I share, because just like when I tell people to avoid Citizen Kane, I feel like I'm doing them a favor. Since there are people like you who speak well of it, they can make up their own minds. This is a discussion board after all. You are sick of people trying to "act superior", really? I'm saying I hated the game because the characters were shallow and the dialog was predictable, I passed away from severe stimulation hemorrhage. You're the one who started listing credentials. I've read Tolkien and Dante. They sucked. I've read Hemingway and Kafka. They're great. I don't do it often, but every once in a while I stumble into hipster manga as well. Some is great, some suck. Katawa Shoujo sucked. Is this subjective? Maybe. Can it be objective? People like Twilight, anyone here wanna tell me Twilight is not complete shit? I guess it comes down to standards. Some require high prose to be entertained. Some settle for the simple storytelling of Harry Potter. Some are young, need the money, and read Twilight. I've given my reasons as to why I think KS is objectively bad, they make perfect sense to me. I understand you care about the game and you want to somehow "prove" that it's good. But I think you're going about it all wrong. You can't argue that I didn't like the game because something I did wrong. You can't demand I put forth specific character traits, because my argument in and of itself is that they have none. You can't dictate what kind of argument I'm allowed to make. All you can do is counter the arguments I'm making. That's as far as we've gotten now; I put forth that the characters were carbon copies of previously seen shallow archetypes. You countered with a bunch of characters from action movies. I pointed out that those are characters from action movies. As it happens, Song of Ice and Fire is one of my favorite works. Go ahead and show me how it's characters are just the same as Katawa Shoujos. | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
Cheep how can you not like cats cradle? it stands alone so well and reveals so much about human nature which was a point of yours earlier i believe. | ||
|
Osmoses
Sweden5302 Posts
On September 26 2013 05:36 Fusilero wrote: I now know he likes cowboy bebop and ghost in the shell. Good man. I also hate Cowboy Bebop. Come at me. As for King, I love The Stand and Tommyknockers, I come back to both of them every other year. | ||
|
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21244 Posts
On September 26 2013 06:59 ComaDose wrote: oh mang +1 cats cradle and Vonnegut. Cheep how can you not like cats cradle? it stands alone so well and reveals so much about human nature which was a point of yours earlier i believe. De gustibus non est disputandum  I just don't really care for Vonnegut's prose style, nor most of his plots. I find them to be meandering and pointless, while striving too hard to reveal what ends up to be a (to me at least) naive view of "human nature" that doesn't really leave me feeling satisfied. FWIW I liked Cat's Cradle more than the other two I've read. re Stephen King: Only read Carrie, Salem's Lot, and the Shining. They were fun enough, but nothing special for me, and I have no real desire to seek out anything else by King. I also hear the first line to the Dark Tower series quoted so much as some amazing line and I find it very...odd. In no way does that line compel me to start the series. I've found that I personally tend to not be very enamored with American history/culture/settings for "art," (I happen to really dislike Cowboy Bebop, found it boring) and that might be one of the reasons why King doesn't really appeal to me. He really has a focus, from what I've read and from what I glean from others, on "Americana" for lack of a better word. I could be totally off on this but that's the vibe I got. | ||
|
Doctorbeat
Netherlands13241 Posts
On lit, I've finished Crime and Punishment some time ago, thought it was pretty damn good. I really don't like the setting of the story though, 19th century Russia sucks dick. Now I have Brothers Karamazov squinting at me, but I'm not feeling like starting it yet. I liked Tolkien's, Rowling's and GRRM's works. I generally liked most books I read. A few that I didn't: the second book I read from Dan Brown (talking about formulaic authors), Lord of the Flies, Picture of Dorian Gray. | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
On September 26 2013 07:04 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: De gustibus non est disputandum I just don't really care for Vonnegut's prose style, nor most of his plots. I find them to be meandering and pointless, while striving too hard to reveal what ends up to be a (to me at least) naive view of "human nature" that doesn't really leave me feeling satisfied. FWIW I liked Cat's Cradle more than the other two I've read. heh thats fair. I learned a new latin maxim today. i personally felt that he wasn't striving too hard as much as he was making it obvious how it could relate to every reader. EDIT: Dan Brown worst formulaic author. hitchhikers guide top 10 faves all time | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs Flash
WardiTV Invitational
SHIN vs Nicoract
Solar vs Nice
PiGosaur Cup
GSL
Classic vs Cure
Maru vs Rogue
GSL
SHIN vs Zoun
ByuN vs herO
OSC
OSC
Replay Cast
Escore
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
