|
|
Post by Mizagium on Oct 28, 2009 16:17:39 GMT -5
Does anyone bother to read the summary on the back?
|
|
|
|
Post by Razgat on Oct 28, 2009 16:19:36 GMT -5
Of Twilight? It makes no sense really....Actually, it's kind of creepy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mizagium on Oct 28, 2009 16:21:08 GMT -5
Never use a cover as basis for buying a book.
|
|
|
|
Post by Razgat on Oct 28, 2009 16:23:16 GMT -5
...But I like apples....  |
|
|
|
Post by Monika on Oct 28, 2009 16:23:24 GMT -5
I KNOW WHAT YOU ARE
SAY IT...OUT LOUD
(CLOSE UP)
VAMPIRE
|
|
|
|
Post by TEAM_DERRICK on Oct 28, 2009 16:24:09 GMT -5
"Popcorn Literature Popcorn literature is a term that refers to popular fiction. Popcorn fiction is characterized by underdeveloped, flat protagonists and their lack of subsequent emotions, oftentimes resorting to gimmicky plot-devices and lackluster production tricks in order to make the work appear substantially more palpable than it actually is. A great deal of popcorn fiction rides the coat tails of current events, fictionalizing them into serial novels, cataloguing said events into an easier-to-digest consumer version while displacing a great deal of the seriousness of the situation. Popcorn literature has swept the world by storm since the mid-1970s, replacing a more classical approach to literature and novel writing, which usually contains poignant, character vignettes and engrossing philosophical/theoretical affairs at the expense of an over-the-top plot. Since popcorn fiction has accrued an avid fan base, certain arguments can be made of the median knowledge of certain individuals and educational system as a whole, as the works of Plato, Socrates, John Keats, Charles Dickens, Edgar Allen Poe, Ernest Hemingway, James Joyce and William Faulkner (et al) seem to be swept under the proverbial rug while the age of polymaths has come and gone." Well then he's using the term incorrectly. The shit i read is not underdeveloped, the characters aren't flat, and they have emotions. And how the hell do you pull off production tricks with writing? i take back what i said. I don't read popcorn literature. Lucco is just a pretentious piece of shit. |
|
|
|
Post by Mizagium on Oct 28, 2009 16:24:11 GMT -5
No, I just play World of Warcraft a lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Razgat on Oct 28, 2009 16:26:01 GMT -5
Or he could just not like that type. Actually, I probably wouldn't be interested either because I like books that have to do with the Middle Ages or mysteries. I think it just depends on your type.
|
|
thecheat
Local Author
The PuritanProphet
No use crying over spilled The Cheat.
Posts: 1,110
|
Post by thecheat on Oct 28, 2009 16:29:24 GMT -5
My point was that you could read enjoyable books or you could read books that are enjoyable AND hold some intellectual merit. I'd rather just kill two birds with one stone. You didn't get that the first, second, or third time so I'll remember to blunt in the future.
I used the term Derrick used to describe H.P. Lovecraft to me, assuming it was something he coined. Apparently it was a preexisting term that I misused. THE MORE YOU KNOW
I actually didn't read Ulysses. I got tired of the 5-7 obscure references per page. I knew a few, like Typhus and Echidna, but the version I have don't have any footnotes (or anything else of the sort). I'll either find a version that explains itself better or wait to read the book until I'm better prepared.
There's no single book I've read that inspired me to preach to you guys about this. I just go to a bookstore in downtown Woodstock and raid the classics section for two or three books every week or so. Honestly, I think people should read more classic literature. You'd be surprised how enriching it is, especially in comparison to juvenile literature like Harry Potter. What's more, you do better in class. I own the shit out of AP Lit because I read more classic literature than everyone else in that class and the experience makes me a better analyst. PRO TIPS
|
|
thecheat
Local Author
The PuritanProphet
No use crying over spilled The Cheat.
Posts: 1,110
|
Post by thecheat on Oct 28, 2009 16:32:26 GMT -5
first off: popcorn literature isn't even a term. Peter F. Hamilton left me expanded by the end of his books, which I think you would classify as "popcorn". Reading should be a fun and enjoyable experience not one where you tediously read difficult books so it will benefit you. How, exactly did you feel expanded by Hamilton's space opera? I can't really phrase that question in a way that you guys wont interpret as pretentious given your current predilections, so I'll just let you all think what you want. |
|
|
|
Post by Mizagium on Oct 28, 2009 16:38:28 GMT -5
first off: popcorn literature isn't even a term. Peter F. Hamilton left me expanded by the end of his books, which I think you would classify as "popcorn". Reading should be a fun and enjoyable experience not one where you tediously read difficult books so it will benefit you. How, exactly did you feel expanded by Hamilton's space opera? I can't really phrase that question in a way that you guys wont interpret as pretentious given your current predilections, so I'll just let you all think what you want. Well, one, he presents a new perspective on the view of life, death, and the afterlife. It also uses the act of colonizing other planets as a comment on our own previous periods of imperialism. Expansion of a culture without fixing problems that already exist will only further exacerbate the problem. Colonizing other planets without ridding poverty and famine will only repeat the cycle as more are found. Colonizing Africa and the Americas not only nearly wiped out one culture, but it also brought back numerous problems for the conquistadors and imperialists. Wonton imperialism is frowned upon. |
|
thecheat
Local Author
The PuritanProphet
No use crying over spilled The Cheat.
Posts: 1,110
|
Post by thecheat on Oct 28, 2009 16:41:31 GMT -5
There you go: substantial literature. That fits into the realm of what I was promoting. Still, hesitate to use the term "new." Nothing is ever really new. Most of what is ever said has been said before, or very close to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by TEAM_DERRICK on Oct 28, 2009 16:41:43 GMT -5
My point was that you could read enjoyable books or you could read books that are enjoyable AND hold some intellectual merit. I'd rather just kill two birds with one stone. You didn't get that the first, second, or third time so I'll remember to blunt in the future. I used the term Derrick used to describe H.P. Lovecraft to me, assuming it was something he coined. Apparently it was a preexisting term that I misused. THE MORE YOU KNOW I actually didn't read Ulysses. I got tired of the 5-7 obscure references per page. I knew a few, like Typhus and Echidna, but the version I have don't have any footnotes (or anything else of the sort). I'll either find a version that explains itself better or wait to read the book until I'm better prepared. There's no single book I've read that inspired me to preach to you guys about this. I just go to a bookstore in downtown Woodstock and raid the classics section for two or three books every week or so. Honestly, I think people should read more classic literature. You'd be surprised how enriching it is, especially in comparison to juvenile literature like Harry Potter. What's more, you do better in class. I own the shit out of AP Lit because I read more classic literature than everyone else in that class and the experience makes me a better analyst. PRO TIPS How exactly is HP Lovecraft and Harry Turtledove not intellectually stimulating? Lovecraft was one of the first writers to introduce the idea of a completely alien and uncaring universe. His books make you question your internal morality and are somewhat humbling. The idea that the human race is just another speck in a Jack Pollock painting, that will some day be utterly annihilated and forgotten is a rather terrifying notion. Turtledove's work is based of logical historical postulation. The events he portrays in his novels are delightful and insightful parallels into real life history. France and England almost recognized the CSA as a legitimate country, but due to the Union beating them in several key battles, they decided not to. If the CSA was legitimized by France and England, it would make sense that the US would ally itself with Germany (the other world power at the time) and fight against Britain, France, Russia, and the CSA during WWI and later WWII! If Abraham Lincoln lost the civil war, the Republican party would fall out of favor, and would give rise to other parties. With worker's rights being a prominent issue during the late 19th century and early 20th, the Socialist party would easily gain a congressional foothold. Thus Upton Sinclair becoming the first Socialist president, doesn't sound too far fetched. I could go on for hours, but you (should) get my point. |
|
thecheat
Local Author
The PuritanProphet
No use crying over spilled The Cheat.
Posts: 1,110
|
Post by thecheat on Oct 28, 2009 17:00:38 GMT -5
The uncaring universe bit was not originated by Lovecraft. He's a more contemporary anti-transcendentalist and a cynic who gave a new twist to old theories through the utilization of space and artificial gods.
Don't get me wrong, I respect Lovecraft. The more I read about him the more interesting I find him, but you guys are arguing his point incorrectly. His most important work was Call of Cthulu, not his historical fictions. Honestly, I'd like to read some Lovecraft now that I've looked into this guy a little more, but he's certainly not one of my priorities. He's at the bottom of my list of authors I want to read.
|
|
|
|
Post by TEAM_DERRICK on Oct 28, 2009 17:03:16 GMT -5
The uncaring universe bit was not originated by Lovecraft. He's a more contemporary anti-transcendentalist and a cynic who gave a new twist to old theories through the utilization of space and artificial gods. Don't get me wrong, I respect Lovecraft. The more I read about him the more interesting I find him, but you guys are arguing his point incorrectly. His most important work was Call of Cthulu, not his historical fictions. Honestly, I'd like to read some Lovecraft now that I've looked into this guy a little more, but he's certainly not one of my priorities. He's at the bottom of my list of authors I want to read. i didn't say that he invented it, but he did bring it into the forefront. also, you spelled Cthulhu wrong |
|
|
|
Post by tuberjustin on Oct 28, 2009 17:04:50 GMT -5
but then you realize it was all just a trick, and you end up feeling empty and used at the end. That's how. its not hard to trick stupid girls |
|
thecheat
Local Author
The PuritanProphet
No use crying over spilled The Cheat.
Posts: 1,110
|
Post by thecheat on Oct 28, 2009 17:06:49 GMT -5
You said he was one of the first writers to discuss it. My point is that you were sort of right, but not quite on the mark. What's more, he didn't really bring it to the forefront. His works are mainly cult classics, unnoticed or disregarded by the majority and therefore denying him both popularity and voice.
|
|
thecheat
Local Author
The PuritanProphet
No use crying over spilled The Cheat.
Posts: 1,110
|
Post by thecheat on Oct 28, 2009 17:09:44 GMT -5
I'll admit that I was wrong about Lovecraft not making contributions to literature, but I still stand by my guns in saying that his alternate timelines lack the sparkle of Call of Cthulhu.
|
|
|
|
Post by tuberjustin on Oct 28, 2009 17:14:41 GMT -5
i haven't read any of the Lovecraft books yet (soon as i finish my current series i will)
|
|
|
|
Post by Mizagium on Oct 28, 2009 17:35:52 GMT -5
Hamilton's view of the immortal soul IS new. Perhaps not the concept, but the way of going about it"
- Humans have immortal souls
- souls are thoughts and feelings and memories held together coherently by sentience
- Beyond the physical universe we know are several other "beyonds"
- one such is where souls still clinging to their past life end up
- it is a horrible place, a veritable hell
- if you accept that death is inevitable, and believe that you will go to a better place, you will go there
- there is no god or gods
not arguing, just explaining his explanation. take it or leave it, it gives you something to think about.
|
|
