Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

you guys can talk on and on about books being dull, unrelatable and whatnot but again most of the books mentioned here have literary merit and can be great on their own and can be great to anyone.

heck supermarket tabloids have literary merit if taken at a certain light

but pick up any of the Exalted novels from White Wolf (not the rule books, the novels based on the game)...oi.

First, writing books means that you know how to write first. the authors of these books dont. Typos on almost every page. Unclear pronoun references making it hard to follow whos doing what. Whole pages with nary a punctuation in sight. Its like they made these mistakes on purpose to distract you from the content which is worse.

the editor obviously just made sure that manuscript satisfied the page count and signed off on it.

its hard imagining these books having ANY value at all to anyone for its content. Im betting even the authors would cringe at the abomination they birthed.

they do however have value if say, you're looking for kindling or you ran out of toilet paper.

reds8n wrote:

Avatar 720 wrote:

You have to read the entire thing, or at least make an EFFORT to read the entire thing in order to have the right to complain about it.

No I don't.

But if you haven't actually read the book in question it pretty much renders your opinion worthless, is the problem with the approach you're taking here.

Oh well?

malfred wrote:There was a college course that used Frankenstein as the object of teaching critical lenses.

So they read and analyzed it using feminist criticism, socialist criticism, historical criticism,
the new critics perspective, etc.

Strictly for the english majors, of course. (ha! of course! Get it? Of COURSE you do!)

I went through the very same class druing my last year at Nova. Our professor kept telling us to wait until after class to drink. It was sound advice, and now all I have to do is look at Frankenstein to remember one or another obscure philosopher and their contribution to literary analysis.

If any of you chaps don't want to slog through the Twilight books, but still want good and funny synopses from a somewhat immature man (safe for work), read Dan Bergstein's blogs, found here.
Funny, long enough to show details and review the main ideas, but short enough to be lighthearted and readable.

ChrisWWII wrote:Especiall with Fellowship, you're 100% right. It starts off extremely slow, and the sections focused on Frodo are even more so. I suppose that it is true that Tolkien wrote LotR to show off his home made languages and world. Still, you have to note that LotR took apart an entire genre of media, and rebuilt it in its own image. Somehow, Tolkien did something right, somewhere along the line...

Tolkein did a whole lot right. The world he built is more alive and more believable than just about any other we've seen. And the barebones of LotR is a really powerful story. It's just that Tolkein was not a writer first and foremost, and didn't collaborate with anyone that could have put more discipline into his writing, so in between bits of story we get long descriptions of tree types.

It's still a fantastic creation, but a hard novel to read.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Avatar 720 wrote:I never said it was in my list of worst books; I have posted my list here already FYI.

I was simply giving my 2p, and it appears that nobody wanted it, so i'll have my 2p back thank you.

I would advise you not to go around spending 2p to tell people that you read a little bit of a classic, guessed wrongly that it was about something you weren't interested in, and therefore it was a bad book.

I can think of much better uses of 2p.


But seriously, just try reading the book, it's a classic. If it helps, there's even a bit of mystery about who wrote it (the stated author Harper Lee never wrote anything before or after, and no-one had any idea she was writing a novel. She was, however, a very close friend of Truman Capote, an acclaimed author, who also wrote a lot about life in Southern small towns, in a very similar style...)

Most of the Black Library novels I have read were pretty sub-par.

sebster wrote:
Tolkein did a whole lot right. The world he built is more alive and more believable than just about any other we've seen. And the barebones of LotR is a really powerful story. It's just that Tolkein was not a writer first and foremost, and didn't collaborate with anyone that could have put more discipline into his writing, so in between bits of story we get long descriptions of tree types.

It's still a fantastic creation, but a hard novel to read.

Well, we agree on something at least. Tolkien was a linguist first, and an author a distant second. He wrote the LotR to be just a home for his langauges and world, which explains why the Hobbit was a much more enjoyable book. It was mean to be a BOOk not a world building exercise. I do agree that the worst part of the story is the long winded descriptions of something so basic as a cliff or trees.

It's part of why I respect Peter Jackson's interpretation of the books so much. He was able to trim the long boring sections out, and really focus on telling the story.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Does anyone who has studied English at Uni have or used to have problems reading purely for pleasure because you end up dissecting the novel and analysing every aspect?
Not necessarily at Uni - guess this would be feasible at any level, it was just that I was useless at Eng Lit at school and have never analysed what I read to a great extent.

Hmmm, it seems like I would be in the minority on this one, but that's part of why I enjoyed English classes so much.

Dissecting the novels was always one of my favorite parts; I love picking apart all the metaphors and whatnot. Good fun.

sebster wrote:

But seriously, just try reading the book, it's a classic. If it helps, there's even a bit of mystery about who wrote it (the stated author Harper Lee never wrote anything before or after, and no-one had any idea she was writing a novel. She was, however, a very close friend of Truman Capote, an acclaimed author, who also wrote a lot about life in Southern small towns, in a very similar style...)

I didn't know that. Is it thought he did that to protect himself from some of the concepts in it?

I would advise you not to go around spending 2p to tell people that you read a little bit of a classic, guessed wrongly that it was about something you weren't interested in, and therefore it was a bad book.

Guessed wrongly? I didn't know you knew my thought patterns or even my mind at all. Or did you simply reach the conclusion that I am 'wrong' because it is a classic?

I am struggling to see how you know that I am obviously wrong; people don't like LotR, another classic, are they simply wrong too?

No, you're wrong because you didn't read To Kill a Mockingbird. You said it yourself. You opened it up, read a little, decided you didn't like it, closed it and put it down. You are not qualified to critique it.

Those who have expressed their dislike of LotR on the other hand, have read the books and have a few declared problems with them. If they admitted they hadn't read the books, and had only read part of a chapter, then they'd get the same treatment.

It's not becuase you dislike a classic. It's because you're complaining about a book you haven't read.

If I said that I felt that Die Hard was awful because it relied too much on melodrama and characterizatin, would I be wrong because I didn't like it, or because I clearly haven't seen it?

No, you're wrong because you didn't read To Kill a Mockingbird.

I still don't see why I am wrong. What if I do read it all and still don't like it? Will that still be wrong? 'Guessed wrongly' is far from correct, as it assumes that I will like it if I read it, an assumption that is completely baseless.

You are not qualified to critique it.

Oh, but I am. You, however, are free to ignore what I say on the grounds that it is uninformed.

Avatar 720 wrote:

You are not qualified to critique it.

Oh, but I am.

You're qualified to say that you didn't like what you read.

You aren't qualified to critique the novel, as one of the qualifications for doing so is... wait for it... reading the novel.

Avatar 720 wrote: I didn't know you knew my thought patterns or even my mind at all.

..you appear to be arguing here that knowledge of a thing or a subject is needed to form a valid opinion on them...


.... shome mishtake shurely ?

Oh snap!

You're qualified to say that you didn't like what you read.

You aren't qualified to critique the novel, as one of the qualifications for doing so is... wait for it... reading the novel.

Critique

–noun
1. an article or essay criticizing a literary or other work; detailed evaluation; review.
2. a criticism or critical comment on some problem, subject, etc.
3. the art or practice of criticism.
–verb (used with object)
4. to review or analyze critically.

Nowhere does it say that reading the entire work is necessary.

..you appear to be arguing here that knowledge of a thing or a subject is needed to form a valid opinion on them...


.... shome mishtake shurely ?

Forgive me, but i'm not quite sure I said that my opinion was avalid; in fact:

Me wrote:You, however, are free to ignore what I say on the grounds that it is uninformed.

I believe I said it was an uninformed opinion.

Avatar 720 wrote:
Critique

–noun
1. an article or essay criticizing a literary or other work; detailed evaluation; review.
2. a criticism or critical comment on some problem, subject, etc.
3. the art or practice of criticism.
–verb (used with object)
4. to review or analyze critically.

Nowhere does it say that reading the entire work is necessary.

Well,

crit·i·cize   

–verb (used with object)
1. to censure or find fault with.
2. to judge or discuss the merits and faults of: to criticize three novels in one review.

So, to preform a critique, you need to criticize, which requires that you discuss merits and faults. Virtually all connotations of "crtically" would be mroe or less an antonym of "superficially."

Yes, saying "It looked boring" is a judgment, but not really a critique by any commonly accepted standard.

..you appear to be arguing here that knowledge of a thing or a subject is needed to form a valid opinion on them...


.... shome mishtake shurely ?

Forgive me, but i'm not quite sure I said that my opinion was avalid; in fact:

I believe the joke was that earlier, you were miffed that sebster made a judgement about what you were thinking without having all the facts.

"Guessed wrongly? I didn't know you knew my thought patterns or even my mind at all. Or did you simply reach the conclusion that I am 'wrong' because it is a classic? "

It's funny, because you've been relentlessy defending your right to find fault with things you know little about, but seem upset when people do the same to you.

4M2A wrote:I'm another one who struggles with LOTR. The story is good but I don't like his writting style. It feels more like i'm reading a history book than a fiction story.

One of the my least favourite is Lord of the Flies. Had to read the book for english at school and hated it. Oddly I actually enjoyed ( and agreed with) the point he was trying to make. It would have made a great book if it was written as the author talking about his idea but it's one of the most boring stories I've ever read. Theres just too much description about item that have no relevance to the story. I really don't care what that random rock looks like if i'm never going to see it again.

I'll agree with the odea that english literature lessons put people off english. From an english literature enthusiasts idea classical books are great. To a teenage student they are some of the worst possible books. it doesn't matter how good the writting is if the content means nothing to the reader.

From what I understand Tolkien made up some languages for fun then wrote stories as an excuse to use them.

rubiksnoob wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Does anyone who has studied English at Uni have or used to have problems reading purely for pleasure because you end up dissecting the novel and analysing every aspect?
Not necessarily at Uni - guess this would be feasible at any level, it was just that I was useless at Eng Lit at school and have never analysed what I read to a great extent.

Hmmm, it seems like I would be in the minority on this one, but that's part of why I enjoyed English classes so much.

Dissecting the novels was always one of my favorite parts; I love picking apart all the metaphors and whatnot. Good fun.

Well, sometimes it's fun, but when you don't care about the book, or it just seems that the teacher is just pulling gak out of their ears, that pisses me off. Learning and dissecting "As I Lay Dying" today was excellent, as the prof. helped us uncover some interesting nuances that most of us glossed over. "The House of Mirth", however, I did not care for, and found everything either to be a pointless metaphor, or the teacher was, once again, making stuff up to fill time in class so we could get to the sections of the book that he actually had good points for.

Well, i'm bored of arguing now, so i'll just come clean:

I haven't read any of it.
I haven't formed an opinion of it for that reason.
I felt like seeing whether or not I could argue my way out of my position.

Don't hurt me

Avatar 720 wrote:Well, i'm bored of arguing now, so i'll just come clean:

I haven't read any of it.

-sigh-

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Avatar 720 wrote:Well, i'm bored of arguing now, so i'll just come clean:

I haven't read any of it.

-sigh-

I suggest reading past that bit as well, as concentrating on just that bit means you're missing the whole point of my post.

Avatar 720 wrote:Well, i'm bored of arguing now, so i'll just come clean:

I haven't read any of it.
I haven't formed an opinion of it for that reason.
I felt like seeing whether or not I could argue my way out of my position.

Don't hurt me

Avatar 720 wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Avatar 720 wrote:Well, i'm bored of arguing now, so i'll just come clean:

I haven't read any of it.

-sigh-

I suggest reading past that bit as well, as concentrating on just that bit means you're missing the whole point of my post.

Considering the rest of your post makes you look worse, maybe you shouldn't draw attention to it...

The Pathfinder by James Cooper.

The packed together details mesh over and drown out what is actually going on, thus a simple five page scene turns into an excruciating thirty.

Polonius wrote:

Avatar 720 wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Avatar 720 wrote:Well, i'm bored of arguing now, so i'll just come clean:

I haven't read any of it.

-sigh-

I suggest reading past that bit as well, as concentrating on just that bit means you're missing the whole point of my post.

Considering the rest of your post makes you look worse, maybe you shouldn't draw attention to it...

Meh, each to their own; I think it makes me look better, but then again i'm a terrible judge of character. Still, my point stands.

Sebster
LoTR doesn't have pacing problems.
The modern reader has problems with the book's pacing.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Sebster
LoTR doesn't have pacing problems.
The modern reader has problems with the book's pacing.

Not even that, some people have problems with the books pacing.

I found its pace to be enjoyable as it was a meander through a rich landscape as opposed to a sprint down a track.

Apologies Corpses
Some people have problems with the book's pacing.

Sorry for the genralisation. I was thinking that the style maybe seen as slow to an audience brought up on a diet of rapidly shifting foci, whereas post war the style would have been received differently. Maybe wrong but afaik the contemporary criticism would have been more accepting of the pace.