|
Are you happy now OP 
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 13:45 |
|
|
Ban OP before they kill again
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
Y'know what always comes off as super cool and not insincere at all? When someone makes a thread specifically to have a conversation about how they don't care about a thing see, most of the time when people don't care about something they don't go out of their way to talk about it when this rule is broken Alan Rickman dies
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Blazing Ownager posted:Okay someone who actually read the books and will dare admit it answer me one question: If all those wizard people had ties to the British government, why didn't they just ask the Prime Minister to send a couple strike bombers and naval cruisers and tactically nuke the evil wizard and his whole army from dozens of miles away? Or provide SAS strike teams to back them up? They didn't  They had their own special shadow government specifically for Wizard poo poo, I don't think they interacted with the actual British government at all Plus most of the rules of their society revolved around making sure non-magic people didn't know about their existence, which means they had to deal with their own poo poo themselves
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
The #1 running theme of discussion on SA has always been that popular nerd things are actually bad
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:Generally I agree with your sentiment but in this specific case Harry Potter is actually bad. I meant more in the case of Terry Pratchett here, I haven't actually read any of his books tho Harry Potter was very well written and plotted, even if the WW2 allegory got a little heavy-handed at times and the worldbuilding was kind of shallow and inconsistent. Rowling is a very good young-adult author because she describes abstract emotions particularly well. Things being silly and whimsical for their own sake kind of wears on an adult reader, but it works in the context of a children's book and most of it is confined to the first few books (which are definitely kids' books as opposed to the later ones which are YA fiction).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Applewhite posted:like? Tolkien comes to mind  or, like, Tolstoy or some poo poo
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Applewhite posted:Tolkien is entertaining imo. Beats the hell out of me, but War And Peace is one of those books that everyone just kind of accepts as being great without bothering to read it What was the quote? "A classic is a book that everyone wants to have read and nobody wants to read." e: it was Twain Mark Twain posted:I don't believe any of you have ever read PARADISE LOST, and you don't want to. That's something that you just want to take on trust. It's a classic, just as Professor Winchester says, and it meets his definition of a classic -- something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Hot Take based entirely on that post and a quick scan of Wikipedia: War And Peace is 19th-century Game Of Thrones
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Oh right, another for the list of good authors that are not entertaining: James Joyce He fills his poo poo chock-full of competently-done narrative devices and enough subtle symbolism to give an English teacher wet dreams, which makes him, technically speaking, a good author but seriously try reading that poo poo just try it
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Applewhite posted:I'm gonna propose something radical here and say that "good" authors that everyone hates to read are, in fact, not so good. Honestly I have no problem with this because I loving hate James Joyce Decebal posted:We used to have a book recommendation thread in GBS. That was cool. I enjoyed Gentlemen of the Road by Michael Chabon, but it was just a Book of the Month in TBB and they largely had bad things to say about it, and also I read and enjoyed the Baroque Cycle by Neal Stephenson so I might not be the most trustworthy source on this
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Nanomashoes posted:But the dudes have gems too Wah wah wah what about the menz  Try to stay on topic please 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 13:45 |
|
|
Applewhite posted:So you think perhaps the author included the gem faces on male characters as a meta-commentary on gender politics of the time? A sort of "red herring" to draw out discussion and reveal how we immediately turn all discussions about the struggles of women into a footnote to the struggles of men? The intentions of the author are immaterial, what matters is what's supported by the text itself Do I have to give you a crash course on Death Of The Author? 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 20:28
|
|