|
I hope you're reading the real versions of those Twain books, with the illustrations. It's disgusting that they're so often left out.
|
# ¿ Oct 13, 2018 21:15 |
|
|
# ¿ Mar 29, 2024 06:04 |
|
OscarDiggs posted:A Connecticut Yankee because it seems the most fun apart from Huckleberry
|
# ¿ Oct 14, 2018 19:51 |
|
I was hoping that the guy who's read the book would respond, but I guess not (yet?).OscarDiggs posted:Now I don't know the first thing about books, but it sort of feels like the book is over explaining? “My mothers body had been wrapped from head to toe in saffron silk cloth... her death was so grand that I knew, all at once, that her life must have been miserable.” Isn't that telling, not showing? But, more importantly, to say that this unduly "tells" is to completely miss its point. Even though I have no context for the sentence, I know that Aravind Adiga didn't write it to explain to me that this woman had a miserable life. He is using that information to make a statement. Now, not having read the book, I can't say what that statement would be, but here are some things that, in a vacuum, it could say: • The lavish funeral is some kind of karmic reward for the mother's long-suffering in life. • Her funeral is a hollow compensation for a life without fulfillment. • The funeral is a symbol of a just afterlife for those who are unfortunate. • It doesn't actually mean anything, but Balram wants it to, either for an emotional reason or simply because he projects grand patterns onto whatever he sees. It could mean any of these things. It could mean something else entirely. It could "mean" one but end up saying another. It could have multiple meanings depending on how you connect it to the rest of the book or its social context or the author's life or whatever you want. I don't know, but whatever it might happen to be is irrelevant, because all of these examples and ideas are information beyond the simple facts of the funeral and even beyond the idea (not fact) of the miserable life. If you want to apply "show, don't tell" here, Adiga is actually "showing", rather than "telling", because he's trusting his readers to understand the significance of how Balram thinks about his mother's funeral instead of just spelling everything out for them. Heck, writing a novel at all instead of a monograph on modern India's economic development is "showing", not "telling". (See how vague and unenforcable this rule can get when you try to hold serious writing to it?) All of this is to say that literature is not written for a school assignment. It has bigger things on its mind. Sham bam bamina! fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Oct 24, 2018 |
# ¿ Oct 24, 2018 09:59 |
|
I will refrain from commenting on Russian literature because I blather on about it in every other book thread, so instead I'll take the opportunity to recommend the most beautifully written book I've ever read, The Gold Bug Variations, by Richard Powers. Read The Brothers Karamazov and Anna Karenina before the "and" books, especially the molasses swamp that is War and Peace.
|
# ¿ Oct 27, 2018 09:40 |
|
OscarDiggs posted:Because there are already a load of recomendations (thank you very much people!) I will settle ooooon... A Hero of Our Time. If you're also going to read The Death of Ivan Ilyich, Kirsten Lodge's translation is the best. Her version of Notes from the Underground is also superb, although she has strong competition there from Ralph Matlaw's revision of Constance Garnett's translation. (A rule of thumb: Garnett translations themselves are hit-and-miss, but revised Garnett is almost always excellent.) Sham bam bamina! fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Oct 29, 2018 |
# ¿ Oct 29, 2018 23:47 |
|
He's basically right about Garnett and the Maudes. But that's where a good revision makes all the difference.
|
# ¿ Oct 30, 2018 08:33 |
|
The opening line of Dead Souls describes Chichikov as the kind of middling gentleman who has a hundred serfs.
Sham bam bamina! fucked around with this message at 12:09 on Nov 1, 2018 |
# ¿ Oct 31, 2018 05:52 |
|
OscarDiggs posted:Probably not, the old one is doing fine as in.
|
# ¿ Nov 5, 2018 20:09 |
|
Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is better than Frankenstein at less than half the length.
|
# ¿ Nov 6, 2018 19:46 |
|
I'm glad that you liked the book! Godspeed on whatever you read next.OscarDiggs posted:"We might not have arrived; but nevertheless we did." I read this book twice and I'm still having difficulty parsing this. OscarDiggs posted:Byron appears more then once, so I looked him up on Wikipedia. Did you lot trick me into reading some Russian guys fanfiction about a Byronic hero? No judgement here if you did, I still liked it a lot. Lermontov's poem about the death of Pushkin probably qualifies as "fanfiction about a Byronic hero", though. Sham bam bamina! fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Nov 7, 2018 |
# ¿ Nov 7, 2018 05:20 |
|
Frankenstein isn't genre fiction. Creating what would become a genre template is pretty much the opposite of following one. Edit: vyelkin posted:I'd again suggest something shorter before tackling Dostoevsky. Short stories would be a good choice, or I'll again recommend two short novels, Pushkin's The Captain's Daughter and Bulgakov's Heart of a Dog. Both are really excellent. Sham bam bamina! fucked around with this message at 07:49 on Nov 7, 2018 |
# ¿ Nov 7, 2018 07:08 |
|
Even if I agreed with you (and "quality" isn't the question here; I love Philip K. Dick as much as anyone), it wouldn't change that A human heart was completely right in pointing out that the OP does not want to read genre fiction for this thread.
Sham bam bamina! fucked around with this message at 09:19 on Nov 7, 2018 |
# ¿ Nov 7, 2018 07:58 |
|
God Of Paradise posted:John Kennedy O'Toole Franchescanado posted:O'Toole
|
# ¿ Nov 7, 2018 17:01 |
|
All books are literature by definition.
|
# ¿ Nov 14, 2018 18:17 |
|
Here's a cheat code: You can't look at a text in light of the author, but you can look at it in light of other texts by the author, including memoirs, personal correspondence, etc.
|
# ¿ Nov 15, 2018 21:48 |
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Sure you can give the book a historical/biographic reading but that is not a more essential reading than one which ignores it
|
# ¿ Nov 15, 2018 21:50 |
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Sure, but in that case the author exists as a consideration of the reader applied to the text, not an independent third body
|
# ¿ Nov 15, 2018 21:52 |
|
jagstag posted:maybe im not explaining myself correctly. I'm not saying anything outside of an authors intent or context is a wrong reading but that there are wrong takes especially ones that are completely counter to the context/intent
|
# ¿ Nov 15, 2018 21:55 |
|
It's not a rule at all, and it's a moot point with the cheat code I gave you anyway.
|
# ¿ Nov 15, 2018 22:06 |
|
jagstag posted:however if you apply no wrong readings to everything how are you going to cover satire Mel Mudkiper posted:A reading can never be wrong. However, it can be weak or inconsequential.
|
# ¿ Nov 15, 2018 22:08 |
|
The only way for a reading to be wrong is if it's factually inaccurate about the contents of the text, but then it isn't a valid reading in the first place. Assuming that you're talking about what's actually described in a satire, you can absolutely choose to read it as an endorsement of what it condemns. It would be dumb, but it wouldn't be wrong.
|
# ¿ Nov 15, 2018 22:11 |
|
jagstag posted:so if i was to say that a modest proposal was actually pro baby eating you would say that the reading is weak/inconsequential and not wrong? Edit: Mel's answer is better.
|
# ¿ Nov 15, 2018 22:14 |
|
jagstag posted:then who is to say what is a dumb reading and what is a good reading?
|
# ¿ Nov 15, 2018 22:15 |
|
Why does there have to be some infallible authority on the Correct Reading of a text?
|
# ¿ Nov 15, 2018 22:15 |
|
my bony fealty posted:in my reading Hamlet's dad's ghost is actually a hologram projected by space aliens and Yorick's skull is that of the starchild, therefore Shakespeare is arguing ancient aliens are real, prove me wrong!!
|
# ¿ Nov 16, 2018 19:46 |
|
That professor owns.
|
# ¿ Nov 17, 2018 01:51 |
|
He's my kind of guy.
|
# ¿ Nov 17, 2018 06:11 |
|
jagstag posted:im not saying the theory stated behind it is narrow but to considering only the recent theory as the only valid part is narrow especially since it's a continued debate that hasn't concluded and probs never will be as long as people care about this poo poo
|
# ¿ Nov 19, 2018 14:03 |
|
jagstag posted:the thing is im not actually arguing in good faith here. was invited to cover critical reading theory and critique as it applies to reading histories for an acquaintance's class next week and im extremely out of practice w/ explaining why the arguments i posted prior are dumb to brad the military vet and ethel the bible studies major who i know are going to use these arguments because i have heard these before. so i kinda do have to care about this poo poo :/
|
# ¿ Nov 19, 2018 18:25 |
|
Yeah, there's a hell of a lot more than that waiting for you, including society and economics. Keep reading.
Sham bam bamina! fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Nov 22, 2018 |
# ¿ Nov 22, 2018 05:48 |
|
OscarDiggs posted:I liked it, despite how depressive it was. It was satisfying in a way to have the bullshit of such a life fully examined and shown to be ludicrous in it's way. Buuuut... I don't know, it also felt a little... propaganda-y? Like the author was sitting on his high horse and lecturing me. Maybe that's unfair and cynical though.
|
# ¿ Nov 23, 2018 18:05 |
|
immolationsex posted:My point is, I don't really know anything about Tolstoi, how mature he was as a writer at this point, or what 'phase' he was in (if he had those). Sham bam bamina! fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Nov 23, 2018 |
# ¿ Nov 23, 2018 19:14 |
|
OscarDiggs posted:This dip into Russian Literature hasn't been interesting and eye-opening, OscarDiggs posted:At this moment I am considering "A Confederary of Dunces" quite heaviliy, with the other options still there in the back of my mind. Also, I managed to get my hands on a few books from family, which included "A Scarlet Letter", "To Kill a Mockingbird", "Heart of Darkness" and 2 different versions of "The Oddysey".
|
# ¿ Nov 28, 2018 17:03 |
|
OscarDiggs posted:One thing, I am sort of getting the feeling I'm missing a core detail. Is there some important context I should know before getting to far in or can I safely take it at face value?
|
# ¿ Dec 8, 2018 22:08 |
|
What Mel is arguing is that a book can only be adequately "against racism" if it takes on a marginalized racial perspective directly. Maybe Harper Lee should have kept that in mind when writing about something that literally happened in her childhood.
|
# ¿ Jan 10, 2019 03:26 |
|
Don't misunderstand me; I think that turning efforts against racism, particularly one as massively successful as To Kill a Mockingbird, into a wokeness contest is counterproductive.
Sham bam bamina! fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Jan 10, 2019 |
# ¿ Jan 10, 2019 03:58 |
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I am not arguing that books that are against racism can only be written from marginalized perspectives, or that books against racism should be seen as wokeness contests.
|
# ¿ Jan 10, 2019 05:52 |
|
You know what, that's a fair point. I apologize for misunderstanding you.
|
# ¿ Jan 10, 2019 05:57 |
|
pleasecallmechrist posted:See quote. Without hysterical unquestioning zealotry in this, intersectionality is nothing but oversimplified blame games that can be described in totem by hyperbole and buzzwords.You have shown it for the dreg ideology it is.
|
# ¿ Jan 10, 2019 06:04 |
|
|
# ¿ Mar 29, 2024 06:04 |
|
Good post on the subject from the Real Literature thread:Eugene V. Dubstep posted:
|
# ¿ Apr 3, 2019 19:28 |