|
|
Post by cleglaw on Dec 11, 2007 20:19:27 GMT
Winterfox, what author's work do you admire?
|
|
|
|
Post by Winterfox on Dec 11, 2007 20:32:17 GMT
I question the relevance of that to the discussion, but okay: I adore Charles Dickens, Chaucer, and Milton for Paradise Lost. If Oscar Wilde were alive today (and, you know, not gay), I'd totally jump his bones and have my way with him. For contemporary authors, I fangirl China Mieville, George R. R. Martin, and loved Joan D. Vinge's The Snow Queen Cycle; I enjoy most of PTerry's Discworld books and some of Neil Gaiman's. Oh, and I liked the first few Dune books.
I can also give you a lengthy list of authors I loathe, if you like, with explanations.
|
|
|
|
Post by hector on Dec 12, 2007 0:51:24 GMT
Hell, If he were alive and I were gay, I would totally jump Wilde's bones.
Wintefox, can you tell us why you loathe Paolini? Please be harsh, very very harsh.
|
|
|
|
Post by cleglaw on Dec 12, 2007 0:57:57 GMT
I question the relevance of that to the discussion, but okay: I adore Charles Dickens, Chaucer, and Milton for Paradise Lost. If Oscar Wilde were alive today (and, you know, not gay), I'd totally jump his bones and have my way with him. For contemporary authors, I fangirl China Mieville, George R. R. Martin, and loved Joan D. Vinge's The Snow Queen Cycle; I enjoy most of PTerry's Discworld books and some of Neil Gaiman's. Oh, and I liked the first few Dune books. I can also give you a lengthy list of authors I loathe, if you like, with explanations. It is a discussion about taste in literature with the focal point being Tolkien; I was therefore curious. Thank you for sharing the information. |
|
|
|
Post by Winterfox on Dec 12, 2007 1:10:45 GMT
Hell, If he were alive and I were gay, I would totally jump Wilde's bones. <3 <3 <3 I--I wouldn't care about sexuality. I'd jump his bones even were I a heterosexual man or a lesbian woman (barring, anyway, the issue of boobs and vagina turning him the hell off). He makes me melt. Had we the technology, I'd totally get myself turned into a beautiful teenage boy, travel back in time and beg for his attentions for a night. ...why, why do you want me to get started on Paolini? D: (Though, apart from him being an arrogant, deluded little dickhead and the whole "my parents own a publishing press, that's just like having talent, right?" issue on top of his fiction being really shite, I have disappointingly little to rant about: I've only skimmed Eragon, but from what I've heard, I'm not missing out much. Is there any other author you'd like me to unleash my opinions upon?) |
|
|
|
Post by hector on Dec 12, 2007 1:20:13 GMT
...why, why do you want me to get started on Paolini? D: Because I'm still [Censored]ing pissed because I wasted time and money with the pieces of crap he calls 'stories' and the movie based on them, and I know you have a way with words. I'll think about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Winterfox on Dec 12, 2007 1:22:12 GMT
I'd have plenty of vitriol if I had actually read them or watched the movie. But you actually... read the books and paid for them? You poor man. The most I did was read a pirated e-text. It is a discussion about taste in literature with the focal point being Tolkien; I was therefore curious. Thank you for sharing the information. Right then. In that case, I'm curious what conclusions you've drawn from the information or what opinions you have on it, if any. |
|
|
|
Post by hector on Dec 12, 2007 1:33:25 GMT
But you actually... read the books and paid for them? Well, yeah. Not directly, mind you. But I do pay a monthly fee for my broadband connection. Add the two cents for the DVD I burned the movie on, and I paid way too much. |
|
|
|
Post by Winterfox on Dec 12, 2007 1:43:13 GMT
Not to mention the slight wear and tear on your DVD writer.
I make it a sort of mission to send people e-texts of Paolini's crap (when they express the desire to pick it up, anyway) if only to prevent them from giving him money.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 12, 2007 2:16:46 GMT
Paolini's work is full of cliches, but I've read worse. Most of the later works of David Eddings, to start with... Seriously - Legend of Althalus has to be one of the worst books I've ever read from any author.
|
|
|
|
Post by cleglaw on Dec 12, 2007 2:39:29 GMT
It is a discussion about taste in literature with the focal point being Tolkien; I was therefore curious. Thank you for sharing the information. Right then. In that case, I'm curious what conclusions you've drawn from the information or what opinions you have on it, if any. The main conclusion I have is that we do not have the same taste in literature; I do not like Dickens. I would never read Chaucer, and Milton for pleasure. As for the modern authors you named, I have not read any of them with the exception of the first few Dune books. I also enjoyed them, although I would be hesitant to call them my favorites. Have you read The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever? What do you think of Donaldson? Ultimately, the main conclusion I draw from your response is that literature is a matter of personal taste to a large extent. No doubt we could come up with a list of criteria for what makes a great book or a terrible book. However, establishment of these criteria would be a subject of debate. |
|
|
|
Post by Winterfox on Dec 12, 2007 2:48:55 GMT
I've not read Donaldson.
Mmm, what authors do you enjoy then? I didn't list my favorites per se, just what I find enjoyable; I've dispensed with favorite lists long ago, especially since they change.
|
|
|
|
Post by cleglaw on Dec 12, 2007 18:58:16 GMT
I've not read Donaldson. Mmm, what authors do you enjoy then? I didn't list my favorites per se, just what I find enjoyable; I've dispensed with favorite lists long ago, especially since they change. The authors I have enjoyed over the past 50 years include, but are not limited to, the following: Ernest Hemingway Franz Kafka John Steinbeck Tony Hillerman -- formulaic, but entertaining Lawrence Bloch -- always a favorite for light reading in the detective/mystery genre Steven King -- clearly not all of his books, but enough of them so that he makes my list Ken Kesey Jack Kerouac Guy De Maupassant Alexandre Dumas Stephen Donaldson -- I have read his 1st two trilogies: The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever and The Second Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. They are fantasy, but poles apart from Tolkien. Try Lord Foul's Bane the 1st book in the series; I think you might enjoy it. There are more no doubt. |
|
|
|
Post by Winterfox on Dec 12, 2007 20:38:23 GMT
Wow, our tastes are different. I'd sooner stab myself in the eyes than willingly read a Hemingway or a Steinbeck. Actually, your tastes really are quite--for lack of a better word--American.
|
|
|
|
Post by cleglaw on Dec 12, 2007 23:29:22 GMT
Wow, our tastes are different. I'd sooner stab myself in the eyes than willingly read a Hemingway or a Steinbeck. Actually, your tastes really are quite--for lack of a better word--American. I can see your point up to a point, but more on point, I doubt that Franz Kafka and Guy De Maupassant could be called an American taste. Imo Hemingway makes efficient effective use of language; Dickens and his ilk are verbose. |
|
|
|
Post by Winterfox on Dec 13, 2007 2:38:47 GMT
Hemmingway mistook pretension for sophistication, IMO. Writers who take themselves that seriously make me ill. Same with Steinbeck, actually.
Also, Dickens and his ilk are verbose? Are you kidding me or are you just not aware of the simple fact that Dickens was a Victorian novelist? Do... do you expect him to write like a twentieth-century modernist, maybe? Would you also fault Chaucer for writing in Middle English, too, or the Pearl/Gawain poet for having lengthy descriptions in his poems? Historical context and genre expectations, let me show you them.
|
|
|
|
Post by cleglaw on Dec 13, 2007 3:31:18 GMT
When I call Dickens verbose, it is a statement of fact. Victorian literature is verbose, and I do not care for it.
There is no need to engage in hyperbole. We have different tastes, and let us leave it at that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Winterfox on Dec 13, 2007 3:39:52 GMT
It's more the fact that you put Dickens alongside Hemmingway to compare. Comparing them is fantastically silly.
Oh golly, here I thought it was an opinion (verbose as compared to what? Verbose in whose eyes? Verbose according to what objective standards?). Uh, sorry, I'll leave you to your indulgence of regarding your own opinions as facts now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 13, 2007 3:53:34 GMT
Victorian or not, Dickens is verbose. He can be utterly enchanting, or he can bore the reader to tears. At least this reader. I've had both those reactions to his novels.
Yes, he was writing for the audience of his time, but that doesn't really change the fact. It doesn't make him a bad writer, for that matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by cleglaw on Dec 13, 2007 4:48:30 GMT
Mine was the tersest of posts; some other was the worsest of posts; there was the wisdom of age; there was the age of foolishness. Twentieth century literature was the epoch of relief without the plot devices of the epoch of incredulity, one post was lightly seasoned; another was the seasoning of Darkness, let us post where hope springs; not the winterfox of despair; we had everything before us; we had nothing before us, let us all go direct to Heaven, let us all not go direct the other way --in short, the Victorian period of literature was so far unlike the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insist on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
|
|
