Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

This isn't offensive unless you want it to be, and biographical knowledge won't color your view of a book unless you allow it to

Remember that this is what we "SHOULD" know about authors.

That is where the offense comes in.

The idea that we should color books intentionally.

If it isn't with the intent to color our view of the book then the statement of "Should" has no place within the discussion and Novel has no arguement whatsoever.

As someone who is directly affected by their bigotry, i could get away with much and more and  be met with understanding on this extremely liberal board Neovinek

I would like to bet people know enough about reading and books that they wouldn't be swayed by rhetoric just because they are calling up sympathetic pleas.

I know that I am probably wrong but I am chosing to believe that here and now people would understand the difference between informing and the idea that the information is nessisary for understanding the book.

Especially when we established that not everything written with a source is written in defense or attack of that very source.

[fqllve]

Remember that this is what we "SHOULD" know about authors.

That is where the offense comes in.

The idea that we should color books intentionally.

If it isn't with the intent to color our view of the book then the statement of "Should" has no place within the discussion and Novel has no arguement whatsoever.

What if you've already read the books but still didn't know? What if you don't intend to read the books? Should a book be given a fair chance before it's read? Of course, but biographical information about the author is useful, interesting, and worthwhile if you've already read the books. It is important to know about the author after the fact because that has a great deal of weight on any possible interpretations thereof. It can also be useful before the fact. I'm a strong follower of the death of the author theory, but that doesn't meant that the author's beliefs, history, and intent aren't worthwhile information to know when thinking about a book. The only kind of coloring that is a problem is the propagandistic kind which tries only to get you to interpret it their way or which tries to poison you against the book without your knowledge.

If you would like to have a good picture of a book you need a lot of context, most of that context is historical and has nothing to do with the author, but the context of the author is also quite important to any interpretation of a book. You can take the book on its own value, and there are plenty of things to be said for that, but that's not the only way to interpret something, and personally, I believe that when reflecting on a book in its intentions you need to consider all possible interpretations.

[Neonivek]

What if you've already read the books but still didn't know? What if you don't intend to read the books.

But is this information you SHOULD know? If you are buying 1984 in the store should the clerk give you the complete history of George Orwell?

It would be nice to have it but "Nice to have it" isn't the conversation. This is about nessisary for the understanding of the book. This is about required reading.

Now if this about not wanting to support an author who is !EVIL! then it could be interpreted as information you "should" know. Yet this is about the understanding of the book as well.

Note: This is the only part I am responding to because it is the only part that applies. As the rest is on voluntary action.

[fqllve]

I think you're interpreting the should in the thread title way too strictly. Should doesn't mean have to, it means ought. Still voluntary.

Should doesn't mean necessary.

edit: Most importantly, it's a tiny thread on a relatively obscure forum. You're speaking as if all of academia has agreed that biographical information is required for reading any book. Just interpret the title casually, as I'm sure that's how it was meant.

[Neonivek]

I think you're interpreting the should in the thread title way too strictly. Should doesn't mean have to, it means ought. Still voluntary.

Should doesn't mean necessary.

The way it is being used it specifically means "Ought" as this isn't a prediction.

He isn't saying "You should know this information already". As in he is making a statement that this information is so widely available and known that everyone who goes into this topic knows the information already presented.

As well I made my claim and he didn't say anything close to saying "Ok, I didn't mean they HAVE to" which would immediately shut down my arguement.

[fqllve]

Ok, if we're going to be interpreting the title strictly. It is information he should know, and only possibly you. He wants information about authors and he wants us to tell him about them. It is not suggesting anyone else is under any obligation to do anything. This is a completely huge derail from the point of the topic and honestly, I'm confused as to why you are so adamant about this. It's his choice whether he thinks he should get biographical information, and it's not like he's forcing anyone else to have it.

You're really making this more of a debate than it needs to be.

[Scoops Novel]

I think you're interpreting the should in the thread title way too strictly. Should doesn't mean have to, it means ought. Still voluntary.

Should doesn't mean necessary.

The way it is being used it specifically means "Ought" as this isn't a prediction.

He isn't saying "You should know this information already". As in he is making a statement that this information is so widely available and known that everyone who goes into this topic knows the information already presented.

As well I made my claim and he didn't say anything close to saying "Ok, I didn't mean they HAVE to" which would immediately shut down my arguement.

I'm tempted to edit out the "possibly".

[fqllve]

D: Novel, why do you hate my totally amazing argument so much?

[Scoops Novel]

I was feeling laconic (you know, ironically i thought that meant lazy once)  .

[Neonivek]

Wasn't Charles Dickens anti-Semitic?
(that's me asking for someone to confirm something people ought to know about him)

Honestly I am starting to want anyone who says that to establish if they mean racist or anti-Semitic.

[fqllve]

Why? Oliver Twist pretty heavily suggests antisemitism. He later recanted his position on that though, as I recall.

His racism against other groups is pretty uncontested, though weird and somewhat contradictory.

[Scoops Novel]

Greatorder, we do have likely proof of trolling from the wtf thread, so we may as well leave him to it.

[Neonivek]

Why? Oliver Twist pretty heavily suggests antisemitism. He later recanted his position on that though, as I recall.

Ohh no, It isn't that I doubt the statement.

It is just that... being Racist against the Jews was as common as dirt before WW2.

I want to seperate someone who just dislikes Jews, something very common, from someone who actively dislikes them.

we do have likely proof of trolling from the wtf thread, so we may as well leave him to it

I was being obvious it isn't a secret.

[fqllve]

He wrote a book about a blatantly evil person who he constantly refers to as "the Jew." How much more active can you get?

[Neonivek]

He wrote a book about a blatantly evil person who he constantly refers to as "the Jew." How much more active can you get?

Ehhh I am not convinced yet. Even Shakespeare often described a person's personality trait as essentially "being a Jew"

Mind you I always got a HEAVILY censored version of Oliver Twist and actually found that I prefer the censored version... I actually don't like the original novel.