Print

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

[dragnar]

That would explain our disagreement. I don't read for depth, I read for story. Partially because I don't notice depth most of the time... just that nothing interesting is happening.

[Mindmaker]

I need a complete collection of Mony Python movies and sketches, but that thing costs a fortune

[Vector]

That would explain our disagreement. I don't read for depth, I read for story. Partially because I don't notice depth most of the time... just that nothing interesting is happening.

Yeah, I loved The Hobbit.  That said, it was not exactly deep, and the characters didn't do much developing throughout the course of the thing.

So, a Classic, but not Literature.

[Leafsnail]

The female character chart... might have slightly blown my mind.

I'm sure there must be some character I can think of that can reach the top right bubble... right?

[Vector]

... ?

[Leafsnail]

This one.

[Vector]

Haha.  Yup!  It sure is a great day to be female, huh?

[Schilcote]

blarghimtired.
why am I tired at 7 oclock

Oh right, programming. They should really sell the B+ compiler as a sleep aid.

[Footkerchief]

Generally, because the characterization is flat and most portrayals are not so much about highlighting an element of the human condition [...]

I'm not arguing that science fiction cannot be Literature by necessity, but by and large it is nowhere near literary.

You could say this all of this about any genre (except literature itself, if that counts as one).  Sci-fi has its modes of titillation, other genres have theirs.

[Gunner-Chan]

She's doing the whole deepness/importance angle. To me that's always an attempt to make them feel more learned than whoever they're talking with.

[Realmfighter]

For me, if a book does not have at minimum five explosions. two deaths and one fake deaths, then it is unreadable.

[Jackrabbit]

I always thought that was a bit of a cop-out, personally, to say that 'This book makes a deep comment about the human condition and therefore is Great Literature!' or similar in the same way that using impenetrable terms to describe art is just overanalyzing it and trying to look cleverer than everyone else. Trashy Romance novels can make deep comments about the human condition. Doesn't make them GREAT LITERATURE.

[Mindmaker]

The female character chart... might have slightly blown my mind.

I'm sure there must be some character I can think of that can reach the top right bubble... right?

I prever having authentic characters over the "typical" strong ones, regardless of gender.

[Leafsnail]

Well, I did manage to get through English Lit class bullshitting about pretty much everything.

Yeah, I didn't see any deep meaning in those texts, but I sortof twisted it around until it seemed deep.  Worryingly, I got an A* for doing this.

[Jackrabbit]

There's a deep meaning in anything if you look hard enough (and then make it up completely). Which is why I don't like claiming that having a deep meaning somehow makes something better.

Again, it's the same with art. Maybe it's a commentary of the dark heart that is mankind when faced with the four corners of reality but it looks like a fucking black square to me.