| Author |
Message |
| *casinopete |
Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 5:15 am Post subject: 1 |
|
*blinks*
You have not upset me, Courk, nor offended. And I certainly never thought you were wishing a heart attack on me.
I was annoyed, not by the mockery, but by the mockery of something I didn't say. You've been around the GL - I'm sure you're familiar with the idea of straw men. They are useless and rather boring.
Re: "higher level":
This was Elayne's phrase. I mentioned it as response to her, because for any definition I imagine for it, it does make a book better, other things being equal.
I did not respond to your question about vocabulary because it replied to a point I didn't make, but if I were to answer... I would say I would much rather have a doctor use jargon if he needed it to be specific. I'd rather hear "You're suffering from myocardial infarction." than "You got some chest pains." "Higher level" as regarding vocabulary wouldn't just be longer words, it would be more precise words. |
|
 |
| Courk |
Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 1:47 am Post subject: 0 |
|
I didn't mean to put that point in your mouth - whenever I see things that are considered higher level they usually have more advanced vocabulary. I associate the two. My mistake.
My reason for voting Charlotte's Web is because I enjoyed it. Period. I was just curious how you thought something being written on a higher level automatically made it better. See my mistaken notion on what is higher level.
I was not ridiculing you. Based on my idea of higher level, I provided an example scenario.
My example was merely the first thing that popped into my head for my idea of higher level. I didn't mean it to sound mean in any way. I wasn't trying to imply I wanted you to suffer from a heart attack. I'm a nursing major - I'm surrounded by this stuff daily. It's always floating around in my head, and thus easily attainable when an example is needed. I'm truly sorry if you thought I was trying to be mean. Please forgive me.  |
|
 |
| casinopete |
Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 11:41 pm Post subject: -1 |
|
Courk:
You created a very dumb point and put it in my mouth so you could smash it down by making me look ridiculous. What would you call that other than "ridicule"?
I threw in "self-justification" because it looks to me like you are arguing because you feel you need a reason to have voted for Charlotte's Web, other than just mentioning that you enjoyed it. Certainly that seems the least mean-spirited reason I can think of for your "example" about heart attacks. |
|
 |
| Courk |
Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 6:19 pm Post subject: -2 |
|
| I was not ridiculing you - I was providing an example to illustrate my point. In what way was that self-justifying? |
|
 |
| Elayne |
Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 6:16 pm Post subject: -3 |
|
*sigh* I will agree with you those two aren't complex writing. There are examples out there though.
I already said my problem with Les Mes is with the fact that he takes a lot of tangents off into some side points in the 1500 page novel, like what factory improvments were made to reduce the cost of production for pages that detracted from my ability to enjoy the novel.
Tom Sayer was just there was nothing that made me want to keep reading. I had to force myself to read it. If I have to do that, its not going to get my vote. |
|
 |
| casinopete |
Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 4:42 pm Post subject: -4 |
|
| nevermind, Elayne. this is clearly pointless. |
|
 |
| casinopete |
Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 4:34 pm Post subject: -5 |
|
Courk:
*shrugs*
I can't imagine where you got the idea that vocabulary mattered to me in the slightest, but if it makes you more comfortable to pretend I said something like that because you feel that ridiculing a caricature of me fills some quirky need for self-justification... feel free to do so.
Elayne:
Symbology? Complex writing style that makes you think hard to understand every sentence or object? You'll grant me what? What are you talking about? I haven't brought up anything of the sort.
Neither Les Miserables nor Tom Sawyer are "higher level" in the way you are describing. They are not better books because they are more complex, they are better books because they are more true.
Same goes for Ender's Game. Card puts together some very real characters in interesting situations, and let's them react as they must. The room for analysis does not arise from some artificial complexity, but because the accuracy of the development gives you room to understand and conjecture.
The same does not go for Charlotte's Web. The characters do not act in a true fashion. They are all one-dimensional and uninteresting. The book is cute, nothing more.
| Elayne wrote: |
| I like books that present the situtations and characters and let you make your interprations. |
This line makes me think you agree with me. What interpretations does Charlotte's Web "let you make"? |
|
 |
| Elayne |
Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 3:56 pm Post subject: -6 |
|
Eh maybe not messages but some concepts are there.
And no, I don't believe symbology or all that other stuff they can put in books makes it BETTER. I suppose you have to first define what makes a book good. If its a complex writing style where you have to think hard to understand what the point of every sentence or object that apprears in a book the, fine, I'll grant you higher level is better.
But thats not my definition of a good book. A good book to me is one with deep characters that are not one demential and the book when ended has coherency to it. Does it have to teach me something? No, not necessarily. I like books that present the situtations and characters and let you make your interprations. Like how we could have a thread on Ender's game with people all over the board on the answers. Books that make you examine a topic or idea in a new light are successful ones and don't need to be written on a high level to do that.
Heck I took a 400 level college class on analyzing childhood literature and I enjoyed it greatly. The message/concepts of some novels might be distilled so a younger age can understand it, but they are still there. |
|
 |
| Courk |
Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 3:41 pm Post subject: -7 |
|
How does something being written on a "higher level" make it better?
If a doctor were to tell you that your chest pain was due to a myocardial infarction, would you feel better that that message was given on a "higher level"? Or would you rather have the doctor tell you you were having a heart attack? |
|
 |
| casinopete |
Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 3:08 pm Post subject: -8 |
|
| Elayne wrote: |
| Some essential messages don't have to be written on a high level for them to be moving or good. |
My first thought upon reading this was, "but surely you'll grant that being written on a "high level" makes them better?
My second thought was, "what essential messages did you glean from Charlotte's Web?" |
|
 |
| Elayne |
Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 2:50 pm Post subject: -9 |
|
I frankly just don't care for TS or HL at all. Just something about it rubbed me the wrong way.
Les Mis...loved the characters but its a 1500 page novel and hard to get through as he does tend to ramble. It has its moment but you have to try to find them in there. I did read an abridged version too but it felt a little too chopped up at times. Love the musical to pieces but that's not what we are voting on.
So yah I voted Charlotte's Web cause the it can still move me even npw. Some essential messages don't have to be written on a high level for them to be moving or good. |
|
 |
| L'lanmal |
Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 2:39 pm Post subject: -10 |
|
| Quote: |
| LM = NBA, TS = MLB, CW = high school baseball. |
Tom Sawyer wasn't that good of a role model for our youth to begin with, and now add in the steroid allegations...  |
|
 |
| extropalopakettle |
Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 1:26 pm Post subject: -11 |
|
| If I didn't read the book, should I base my decision on the movie? |
|
 |
| mikegoo |
Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 12:27 pm Post subject: -12 |
|
| CP... there are no talking animals in those other books...you are underestimating the role of talking animals in many people's decision making. |
|
 |
| casinopete |
Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 10:30 am Post subject: -13 |
|
| mith wrote: |
| I usually get more enjoyment out of high school football than the pros |
Did I mention football?
You ass. |
|
 |
| mith |
Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 9:57 am Post subject: -14 |
|
That's not that great an analogy. I usually get more enjoyment out of high school football than the pros (that isn't to say the pro game isn't *better*, of course).
Anyway, I personally never found Tom Sawyer that interesting for some reason, though I'm not surprised it's leading the group. |
|
 |
| *casinopete |
Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 5:06 am Post subject: -15 |
|
I was obviously being playfully harsh. I can understand some people prefering CW to LM.
But (not joking this time), I can't really see how CW could top TS. They seem to me to fill the same sort of niche, and TS is just plain better.
The comparison I would make is LM = NBA, TS = MLB, CW = high school baseball. You may just plain like baseball better than basketball, but I can't see how you would prefer a merely o.k. game of baseball to watching top professionals playing the best game of baseball available to watch. |
|
 |
| Courk |
Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 1:42 am Post subject: -16 |
|
| I voted for Charlotte's Web. Les Mis was OK, but not my favorite. |
|
 |
| casinopete |
Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 11:48 pm Post subject: -17 |
|
There is nothing wrong with Tom Sawyer, though of course I voted for Les Miserables. So long as no more 13 year-olds show up to vote for Charlotte's Web because they've never read an adult book, I will be happy with the result for this group.
(I love Charlotte's Web, really, but how could you honestly vote it above either Les Miserables or Tom Sawyer? Or even The Shining?) |
|
 |
| mith |
|
 |