Post: #101

(04-14-2016 07:22 AM)Mr. D Wrote:  "Brothers Karamazov" by Dostoyevsky. I got almost halfway, and I got confused by the names.
8 or 9 major characters, all with nicknames, 4 characters sharing a nickname. And the narrator started blending into the characters at some point.

Bit of a clusterfuck, that one...

Russian literature, without trying to sound like a snob, is for Russians. Lots of nuances and cultural quirks get lost in translation.

Hard to explain.

Post: #102

- Great Gatsby: the main character is a complete symp, pining over a woman who is far, far beneath him in character and could easily be replaced with looks.

- Catcher in the Rye: already disgusted. This book made the whole "being a terrible person and disguising it as emo angst" thing cool.

- Moby Dick: Pretentious garbage. The entire story could easily have been told in a fraction of the space with very little being lost.

Post: #103

(04-14-2016 01:43 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 07:22 AM)Mr. D Wrote:  "Brothers Karamazov" by Dostoyevsky. I got almost halfway, and I got confused by the names.
8 or 9 major characters, all with nicknames, 4 characters sharing a nickname. And the narrator started blending into the characters at some point.

Bit of a clusterfuck, that one...

Russian literature, without trying to sound like a snob, is for Russians. Lots of nuances and cultural quirks get lost in translation.

Hard to explain.

I don't know about that man, I have read and enjoyed "The brothers karamazov", "Mother" by Maxim Gorky and I'm planning on reading "The master and Margarita" by Mikhail Bulgakov...

I actually thought "The Brothers karamazov" was a light read...

Post: #104

Jane Eyre. I was ready to take AP English in 11th grade. Jane Eyre was summer reading. When I realized I couldn't get past 100 pages, I thought 'I'm gonna have to read shit like this for AP English? Fuck that.' Charlotte Bronte set me on a path of mediocrity for the rest of my life.

Paulo Coelho's "The Alchemist" in Spanish is cheesy and sentimental, but in strange ways poetic. Spanish is a much more dramatic language, especially for reading. I would think Portuguese, the original language it was written, is kind of similar in that regard. English speakers I find are more careful when it comes to sentimentality and coming across as cheesy in prose. It wasn't a great book but, for what it is, it wasn't horrible.

However, "Once minutos" is possibly the worst book I've ever read. Unlike Jane Eyre, I finished reading it. Not because it was better, but because it was a train wreck I couldn't take my eyes off of. I had to witness the carnage. But... I guess it's not a famous book.

Post: #105

A Wrinkle In Time, when I was a kid. Good god, it was so goddam weird, that I couldn't finish it. The same goes for a few books by Jonathan Safran Foer.

Post: #106

(04-15-2016 11:46 AM)Easy_C Wrote:  - Great Gatsby: the main character is a complete symp, pining over a woman who is far, far beneath him in character and could easily be replaced with looks.

- Catcher in the Rye: already disgusted. This book made the whole "being a terrible person and disguising it as emo angst" thing cool.

- Moby Dick: Pretentious garbage. The entire story could easily have been told in a fraction of the space with very little being lost.

What was your issue with Moby Dick? I liked it when I read it or the first time at 22, as I related to the main character at the start of the book. He felt landlocked, trapped by the limitations of the world, and sort of forelorn for that reason. I guess it reasonated with me at that age.

Post: #107

If you were a kid the late 70's / early 80's, you were probably forced to read two books by Young Adult Author / Critic's Darling Robert Cormier: "The Chocolate War" and "I Am The Cheese".

They were depressing and nihilistic, concerned with reinforcing to children that they're alone in the world, they shouldn't even try to challenge the system, and, of course, Christians are evil. As such, they were utterly-adored by Socialist Lesbian English Teachers.

I gave a book report when I was 13 explaining ten reasons why I thought 'I Am The Cheese' was a terrible book, mocking the on-the-nose metaphor of the latter book. "The cheese stands alone.... Do you get it? He's alonnnnne. Wowwwwww.... So deep."

The teacher didn't like this and tried to reinforce how this book was deeply-important for introducing us to the concept of an unreliable narrator, (which, I was already aware of, since that was half the kids out on the playground and most of the older kids selling drugs around the neighbourhood).

What she attempting to do was the typical Socialist tactic of trying to stigmatise and outgroup me for my 'ignorance'.

This sort of slimy, unfair tactic infuriated me as a kid. "Look, I understand he was lying and making up a story. Why the hell couldn't he make up a more-interesting one?"

"Just sit down Bosch."

"I still have eight reasons to go."

You guessed it. I was sent to the Principal with a note, and was taught a new word that day: 'Pedantic'.

Post: #108

(04-17-2016 05:16 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  If you were a kid the late 70's / early 80's, you were probably forced to read two books by Young Adult Author / Critic's Darling Robert Cormier: "The Chocolate War" and "I Am The Cheese".

They were depressing and nihilistic, concerned with reinforcing to children that they're alone in the world, they shouldn't even try to challenge the system, and, of course, Christians are evil. As such, they were utterly-adored by Socialist Lesbian English Teachers.

I must've gone through a few years after you, or maybe feminism hadn't percolated to country Catholic schools at that point. I remember Beyond the Chocolate War which was a godawful sequel to the original, but all I really remember is the main character getting the snot kicked out of him at the end of the book. While those books were certainly in my school's library, they weren't on the curriculum for the courses that I did through high school.

No, we had other books to kill yourself by: The Merry-Go-Round In The Sea by local nobody Randolph Stowe, A Descant for Gossips by Thea Astley (a.k.a. "An Instructional Guide To Adolescent Girls On How To Make The Unpopular Chick Kill Herself"), No Sugar for good old White Guilt, and The Summer Of The Seventeenth Doll for no apparent reason I could fathom.

On the other hand, we had a relief teacher for one year who insisted that we learn, and was really good at teaching, Shakespeare. The Merchant of Venice, Macbeth (still my favourite play), and Antony and Cleopatra were all we had time to get through, but it was sheer magic.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #109

(04-17-2016 08:34 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  I must've gone through a few years after you, or maybe feminism hadn't percolated to country Catholic schools at that point. I remember Beyond the Chocolate War which was a godawful sequel to the original, but all I really remember is the main character getting the snot kicked out of him at the end of the book. While those books were certainly in my school's library, they weren't on the curriculum for the courses that I did through high school.

Yeah, I was publicly-educated. Catholic Education was safe from socialist subverison until roughly the late 90's.

Given the language, sex and violence, coupled with the themes of religious hypocrisy and corruption, I'm surprised your school even allowed the Cormier book in the library. It's was the third most-challenged book in US school libraries in the 00's, moving up from being the fourth most-challenged book in the 90's.

It's surprising how much I still hate this book, but I honestly think it might have been my first interaction with the nihilistic dreariness of Cultural Marxism that has gradually made most forms of art and entertainment deeply-repellent to me.

From Wikipedia:

Quote:His books often are concerned with themes such as abuse, mental illness, violence, revenge, betrayal and conspiracy. In most of his novels, the protagonists do not win.

Put garbage into children and don't expect anything but garbage to come out.

Post: #110

(04-17-2016 09:14 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(04-17-2016 08:34 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  I must've gone through a few years after you, or maybe feminism hadn't percolated to country Catholic schools at that point. I remember Beyond the Chocolate War which was a godawful sequel to the original, but all I really remember is the main character getting the snot kicked out of him at the end of the book. While those books were certainly in my school's library, they weren't on the curriculum for the courses that I did through high school.

Yeah, I was publicly-educated. Catholic Education was safe from socialist subverison until roughly the late 90's.

Given the language, sex and violence, coupled with the themes of religious hypocrisy and corruption, I'm surprised your school even allowed the Cormier book in the library. It's was the third most-challenged book in US school libraries in the 00's, moving up from being the fourth most-challenged book in the 90's.

It's surprising how much I still hate this book, but I honestly think it might have been my first interaction with the nihilistic dreariness of Cultural Marxism that has gradually made most forms of art and entertainment deeply-repellent to me.

From Wikipedia:

Quote:His books often are concerned with themes such as abuse, mental illness, violence, revenge, betrayal and conspiracy. In most of his novels, the protagonists do not win.

Put garbage into children and don't expect anything but garbage to come out.

I've never read the book, but I liked the film version of the Chocolate War. I don't remember the film being anti-Catholic but it is pessimistic about authority figures in general.

I've never read Cormier so I can't speak to how much of a Marxist he is, but I think there's a place for the themes of pessimism, cynicism, bleak outlooks, betrayal etc in literature. Although I certainly agree that those themes are too heavy and too soon for young kids. From the sounds of it, Cormier shouldn't be taught in school, but hey, at least it's not some Ingsoc, white-male-heterosexuality-westerncivilization=evil, social justice horseshit that's on the high school curriculum in my neck of the woods.

Post: #111

(04-17-2016 10:17 PM)Germanicus Wrote:  

(04-17-2016 09:14 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(04-17-2016 08:34 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  I must've gone through a few years after you, or maybe feminism hadn't percolated to country Catholic schools at that point. I remember Beyond the Chocolate War which was a godawful sequel to the original, but all I really remember is the main character getting the snot kicked out of him at the end of the book. While those books were certainly in my school's library, they weren't on the curriculum for the courses that I did through high school.

Yeah, I was publicly-educated. Catholic Education was safe from socialist subverison until roughly the late 90's.

Given the language, sex and violence, coupled with the themes of religious hypocrisy and corruption, I'm surprised your school even allowed the Cormier book in the library. It's was the third most-challenged book in US school libraries in the 00's, moving up from being the fourth most-challenged book in the 90's.

It's surprising how much I still hate this book, but I honestly think it might have been my first interaction with the nihilistic dreariness of Cultural Marxism that has gradually made most forms of art and entertainment deeply-repellent to me.

From Wikipedia:

Quote:His books often are concerned with themes such as abuse, mental illness, violence, revenge, betrayal and conspiracy. In most of his novels, the protagonists do not win.

Put garbage into children and don't expect anything but garbage to come out.

I've never read the book, but I liked the film version of the Chocolate War. I don't remember the film being anti-Catholic but it is pessimistic about authority figures in general.

I've never read Cormier so I can't speak to how much of a Marxist he is, but I think there's a place for the themes of pessimism, cynicism, bleak outlooks, betrayal etc in literature. Although I certainly agree that those themes are too heavy and too soon for young kids.

There were a few books that slipped into the high school library without the librarian noticing (well, until the knobheads who didn't often read got hold of a human biology book which had some sex positions in it and then didn't keep it from the librarian, thus ruining it for everyone else). For some reason we had The Golden Bough in there, too, which I got out once when I was too young to understand it and therefore didn't actually read it. In my defence, the book was so dusty I think I was its first borrower since the birth of disco.

Robert Westall's young adult book Futuretrack 5 has a bleak outlook, a real post-Thatcher nightmare, but it at least allows the protagonist to rebel against the system to a degree (that and check out the female lead's tits, which are zipped up partially in motorcycle leathers. Young adult books just ain't what they used to be.) There's two other books of his I like -- Urn Burial and The Wind Eye which make an unusual little triptych, and which I still find worth the read all these years later.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #112

(04-17-2016 10:17 PM)Germanicus Wrote:  I've never read Cormier so I can't speak to how much of a Marxist he is, but I think there's a place for the themes of pessimism, cynicism, bleak outlooks, betrayal etc in literature. Although I certainly agree that those themes are too heavy and too soon for young kids.

My problem is a book like this is targetted at children early. It offers no hope and no solutions, and, eventually, any positive contrasting viewpoints are targetted by Marxists to be removed from the culture entirely. They don't want children to think they can fight back, they want them to passively-submit to authority, which is the message of 'The Chocolate War': 'Don't disturb the universe'.

If modern films or books seem to be promoting positive messages - oh look, a bunny rabbit wants to be a police officer although that isn't done! - it's simply a message of conformity to the Marxist narrative disguised as a message of personal empowerment. This is how you get a generation of SJW's organising witch hunts.

If Cormier wrote 'Lord Of The Rings' it'd be over in five pages: Frodo would hand over the ring to the Nazgul at first opportunity,

Post: #113

(04-15-2016 11:46 AM)Easy_C Wrote:  - Moby Dick: Pretentious garbage. The entire story could easily have been told in a fraction of the space with very little being lost.

The digressions and details are part of what makes it great.

A guy going out on a whaling ship isn't anything special (the whole "every story has already been told" thing).

But starting out with 5 pages of whale quotes, and then including a whole sermon and a chapter on how to make clam chowder... that was the stuff that turned my crank.

Post: #114

(04-18-2016 01:10 AM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

(04-15-2016 11:46 AM)Easy_C Wrote:  - Moby Dick: Pretentious garbage. The entire story could easily have been told in a fraction of the space with very little being lost.

The digressions and details are part of what makes it great.

The fact someone named TooFineAPoint says this warms my heart.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #115

(04-18-2016 12:36 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  My problem is a book like this is targetted at children early. It offers no hope and no solutions, and, eventually, any positive contrasting viewpoints are targetted by Marxists to be removed from the culture entirely. They don't want children to think they can fight back, they want them to passively-submit to authority, which is the message of 'The Chocolate War': 'Don't disturb the universe'.

I liked the film version of the Chocolate War because it had an existentialist undercurrent. Existentialism in the sense of Camus-- Life is hard and the universe is against me but by God, if I'm going down, I'm going down swinging. The protagonist held his ground and won a limited tactical victory in the end. The Catholic priests were portrayed decently with only one priest being a bad guy and he was mostly just corrupt and using his power to influence the popular boys for his benefit and to turn a blind eye to his minion's abuses rather than being an over-the-top monster. The film subtly suggested he was corrupt because he was a bad man in a position of authority rather than being evil because he was Catholic.

If the book is the opposite of all that I'm glad I never read it.

As to what they teach about obedience in contemporary classrooms, I think generally they teach children and teenagers to be critical and defy authority. Although, the authority the Bolshevik educrat swine mean to be critical of is whiteness, maleness and masculinity, Western Civilization, and heterosexuality. They also encourage the deconstruction of Christianity unless it's social gospel/liberation thelogy Marxism, and I presume they'd hate the pre-Christian European paganisms too if they weren't too obscure to have any real representation. Basically anything and everything Western Civilization was based on or could rally around do they seek to subvert and destroy.

If the Chocolate War novel and Cormier's other books cause kids to lose heart I can see why they want them taught, even though I don't think Cormier himself has any agenda other than being a pessimistic writer with depression.

Post: #116

The Lord of the Rings. I might've gotten more use and enjoyment out of it, had I been experienced enough to understand the political context in which the book was written. I recommend that if you do read it, don't do it for the supposedly epic fantasy. Do it to try and understand Tolkien himself. If you don't care about Tolkien and the real world he lived in, don't bother.

Post: #117

(04-17-2016 05:16 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  If you were a kid the late 70's / early 80's, you were probably forced to read two books by Young Adult Author / Critic's Darling Robert Cormier: "The Chocolate War" and "I Am The Cheese".

They were depressing and nihilistic, concerned with reinforcing to children that they're alone in the world, they shouldn't even try to challenge the system, and, of course, Christians are evil. As such, they were utterly-adored by Socialist Lesbian English Teachers.

I gave a book report when I was 13 explaining ten reasons why I thought 'I Am The Cheese' was a terrible book, mocking the on-the-nose metaphor of the latter book. "The cheese stands alone.... Do you get it? He's alonnnnne. Wowwwwww.... So deep."

The teacher didn't like this and tried to reinforce how this book was deeply-important for introducing us to the concept of an unreliable narrator, (which, I was already aware of, since that was half the kids out on the playground and most of the older kids selling drugs around the neighbourhood).

What she attempting to do was the typical Socialist tactic of trying to stigmatise and outgroup me for my 'ignorance'.

This sort of slimy, unfair tactic infuriated me as a kid. "Look, I understand he was lying and making up a story. Why the hell couldn't he make up a more-interesting one?"

"Just sit down Bosch."

"I still have eight reasons to go."

You guessed it. I was sent to the Principal with a note, and was taught a new word that day: 'Pedantic'.

I sort of liked Robert Cormier and even read "The Bumblee Flies Anyway".

I was maybe twelve or thirteen though and it was the first YA literature I found that explored darker tropes. Cormier made an interesting prep school universe where a mob mobilized against one guy who refused to sell chocolates. It is bleak and nihilistic, there's a lot of corruption involved (the acting headmaster had handshake trusts with the student gangs) and the protagonist loses, but I thought the interplay in the book was well done. In hindsight it is almost assuredly Marxist propaganda. Every nail gets hammered flat.

Granted, it was stupid that the protagonist had no especial reasons not to comply. His defiance was a strawman and not motivated by any idea. He didn't really stand for anything. When he realized he was in way over his head, he didn't seek help either. I didn't really identify with anybody in the book and can see why it got critical acclaim but didn't sell terribly well.

Cormier's books should be standalone, none of his sequels are any good whatsoever. "Beyond the Chocolate War" sucked.

Post: #118

(04-15-2016 11:46 AM)Easy_C Wrote:  - Great Gatsby: the main character is a complete symp, pining over a woman who is far, far beneath him in character and could easily be replaced with looks.

Jay Gatsby always seemed a little off to me, even after the third read I couldn't put my finger on why. That was pre-red pill. Now I think I have a better idea of my general and vague distaste towards the character: He's in love with Daisy not because of her looks, but because she's desired by other men. Under the red pill lens/reality, that smacks of a woman's desire, inflamed by social proof.

Were it not for that part, the ending of the Great Gatsby is poetic indeed and the book was a good read. Certainly overrated.

Post: #119

Pride and Prejudice is overrated, and no ladies, sarcasm isn't wit. Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea held absolutely no significance. Keynes General Theory was mostly a successful attempt to sound smart by being hard to understand.

Post: #120

The Cat in the Hat was shallow and pedantic. The author's attempt to distinguish his writing style through the use of monosyllabic vocabulary and phrase repetition only serves to give the impression that the book was written with an intended audience of three year olds.

Post: #121

(05-04-2016 03:56 AM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  The Cat in the Hat was shallow and pedantic. The author's attempt to distinguish his writing style through the use of monosyllabic vocabulary and phrase repetition only serves to give the impression that the book was written with an intended audience of three year olds.

It must be something about the literature of that period. I thought the author of "Dick and Jane Have Fun" was going for some sort of Zen-like, Hemingway "iceberg theory", but I simply couldn't get into it.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #122

Bump. Going to read Great Gatsby and finally 1984. Is it worth while?

Post: #123

(04-18-2017 07:21 AM)Chris Brown Wrote:  Bump. Going to read Great Gatsby and finally 1984. Is it worth while?

Of the two, 1984 is probably the more direct in its lecturing, but it's also more likely to make you shoot yourself by the end.

The Great Gatsby requires you to sit down and prepare to really imagine colours and textures, because that's what Fitzgerald does best. It's very, very hard to give a shit about any of the characters in the novel because they're, bar one or two, extremely privileged types.

That said, Fitzgerald did provide one metaphor that, for me at least, still sums up the congenitally rich assholes swanning off to parties with Bill Clinton et. al: "They were careless people, and they lived careless lives." That's essentially one of the big themes of the book right there.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #124

I agree to anyone saying Great Gatsby is a bore and main character has a bad case of Oneitis.

Also Quran should be the winner of this thread. If you divide the popularity and adoration any book receives by the depth (in this case shallowness) of thought found in it, it just has to produce a larger dimension of overratedness than any other book known to a man. I tried to read it as I read founding texts of all major religions but I couldn't finish this one - it was as arid and void as the desert shithole from which it came and left a rigid sandy taste in my mouth.

Post: #125

"Slaughterhouse 5". Read it because it was based on Vonnegut's experiences in the firebombing of Dresden. Ended up concluding that Vonnegut was an overhyped charlatan and never read another of his works. (And about a month later, saw him speak at my university, during which event he passionately praised Morris Dees of SPLC as a "living saint".)