test

Crap books that you were forced to read at school

Page 3 of 5 [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Kilroy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2007
Age:26
Posts: 13,321
Location: Beyond the Void

20 Mar 2008, 10:10 pm

alright I was just messing with you but what is your problem
I tried to end this but noooo you had to get the last word in :roll:
just because your older then me doesn't make you any more capable in anything
so stop trying to make me lesser to you, stop trying to seem so high and mighty
its really showing :roll:



Zzzzeta
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Age:49
Posts: 100

20 Mar 2008, 10:12 pm

Nico wrote:
Zzzzeta wrote:
Holden is a pathetic loser because he does nothing but piss and moan about his circumstances, not because of his feelings of isolation or his social clumsiness - which is what people with AS recognise in his character.

Maybe because he's depressed...
No, his isolation and social clumsiness are not what I see in myself at all.
I identify with his character, his cynicism.


I've always found that aspect of the work incredibly contrived. Catcher In The Rye pales in comparison with Joseph Heller's work when it comes to cynicism and absurdity IMO.



Zzzzeta
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Age:49
Posts: 100

20 Mar 2008, 10:16 pm

Kilroy wrote:
alright I was just messing with you but what is your problem
I tried to end this but noooo you had to get the last word in :roll:
just because your older then me doesn't make you any more capable in anything
so stop trying to make me lesser to you, stop trying to seem so high and mighty
its really showing :roll:


Aw, I'm just yanking you, dude. This is how I am with everyone, whether they're 15 or 115.



ebec11
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age:22
Posts: 7,043
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

20 Mar 2008, 10:39 pm

The Chysalids was horrible and badly written
I also read A Midsummer Night's Dream, which was so horrible and boring!



ebec11
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age:22
Posts: 7,043
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

20 Mar 2008, 10:40 pm

Kilroy wrote:
Zzzzeta wrote:
"The Catcher in the Rye is one of my favourite books. Maybe I'm a pathetic loser, eh?"

Nah, you just have really bad taste in books :lol:


dude shut up :roll:
Wasn't it a joke because he has a laughing smiley face up there?



Zzzzeta
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Age:49
Posts: 100

20 Mar 2008, 10:48 pm

ebec11 wrote:
The Chysalids was horrible and badly written
I also read A Midsummer Night's Dream, which was so horrible and boring!


I disliked The Chrysalids when I read it as a kid, but I enjoyed Wyndham's other work. Midsummer Night's Dream did suck, except for Neil Gaiman's treatment of it in the Sandman comics a while back.



Zzzzeta
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Age:49
Posts: 100

20 Mar 2008, 10:55 pm

ebec11 wrote:
Kilroy wrote:
Zzzzeta wrote:
"The Catcher in the Rye is one of my favourite books. Maybe I'm a pathetic loser, eh?"

Nah, you just have really bad taste in books :lol:


dude shut up :roll:
Wasn't it a joke because he has a laughing smiley face up there?


Standard problem on internet discussion boards. You post something intended as an innocuous gag, and end up triggering a flame war and forum meltdown - I've seen it happen more than once. Throw in the fact that most of the participants have Asperger's Syndrome and/or other personality disorders, and it's a nonstop eggshell marathon.

It's worse still when you have a strong compulsion to make wisecracks like I do ;-)



darkstone100
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Mar 2008
Age:26
Posts: 4,343
Location: Yuma, AZ

20 Mar 2008, 11:14 pm

Macbeth was terrible



PowersOfTen
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2008
Age:28
Posts: 50

20 Mar 2008, 11:53 pm

This thread reeks of stupid in many ways. I don't even know where to begin, and I don't think I'll bother. That is all.



mouapp
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Age:25
Posts: 683
Location: probably not WP

21 Mar 2008, 1:33 am

can you people finish your argument in personal messages, loading 2 pages and reading 3 relevant posts is rather frustrating

I'm not scared - niccolo ammaniti, i never brought myself to read the whole thing, its meant to be a thriller but i would get drowsy after 2 pages

a man for all seasons -robert bolt, extremely pretentious way of making a half baked social statement, but then my class had a such a talented 'class clown' and inexperienced teacher that the preface went into more depth than 8 weeks of classes

that was just last year, i seem to have mentally blocked out the details of the stupid books i studied beforehand


_________________
http://www.last.fm/user/mouapp/
Maybe I don't know either.


victorvndoom
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2008
Age:47
Posts: 325
Location: europe: belgium

21 Mar 2008, 5:25 am

het reservaat a dutch sf novella
boring


_________________
sorry for been rude sometimes or emotionless or hurting feelings ; i got as for something


JohnHopkins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Age:26
Posts: 2,735

21 Mar 2008, 7:15 am

Silas Marner.

NOTHING HAPPENS.



Wiggles
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Age:26
Posts: 33

21 Mar 2008, 7:48 am

PowersOfTen wrote:
This thread reeks of stupid in many ways. I don't even know where to begin, and I don't think I'll bother. That is all.


I assume, based on your attack, that you are a fan of some or all of the books we are talking about not liking. You also seem to be operating on the belief that it takes a greater intellect to fully appreciate these books, and that we are stupid for not being able to. I don't know how the so-called classics acquired the label of intellectual, but I assure you that I am not lacking, and can still find no value in them. Sure, some of them may have things to say, like The Scarlet Letter or The Crucible, but that does not make them enjoyable to read. They remain popular because many of them were ahead of their time, and are read in classrooms today because of the lessons they teach. But the fact is there are plenty of modern day books that say it so much better, while managing to not be unnecessarily difficult to read.


_________________
Deploy the rocket boat!


PowersOfTen
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2008
Age:28
Posts: 50

21 Mar 2008, 2:01 pm

Wiggles wrote:
PowersOfTen wrote:
This thread reeks of stupid in many ways. I don't even know where to begin, and I don't think I'll bother. That is all.


I assume, based on your attack, that you are a fan of some or all of the books we are talking about not liking. You also seem to be operating on the belief that it takes a greater intellect to fully appreciate these books, and that we are stupid for not being able to. I don't know how the so-called classics acquired the label of intellectual, but I assure you that I am not lacking, and can still find no value in them. Sure, some of them may have things to say, like The Scarlet Letter or The Crucible, but that does not make them enjoyable to read. They remain popular because many of them were ahead of their time, and are read in classrooms today because of the lessons they teach. But the fact is there are plenty of modern day books that say it so much better, while managing to not be unnecessarily difficult to read.


None of the books mentioned here would be anywhere near the top of a list of my favorite books, so I am not a "fan" per se. I simply made the same level of 'argument' the OP made toward the authors, toward him. Regardless of other irrelevant factors, his statements showed that he essentially views books as mere entertainments to either be enjoyed or discarded depending on whether they meet his own standard of amusement. This is a view that very simple minded people often hold regarding any art form.



Zzzzeta
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Age:49
Posts: 100

21 Mar 2008, 6:03 pm

PowersOfTen wrote:
Wiggles wrote:
PowersOfTen wrote:
This thread reeks of stupid in many ways. I don't even know where to begin, and I don't think I'll bother. That is all.


I assume, based on your attack, that you are a fan of some or all of the books we are talking about not liking. You also seem to be operating on the belief that it takes a greater intellect to fully appreciate these books, and that we are stupid for not being able to. I don't know how the so-called classics acquired the label of intellectual, but I assure you that I am not lacking, and can still find no value in them. Sure, some of them may have things to say, like The Scarlet Letter or The Crucible, but that does not make them enjoyable to read. They remain popular because many of them were ahead of their time, and are read in classrooms today because of the lessons they teach. But the fact is there are plenty of modern day books that say it so much better, while managing to not be unnecessarily difficult to read.


None of the books mentioned here would be anywhere near the top of a list of my favorite books, so I am not a "fan" per se. I simply made the same level of 'argument' the OP made toward the authors, toward him. Regardless of other irrelevant factors, his statements showed that he essentially views books as mere entertainments to either be enjoyed or discarded depending on whether they meet his own standard of amusement. This is a view that very simple minded people often hold regarding any art form.


I can't speak for anyone else, but my dislike for the books on my list is motivated by a number of factors. Some are utterly pretentious, others are ponderous or dry as dust. About half of them are required reading solely because the authors were popular during their lifetimes, comparable to travelling 200 years into the future and finding Colleen McCulloch on the senior English reading list.