TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- What is the last good book you read?
Pages (8): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 »

I listened to audiobooks of the last three Harry Potter novels and was blown away...especially by the last two.

I now see what all the hype was about...great writing.

I haven't enjoyed reading as much as I used to a few years back, but someone picked this up for me for Christmas, and its been really entertaining to read, I usually get a good laugh every few pages. Im about almost done it, so I guess ill count it as the last good book ive read.

I swear, I glanced at that cover and thought that it was Clovis for a second.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I now see what all the hype was about...great writing.

great writing? tolkien would be turning in his grave. the first book (i only bothered to try the first one) read like a (failing) year 12 student's english paper. yuk.

the elves on cintra.
terry brooks.
i read few fantasy/sci fi shit but this was good.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN great writing? tolkien would be turning in his grave. the first book (i only bothered to try the first one) read like a (failing) year 12 student's english paper. yuk.

They didn't get really good until Book 3. Books 3, 6, and 7 were all fantastic works of fiction.

"the sleepers"

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov This is a stereotype I feel completely comfortable making: People who don't read fiction are boring.

I'm boring?

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov "Wow" is all I can really say.

I appreciate it, but it's just one of those things that does not interest me, as a matter of taste. Looking at a painting hardly interests me. I have also never been able to read cover to cover a fiction book, because it just bores the hell out of me. Which is why I read history, science, etc. Stuff that is based in facts.

quote:

whereas conspiracy theories concerning the fed are what exactly?

That is more like debating what is truth when we don't know it. Quite different from knowing something isn't true.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov This is a stereotype I feel completely comfortable making: People who don't read fiction are boring.

How about people who read fiction read it out of the need to fill their otherwise boring lives with excitement, while people who read non-fiction already have plenty and seek to better themselves in their spare time?

burrrrrrrn

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Stuff that is based in facts.

While fiction does not offer lists of facts, good fiction is still very grounded in reality. You can say plenty of true things about the human experience even if you say them by using characters who never existed and events that never happened.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles While fiction does not offer lists of facts, good fiction is still very grounded in reality. You can say plenty of true things about the human experience even if you say them by using characters who never existed and events that never happened.

Bingo.

A good work of fiction says more about the human condition than any work of non-fiction ever could. Just because it might do so through metaphor and allegory does not make the truth it contains any less profound.

Tv Guide...LoL jk

quote:

Originally posted by Djsketchbag Tv Guide...LoL jk

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I certainly don't claim to appreciate the arts or creativity much.

what about music, film, etc?

quote:

Originally posted by l�cid

quote:

Originally posted by Lira

One of you needs to change avatars. I keep getting you two mixed up.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Bingo. A good work of fiction says more about the human condition than any work of non-fiction ever could. Just because it might do so through metaphor and allegory does not make the truth it contains any less profound.

Consider how one such as myself thinks. I am an analytical thinker. I don't really have an understanding of metaphors or abstract literary messages. Hell, when I had to read Shakespeare and other works in high school, it was nothing but words to me. I didn't understand anything if the teacher didn't explain it in simple terms. I have nothing against it, but it's just not for me.

I think along clear set lines, which is why math is my fortee, and literature, artistic creativity, abstract symbolism is my weakness.

quote:

what about music, film, etc?

I love music because its something I don't have to think about. Film is great because a lot of times, I can relate to what is on screen. Also, one rarely has to spend time trying to understand the music or film. With paintings, literature, etc., one must spend time trying to understand it, and I am one who rarely understands what an artist means when he paints a picture. I've got Dali paintings all over my house. They look trippy and cool. Beyond that, I have no clue what they mean, nor do I really care. They just look cool to me. It's just a matter of personal tastes...

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I love music because its something I don't have to think about.

I know what you're trying to say by this but I find it ironic. Speaking as one who is highly analytical as well, my love for music causes me to think but just on a totally different level.

For example, I can't focus/concentrate on anything too complex if certain music is playing... I'm way too distracted.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Bingo. A good work of fiction says more about the human condition than any work of non-fiction ever could. Just because it might do so through metaphor and allegory does not make the truth it contains any less profound.

Although I agree with you, unless I�m reading a philosophical novel of some sort (reason why Dostoevsky�s �Notes from the Underground� is among my favourite books), I�d rather watch a film (or a play) instead. That�s why I don�t read fiction as often as I read non-fiction: Most of the time, when I read a book, I feel like someone�s telling me a story, whereas a film makes me feel I�m really an eye-witness. It's much more powerful. Seeing na actor crying is far more real to me than just reading about that a character is in tears.

So, my criticism regarding most novels, is not that they don�t depict reality. They often do. Well, I�m at work now, and I don�t think I can summarise my ideas as quickly as I would like to but, do you know what I mean?

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles One of you needs to change avatars. I keep getting you two mixed up.

i had mine first. it confuses me too!

I still occasionally think Tricia is Myra

fiction > *

quote:

Originally posted by Lira ...unless I�m reading a philosophical novel of some sort (reason why Dostoevsky�s �Notes from the Underground� is among my favourite books), I�d rather watch a film (or a play) instead. That�s why I don�t read fiction as often as I read non-fiction: Most of the time, when I read a book, I feel like someone�s telling me a story, whereas a film makes me feel I�m really an eye-witness. It's much more powerful. Seeing na actor crying is far more real to me than just reading about that a character is in tears.

Yeah, this is mostly true. Films / plays and novels are suited to different kinds of stories. Generalization:

Films and plays are best at depicting action and dramatic sequences of events, while books are best at exploring the mind of an individual with regard to psychology, philosophy, and motivation.

Books are generally poor at "action," because in the end you just have words on a page plus the very limited imagination of your readers. Films are generally poor at exploring individual psychology in any depth, because ultimately you're limited to external visuals and sounds unless you have voiceovers broadcasting the thoughts of the characters (but lots of moviegoers find that annoying). Films let you give a level of visual and audio detail that would be impossible or tedious in a book, while books let you go into a psychological depth that wouldn't play well on the big screen.

The novelist John Fowles wrote an essay about this, and his basic point was that movies are taking over things that books didn't do very effectively in the first place, like depicting visuals and "action." Another effect of this is that people who would have read books to get their dose of action-packed stories (had they been born before the twentieth century) are watching movies instead.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Consider how one such as myself thinks. I am an analytical thinker. I don't really have an understanding of metaphors or abstract literary messages.

that's not what he was saying. fiction is a wonderful method of passing commentary on very real-life situations, where you're not burdened by truth.

for instance, i think battlestar galactica and law & order have made more profound commentaries on iraq than a most of the news "highlights".

Rohinton Mistry - A Fine Balance

The best book I have ever come across.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.