|
The worst books you've ever read (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Zyklon_Jay |
| no one got my Sartre references. |
|
|
| Elevens |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
No, it's fine. I didn't see any Newspeak, and I've never seen you before either. Who are you? |
Someone mistaken about you. :p |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Elevens
Someone mistaken about you. :p |
It's cool :)
I'm not sure I understand what's going on either, so please allow me to make a better impression in another thread. By the way, if you do read my blog, I'd just like to inform you that it's supposed to be a parody of Charlie Brooker's style. He's quite amusing, and I thought it would be interesting to apply the same concept to literature/philosophy/linguistics in general.
I should add a disclaimer somewhere :p |
|
|
| Meat187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
A brief summary of the stupidity in this post:
1. Once again, you haven't read what you're discussing. An English professor didn't bring it up.
2. "You're just jealous".
3. "Who cares about glaring plot holes? It's only a movie."
4. "What's the point of discussing things on an Internet discussion board?" It's a thread about bad writing, .
|
1. My bad, you quoted that line in the same post where you linked the review, so I though it was a quote / argument from there.
2. No, dummy. The argument was that he was being too puristic, but regarding (1) it's moot.
3. Now you're just being stupid. Nothing had anything to do with plot holes or the movie. I guess you had to find more arguments, since nitpicking on (1) alone would be retarded.
4. Again, you're randomly making up . Specifying a gun model is not relevant to bad writing, unless it happens every other page. It's just finding an easy target and shooting. And if you wanted to say it's one of many symptoms of a bad style then you failed to support the "one of many" part as well as the part showing how such a small thing is of importance to the whole book.
But nice try, maybe next time you can actually come up with something clever or relevant. This time, sadly, you failed at both, except for picking out a mis-attribution of a quote.
I even agreed on most of what was said, the part where I specifically disagree with you is here:
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
For me, this is the classic mistake of this generation of thriller writers who grew up watching films. Their books are really written like films - they are visual, descriptive and usually very literal.[...] It's why I find the whole genre so unbearable, because you can just see these writers picturing their story as a movie, and writing what they picture. It's ing amateurish. |
Because I can see not only the writer, but also the reader picturing the story as a movie. And then the story worked well, imho. If he manages to communicate his idea to the reader then he does a good job. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
So write "LAW" or "Dragon" or "M47". You don't need any more than that. Anything more is gun porn fetishism. |
Oh, I thought you were saying that is too much. :p |
|
|
| Lira |
If this thread were a book, would it be mentioned here?
That's the question! |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| Hahaha, nou is an author now too. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Hahaha, nou is an author now too. |
Yes, I have to be an author to criticize/defend writing styles? There is no possible way that being a consumer of writing would help me form an opinion on good or bad traits. That would be just down right insane!
You ing tardo. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
That would be just down right insane! |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
would be just down right insa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Tbe just down right i |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
just down right |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
down right |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
↓ → |
I just wanted an excuse to post this :D |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
2. No, dummy. The argument was that he was being too puristic, but regarding (1) it's moot.
3. Now you're just being stupid. Nothing had anything to do with plot holes or the movie. I guess you had to find more arguments, since nitpicking on (1) alone would be retarded.
4. Again, you're randomly making up . Specifying a gun model is not relevant to bad writing, unless it happens every other page. It's just finding an easy target and shooting. And if you wanted to say it's one of many symptoms of a bad style then you failed to support the "one of many" part as well as the part showing how such a small thing is of importance to the whole book. |
1. Maybe you should actually bother to read it, so you'd actually have the first ing clue whether the professor is being "puristic" or whether he's actually making well-reasoned points.
2. "Puristic" isn't a word, dummy.
3. I wasn't being literal, dummy. I'm paraphrasing a classic piece of Internet stupidity, that populist entertainment should be immune from criticism of obvious flaws.
4. I think it's very much up for debate whether it's relevant. I think you're begging the question. I think I've provided a very thoughtful and strong reason as to why it's bad writing, and I think you've provided no response to any of my points whatsoever, merely a blanket dismissal of them as "pointless".
Specifying a gun model (and manufacturer, and weapon type) is relevant to bad writing even when it only happens a few times in the novel. This is because there are only a few action scenes in the novel, and if you them up you're ing up one of the main things that makes your thriller thrilling. More than that, as I've mentioned, the gun-model stupidity is symptomatic of a much larger flaw in Brown's writing: he repeatedly includes details that have no relevance to what's being narrated. I've already posted multiple links pointing out multiple instances of him doing it, none of which you've bothered to read.
| quote: | | Because I can see not only the writer, but also the reader picturing the story as a movie. And then the story worked well, imho. If he manages to communicate his idea to the reader then he does a good job. |
I'm not sure you understand the point I'm actually making there. The whole idea is that Brown isn't actually conveying the kinesis of a film shot. A novel can never give the audience the same experience as a movie, and I don't even need to go into semiotics or narrative theory to demonstrate why. He can only think in that narrative mode, and it severely handicaps his ability to handle actual literary effects. What you're actually saying is that Brown writes a series of incredibly simplistic and surface-level prose images that any dullard can easily follow. It's writing that makes no attempt to utilise literature's unique methods of telling a story, and thus even people who don't usually read and - crucially - who don't know anything about good writing can enjoy it. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Yes, I have to be an author to criticize/defend writing styles? There is no possible way that being a consumer of writing would help me form an opinion on good or bad traits. That would be just down right insane!
You ing tardo. :rolleyes: |
I am not denying you your right to form useless and uninformed opinions about any topic you wish to. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
I am not denying you your right to form useless and uninformed opinions about any topic you wish to. |
Explain how my opinion is uninformed? How many military speculative fiction books have you read? :conf: |
|
|
|
|
