Looks Like Floyd's Sucking Dick For Awhile...

No. But I also didn't read it as a kid. So I don't know why I'm replying.

More words.

Thanks.

 

You testicle.

 

Fair reply mexican wedding shirt.

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/may/01/sports/sp-dwyre1

 

I liked Catcher and On the Road when I was 15-16.Unreadable now. We could do a whole thread on that. Books you like and then you grow up, music, bands. One book I read that I re-read and liked even more was "Catch 22." I also used to love existential writings. I think now that I have internalized so many existential concepts that it no longer seems profound.

 

Fair but firm.

 

Um... ::

 

You might be right.

The reason I ask is my girlfriend read it literally a month ago. I couldn't believe her disdain for the book, and she couldn't believe my fondness for it.

As a free spirited youngster, the book appealed to me a lot. I'd probably rather not re-read it now, and just retain my youthful fondness.

Incidentally, here's an existential face for you.

 

I was sort of suggesting that. It actually should be that way. A person should grow. I do listen, no longer read the greatest influence on me ever. Bertrand Russell's "Why I am not a Christian." It is on Youtube now with old Bertie reading it.

 

Same here, that's a good point actually. Never really thought about it, but it certainly was awesome when I was that age. Will have to reread it at some point and see if it holds up (that applies to a few of those books actually)

 

Completely agree. King has great imagination, and starts out with amazing novels, but towards the end they almost always turn to complete shit. He takes a totally mesmerising story and turns it into a bunch of evil twilight zone unstoppable forces saying crazy shit type of book that is almost unreadable.

His short stories do alot better because they dont have time to develop into complete crap. Shawshank Redemption for example. Another obscure short story of his that I found facinating was a tale about this weird ass town that has a march once every year where the contestants march down the road, 100 of them, and simply have to keep going until the last one standing wins and is basically set for life after that. The other 99 get shot as they fall behind...

 

::

 

King is great but I agree he often tails off at the end. You can't beat Poe for the short stories

 

Fast forward to 04:30

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KkPMlBiGUsI?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KkPMlBiGUsI?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

 

Yes! "The Long Walk" if I remember correctly, terrific story

 

How about Block if you like suspense?

 

Surprising that someone would still regard books like Catcher In The Rye or Crime & Punishment as the best ever. Would you like to give your reasons to picking them?

e: I just read the whole thread. I suspect you have not read these

 

Bolded statements are further proofs of your crippling idiocy, as if we needed more.

Catcher In The Rye because it offered a different perspective on life from a young person to someone of the same age (I read it when I was a kid).

Crime & Punishment because it is one of the most immersive stories I've ever read, and also one of the most contemplation-evoking.

Both are extremely well written.

What do you consider to be the best books ever? This should be interesting.

 

There's a pretty good modern adaptation of "Beowulf" told from Grendel's perspective that I read not long ago. It was called "Grendel."

 

yeah. that was a pretty good book, if you like liberal crap. ::

 

Wow. I'm guessing you think Dickens and Hemingway were also "liberal crap?"

 

well, you guess wrong.
are you actually comparing Grendel to Dickens?

 

Dickens was certainly liberal, especially relative to his era. Grendel was a good book, if you dismiss it based on its underlying philosophy, then it's not unreasonable to assume you would do the same with Dickens. Especially because you are dumb as a fucking brick.

 

You're on record as saying Grendel was a good book. I was under the impression, therefore, that it was within my right to give my opinion on the book.

Apparently, this doesn't sit well with you, as you've now found it necessary to resort to personal attacks.

That's called a double standard! Without it, you'd have no leg to stand on.

 

Being a complete fucking moron, you might have missed this part of my post:

 

I didn't miss it. I just thought it was a pathetic argument.

 

So pathetic that you evaded it and pretended like it didnt exist in favor of concentrating on an ad hominem aside, which was apparently more worthy of your attention

 

:giggle:

Yes. That's what I said. So pathetic that I evaded it.

Honestly, I just wanted to share my opinion that I think Grendel is crap. And then I wanted to object to its comparison to Dickens. That's it. No big deal.

 

Yeah, Catcher In The Rye was new and original when it came out, looking it now it is a very typical book from the era between modern and postmodern and compared to the likes of Kafka or Hemingway it doesn't say very much.

Crime&Punishment on the other hand began a new era in crime literature and detective stories and it has its moments, as the famous interrogation chapter and it poses interesting questions about guilt for example, but again reading it now, it spends way too much time on pondering the human mind without getting anywhere with it while the actual storyline gets lost. Back when it was published and when people didn't know anything about psychology, Dostojevski's views were new and original.

This is what I see much in my job as literature teacher: people read books that other people have told them to read and get furious if someone criticizes something that has been defined 'classic' without thinking too much.

 

Why would I care whether Dostoevsky's views were new and original? Raskolnikov's introspection and analysis was one of the best things about the book, imo. It was part of why the book was so immersive. What do I give a shit if what he's saying jibes with modern psychology, especially since I read it when I was 12 (though I read Dostoevsky's other works years later and still appreciated them).

The movie "Duck Soup" was groundbreaking for its time and originated many ubiquitous (if not cliched) witticisms we see today; does that mean it sucks now? That actually isn't even a 1:1 comparison, because film production, cinematography, etc etc have also come a long way since the 1930s, whereas writing is still writing today.

I can see your criticisms applying to someone like Chaucer, who was pretty primitive as an author by modern standards (or even relative to his Eastern contemporaries).

I don't appreciate classic literature just because someone says it is classic; I have actually read these books and appreciated them. FWIW I thought most of Steinbeck and Tolstoy's works were crap. Also not a fan of F Scott Fitzgerald, who Hemingway (one of my favorite authors of all time) called the "Greatest American storyteller." I am sure you appreciate one or more of those, and I am sure you have your reasons for doing so.

Finally I find it funny you allude to your credentials as a "literature teacher." What, you read Newbury Medal books to 5th graders and think that qualifies you to speak with authority? I hate to burst your bubble, but most teachers don't know shit, and any intelligent 15 year old is going to be smarter than all of their teachers. I'm also guessing 0.0% of those intelligent 15 year olds will become teachers.