Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    spot goes on holiday is easily readable, harry potter is easily readable, but classic novels they are not.
    just because you couldnt read War and Peace, automatically means its a bad book. surely thats your incompetance first and not the failing of the book.
    I dont mean in that sense.
    Readable doesn't mean easy. It means being able to enjoy a book, because of the way it was written.
    War and peace isn't readable. It is clunky, slow, and largely irrelivent to the story it tries to tell. It misses so much by including so much unneeded text.

    Again, i could read war and peace. I did read it, and understood it, and knew what it was about, where it was coming from etc.
    But understanding can be irrelivent in a classic book.
    Most people don't understand the concepts of time travel, how it could, or could not actually occur etc. That doesn't mean that in HGTTG, they don't understand whats going on.
    And again, you are demeaning yourself by trying to bring my intelligence into disrepute.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iluvatar)
    I dont mean in that sense.
    Readable doesn't mean easy. It means being able to enjoy a book, because of the way it was written.
    War and peace isn't readable. It is clunky, slow, and largely irrelivent to the story it tries to tell. It misses so much by including so much unneeded text.

    Again, i could read war and peace. I did read it, and understood it, and knew what it was about, where it was coming from etc.
    But understanding can be irrelivent in a classic book.
    Most people don't understand the concepts of time travel, how it could, or could not actually occur etc. That doesn't mean that in HGTTG, they don't understand whats going on.
    And again, you are demeaning yourself by trying to bring my intelligence into disrepute.
    what sense? i never suggested it.
    unneeded text?
    bringing your intelligence into disrepute? im following your lead dear man.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    so, you think Balzac is talented, but you cant read Tolstoy? and Crime and Punishment, arguably the greatest russian novel 'wasnt brilliant'. any more grand views?
    id imagine Beowulf wouldnt really break any new ground with you right?
    I can read whatever. I have a high level of literary understanding, and don't ever have problems reading books (with the exception of some scientific and mathematical texts, where the symobls and words just merge into an unreadable goo).

    Just because my views aren't stuck in the past, and i can see things from a modern perspective, and see how good a book really is today; not how it was hyped up to give it a classic status it didn't deserve, it doesn't mean that they should be treated with such contempt.

    I do not know my opinion on Beowulf, as i have not read it yet. If, or when i do, then i will be able to give a point of view on this book.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iluvatar)
    I can read whatever. I have a high level of literary understanding, and don't ever have problems reading books (with the exception of some scientific and mathematical texts, where the symobls and words just merge into an unreadable goo).

    Just because my views aren't stuck in the past, and i can see things from a modern perspective, and see how good a book really is today; not how it was hyped up to give it a classic status it didn't deserve, it doesn't mean that they should be treated with such contempt.

    I do not know my opinion on Beowulf, as i have not read it yet. If, or when i do, then i will be able to give a point of view on this book.
    so, you think Balzac is talented, but you cant read Tolstoy? and Crime and Punishment, arguably the greatest russian novel 'wasnt brilliant'?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    what sense? i never suggested it.
    unneeded text?
    bringing your intelligence into disrepute? im following your lead dear man.
    You said that a readable book was an easy book, and because we are discussing books which obviously aren't 'easy reads', i could not have been referring to readable in that sense.

    Unneeded. It weighed down the story, made it less readable. Less able to flow through the story.

    And i'm finding it funny that you are resorting to such things, because you are not confident enough in your opinion on its own.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iluvatar)
    You said that a readable book was an easy book,
    where? and an easy book is usually a readable book.

    and because we are discussing books which obviously aren't 'easy reads', i could not have been referring to readable in that sense.
    obviously arent?

    Unneeded. It weighed down the story, made it less readable. Less able to flow through the story.
    you believe it was unnecessary..perhaps you didnt see its value or missed its subtle messages...?

    And i'm finding it funny that you are resorting to such things, because you are not confident enough in your opinion on its own.
    what things?
    you really do enjoy a good bit of fiction, ill give you that.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    so, you think Balzac is talented, but you cant read Tolstoy? and Crime and Punishment, arguably the greatest russian novel 'wasnt brilliant'?
    I read tolstoy, and in the case of Anna Karenina, i simply do not like that sort of story. It isn't the sort of thing i enjoy.
    But i do not like War and Peace, because of the story itself. I do not have strong opinions in either direction on war books, so i am able to see this more objectively.
    And it simply isn't any where near as good, as its hype suggests.
    Crime and Punishment is a good book, but it didn't have that edge to it, in my opinion, to make it a classic.
    In this case, i accept other people think differently, and would not try to argue if you did say it was a classic, because that is simply down to personal taste.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    where? and an easy book is usually a readable book.
    Yes, but a readable book isn't necesserily an easy book.

    (Original post by vienna95)
    obviously arent?
    Well, nobody would call them easy reads, relatively speaking


    (Original post by vienna95)
    you believe it was unnecessary..perhaps you didnt see its value or missed its subtle messages...?
    I am not blind. I just believe that there is too much unnecessary text. If it brought something to the story, then there would be a reason for it, but as it is... well, i dont see it.


    (Original post by vienna95)
    what things?
    you really do enjoy a good bit of fiction, ill give you that.
    Things that sound patronising. You are speaking in a way to try and demean my arguments, by dismissing them as my problems, rather than the books.
    I do enjoy fiction, yes. Because most of the time i am focused on fact, and rather than fighting fiction, whether it is in stupid opinions of people at home, college or on this forum, i do enjoy becoming a part of it when i am reading.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iluvatar)
    I read tolstoy, and in the case of Anna Karenina, i simply do not like that sort of story. It isn't the sort of thing i enjoy.
    But i do not like War and Peace, because of the story itself. I do not have strong opinions in either direction on war books, so i am able to see this more objectively.
    And it simply isn't any where near as good, as its hype suggests.
    Crime and Punishment is a good book, but it didn't have that edge to it, in my opinion, to make it a classic.
    In this case, i accept other people think differently, and would not try to argue if you did say it was a classic, because that is simply down to personal taste.
    i appreciate that you might not like the themes or indeed the stories, but this is a substantial shift from saying that they are bad, poorly written books. HP cannot be compared in terms of craft and effort, and in most cases sheer quality of story telling. since it is a contemporary book that does this comparably well, it says alot for peoples judgement and the dumbing down of the publics literary appreciation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iluvatar)
    Yes, but a readable book isn't necesserily an easy book.
    where did i say the contrary?

    I am not blind. I just believe that there is too much unnecessary text. If it brought something to the story, then there would be a reason for it, but as it is... well, i dont see it.
    and that necessarily means its a bad book??

    Things that sound patronising. You are speaking in a way to try and demean my arguments, by dismissing them as my problems, rather than the books.
    im highlighting the possibilities,and your arguments are...?
    its a bad book because i thought it was boring..
    it was full of unnecessary text that i didnt appreciate thus it was badly written.

    both fundamentally rely on your intepretation and capacities , forgive me if i question you ability to appreciate the work.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    i appreciate that you might not like the themes or indeed the stories, but this is a substantial shift from saying that they are bad, poorly written books. HP cannot be compared in terms of craft and effort, and in most cases sheer quality of story telling. since it is a contemporary book that does this comparably well, it says alot for peoples judgement and the dumbing down of the publics literary appreciation.
    I never said that Anna Karenina, or Crime and punishment were bad books.
    I admitted that Anna Karenina wasn't my thing, and did say that crime and punishment was quite good.
    And i also said that War and Peace isn't a good book, because it is written poorly.

    I never compared HP to these books in these areas, and i totally agree.
    But HP is readable. Although it is a bad book in my opinion, it is readable, and it can be an engaging read to younger people.
    But just because its modern, you cannot claim that it means that literary appreciation is dumbing down.
    HP, yes, is dumbing down, and it makes me sick to think that adults read it over more mature books, but not over these books you have mentioned.
    Although it is good to draw from the past, the present is an amalgamation of the past. It draws from it and improves. This is why some of the fiction written relatively recently is, to the eyes of impartial observers, the best literature ever written.
    There is a higer quality of books now than there have ever been. Why else would so many books in recent times be called classics, compared to the relatively few in older times.
    But although they are easier to read, it doesn't mean that they are dumbed down. The topics discussed in these books are as real as at any time, but they are written in a more inclusive way.
    This doesn't mean they are any less rewarding to read, less intense, or less intelligent. Just that the way they are written is so the general public, rather than the elitists who concider books by Tolstoy and the like true classics, and treat moderness with scepticism, and contempt.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iluvatar)
    And i also said that War and Peace isn't a good book, because it is written poorly.
    my point..

    I never compared HP to these books in these areas, and i totally agree.
    But HP is readable. Although it is a bad book in my opinion, it is readable, and it can be an engaging read to younger people.
    and that counts for what in the world of art and literature?

    But just because its modern, you cannot claim that it means that literary appreciation is dumbing down.
    hehe, where did i say that?

    HP, yes, is dumbing down, and it makes me sick to think that adults read it over more mature books, but not over these books you have mentioned.
    Although it is good to draw from the past, the present is an amalgamation of the past. It draws from it and improves. This is why some of the fiction written relatively recently is, to the eyes of impartial observers, the best literature ever written.
    There is a higer quality of books now than there have ever been. Why else would so many books in recent times be called classics, compared to the relatively few in older times.
    But although they are easier to read, it doesn't mean that they are dumbed down. The topics discussed in these books are as real as at any time, but they are written in a more inclusive way.
    This doesn't mean they are any less rewarding to read, less intense, or less intelligent. Just that the way they are written is so the general public, rather than the elitists who concider books by Tolstoy and the like true classics, and treat moderness with scepticism, and contempt.
    what complete rubbish. more contemporary classics than pre-1920? are you mad?
    thats like saying the crap in Tate Modern is the improvement of artistic ability on the masters.
    hehe, Tolstoy and his contemporaries wrote for the public, Balzac, Hugo and even Zola were loved by the french. they were hardly elitist. you have basically supported my argument. hehe..
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    where did i say the contrary?
    By mentioning the likes of spot and HP, which imply on there own that you are saying this.

    (Original post by vienna95)
    and that necessarily means its a bad book??
    If a book is too caught up in irrelivence, then yes, it is a bad book.
    There are one or two passages in War and Peace which are good, but a book is a sum of all that it contains, and if most of that isn't good, then neither is the book.

    (Original post by vienna95)
    im highlighting the possibilities,and your arguments are...?
    its a bad book because i thought it was boring..
    it was full of unnecessary text that i didnt appreciate thus it was badly written.
    But, as i hope you know, these aren't actually the points i'm making at all.

    Its a bad book, because it was not engaging. It did not encourage me to read it, did not make me want to read it again, and did not change my life in any way.

    It is full of unecessary text, that clogs up the story, and reduces the impact of the parts of the book which aren't so bad, because your half asleep by he time you get there!!!
    The story itself was badly written, but that is not because of the unecessary text. It is just a general observation.

    (Original post by vienna95)
    both fundamentally rely on your intepretation and capacities , forgive me if i question you ability to appreciate the work.
    Both rely on the facts that i observe. And i have no problems in appreciating a truly good book. But because of this, i also have the capacity to distinguish a bad book, and communicate as much.
    I appreciate what is written, and that some people will, regardless of the facts, still judge on reputation, rather than content.
    But i do forgive you for saying as much.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iluvatar)
    By mentioning the likes of spot and HP, which imply on there own that you are saying this.

    If a book is too caught up in irrelivence, then yes, it is a bad book.

    But, as i hope you know, these aren't actually the points i'm making at all.

    Its a bad book, because it was not engaging.

    because your half asleep by he time you get there!!!
    The story itself was badly written, but that is not because of the unecessary text. It is just a general observation.


    I appreciate what is written, and that some people will, regardless of the facts, still judge on reputation, rather than content.
    But i do forgive you for saying as much.
    unbelievable, quite unbelievable.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    unbelievable, quite unbelievable.
    How come you got a link to the BNP? :eek: :rolleyes:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    my point..
    No, your point was that i was changing my opinions. This i was not, and i displayed the fact to you.

    (Original post by vienna95)
    and that counts for what in the world of art and literature?
    Exactly. People who are too stuck up to see the more simple things, are the people that seem to be involved in art and literature.
    That is why people like you do not see it as relevent.

    (Original post by vienna95)
    hehe, where did i say that?
    Well, you seem to equate the two in everything you say.


    (Original post by vienna95)
    what complete rubbish. more contemporary classics than pre-1920? are you mad?
    thats like saying the crap in Tate Modern is the improvement of artistic ability on the masters.
    hehe, Tolstoy and his contemporaries wrote for the public, Balzac, Hugo and even Zola were loved by the french. they were hardly elitist. you have basically supported my argument. hehe..
    No, i am saying what is true. There are more true classics around now than pre-20's. Maybe not in the sense of the hype that people like you give then, but i nthe sense of true literary quality.

    (Original post by vienna95)
    thats like saying the crap in Tate Modern is the improvement of artistic ability on the masters.
    No, it is not. modern art is totally different, because it is now obsessed with being different, rather than being good. Because the function of art has changed, the abilities shown are also different, and simply aren't as skillful.

    (Original post by vienna95)
    hehe, Tolstoy and his contemporaries wrote for the public, Balzac, Hugo and even Zola were loved by the french. they were hardly elitist. you have basically supported my argument. hehe..
    Again, intentionally taking what i writ out of context.
    I did not claim the writers were elitist. I stated that the people around now who generally hype up these books are.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blamps)
    How come you got a link to the BNP? :eek: :rolleyes:
    because i am a big supporter of what they do.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    unbelievable, quite unbelievable.
    Can't you believe that you are wrong? .
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    because i am a big supporter of what they do.
    Are you actually British...in principle, some aspects of the BNP would agree with me although I cannot tolerate the segregation type ones (I.e all the racially motivated tripe)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iluvatar)
    Exactly. People who are too stuck up to see the more simple things, are the people that seem to be involved in art and literature.
    That is why people like you do not see it as relevent.

    No, i am saying what is true. There are more true classics around now than pre-20's. Maybe not in the sense of the hype that people like you give then, but i nthe sense of true literary quality.
    im speechless. laughably unbelievable.

    Again, intentionally taking what i writ out of context.
    I did not claim the writers were elitist. I stated that the people around now who generally hype up these books are.
    admittedly, i couldnt understand what you wrote because there was no sentence structure, but

    "Just that the way they are written is so the general public, rather than the elitists who concider books by Tolstoy and the like true classics, and treat moderness with scepticism, and contempt"

    seems to imply that there are more 'classics' now because they are written for the general public whereas, Tolstoy and books before our time arent classics because OUR general public cant appreciate them..
    possibly the most ridiculously retarded statement yet.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.