Successful Cambridge Applicants Chat - 2006
Scroll to see replies
wanderer
I think I have to disagree with Sassygirl and say most fantasy isn't sophisticated at all - its just fun having these magical alternative worlds and big battles between good and evil. Unfortunately, this puts off people who don't like that, when the best fantasy is actually using alternative worlds to look in a different way at the real world. Ursula Le Guin is a master of that. Stephen Donaldson and Thomas Covenant is anoher great example - a leper who gives up on life only to be forced into trying to save a world he cannot bring himself to fully believe in beats a bunch of hobbits anyday IMO.
I suppose in a way, fantasy is superficially very sophisticated, because you're talking about life-and-death situations, and fantasy characters often experience a lot of loss and pain. These are all serious themes that wouldn't usually appear in a children's book. Of course, an older, long-time fantasy reader could probably separate reality/fantasy and read a fantasy novel with enough detachment and just find it fun.
You seem to have twisted my argument into a good book/bad book argument, that is not what i was actually addressing initially and I don’t think we could come to a reasonable agreement on that as it is all a matter of perspective.
I'm just trying to justify why Tolkien could be considered a 'kid's book' (I like to argue for the sake of it). Personally, I do actually think it doesn't have boundaries in terms of age.
Imp not sure what you would have Tolkien do to further 'characterise' the characters, and if you judge this in terms of how or 'crazy' they are; then perhaps they are too easy to relate to?
There's a LOT Tolkien could do to further characterise the characters. Like, give them personalities. Okay, admittedly, he does have some interesting characters, like Gollum, Bilbo and Gandalf. But compared to a lot of other fantasy, these characters are pretty tame. Fantasy is the best genre to go crazy-wild with the imagination. You want the readers to experience amazement. I think Tolkien manages this with the scope of his work, but not his characters.
Well sorry it did, and what is this claim based on?
Im sure you'll agree that many other books have fans and and if it was that easy to biase the poll then surely harry potter with its constant and current fanfare of media hype would have won outright. And sorry as the mathematicians will hopefully agree that when 0.75 million votes are counted, a few extra fanatics on phones don’t stand a chance at swinging it!
Im sure you'll agree that many other books have fans and and if it was that easy to biase the poll then surely harry potter with its constant and current fanfare of media hype would have won outright. And sorry as the mathematicians will hopefully agree that when 0.75 million votes are counted, a few extra fanatics on phones don’t stand a chance at swinging it!
True, but the timing of The Big Read was very good for LotR to be winning. A lot of people would have been reminded (or just read) the book after the movies. If The Big Read was done just after the Colin Firth Pride and Prejudice came out, I'm sure P&P would have won, no question. You have to admit LotR was on a supreme publicity high at that time. This is all my opinion of course.
I agree, but again that is your personal opinion, and if a good book cannot be judged by its popularity (due to applicability) and timelessness, then?
Georgette Heyer is still considered fairly pulpy, even though she published in the 20s-50s (I think) and is still one of the most popular authors today. I mean, I told my English teacher I read Heyer, and she asked me whether I had mentioned that in my Cambridge interview (me and my interview talked about books)--as in, if I had, it wouldn't have looked good.
But I agree, popularity over time must mean that the book is good for some people. For enough people, I should say. It is an established 'classic'. It still doesn't mean that it's *actually* good though. Whether something is good or not is entirely a matter of opinion. Just because it's held by a majority doesn't make it a fact.
This is completely irrelevant to the quality of a book , many modern books are ruined by an excess of it, almost falling into perversion! If you want sex yes youll need to look else ware!
Random sex in LotR would be awful. It would completely ruin the tone of the book. The problem is, the characters themselves are sexless. If you've got wars, you've got to at least recognise that there's sex. Tolkien kind of ignores it and hopes it goes away. Epic fantasies generally are pretty all-encompassing in terms of representing the human experiences--that's why reading them is so satisfying. Tolkien does a whole bunch.. but misses out (quite obviously, in my opinion), any reference to the funny stuff, despite talking about love, children, smoking weed, battle and so on.
Well thanks for an outlet for a bit of disscussion people!
Agreed! I love debating about books. My favourite subject ^^
wanderer
By engaging with reality. By experimenting with hypothetical social, political, and sexual environments, into which she puts very human characters. She uses fantastic situations to look at what we take for granted in normal life.
This is EXACTLY what I mean. This is what I think truly great fantasy should be. In my opinion, Tolkien only does this quite well. There are many more resonant, human fantasies out there.
KAISER_MOLE
I may sound like a gert philistine, but I don't really look for what may be described as 'substance' in a book, and I just go for the good fun, I get touched about simple things and the simple morals (maybe why I am a little interested in starting up reading fairytale) - Anyone know of any good places to start me off, other than Grimm brothers / Andersen?
Anyone remember Storyteller on TV, great fun that.
Anyone remember Storyteller on TV, great fun that.
Fairytales are bloody creepy! I'd recommend you read some Greek mythology actually. Or Chinese mythology, for that matter. It reads like slightly kooky fantasy. Totally, totally crazy and eccentric. It *almost* beats my favourite (the Greeks).
By the way, any manga readers out there?
Any BLEACH readers out there??
OMG is Bleach AMAZING.
Manga is one of the best mediums for any story, in my opinion. You've got the visual stimulus, coupled with the intimate knowledge of the characters.
I have read some greek mythology ages ago which was quite interesting, and I was considering taking up Ancient History at AS level, but this clashed with Physics so I ended up taking economics. Manga is intersting, that new film Aeon Flux is manga isn't it? I saw some cartoons on them and it was bloody wierd indeed, but pretty cool too...I can't claim to read manga though, some of it is a bit gruesome
Sorry Sasssygirl, but its not just the big read. Whenever something like this has been done since it came out, LOTR has come top. Its the favourite book of a hell of a lot of people who aren't particularly vocal about books or what they read. I would have loved the dark materials to have won though - third was prety amazing all the same.
Just to swing into philosophical terrritory here, how can you define something being '*actually* good' without being subjective - which leaves popularity as the best indicator anyway?
Just to swing into philosophical terrritory here, how can you define something being '*actually* good' without being subjective - which leaves popularity as the best indicator anyway?
some stuff which i really enjoyed, and while it isn't really in the same ball park, are some of the gothic novels of 1760s+.... they have pretty interesting characters, lots to think about ( the best were written at the time of the french rev.) and are pretty grusome and kinky... i'd reccomend 'the monk' by m.g.lewis (a mate of byron's and polidori), 'vathek' by beckford (has the most amazingly wonderful mother character ever-puts corriolanus's to shame)... also, completely off topic, but the woman in white by wilkie collins is fantastic.... really.... if you couldnt read, i would be there bullying you into doing so, just so you could read this book! they are also sort of fantastical.
wanderer
Just to swing into philosophical terrritory here, how can you define something being '*actually* good' without being subjective - which leaves popularity as the best indicator anyway?
Just to swing into philosophical terrritory here, how can you define something being '*actually* good' without being subjective - which leaves popularity as the best indicator anyway?
Yes that is what i was trying to get at!
sassygirl
Fairytales are bloody creepy! I'd recommend you read some Greek mythology actually. Or Chinese mythology, for that matter. It reads like slightly kooky fantasy. Totally, totally crazy and eccentric. It *almost* beats my favourite (the Greeks).
By the way, any manga readers out there?
Any BLEACH readers out there??
OMG is Bleach AMAZING.
Manga is one of the best mediums for any story, in my opinion. You've got the visual stimulus, coupled with the intimate knowledge of the characters.
By the way, any manga readers out there?
Any BLEACH readers out there??
OMG is Bleach AMAZING.
Manga is one of the best mediums for any story, in my opinion. You've got the visual stimulus, coupled with the intimate knowledge of the characters.
oooh...I love manga! A friend of mine got me into it a year or so ago, and for ages we went manga shopping once a week...but I have so little time to go out now I usually just read hers
my favourite at the moment is Kenshin, except I have vols 5 and 6 to read, but not vol 4 and keep not going to buy it 
I'm afraid I haven't tried Bleach - I'll try and remember to look out for it. What's it about?I agree, manga is a fantastic medium for storytelling. I've been asked why I don't like comic books, if I like manga (there's a huge french comic book obsession, I don't know if its the same in the UK), but somehow manga just seem more - intimate, to borrow your world. Less superficial and more interested in the characters and so on, as long as you're reading a good one. (I will admit though, some manga, and indeed, some of the pictures, just make me flinch with embarassment)
Bleach is very difficult to summarise.. I've only read the 1st 10 volumes so I'm not an expert (my friend introduced me to it--and she knows a LOT more about it than me--having watched a lot of the anime).
It's about a 15-year old boy called Ichigo Kurosaki who can see ghosts--both good and bad (which are called hollows). One day he chances upon a Death God (a shinigami) and a fight with a hollow ensues, where the Death God Rukia transfers her powers to him accidentally. Well, it's a little more complex than that. Cue lots of mythology-ish stuff, including the dying race of hollow-battlers known as Quincies and travelling to Soul Society, and spirit swords called zanpakto. It's totally amazing. It's between sci-fi and fantasy, it's very original and very witty. I still don't know why it's called Bleach though!
Sorry, Aeon Flux isn't manga! It was originally a series of short animations where the in-joke was that the main character kept on dying that aired on MTV. Not Japanese, and therefore not manga.
Pokemon was never manga--it was a Nintendo game converted to anime (which was great until went into the Johto Region. Why, God Why?!). Manga is so creative. Every single page is a work of art. Manga's equally popular between boys and girls. My favourite shojo manga are Mars and Paradise Kiss. I'm not *that* well-read in manga, but I've read the 'usual suspects' as such..
Lol, seriously, I didn't know LotR was that popular! Maybe I have a skewed perspective of its popularity because I go to an all-girl's school. I only know 2 LotR fans in my year. One is CRAZY fanatic (as in, she prefers to be called by her Elvish name that she made up for herself), and I hear about it ALL THE TIME from her, and the other actually prefers Pratchett (but still likes LotR).
"Just to swing into philosophical terrritory here, how can you define something being '*actually* good' without being subjective - which leaves popularity as the best indicator anyway?"
GOOD QUESTION. Whether something is 'good' or not is entirely subjective, but obviously there does exist some sort of way of measuring whether a piece of art (be it literature, sculpture or architecture), otherwise there'd be no place in the world for critics.
Since we're talking about books, I'll try to channel my thoughts about 'good' stuff in a bookish way. Right.. will need to do an ickle bit of research on reviewing techniques. Zips off to Guardian Unlimited.....Obviously, if I were to write a dissertation on this I'd use a lot more sources, but I'm taking this article as an example here:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,,1716344,00.html
Okay, the first thing I've noticed about these literary critically acclaimed novels is that they have interesting premises. A key point in novel-writing is conflict. Conflict drives the plot and the characters forward. And there are strong, and unique sources of conflict in all 3 novels listed. Any readable book has a decent central conflict. Actually, I remember when I was reading the 'Shopaholic' series by Sophie Kinsella, that I gave up precisely because I got bored of the central conflict in the novels--the main characters' inability to get a handle on her spending. It just annoyed me in the end.
So I think an original conflicts are important. Again, this is subjective though. For example, you've already mentioned you're not interested in romance novels--this is probably because the central conflict in romance is utterly boring to you. Oh, and I think conflict is mostly plot-based (like most action-adventures, mysteries and fantasies) or character-based (some literary novels, and some romance). So good plot and character would make for the best central conflict. Part of the interest of reading, say, Poirot, must be that the guy has a weird mustache. Just that makes him more of an interesting character.
I think the next key would be good writing. This is a little more objective than whether the central conflict is exciting or not. What makes writing good? Good depiction of the plot, and good characterisation i.e. how it is written. It's a bit difficult to explain how this is done well.. there are simply too many factors taken into account.
So basically, it's down to 'how' and 'what'.
A lot of very unpopular and unwidely read books are considered 'good' for this reason, but quite often they are rather unaccessible (inaccessible?).
I think a lot of popular books strike a balance between being pulpy, and being critically considered good. Unfortunately, romance novels (unless several hundred years old) are never considered good.
I think what I was trying to explain in my argument about Lord of the Rings is that I think its central conflict is rather tame (and therefore not enough to hold my attention) and its characterisation is also rather tame. I admire the scope and the brilliance and the depth of the world, but I think the plot and characters are weak. Which is why, in my opinion, I don't think it's 'good'. Of course, a lot of people disagree with me, but that doesn't make me wrong.
It is interesting to see that out of the top 5 books in The Big Read, 4 out of the 5 are fantasy/sci-fi. Oh, and one historical romance (P&P). Obviously, 'real life' ain't good enough. Escapism wins the vote, eh.
It's about a 15-year old boy called Ichigo Kurosaki who can see ghosts--both good and bad (which are called hollows). One day he chances upon a Death God (a shinigami) and a fight with a hollow ensues, where the Death God Rukia transfers her powers to him accidentally. Well, it's a little more complex than that. Cue lots of mythology-ish stuff, including the dying race of hollow-battlers known as Quincies and travelling to Soul Society, and spirit swords called zanpakto. It's totally amazing. It's between sci-fi and fantasy, it's very original and very witty. I still don't know why it's called Bleach though!
Sorry, Aeon Flux isn't manga! It was originally a series of short animations where the in-joke was that the main character kept on dying that aired on MTV. Not Japanese, and therefore not manga.
Pokemon was never manga--it was a Nintendo game converted to anime (which was great until went into the Johto Region. Why, God Why?!). Manga is so creative. Every single page is a work of art. Manga's equally popular between boys and girls. My favourite shojo manga are Mars and Paradise Kiss. I'm not *that* well-read in manga, but I've read the 'usual suspects' as such..
Lol, seriously, I didn't know LotR was that popular! Maybe I have a skewed perspective of its popularity because I go to an all-girl's school. I only know 2 LotR fans in my year. One is CRAZY fanatic (as in, she prefers to be called by her Elvish name that she made up for herself), and I hear about it ALL THE TIME from her, and the other actually prefers Pratchett (but still likes LotR).
"Just to swing into philosophical terrritory here, how can you define something being '*actually* good' without being subjective - which leaves popularity as the best indicator anyway?"
GOOD QUESTION. Whether something is 'good' or not is entirely subjective, but obviously there does exist some sort of way of measuring whether a piece of art (be it literature, sculpture or architecture), otherwise there'd be no place in the world for critics.
Since we're talking about books, I'll try to channel my thoughts about 'good' stuff in a bookish way. Right.. will need to do an ickle bit of research on reviewing techniques. Zips off to Guardian Unlimited.....Obviously, if I were to write a dissertation on this I'd use a lot more sources, but I'm taking this article as an example here:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,,1716344,00.html
Okay, the first thing I've noticed about these literary critically acclaimed novels is that they have interesting premises. A key point in novel-writing is conflict. Conflict drives the plot and the characters forward. And there are strong, and unique sources of conflict in all 3 novels listed. Any readable book has a decent central conflict. Actually, I remember when I was reading the 'Shopaholic' series by Sophie Kinsella, that I gave up precisely because I got bored of the central conflict in the novels--the main characters' inability to get a handle on her spending. It just annoyed me in the end.
So I think an original conflicts are important. Again, this is subjective though. For example, you've already mentioned you're not interested in romance novels--this is probably because the central conflict in romance is utterly boring to you. Oh, and I think conflict is mostly plot-based (like most action-adventures, mysteries and fantasies) or character-based (some literary novels, and some romance). So good plot and character would make for the best central conflict. Part of the interest of reading, say, Poirot, must be that the guy has a weird mustache. Just that makes him more of an interesting character.
I think the next key would be good writing. This is a little more objective than whether the central conflict is exciting or not. What makes writing good? Good depiction of the plot, and good characterisation i.e. how it is written. It's a bit difficult to explain how this is done well.. there are simply too many factors taken into account.
So basically, it's down to 'how' and 'what'.
A lot of very unpopular and unwidely read books are considered 'good' for this reason, but quite often they are rather unaccessible (inaccessible?).
I think a lot of popular books strike a balance between being pulpy, and being critically considered good. Unfortunately, romance novels (unless several hundred years old) are never considered good.
I think what I was trying to explain in my argument about Lord of the Rings is that I think its central conflict is rather tame (and therefore not enough to hold my attention) and its characterisation is also rather tame. I admire the scope and the brilliance and the depth of the world, but I think the plot and characters are weak. Which is why, in my opinion, I don't think it's 'good'. Of course, a lot of people disagree with me, but that doesn't make me wrong.
It is interesting to see that out of the top 5 books in The Big Read, 4 out of the 5 are fantasy/sci-fi. Oh, and one historical romance (P&P). Obviously, 'real life' ain't good enough. Escapism wins the vote, eh.
sassygirl
<SNIP>
I don't mean to be rude, but don't you do an awful lot of EngLit-ness for a medical applicant..?
Now thats quite interesting - see, I would have put far more emphasis on how a book engages with what is universal in human life, how it examines the world and our place in it, how it transcends its plot and its setting and uses them as a vehicle to say something meaningful about the world. And critically, how well the author makes that meaning rise naturally out of a plot, a setting, and characters that feel real and relevant, rather than just being vehicles for whatever the author has to say.
Oh, and on "otherwise there'd be no place in the world for critics" - there are a good few people about who would argue that in fact, there is absolutely no place in the world for critics.
As for the big read - I don't think any categorisation that puts Hitchiker's Guide together with LOTR and His Dark Materials. There are similarities between the latter two (although, IMHO, Dark Materials is so much better) but Hitchiker's guide is something totally different.
Oh, and on "otherwise there'd be no place in the world for critics" - there are a good few people about who would argue that in fact, there is absolutely no place in the world for critics.
As for the big read - I don't think any categorisation that puts Hitchiker's Guide together with LOTR and His Dark Materials. There are similarities between the latter two (although, IMHO, Dark Materials is so much better) but Hitchiker's guide is something totally different.
Duke Flipside
I don't mean to be rude, but don't you do an awful lot of EngLit-ness for a medical applicant..?
What's the problem with that? Medics are expected to have a wide background - and anyway, I'm a maths applicant and I spend a fair amount of my time fighting out long technical arguments about the nature of meaning and suchlike in the philosophy subforum.
wanderer
What's the problem with that? Medics are expected to have a wide background - and anyway, I'm a maths applicant and I spend a fair amount of my time fighting out long technical arguments about the nature of meaning and suchlike in the philosophy subforum.
Well, I'm a successful Cambridge applicant, and I've just noticed I haven't actually posted in here yet!
Hmm... seems more like lengthy detailed discussion than chat... I hope socialising at Cambridge isn't like this
thefish_uk
Well, I'm a successful Cambridge applicant, and I've just noticed I haven't actually posted in here yet!
Hmm... seems more like lengthy detailed discussion than chat... I hope socialising at Cambridge isn't like this
Hmm... seems more like lengthy detailed discussion than chat... I hope socialising at Cambridge isn't like this
Hmm ... well, obviously not all the time, but I wouldn't mind a reasonable bit of this sort of thing outside the net. I can talk maths with a couple of people in RL, but all my philosophy (and linguistic criticism, at the mo!) gets done on TSR.
I believe whether something is good or not is entirely subjective...same with something being meaningful or not, same with any adjective that isn't relating to something physical....A lot of the books quoted in this thread have meaning to me only through the thread and not through actually reading them, through which they might attain another meaning, but who is to say it is a more meaningful meaning?
I try to hold back my opinions, as when I let them loose slightly, people say I am dangerous to the world o_0
I try to hold back my opinions, as when I let them loose slightly, people say I am dangerous to the world o_0
thefish_uk
Well, I'm a successful Cambridge applicant, and I've just noticed I haven't actually posted in here yet!
Hmm... seems more like lengthy detailed discussion than chat... I hope socialising at Cambridge isn't like this
Hmm... seems more like lengthy detailed discussion than chat... I hope socialising at Cambridge isn't like this
When I was sat drinking tea before my interview, a load of philosophy applicants were sitting around in a corner earnestly debating their own existence, while currents students flapped nervously and said 'don't worry, not everyone at Cambridge is like that...!'
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Further Marhs for Engineering at Cambridge
- controversial
- Official Cambridge 2022 Applicants Thread Mk II
- Peterhouse offer holders 2022
- Chat to an Oxford Student
- Rejected by Cambridge Trust Scholarship
- 2023 Cambridge MPhil in Development Studies
- Is it easier for a private student to get into Oxford than Cambridge?
- UCAS Clearing 2023 FAQ and Help Megathread
- Got a Ucas or results related question? Ask a Clearing and Applications Advisor here
- Is it worth applying to Cambridge for medicine if I only take 2 sciences?
- TSR Community Awards: Most Helpful Thread of the Year -VOTING OPEN :)
- Interview for MPhil Basic and Translational Neuroscience at Cambridge
- What A levels should I pick for medicine
- Quitting A-Level Chemistry
- FM for uni (Economics)
- How can I enhance my Oxford application with weaker GCSEs?
- HSPS at Cambridge: What are the chances of making it?
- Gap year for Oxbridge
- Can I apply to Cambridge Medicine with these GCSE grades?
Trending
- HSPS Selwyn
- MPhil Advanced Computer Science Cambridge - 2024 Entry
- TMUA 2023 Thread
- Cambridge Economics L100 2024 Entry
- Cambridge Design Tripos Opinions and Preparation?
- Reapplying to Cambridge medicine
- Cambridge Philosophy Admissions test
- Cambridge Interview
- Cambridge engineering rejection
- Sidney Sussex
- Cambridge interview invitation?
- Are there anybody recieved an interview of the Queens College- engineering
- Clare college Cambridge Applicants 2024
- St John’s Cambridge
- has anyone got a cambridge interview yet
- Cambridge Linguistics applicants 2024
- Cambridge Admissions test
- Nsaa 2023
- Cambridge L100 Economics - TMUA to Interview
- Cambridge interview rejection
Latest
- Architecture Applicants 2024
- Deutsche Bank 2024 Graduate
- Wellington and Sevenoaks Admission test
- ATAS (Academic, Technology, Approval Scheme) Certificate 2023/2024
- Wellington College 6th form 2024
- Korean/Japanese Studies 2024 Applicants
- Human rights / humanitarian work
- Changing fee status
- Oxford Politics Interview (2024)
- Student Accommodation
- HKU Biomed
- Easy Steps to Recover Corrupted MySQL Database Files
- Maintenance loan - household income question
- The same picture of Michael Buble everyday until 6th January
- Is there still a chance?
- Please help me
- University of Liverpool A100 2024 Entry Applicants
- Official Veterinary Medicine Applicants thread 2024 entry
- It’s got to Christmas and I still dk about uni!
- from all 9s to all Ds, help
- Is this fair?
- A-level exam centre(private candidate)
- Is it too late to join a society in January?
- Proof on extra room from school requested?
- Homesick/Struggling at uni in 3rd Year?
- Do queens have grade requirement if already attending a course? Medicine
- Am I allowed to resit just one AS level subject?
- Never enough
- Birmingham City University accommodation - January Start
- Helpp!! A level social science/subjects
- A-levels
- AS Level Retake
- masturbating dry
- A level physics AQA: new vs old spec
- Investment Banking
- What A Levels to take with Graphic communication or design
- UK Land Law help??
- should i give up?
- My parents forced me to do maths a level and I’m really upset and struggling
- Tips for incoming student’s how to have a great student life.