[Stryke 9]

The Anarchist's Cookbook is largely a fraud. You want one of those real bombmaking manuals. I have a list of recommendations, but I've sworn off my hobby of FBI-baiting until Ashcroft is safely caged.

Anyway, yes.

[Bobboau]

or maybe you just have a diferent oppinion, I too don't care for king, but I know many people who he seems to have struck a nerve with, the wealth he has acumulated it not a direct indicator indicator of how good he is, but rather how popular he is wich can be used as an indirect and not entierly accurate measure of ability, saying 'well he has lots of money' is equivelent to saying 'well a lot of other people like his work'

[Stryke 9]

And... since when did popularity have anything to do with artistic talent? Temptation Island is popular, Death of a Salesman is, relatively speaking, not. Once again, which is more artistic, has more meaning, is better done?

All the art most people want to see (and, certainly, to pay for) either sports a logo or sticks to a refrigerator. Does that mean that's the only good art? I sure hope not.

Mind, that doesn't mean I'm willing to count chainsawed pigs and **** in sealed canisters as art, either, but if someone can BS up a good explanation of what it means, I might be willing to consider it...

[Zeronet]

Originally posted by karajorma


If you couldn't be bothered to answer me on the original thread don't resurrect the arguement on this one. Especially to call me a fanatic. I've only read the first two books anyway.




Wrong yet again. I said that LOTR started out as a kids book and then evolved into something else. I said that The Hobbit was a kids book. Find me the line where I mentioned anything else by Tolkien on that thread and I'll quite happily eat my words.



I read LOTR when I was 8. I know several other people who had read LOTR before they entered their teens. Just cause you didn't read it when you were a kid don't assume no one else did.

You take everything so seriously, its funny.

[kasperl]

if anyone sais that HP is a kids book, you should bite your way through parts 1 through 3, and then get reading 4 and 5, now if somebody tells me 5 is a childrens book, i'd like to see their reasoning.

and since i doubt you read it, i don't think you can bash it.

[Turnsky]

okay.. now THIS is definitely NOT a children's book..

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Zeronet


You take everything so seriously, its funny.

Bah. What a pathetic response.  Besides the whole thing on the other thread started when you couldn't take a joke.

[J.F.K.]

Originally posted by Turnsky
*opens "the Gunslinger" by stephen king*

i prefer slighty more mature reading myself...

I.E anything by tolkien

Amen to that, but I can't help but take notice of this series of books that has suddenly made children take up books again. Even though I'm not a fan of the series per se, I am happy with what it's done for kids - getting into books again.

[Zeronet]

Originally posted by karajorma


Bah. What a pathetic response.  Besides the whole thing on the other thread started when you couldn't take a joke.

No, it was when you started being a fanatic.

[Sandwich]

This thread has ventured to the point of being locked a number of times. Discussion about books, good. Argument about books, bad. Flaming about books, locked.

[Rictor]

I seriously can't tell the difference between arguement and discussion. I can understand flaming, but how do you define "arguing" as opposed to "discussing", just so I know for future reference

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Zeronet


No, it was when you started being a fanatic.

Zeronet you seem to be labouring under the illusion that I've flamed you, repressed you or in some other way told you that you have the wrong opinion.

As far as I was concerned the matter was over and done with on the other thread until you repeatedly called me a fanatic on this one. Personally I can't see anything I've done that was fanatical.

In fact I've said several times that if you hold the opinion that you don't like Harry Potter that you're welcome to that opinion. If you feel that it's a childrens book and therefore beneath you to read it you're entitled to that opinion too.

However I'm just as entitled to tell you that it isn't just a childrens book because large numbers of adults read it.

 Thats not fanatacism. That's simply holding a different opinion from you. If I was a fanatic I would have told you that you were wrong for not liking Harry Potter.

If anyone is being a fanatic it's you, cause you're the one telling anyone who does like the book that they are wrong or immature for liking it.

[Zeronet]

I didn't say it was immature to read it, i was just pointing out, its target audience is children.

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by karajorma

Wrong yet again. I said that LOTR started out as a kids book and then evolved into something else. I said that The Hobbit was a kids book. Find me the line where I mentioned anything else by Tolkien on that thread and I'll quite happily eat my words.

Hmm - not sure If I fully get your meaning here, but the actual LOTR trilogy was never meant as a set for children - Tolkien said so himself ina letter to his publisher, who was expecting another Hobbit style Kids book. If you were talking about the Hobbit as the beginning of the LOTR series being a childrens book (and the series eventually becoming an Adults one) then I'll gladly accept you as correct.

A few other things to Say on this thread

Venom: - I think Stryke's major problem is nort about opinions or taste or whatever, but that you tried to equate monetary earnings with quality, and that's simply not the way it is, in any art form. How much would RL Stein have made from Goosebumps? How much do contemporary abstract artists make throwing paint against a wall? Ultimately, you have to accept that quality doesn't always sell art (note that doesn't exclude good art from selling well). Whether you like a book or not generally doesn't have much to do with it's level of artistic quality (though it's very important to what you take from it.)

On Kids books and Adult Books - Despite the ability of children to read certain books, you have to really look at what they take from those books to decide whether they were really comprehending it, or just comprehending the words and sentences. There's a big difference. I read 1984 the first time when I was 13, just starting year 8 - I had read a lot, but I'd read almost entirely books aimed at children, rather than more complex ones. 1984 made me think a bit, realize how easy it would be to change the past, how easy it would be for an evil government to take over etc etc. - basically I skimmed the surface of the book. Four years later, after two years of English Lit (advanced English, basically studying novels, poems, plays etc. learning how to really understand and make your own meanings) and I understood an incredible amount more of htis book. I really knew what Orwell was talking about, the value of human life, what existence really means, how he was trying to show how fragile minds and souls could be and an absolute ****load more. The first time around, It was just another book. This time, I think it really changed the way I percieved the world. It's the same for a lot of books - a kid reads Jurassic Park, he sees cool dinosaurs that kill people. An adult reads it, he sees the danger of genetic engineering, and of foolhardy, commercialist science in general. However, you take an adult and a child, and have them read a kids book, they will generally take the same stuff out of it, as there isn't, as a general rule, a lot to take out.

Note, some books can and do fall into the Grey area. If anyone's ever read books like the Tomorrow when the War Began series (especially the later ones), then he'll know the sorts of books I mean.

Kasperl : I haven't read book 5, in fact, I couldn't even stand to finish book one, but chances are, if it's anything like number 1, then it's a kids book throughj and through. My reasoning? Unless Rowlings changed her style dramatically, then there's nothing beneath the immediate plot of the story, nothing you can take away from the book that wasn't spelled out in bright cheery technicolour (Well, with the possible exception of old, rehashed "Growing up" stuff, but honestly, that's been done so many times it's clichéd (Hope I got the accent going the right way this time )

Turnsky - Well, quick glance at the Author might've told me that

Edited for extreme typoage.

[Taristin]

Um...


Xenocide by Orson Scott Card is a good book...

[kasperl]

Originally posted by Black Wolf
Kasperl : I haven't read book 5, in fact, I couldn't even stand to finish book one, but chances are, if it's anything like number 1, then it's a kids book throughj and through. My reasoning? Unless Rowlings changed her style dramatically, then there's nothing beneath the immediate plot of the story, nothing you can take away from the book that wasn't spelled out in bright cheery technicolour (Well, with the possible exception of old, rehashed "Growing up" stuff, but honestly, that's been done so many times it's clichéd (Hope I got the accent going the right way this time )

Turnsky - Well, quick glance at the Author might've told me that

well, books 1 and 2 where indeed rather simple, but starting at book 3, and continuing more promenent in 4 and 5, there's a very large sub-plot, and from book 4 on, good guys die. and in the book, those issues are very well told. i am currently reading book 5, and though no-one as died yet, the entire mood is dark, almost the opposite of book 1. trust me, if you bite trough 1 through 3, about 900 pages in total, you'll enjoy 4 and 5, about 1300 pages in total, a lot.

[Rictor]

Black Wolf, I think you've said what of us were either unable to put forth clearly or just too pissed of to consider...good work:yes:

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by kasperl


well, books 1 and 2 where indeed rather simple, but starting at book 3, and continuing more promenent in 4 and 5, there's a very large sub-plot, and from book 4 on, good guys die. and in the book, those issues are very well told. i am currently reading book 5, and though no-one as died yet, the entire mood is dark, almost the opposite of book 1. trust me, if you bite trough 1 through 3, about 900 pages in total, you'll enjoy 4 and 5, about 1300 pages in total, a lot.

Frankly, I'm not really too inclined to read them anyway - it's been my experience that authors rarely change that dramatically in what is a relatively short (and media/commercialism saturated) period of time. Also, good guys dying isn't exactly heavy intellectual material (though if this was just an example rather than the thrust of your argument then I apologize). Frankly, based on the experiences I've had with the series and the environment she's been writing in, I'm not exactly bursting at the seams with enthusiasm and such like for the rest of the series, despite what good and bad reports I hear. Not that that's going to mean anything for anyone else reading the books - just me.

I was rather impressed with the way she did the movies though - choosing British kids, sticking, as far as I can tell, to the storyline etc. etc. Too many authors let their works get distorted when they do movies (Ever seen that Dinotopia miniseries? Urgh )

[Nico]

Originally posted by Black Wolf


Venom: - I think Stryke's major problem is nort about opinions or taste or whatever, but that you tried to equate monetary earnings with quality,

I'm confused... did I EVER do that?
Reading at my posts again, I can't see anything that could make you think that I did that.
Ah well, whatever.

[kasperl]

Originally posted by Black Wolf


Frankly, I'm not really too inclined to read them anyway - it's been my experience that authors rarely change that dramatically in what is a relatively short (and media/commercialism saturated) period of time. Also, good guys dying isn't exactly heavy intellectual material (though if this was just an example rther than the thrust of your argument then I apologize). Frankly, based on the experiences I've had with the series and the environment she's been writing in, I'm not exactly bursting at the seams with enthusiasm and such like for the rest of the series, despite what good and bad reports I hear. Not that that's going to mean anything for anyone else reading the books - just me.

I was rather impressed with the way she did the movies though - choosing British kids, sticking, as far as I can tell, to the storyline etc. etc. Too many authors let their works get distorted when they do movies (Ever seen that Dinotopia miniseries? Urgh )

as i already stated, there sure is a transition, after book 3, things go darker and more serious every page. the dying was indeed an example, everything is set in a moodyer atmosphere.