Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2017 3:02:26 GMT
I think you will agree EG is for kids. In my opinion, it should have been sold as such. Not at all, though there is a YA version of it. I have probably met more adults who call that their favorite SF novel ever.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2017 3:14:03 GMT
That must have been the one I read. I remember I took it out of a public library. I wish it had come with a YA stamp on it.
|
|
Bargle
Sophomore
My incredibly life-like self-portrait
@bargle
Posts: 432
Likes: 228
|
Post by Bargle on Dec 25, 2017 13:00:26 GMT
Pretty much any of the mainstream authors from the 60s to 80s. People like Danielle Steele, Harold Robbins, Jackie Collins, Sidney Sheldon.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Dec 25, 2017 22:07:10 GMT
I value intelligence and decency pretty highly in the art I consume. I do, too. So I do value Orson Scott Card. You share his ugly, irrational bigotry, so decency isn't even a concept on your radar.
|
|
mrdanwest
Sophomore
@mrdanwest
Posts: 127
Likes: 76
|
Post by mrdanwest on Dec 26, 2017 2:28:02 GMT
Paulo Coelho. I have only read The Alchemist, but found it pretty much to be a bad parody of itself and have had no interest in reading anything more by him.
|
|
mmexis
Sophomore
@mmexis
Posts: 861
Likes: 732
|
Post by mmexis on Dec 27, 2017 1:56:58 GMT
Good thing I'm not the only one who dislikes Hemingway. And Paulo Coelho. Trivialized philosophy (the alchemist). Also dislike Annie Proulx. Also haven't read any of the "big ones" in popular culture (Dan Brown, James Patterson, Steig Larsen, etc). Oh, add Danielle Steele (read one, read them all)
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Dec 28, 2017 5:18:41 GMT
Robert Windrem
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2018 21:53:32 GMT
Virginia Woolf, and, to be fair, I only read To The Lighthouse, but that was enough for me to see that I just don't like her style.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2018 2:11:12 GMT
Of the ones mentioned:
Palahniuk - I only read Fight Club. Is this even a novel? It seemed disjointed and not in a good way. I didn't find much of merit in it. DeLillo - didn't find Great Jones Street particularly enjoyable. Tried Libra too and couldn't get through it. Rand - an odious woman with a repugnant philosophy. Her prose isn't terrible, until you get to the page-long monologue screeds.
Dan Simmons - The Terror is terrible. He needs a better editor. Note to author: you do NOT have to list every single small detail of life on an early 19th century ship. It just wears out the reader's patience. Also, terrible ending, utter waste of the reader's time spent laboring through 400 pages to be given THAT.
Jeff Lindsay - in my opinion the first Dexter novel did not merit publication. Of course, it's easy to be biased by the fantastic TV adaptation, but the character in the book is highly unlikable and seems to solve the case by some kind of magical thinking. He just "KNEW" where the bad guy was. Absolutely awful novel.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Jan 18, 2018 4:35:58 GMT
Of the ones mentioned: Palahniuk - I only read Fight Club. Is this even a novel? It seemed disjointed and not in a good way. I didn't find much of merit in it. DeLillo - didn't find Great Jones Street particularly enjoyable. Tried Libra too and couldn't get through it. Rand - an odious woman with a repugnant philosophy. Her prose isn't terrible, until you get to the page-long monologue screeds. Dan Simmons - The Terror is terrible. He needs a better editor. Note to author: you do NOT have to list every single small detail of life on an early 19th century ship. It just wears out the reader's patience. Also, terrible ending, utter waste of the reader's time spent laboring through 400 pages to be given THAT.Jeff Lindsay - in my opinion the first Dexter novel did not merit publication. Of course, it's easy to be biased by the fantastic TV adaptation, but the character in the book is highly unlikable and seems to solve the case by some kind of magical thinking. He just "KNEW" where the bad guy was. Absolutely awful novel. lol guess you won't be watching the tv series at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2018 5:33:39 GMT
I do, too. So I do value Orson Scott Card. You share his ugly, irrational bigotry, so decency isn't even a concept on your radar. No, I share traditional American values that made this nation great. I will never apologize for that. It is not ugly. It is not irrational. It is, in fact, the opposite since studies have proven time and again that a child raised in a traditional environment does much better than a child who isn't. I know we are being taught that we must abandon such traditional concepts in favor of a 'progressive' agenda and for a long time I actually bought into that, but then the movement became something much darker, more disturbing. For instance, we are not allowed to have our own views on same sex marriage. We either tow the line or our livelihood is forfeit. That is not indecent? I used to be very much in favor of equal rights for the LGBT community. It is their hatred and supreme intolerance that has turned me against them. Instead of showing tolerance themselves, they have become even worse in their radical beliefs than the right ever were. At least in my lifetime. (look at your response. I have to choose between unquestionably accepting your views or I am ugly, irrational and indecent. You will notice I never levied those hateful comments at you. Just something to ponder as you look down on us) Do you want proof? Several years ago, I picked up a novel at a used bookstore. It was a book club edition with no jacket but I had heard it was a classic SF novel, Nova by Samuel Delany, so I bought it. Now, I had no idea who Delany was, not a thing at all beyond his name and that Nova was a classic. I read and loved Nova. I have read it a dozen times since. Now this was in the wake of my altering views of the political and social landscape in America. I had been a solid liberal since high school but, as I grew older, I found myself constantly being pushed to the right. Not necessarily because of the right but because of the left, who I witnessed becoming more and more ruthless, more hateful and, eventually, much more violent. Today, I find them unrecognizable. Today's liberals are not even the liberals of a generation ago. Anyways, sometime after I read Nova I decided to learn more about the author, Samuel Delany. I admit I was shocked to learn he was a black gay man. Did it then alter my love for his novel Nova? Did I suddenly condemn him because he had different beliefs? Did I call him ugly, irrational and indecent? The answer to those questions is no, I did not. Again, I have read it many times over and it is one of my favorite novels. I can separate the two. Liberals can't. Orson Scott Card wrote Ender's Game over 30 years ago. It won awards, it is considered a classic as well. I have read it and enjoyed it myself. I don't know at what point it was revealed that Card was considered anti-gay but there were many people who suddenly, and viciously turned on him for no other reason than he was at least perceived as anti-gay. How anti-gay is he? I don't know. I have never cared. Whether he is pro-gay or anti-gay means nothing to me. I only care if I like his novel. I am not a modern liberal, who finds offense in everything and then foists that on the rest of us constantly and any person who dares to think differently has to be resoundingly condemned. I find that line of reasoning dangerous. So, you notice the difference I hope, in how conservatives and liberals treat those who dare to think differently. I will toss out another example. I was listening to a talk show on the radio back in 2012 when Romney was running for president. A female Mormon called in to the radio show and she told her tale of being a gay Mormon and at some point realizing she had to reveal this secret to her family and church, something she had held from them for years. She was also becoming more active in social issues, including the LGBT community, where she thought she would find acceptance, even as a Mormon. She didn't want to abandon either side. But she realized that eventually her secrets to both sides would come out. So she decided to tell her family she was a lesbian. She also decided to tell her LGBT friends she was a Mormon. Which group do you think accepted her after that? The Mormons did. The LGBT friends wanted her to renounce her religion. She refused and she was cutoff from them. Remember, this was when Romney was running and we were all obligated to ridicule and denigrate Mormons. Even though they are an incredibly decent people. I have yet to find more decent people. Not even close. It was yet another sad reminder to me of how far liberalism had declined. But her family accepted her. Her religion still accepted her. Is that ugly? Is that irrational? Is that indecent? I think liberalism really needs to take a good at itself. It is not this peaceful, tolerant ideology I used to know and we are constantly sold by the media, by Hollywood. The word diversity means more than just skin color or gender or religion. It goes to philosophy. If liberals really care about true diversity, they would embrace divergent views, even discuss them openly and accept them. But that's not how it is. Liberals shut down free speech. They will destroy lives of those who think differently. They will even attack you if you dare to support a political candidate whose views are considered wrong. That is what I call ugly, irrational and supremely indecent.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Jan 18, 2018 7:45:06 GMT
You share his ugly, irrational bigotry, so decency isn't even a concept on your radar. No, I share traditional American values that made this nation great. I will never apologize for that. It is not ugly. It is not irrational. It is, in fact, the opposite since studies have proven time and again that a child raised in a traditional environment does much better than a child who isn't. I know we are being taught that we must abandon such traditional concepts in favor of a 'progressive' agenda and for a long time I actually bought into that, but then the movement became something much darker, more disturbing. For instance, we are not allowed to have our own views on same sex marriage. We either tow the line or our livelihood is forfeit. That is not indecent? I used to be very much in favor of equal rights for the LGBT community. It is their hatred and supreme intolerance that has turned me against them. Instead of showing tolerance themselves, they have become even worse in their radical beliefs than the right ever were. At least in my lifetime. (look at your response. I have to choose between unquestionably accepting your views or I am ugly, irrational and indecent. You will notice I never levied those hateful comments at you. Just something to ponder as you look down on us) Do you want proof? Several years ago, I picked up a novel at a used bookstore. It was a book club edition with no jacket but I had heard it was a classic SF novel, Nova by Samuel Delany, so I bought it. Now, I had no idea who Delany was, not a thing at all beyond his name and that Nova was a classic. I read and loved Nova. I have read it a dozen times since. Now this was in the wake of my altering views of the political and social landscape in America. I had been a solid liberal since high school but, as I grew older, I found myself constantly being pushed to the right. Not necessarily because of the right but because of the left, who I witnessed becoming more and more ruthless, more hateful and, eventually, much more violent. Today, I find them unrecognizable. Today's liberals are not even the liberals of a generation ago. Anyways, sometime after I read Nova I decided to learn more about the author, Samuel Delany. I admit I was shocked to learn he was a black gay man. Did it then alter my love for his novel Nova? Did I suddenly condemn him because he had different beliefs? Did I call him ugly, irrational and indecent? The answer to those questions is no, I did not. Again, I have read it many times over and it is one of my favorite novels. I can separate the two. Liberals can't. Orson Scott Card wrote Ender's Game over 30 years ago. It won awards, it is considered a classic as well. I have read it and enjoyed it myself. I don't know at what point it was revealed that Card was considered anti-gay but there were many people who suddenly, and viciously turned on him for no other reason than he was at least perceived as anti-gay. How anti-gay is he? I don't know. I have never cared. Whether he is pro-gay or anti-gay means nothing to me. I only care if I like his novel. I am not a modern liberal, who finds offense in everything and then foists that on the rest of us constantly and any person who dares to think differently has to be resoundingly condemned. I find that line of reasoning dangerous. So, you notice the difference I hope, in how conservatives and liberals treat those who dare to think differently. I will toss out another example. I was listening to a talk show on the radio back in 2012 when Romney was running for president. A female Mormon called in to the radio show and she told her tale of being a gay Mormon and at some point realizing she had to reveal this secret to her family and church, something she had held from them for years. She was also becoming more active in social issues, including the LGBT community, where she thought she would find acceptance, even as a Mormon. She didn't want to abandon either side. But she realized that eventually her secrets to both sides would come out. So she decided to tell her family she was a lesbian. She also decided to tell her LGBT friends she was a Mormon. Which group do you think accepted her after that? The Mormons did. The LGBT friends wanted her to renounce her religion. She refused and she was cutoff from them. Remember, this was when Romney was running and we were all obligated to ridicule and denigrate Mormons. Even though they are an incredibly decent people. I have yet to find more decent people. Not even close. It was yet another sad reminder to me of how far liberalism had declined. But her family accepted her. Her religion still accepted her. Is that ugly? Is that irrational? Is that indecent? I think liberalism really needs to take a good at itself. It is not this peaceful, tolerant ideology I used to know and we are constantly sold by the media, by Hollywood. The word diversity means more than just skin color or gender or religion. It goes to philosophy. If liberals really care about true diversity, they would embrace divergent views, even discuss them openly and accept them. But that's not how it is. Liberals shut down free speech. They will destroy lives of those who think differently. They will even attack you if you dare to support a political candidate whose views are considered wrong. That is what I call ugly, irrational and supremely indecent. easy people.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jan 18, 2018 11:28:04 GMT
I don't know at what point it was revealed that Card was considered anti-gay but there were many people who suddenly, and viciously turned on him for no other reason than he was at least perceived as anti-gay. How anti-gay is he? I don't know. I have never cared. He thinks gays should be prosecuted by law and possibly serve jail time. That's irrational and evil. Enough said, moron. And nobody believes you were ever anything but a right wing tool.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2018 11:59:58 GMT
Never been a fan of Stephen King
|
|
|
Post by dougb on Jan 18, 2018 13:41:05 GMT
Patterson and Dan Brown, unreadable garbage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2018 19:02:09 GMT
Patterson and Dan Brown, unreadable garbage. What makes Brown unreadable? Surely his simple prose style and ridiculously short chapters make him easy to read? Unlikable and shallow to people who prefer more weight to their fiction, perhaps, but unreadable isn't a word I would associate with him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2018 19:05:38 GMT
You share his ugly, irrational bigotry, so decency isn't even a concept on your radar. No, I share traditional American values that made this nation great. I will never apologize for that. It is not ugly. It is not irrational. It is, in fact, the opposite since studies have proven time and again that a child raised in a traditional environment does much better than a child who isn't. I know we are being taught that we must abandon such traditional concepts in favor of a 'progressive' agenda and for a long time I actually bought into that, but then the movement became something much darker, more disturbing. For instance, we are not allowed to have our own views on same sex marriage. We either tow the line or our livelihood is forfeit. That is not indecent? I used to be very much in favor of equal rights for the LGBT community. It is their hatred and supreme intolerance that has turned me against them. Instead of showing tolerance themselves, they have become even worse in their radical beliefs than the right ever were. At least in my lifetime. (look at your response. I have to choose between unquestionably accepting your views or I am ugly, irrational and indecent. You will notice I never levied those hateful comments at you. Just something to ponder as you look down on us) Do you want proof? Several years ago, I picked up a novel at a used bookstore. It was a book club edition with no jacket but I had heard it was a classic SF novel, Nova by Samuel Delany, so I bought it. Now, I had no idea who Delany was, not a thing at all beyond his name and that Nova was a classic. I read and loved Nova. I have read it a dozen times since. Now this was in the wake of my altering views of the political and social landscape in America. I had been a solid liberal since high school but, as I grew older, I found myself constantly being pushed to the right. Not necessarily because of the right but because of the left, who I witnessed becoming more and more ruthless, more hateful and, eventually, much more violent. Today, I find them unrecognizable. Today's liberals are not even the liberals of a generation ago. Anyways, sometime after I read Nova I decided to learn more about the author, Samuel Delany. I admit I was shocked to learn he was a black gay man. Did it then alter my love for his novel Nova? Did I suddenly condemn him because he had different beliefs? Did I call him ugly, irrational and indecent? The answer to those questions is no, I did not. Again, I have read it many times over and it is one of my favorite novels. I can separate the two. Liberals can't. Orson Scott Card wrote Ender's Game over 30 years ago. It won awards, it is considered a classic as well. I have read it and enjoyed it myself. I don't know at what point it was revealed that Card was considered anti-gay but there were many people who suddenly, and viciously turned on him for no other reason than he was at least perceived as anti-gay. How anti-gay is he? I don't know. I have never cared. Whether he is pro-gay or anti-gay means nothing to me. I only care if I like his novel. I am not a modern liberal, who finds offense in everything and then foists that on the rest of us constantly and any person who dares to think differently has to be resoundingly condemned. I find that line of reasoning dangerous. So, you notice the difference I hope, in how conservatives and liberals treat those who dare to think differently. I will toss out another example. I was listening to a talk show on the radio back in 2012 when Romney was running for president. A female Mormon called in to the radio show and she told her tale of being a gay Mormon and at some point realizing she had to reveal this secret to her family and church, something she had held from them for years. She was also becoming more active in social issues, including the LGBT community, where she thought she would find acceptance, even as a Mormon. She didn't want to abandon either side. But she realized that eventually her secrets to both sides would come out. So she decided to tell her family she was a lesbian. She also decided to tell her LGBT friends she was a Mormon. Which group do you think accepted her after that? The Mormons did. The LGBT friends wanted her to renounce her religion. She refused and she was cutoff from them. Remember, this was when Romney was running and we were all obligated to ridicule and denigrate Mormons. Even though they are an incredibly decent people. I have yet to find more decent people. Not even close. It was yet another sad reminder to me of how far liberalism had declined. But her family accepted her. Her religion still accepted her. Is that ugly? Is that irrational? Is that indecent? I think liberalism really needs to take a good at itself. It is not this peaceful, tolerant ideology I used to know and we are constantly sold by the media, by Hollywood. The word diversity means more than just skin color or gender or religion. It goes to philosophy. If liberals really care about true diversity, they would embrace divergent views, even discuss them openly and accept them. But that's not how it is. Liberals shut down free speech. They will destroy lives of those who think differently. They will even attack you if you dare to support a political candidate whose views are considered wrong. That is what I call ugly, irrational and supremely indecent. Calling for diversity while rejecting diversity is an untenable, illogical position. There is nothing of "diversity in thought" in belief in traditional structures as the SOLE means to live our lives. This attacking liberals for "shutting down" so-called "diversity of thought" is a red herring. This is America, we all get to play in the sandbox. That's what freedom truly means.
|
|
|
Post by dougb on Jan 18, 2018 19:58:26 GMT
Patterson and Dan Brown, unreadable garbage. What makes Brown unreadable? Surely his simple prose style and ridiculously short chapters make him easy to read? Unlikable and shallow to people who prefer more weight to their fiction, perhaps, but unreadable isn't a word I would associate with him. All down to individual taste I guess. He's unreadable to me for exactly the reasons that make him so Popular. Just everything I hate about modern lowest common denominator writing. As I say, purely my definition of unreadable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2018 20:15:57 GMT
You share his ugly, irrational bigotry, so decency isn't even a concept on your radar. No, I share traditional American values that made this nation great. I will never apologize for that. It is not ugly. It is not irrational. It is, in fact, the opposite since studies have proven time and again that a child raised in a traditional environment does much better than a child who isn't. I know we are being taught that we must abandon such traditional concepts in favor of a 'progressive' agenda and for a long time I actually bought into that, but then the movement became something much darker, more disturbing. For instance, we are not allowed to have our own views on same sex marriage. We either tow the line or our livelihood is forfeit. That is not indecent? I used to be very much in favor of equal rights for the LGBT community. It is their hatred and supreme intolerance that has turned me against them. Instead of showing tolerance themselves, they have become even worse in their radical beliefs than the right ever were. At least in my lifetime. (look at your response. I have to choose between unquestionably accepting your views or I am ugly, irrational and indecent. You will notice I never levied those hateful comments at you. Just something to ponder as you look down on us) Do you want proof? Several years ago, I picked up a novel at a used bookstore. It was a book club edition with no jacket but I had heard it was a classic SF novel, Nova by Samuel Delany, so I bought it. Now, I had no idea who Delany was, not a thing at all beyond his name and that Nova was a classic. I read and loved Nova. I have read it a dozen times since. Now this was in the wake of my altering views of the political and social landscape in America. I had been a solid liberal since high school but, as I grew older, I found myself constantly being pushed to the right. Not necessarily because of the right but because of the left, who I witnessed becoming more and more ruthless, more hateful and, eventually, much more violent. Today, I find them unrecognizable. Today's liberals are not even the liberals of a generation ago. Anyways, sometime after I read Nova I decided to learn more about the author, Samuel Delany. I admit I was shocked to learn he was a black gay man. Did it then alter my love for his novel Nova? Did I suddenly condemn him because he had different beliefs? Did I call him ugly, irrational and indecent? The answer to those questions is no, I did not. Again, I have read it many times over and it is one of my favorite novels. I can separate the two. Liberals can't. Orson Scott Card wrote Ender's Game over 30 years ago. It won awards, it is considered a classic as well. I have read it and enjoyed it myself. I don't know at what point it was revealed that Card was considered anti-gay but there were many people who suddenly, and viciously turned on him for no other reason than he was at least perceived as anti-gay. How anti-gay is he? I don't know. I have never cared. Whether he is pro-gay or anti-gay means nothing to me. I only care if I like his novel. I am not a modern liberal, who finds offense in everything and then foists that on the rest of us constantly and any person who dares to think differently has to be resoundingly condemned. I find that line of reasoning dangerous. So, you notice the difference I hope, in how conservatives and liberals treat those who dare to think differently. I will toss out another example. I was listening to a talk show on the radio back in 2012 when Romney was running for president. A female Mormon called in to the radio show and she told her tale of being a gay Mormon and at some point realizing she had to reveal this secret to her family and church, something she had held from them for years. She was also becoming more active in social issues, including the LGBT community, where she thought she would find acceptance, even as a Mormon. She didn't want to abandon either side. But she realized that eventually her secrets to both sides would come out. So she decided to tell her family she was a lesbian. She also decided to tell her LGBT friends she was a Mormon. Which group do you think accepted her after that? The Mormons did. The LGBT friends wanted her to renounce her religion. She refused and she was cutoff from them. Remember, this was when Romney was running and we were all obligated to ridicule and denigrate Mormons. Even though they are an incredibly decent people. I have yet to find more decent people. Not even close. It was yet another sad reminder to me of how far liberalism had declined. But her family accepted her. Her religion still accepted her. Is that ugly? Is that irrational? Is that indecent? I think liberalism really needs to take a good at itself. It is not this peaceful, tolerant ideology I used to know and we are constantly sold by the media, by Hollywood. The word diversity means more than just skin color or gender or religion. It goes to philosophy. If liberals really care about true diversity, they would embrace divergent views, even discuss them openly and accept them. But that's not how it is. Liberals shut down free speech. They will destroy lives of those who think differently. They will even attack you if you dare to support a political candidate whose views are considered wrong. That is what I call ugly, irrational and supremely indecent. Excellent post. Art isn't about the artist. Art is about art. The quality of said art has nothing to do with the quality of the artist. Only close-minded cowards like faustus5 think that way. Folks like him want to put everybody and everything in a box because they're afraid that if they don't, their ever-increasing self-contradicting view points will get mixed up in their own heads. Putting everyone in groups and referring to them exclusively by the groups that are assigned to them is what the real Nazis did. It's myopic and any real intellectual scoffs at it. Sometimes the artist makes art that is not at all reflective of the artist. Sometimes things are "critically good" that don't fit snugly into our little compartmentalized comfort zones. Someone started a thread on the general music board about musicians you don't like, but whose music you buy anyway. I had to reply, "pretty much all of them." And it's true. So what if the artist has a personal view I don't share? If the art is good and doesn't contain content I don't want to view, I'll buy. By the way, welcome to the right. You know the old saying: "if you're not a liberal at twenty, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at forty, you have no brain."
|
|