Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Okay someone let me know if this is ABP'd because i couldn't find it.

This is a thread to discuss literature, meaning books, poetry, drama, essays, and so forth. Lets keep more to the philosophical/academic/meaningful side of literature so as to differentiate from the thread where people talk about what scifi/fantasy books they are reading. Please dont spam this topic with crap about some fantasy writer who uses the same plot for every book but changes the names of the characters slightly.

To begin: Shakespeare or Marlowe SAY HOW U FEEL. What books are you reading now and what are some of your favorite pieces of literature?

I think it's kind of closed-minded to assume that people who enjoy literature don't also enjoy the "crap" you speak of.
Speaking as an English major, I enjoy all types of writing. Sometimes it's nice to read something a little lighter, as a break from all the heavy stuff I have to read for school.

_________________

yeah, im an english major too. i simply wanted a space for a more focused discussion of what interests me most. im not saying i dont read simple fiction often, i just wanted a specified thread for literature. also, i dont want it jto turn into the "what are you reading" thread because that is quite actuve and i'd just go there if that's what i wanted. just trying to do something new. toastpaint.

as far as shakespeare and marlowe go, i prefer marlowe. i dont believe that stuff about marlowe writing for shakespeare because it all seems a bit farfetched. i like marlowe's sense of wit and the suprising ease with which he can be read despite his language (or maybe because of it).

I enjoy Shakespeare better, I just kinda like his writing style, even though he went a little crazy with the love at first site ideas. I guess I'm just a hopeless romantic.

_________________
Ragnarök is coming: Cthulhu is on your side!

Yeah, I can't let this go.


Why is it that whenever someone thinks of 'crap' in the written word, their thoughts go immediately to science fiction & fantasy novels? I mean Asimov was a hack and Heinlein was a joke. Lord Dunsany couldn't write himself out of a paper bag and the less we know about Tolkien, the better (why, yes that was sarcasm).
Seriously though, crap comes in all genres, from Sydney Sheldon's atrocious 'thrillers' to the endless chum bucket of instant romance that is Harlequin. Sorry for the rant, but as an aspiring SF/F writer I take offense when someone says Science Fiction/Fantasy is crap. It’s kind of like saying my life’s goal is worthless. Toastpaint.

And just to make sure this isn’t a total loss, I prefer Shakespeare over Marlowe. Marlowe tends too ramble on a bit to much for my tastes, but I believe Marlowe’s poetic works (Hero and Leander) were superior to the Bard.

_________________
Sig?

Many of the great works of history have been what we might classify as "science ficion/fantasy" today. For example, The Song of Roland, Beowulf, The Nibelung Saga, etc. Even the great Canterbury Tales is just a collection of anecdotes from Chaucer's time period.

By the way, I love making comparisons between The Song of Roland and The Fellowship of the Ring. The death of Boromir is so much like the death of Roland. Both of them were heroes who travelled with men destined to become great kings (Charlemagne and Aragorn). Both ended up fighting hordes of wicked enemies (Saracens and Orcs). Both men had horns with which they could summon help when needed, and both blew their horns too late to save their own lives. Both men were pierced by many arrows before they finally fell. And, in both cases, it was their own foolish pride that led ultimately to their demise (Roland's belief that he could overcome the Sarecens on his own, and Boromir's attempt to wrest the One Ring for himself). By the way, Pippen the Short was the name of Charlemagne's father, and it just so happens that Pippen the Hobbit watches as Boromir died. Fascinating parallels. TWUT!

_________________

yeah. okay. i think that there is crap in absolutely EVERY genre so please don't get me started on that. i only note that the sci-fi fantasy crap because i hear people talking about that most in these forums. as far as asimov goes, of course and tolkien i really like those guys and i also like Vonnegut's weird half sci-fi novels that gently mock sci-fi.

I said crap because i meant crap. i dont mind if people want to talk about literary fantasy but please not the crap. i dont bother mentioning romance because i think your assesment of romance was probably a little too polite, haha. (maybe lose the h in the first part of the insult...)

i recently learned that Shakespeare apparently coined a great deal of words now common to our language such as eyeball and bloodstain. these were not really terms before he helped to popularize them, i thought that's pretty cool.

interesting comparison, Didy, i wouldn't have ever thought of that. sounds like a topic transfer to me: epic poetry tell what u think!

Epic poetry bores me out of my skull. I might enjoy it if it were written in paragraph form. I have read only the two cliche epic poems The Odessey and The Illiad, they had good story's but it was very tiring reading g them.

As for not having any Science fiction being good, my favorite books are science fiction but are great pieces of what you are "Literature"

20,000 Leagues under the Sea
Dracula
Frankenstein
To name a select few.

Those novels have great and endearing messages. Dracula being a metaphor for the repression of sexuality in the victorian era. Frankenstein being a great story telling of the dangers of the Industrial revolution, but it now is relevant to genetic manipulation and cosmetic surgery.

_________________
TIRES TIRES TIRES

I love the first three books in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy -series.

_________________
My music
My LJ

I absolutely love the works of T.A. Barron. My favorite books are The Lost Years Of Merlin epic. Those books rock! They also really teach you something, even though they maybe fiction. It taught me that logistics isn't a philosophy to live by, because some things just go beyond logical thought.

_________________
Ragnarök is coming: Cthulhu is on your side!

Well, even books that have the same old plot every time around with different character names can be good. I really enjoyed the Redwall series.

And amongst the best written books I've read is the Ender's Saga (which consists of Ender's Game, Speaker For The Dead, Xenocide, and Children of the Mind) in the Ender's Game Series by Orson Scott Card. I loved them and I'm not even that big of a sci-fi fan. Although after the first four books, the next saga of novels is pretty lackluster.

i like that fiction often teaches me a lot. i am not of the mind that the plots contained in fiction books are great for learning (usually) but i especially think that the ideas and some isolated facts enhance the experience of a novel by learning something from a book as well as enjoying it. for an excellent author of this style, check out Tom Robbins, who writes fiction with screwball plots but incredibly well-researched details. for example i learned the etymology of the word "lord" from his book Villa Incognito (not his best but a good read for fans)--it basically comes from Old English for "guardian of the loaf".

epic poetry-> pretty boring for me though i appreciate its significance. the most fun i had with epic poetry is Alexander Pope, who wrote some mock epics that (amongst other things) feature a lady putting on makeup as if it is achilles gearing up for battle (he published a translation of the iliad and actually plays off of some of his own lines). He's worth checking out.

One of my favorite books is Asimov's I, Robot. I love how it gives us a glimpse into where we as a civilization may be headed. It's a good psycological read, and almost a mystery at times. As I'm studying physics, comp sci. and engineering, I can identify really well with a lot of the problems (on a smaller scale, though) that the lead characters face.

This reminds me of something my lit teacher said this past week. She claimed that most science fiction books are not regarded as good literature, nor as classics. However, I remember seeing 1984 on a list of classics, and I think that many of Asimov's books have been around long enough and have had a large enough impact to be considered as such if they aren't already. So I guess the question is this: what dos it take to get a book to be considered a classic work, and are some types of literature - i.e. science fiction - not even considered at all?

_________________

I enjoyed Redwall too. I believe I was up to the fifth one or so, it was called "Mariel of Redwall", when it became required I had to read something else for my English class a few years ago, and I sort of broke the habit and stopped.

I just finished reading "The Man In The High Castle" by Philip K. Dick, which is an alternate universe where the Axis powers defeated the Allies in World War II. The Pacific coast of the US is now occupied by Japan, and the Germans have control of the Atlantic states. The states in between, such as the Colorado/Wyoming area, are left rather autonomous. It had an intriguing storyline; it takes place in 1962 and sort of flip-flops between three main characters and their stories. Personally, i found the book rather boring. Maybe it was too deep for me, but I found it to be an uneventful read.

Right now I'm on the lookout for "The Man Who Was Thursday" by G.K. Chesterton. I can either buy it at Barnes and Noble, or check it out from the library, but I'd need a memebrship first and I only want to get the one book; I don't plan on frequenting the place.

i think that the reason so many people make this generalization (that i made) is because scifi and fantasy can often be laughably bad. that IS NOT to say that every single other genre has a lot of laughably bad books and terrible authors (romance is entirely laughably bad), but scifi and fantasy recieve that stigma. I (as i have said in earlier posts) mentioned it because i wanted to avoid talking about third-rate books and a lot of the entries i have read on the other books thread include a great deal of scifi/fantasy novels in general (good or bad--i don't know.)

asimov is amazing and surely a classic and i think a lot of english teachers would agree with you. again george orwell is a classic author but i think 1984 is less scifi and more of a utopian fiction that had a great deal to do with orwell's personal politics (just like animal farm did). the genre probably get categorically excluded most often because of the stereotypes (and as if i actually have to explain this but i am simply echoing what i have heard from a lot of people): scifi writers know nothing about science/have crazy ridiculous ideas (even people who say this often exclude Asimov) and fantasy books are cheesy, use over the top wannabe fancy language and have predicatble storylines.

i think most books are deemed classics by a few things: use and mastery of the language in which they are written, their significance within the time period (and their reflection of the time period especially with historical books), and their themes and missions as stories (Joyce's Ulysses set out to use every last word in the english language, took him over a decade (12 or 13 years i think??) to write, turned out with an amazing storyline and tops many lists of books to read in one's lifetime)

But then you yourself are just playing into that stigmata! If you acknowledge that it's a generalization, then don't buy into it. Since they're crud in every genre, this may as well be a non-topic, because in order to "avoid" talking about "all" the crud which you acknowledge exists, you'd have to list off every genre.

Sorry to be a little y'all-know-what, but there's a lot of fantastic writing in every genre, just as there's a lot of junk.

I recommend The City of Ember for nonbelievers. Good writing, and a fantastic set-up, at that. Has a lot of good "what-ifs" inherent in it.

_________________
You look like you need a hug.
*hug*
There, now don't you feel better?

ARE YOU FRIGGING KIDDING ME? did you even read my post? i very clearly said that it is simply a stereotype and i couldn't care any less what you or your uncle or jesus christ thinks about fantasy novels, because i have my OWN OPINION. i was simply answering a question that someone asked about why is it that those books dont get fair consideration (which actually interests me somewhat.)

p.s. nice spelling of stigma. i don't think i was bleeding the wounds of Christ anything about fantasy/scifi.

edit: it isn't a non-topic, and if you bothered to read what i said in what you quoted you would see that i clearly mentioned those genres specifically because i've noticed so many kids here talking specifically about those. so don't be a tool because i put that many disclaimers in that post just so some annoying kid wouldn't go and make a post like you did.

And I'm sorry, but the City of Ember was horrible. It stole the plot of the Giver, and I mean completely. The ending was almost exactly the same, except watered down just so there would be a sequel.

_________________

haha. whoops i feel like an a-hole. thanks for calling me on that. i was kind of raging because this thread has turned out to be way more about me defending my opinions--or explaining others opinions-- about scifi books.

(stigma thing still wasn't correct usage: those stigmata or that stigma. i really am an a-hole english major.)

You still seem to be rather contradictory. You say the fact that they don't get fair consideration interests you, but you still don't want to talk of them as "literature," even though you acknowledge the stereotype. I understand if you're not interested in them, but still, it seems to me to be a rather... Hmm. I can't quite think of a proper word. "Unfair" might work.

I suppose it might be the use of the word "literature," which I find to be something of a pretentious notion to say the least, as what really differentiates "literature" from any other writing? What are the defining merits? It isn't the sort of quantatative thing one can collect data on and largely boils down to a matter of taste, which I suppose what might be what upsets me. "Classical works" might be a better title for the thread, I suppose, or just "Non-fantasy and sci-fi books," if you really wanted it to be quick and dirty, but such a raw treatment of fantasy and sci-fi is going to leave a number of folks feeling raw, especially--as Squirrel noted--those of us aspiring authors who want to write fantasy and science fiction.

Romeo and Juliet is such a rubbish play. I don't know why everyone considers it to be "the" Shakespeare play--or even why it's so well known. I can never feel any sympathy for Romeo and Juliet, since they act like such... morons. I sometimes feel like Shakespeare didn't really understand love--or maybe it's just my 21th-century perspective, but I don't feel any chemistry in most of his romances, or any... romance. Merchant of Venice, though, was good, if a bit... uncomfortable by today's standards. I could never figure out where the Bard stood on feminism, but that play seems to suggest that Shakespeare was willing to give them more credit than most, since Portia and her friend (I can't remember her name, but she was sort of like her attendant) were the ones who saved the day for Antonio.

_________________
You look like you need a hug.
*hug*
There, now don't you feel better?

Wait, wait, wait. When did this thread turn into an argument as to what is or isn't "literature"?
You want to talk about books/authors/series/periods/genres you like, fine.
You want to fight, this is getting locked.

_________________

im totally fine with that MHG, i didn't want it to be this. if it continues in this vein, please lock it. that said im ignoring everything off topic.

as far as romeo and juliet-- i wouldn't go so far as to call it a rubbish play, but it surely isn't shakespeare's finest. it has a swell and depressing story that is ageless and stands the test of time, and that's probably why it gets so much consideration. My choice out of shakespeare-- i like Macbeth. again maybe not his best play, but i really like the themes of greed and guilt and not to mention the big, brutish dudes in full armor wielding swords. what a sweet play. i'm down with hamlet again because i like the tragedy thing.

anyone read As you like it? thoughts?

Dang, reading through this thread makes me feel better about my stupid little rant at the begining of the page. I would like this topic to continue, though. It has great potential to be decent.

Anywho, I equate Romeo and Juliet as Shakephere's hit single. As in, it's the one play that gets more..er..play than any other Shakespherian work. It's done everywhere and so often that I think, rather than being a bad play, everyone's just sick of it.
I actually just finished Macbeth the other day. It will probably wind up as one of my favorites. I like the darker stuff.
Unfortunately, I have no opinion on As you like it. I haven't gotten around to it yet. I prefer Shakesphere's dramas over his comedies.

_________________
Sig?

Hoorah! We're going to be reading Cyrano de Bergerac soon. Always wanted to read that play. I love the "loveable looser" character type, as it were.

_________________
You look like you need a hug.
*hug*
There, now don't you feel better?

i never thought of it like a hit single. nice analogy. As You Like It is weird, i just read it for my intro to lit class this semester (still in low level classes, arg.) and its got some strange shades of darkness and stuff but it is also pretty funny too.

i've never read cyrano, but i have seen the movie with gerard depardieu, and it's really good. are you reading it in translation, cybernetic teenybopper? i would like to try to read it in the original once i get good enough at french. and i know what you mean Cyrano is so tragically lovable, not to mention he's got some serious fighting chops.

I'm reading it in translation. I don't know a lick of French. I do know some Spanish, though. But I don't expect myself to be blazing through the original Don Quixote any time soon.

_________________
You look like you need a hug.
*hug*
There, now don't you feel better?

Currently reading all of Sir Arthur Conan Doye's Adventure's of Sherlock Homes.

_________________
ert+
y76p;'0lu8jykee;u4p;e'/Rh
Strong ba15456'-------++++++gf
+++++-//=========/*8901ikg

This thread is making feel like I should be more edumacated (sp?).

Seriously, I haven't found something to read yet, and my literature collection is starting to call out to me. Well, except for my copy of the Works of Wilde which is just laughing at me and calling me names.

Does anyone have a good idea for an introduction into Dickens? I don't have any of his stuff and I've only read a short story or two.

_________________
Sig?

Introduction to Dickens:

Not Great Expectations unless you're permitted to read it on your own time.

Seriously, if you have to read Great Expectations and take notes on it, you'll be contemplating suicide and/or homicide by about chapter 15.

That's 15 out of 56.

Oh, and have a 19th-century-British to 21st-century-American dictionary handy.

-----------

Anyway...Comments on Shakespeare.



Romeo and Juliet is done so often and by so many different groups because it's the simplest play in the world in terms of plot. Even if you don't understand a lick of Shakespearese, you can still follow what's going on in the play. Anyone can understand Romeo and Juliet if they have a copy of the play with footnotes, since the Bard uses some crazy language at times. Everyone, from your average sixth grader to someone who has devoted their entire life to the study of 17th-century English playwrights, can accurately tell you what basically happens in Romeo and Juliet, even if they haven't gotten past the Prologue. Because the Prologue tells you exactly that, you see. XD um, toastpaint. maybe. o_O;

_________________

get LOST

read great expectations in 7th grade because my teacher told us to read a classic. whoops. turned out everyone else read judy blume books or something. that said, not a fun experience, terrible in fact. haha you can watch the south park episode about pip if you really want to know about it, most everything is accurate except for the machine that sucks mens tears out and some robots and stuff.

i feel like i should defend romeo and juliet because it is overdone and simple, but that doesn't make it bad. i think the point that the prologue makes by telling you what happens initially is that it isn't so much what happens, it is how it unfolds and the stubborness of deep hatred between the families that kills their children. anywho, not my favorite by far but i don't hate the darn thing. just finished my final paper for intro to Lit class which means.... it's over! on that note: good/bad reading assignments in school as we wind down?