140 replies to this topic

[A. J. Raffles]

DakaSha, on Mar 30 2006, 10:44 AM, said:

id say harry potter is ok for kids... ok. but i know 60 year old men reading them...

"...Last stage of all, that ends this strange eventful history,
comes second childishness and mere oblivion."

[DannyMc252]

Ooh, quoting Shakespere (I believe?), are we, Raffles?

Anyway, I've finished both books I was reading at home, abd my school book hasn't been touched.

[Sean]

Harry Potter is overhyped, doesn't mean it isn't a good series. It's a simple and enjoyable read.

Why overcomplicate things?

[PrejudiceSucks]

Because poor quality writing makes for poor quality reading. It's good that millions of children have started reading because of it, but the books themselves aren't particularly well written.

That said, I can hardly claim to own any really intellectual books. "Ten Days That Shook The World" is the closest I get to that.

[Sean]

Okay, hopefull this won't turn into a flamefest!  

I appreciate that you obiviously do not like the books Joe, may I ask why it is you feel JK's writing is of poor quality?

Sure, it's simple but I also think it's descriptive and engaging!

Are there any specific things you dislike?

[Blood-Pigggy]

Sean, on Mar 30 2006, 08:14 PM, said:

speicific

Lawl.

I just finished The Illiad, and now I'm reading The Five People You Meet In Heaven.
Then I hope to finish Beowulf. Which is confusing me.

EDIT by Beef: Removed swear. Please don't try to bypass the filter, it's there for a reason.

Pigggy: Lies!

[Sean]

If you were any more perceptive you would have noticed several other minor errors. Nevetheless, I thank you for making my life awkward and wasting my time.

[BeefontheBone]

Oh for goodness' sake. Can't you two drop it for 5 minutes?

[Blood-Pigggy]

Sean, on Mar 30 2006, 10:05 PM, said:

If you were any more perceptive you would have noticed several other minor errors. Nevetheless, I thank you for making my life awkward and wasting my time.

I wasn't poking fun at you man, I was just pointing it out, it was silly.
Besides, I make worse typos, so no hard feelings eh?  

[A. J. Raffles]

Blood-Pigggy, on Mar 30 2006, 09:54 PM, said:

Then I hope to finish Beowulf. Which is confusing me.

What exactly do you find confusing about it? All that Anglo-Saxon lord-and-retainer stuff, everybody's weird obsession about mead-halls or the way in which it's written (i.e. the odd way in which the plot is structured)? In that case it might help if you read some introductory text on Anglo-Saxon culture. Nothing fancy, just a basic introduction to make it easier to understand the context of the poem. If you like, I could try and dig around my old reading lists for something like that. Off the top of my head, Dorothy Whitelock's "Beowulf and its Audience" (the title might be slightly different, but it definitely has 'Beowulf' and 'Audience') would probably be a good choice, but it's  out of print as far as I know.
By the way, which translation are you reading again? Seamus Heaney?

[Blood-Pigggy]

I'm reading the one with all the old english and es-ay.

I don't know why it's confusing me, and yes it is with the strange obsessions and such, the book seems highly spastic, and it kinda feels like whoever wrote it was impulsive to make the characters take such bizarre turns in action.
It's a good book from what I've read so far.

[A. J. Raffles]

Blood-Pigggy, on Mar 31 2006, 04:13 PM, said:

I'm reading the one with all the old english and es-ay.

I don't know why it's confusing me, and yes it is with the strange obsessions and such, the book seems highly spastic, and it kinda feels like whoever wrote it was impulsive to make the characters take such bizarre turns in action.
It's a good book from what I've read so far.

Not the Michael Swanton edition by any chance? That's one of the best editions around, actually. It has the Old English text and a translation on the opposing pages.

One thing you need to keep in mind when you're reading it is that it was never meant to be read. I'll check out Weblearn to see if there's anything that might be of use to you and post my findings here. If you're interested, that is. If you're happy reading it thinking it's highly spastic, that's fair enough, of course.

[Sean]

You all seem to like old books, weird!

The closest I've ever gotten to an old book is Tom Sawyer And Huckleberry Fin! (Probably mispelt, haven't looked at it since I threw it down last year after a few chapters )

Shakespeare can be quite good, if it wern't for the old language I might actually read his works recreationally. There good but I don't like my reading being slowed due to momentary pauses to put things in context.

@ Piggy - I love you really, I re-wrote that post several times to try and make it sound as friendly as a hostile response can be!

[PrejudiceSucks]

Sean, on Mar 30 2006, 08:14 PM, said:

Okay, hopefull this won't turn into a flamefest!  

I appreciate that you obiviously do not like the books Joe, may I ask why it is you feel JK's writing is of poor quality?

Sure, it's simple but I also think it's descriptive and engaging!

Are there any specific things you dislike?

I dislike her limited (seemingly) vocabulary, although the books are written for children, which does explain this, I suppose.

That and the insipid fanboys/girls. You know, the ones who can recite whole chapters and the like. Oh, how they irritate me...

But yeah, let's not have this turned into a flamefest.

[Sean]

PrejudiceSucks, on Mar 31 2006, 06:03 PM, said:

Sean, on Mar 30 2006, 08:14 PM, said:

Okay, hopefull this won't turn into a flamefest! 

I appreciate that you obiviously do not like the books Joe, may I ask why it is you feel JK's writing is of poor quality?

Sure, it's simple but I also think it's descriptive and engaging!

Are there any specific things you dislike?

I dislike her limited (seemingly) vocabulary, although the books are written for children, which does explain this, I suppose.

That and the insipid fanboys/girls. You know, the ones who can recite whole chapters and the like. Oh, how they irritate me...

But yeah, let's not have this turned into a flamefest.

The Harry Potter geeks irritate us all even Rowling herself I bet

I 'spose you have a good point, I think there's enough variation to keep it interesteing and descriptive.

What authors do like which use a good range of words?

Stephen King is pretty good, some of his books drag a bit because of his desire to use words I've never heard of but The Dark Tower is pretty darn good!

I like finding out the meanings of new words, at least guessing them as a result of the context anyway. What I don't like is when there is so much I just don't know that the story flow breaks.