Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2023 14:37:34 GMT
City of Death. Overly smug and not as funny as it thinks it is. Don't know if I'll get crucified for this, but I f*cking hate Douglas Adams. "Smug and not as funny as it thinks it is" is exactly how I'd describe his style. That overly twee British bent does not work in his favour either. Same thing with Terry Pratchett. I think the worst thing about these guys is that their fans seem to think that they're on the level of literary giants such as Dickens or Dostoyevsky. At least Romance readers will openly accept that they read garbage; same goes for science-fiction and fantasy (not so much these days, since there are many who consider fantasy books like Sanderson and Rothfuss to be literature, but it certainly used to be the case, at least in the D&D/Conan days). I mean, hey, I enjoy Tolkien and Martin and others, but I'll openly admit it's pretty much just pulp trash. It's actually extremely liberating to remind yourself that not everything you consume has to be high art. "I f*cking hate Douglas Adams"  |
|
|
|
Post by rushy on May 1, 2023 15:13:14 GMT
> But when one's reading list is comprised entirely of YA sci-fi, romance, fantasy, and other books of such categories, you can't seriously think that they're using their time wisely.
What constitutes as 'spending time wisely' is specific to the person. Some would think reading in general is a waste of time that could be spent on doing beneficial productive things for society. Judging others for their particular interests - unless they're truly macabre - is distasteful.
> We haven't world enough and time to read everything ever written, and most people get through a book or two a month, if that. Therefore, it's important that we read the greatest ever written
No, it isn't. It's important for those with an obsession with quality and the 'greatest hits' of humanity. But that's not everyone, and there's no shame in choosing other writings that cater more to your interests.
> Asimov, Clarke, Dick? No one gives a shit these days. They're all about Sanderson, Rothfuss and Martin nowadays.
That's called the passage of time. Although it's a bit of an exaggeration, as there obviously are new Asimov/Clarke/Dick readers out there. I've got three Space Odyssey books on the shelf myself.
Anyway, I fail to see the problem. Specific works are relevant to specific times. Culture is in constant evolution.
> I mean that when it's not written in a pseudo-ancient-Germanic-translation style, it comes off as bumbling and doddery, like an early 20th century children's book, e.g. Winnie the Pooh.
I have no real counter-argument other than "it simply doesn't bother me".
> Batman Returns is a legitimately good film, though I'm not really sure why you brought it up.
You brought up Hollywood rollercoaster flicks. There's nothing wrong with one if it's done well.
> "The Room" is brimming with Tommy Wiseau's personal worldview and interests.
And few people other than him have claimed it to be genuinely good. But is it a fascinating piece of art? Yes!
> One could spend a lifetime studying Milton, but the concept of studying a lifetime's worth of sci-fi worldbuilding is just utterly ludicrous. That says enough to me.
How hard would you cringe if I told you I've never heard of Milton? XD
|
|
