|
Heath posted:Sometimes you gotta make room for burns on sci fi nerds Presumably you have to make room for Sci Fi nerds to not get constantly burned or you get like 50 reports in a day instead of one. Also low hanging fruit/waste of time.
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 09:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 04:12 |
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:chernobyl is good and funny but I also understand Alloy's need to avoid turning every chat thread on the subforum into dropping burns on the fantasy nerds CestMoi posted:I truly and sincerely do not understand this need Dr. Kloctopussy posted:Presumably you have to make room for Sci Fi nerds to not get constantly burned or you get like 50 reports in a day instead of one. It's a combination of a few things: 1) I don't know if y'all ever look at the "users browsing" number for this forum but I do pretty regularly. It's . .low. We're one of the lowest-traffic forums on this site. That pisses me off because I non-ironically believe this is the best subforum on the site. The "recommend me a book please?" posts are the #1 way new people come into this subforum, so dropping sick burns on new book-requesters might be the only time I actually care about trolling, because it chases people away and hurts the subforum. I actually re-wrote the specific rules of the recommendation thread a few months ago to specifically clarify that if you were in the "recommend me a book?" thread, and you were not either asking for a book recommendation or recommending a book, you should be treading very carefully, for this reason. I probably need to incorporate this into the general forum rules, so it's spelled out explicitly and visibly, but I need to think about the wording -- I don't care all that much about veteran posters/readers trolling each other but I don't want people taking a giant poo poo on the Reading Rainbow types. It's hard enough leading goons to culture as it is. To use a metaphor goons can understand, it's spawn-camping newbies. 2) More generally, this forum serves two functions 1) goons recommending books to each other, and 2) goons discussing books with each other. Most of the threads in this forum are a lot of #1 and a little of #2, some cut the other way. As long as the discussion is substantive -- as long as people are actually discussing books -- a little bit of trolling mixed in isn't necessarily harmful; "your book sucks and this is why" can sometimes spur people to read better books. On the other hand, if it's just empty threadshitting with no content ("your book sucks, lol") , then everything devolves into personal squabbles and bullshit that everyone else reading the forum gets really sick of really fast, and nobody gets to discuss actual books any more. This is why I consider "content-free" posting such a big deal -- it leads to a downward spiral. 3) Most of the time this is a low-report, low-strife forum. I like it that way because I have a lot of things to do and generally speaking I view dealing with reports and complaints as the headache I have to put up with in order to do the parts of the job I enjoy, i.e., make sure I have a place to recommend books to people, talk about books, and run the Book of the Month. The corollary, though, is that when I start getting a lot of reports in a short period of time -- and especially if those reports and complaints are all focused on the same post(s) or poster(s) -- I take those reports seriously and listen, in part because if a lot of people think something's a problem then it's definitionally a problem because I have to spend time I don't have dealing with those complaints. That's the rough outline of the thought process anyway. I try to defer to the sub-culture within particular threads where appropriate because that's the easiest way for us all to avoid headaches. I enjoy trolling and shitposting as much as anyone else here, but I care more about preserving the recommendation & BotM threads as friendly environments for new posters than I do about maintaining a general troll playground.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:It's a combination of a few things: same
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 09:49
|
|
|
I hesitate to post here because I am not super cultured and don't really know what defines literature with a capital L and what is just popular fiction. I lurk and try to read some of the short stories that are posted and pretend I'd have funny or insightful things to say about stories. I've read some Steinbeck and like Vonnegut's writing style (I don't have fancy words here but I like that his writing is sometimes about what's not said instead of spending a paragraph describing a single thing). I am looking for modern literature recommendations that have a similar minimalist prose and aren't so obtuse that I won't understand.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 10:22
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:It's a combination of a few things: Shiny-cover fantasy and sci fi aren't technically speaking "books" i don't think though. If people don't get shocked out of their metastasized tastes with some benign bullying they will read Henry Potter poo poo until the grave.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
.
whatevz fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Apr 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
I just think it's funny to call stupid people idiots
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
Imagine if the food forum were full of threads about potato chips brands and pepsi flavors (maybe it is? i've never been there) and a recommendations thread where guys come to say "i like lay's and doritos what should i eat today?" and people go "how about pringles dude? you'd probably like them". That's pretty much what's going on here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Ass posted:I hesitate to post here because I am not super cultured and don't really know what defines literature with a capital L and what is just popular fiction. I lurk and try to read some of the short stories that are posted and pretend I'd have funny or insightful things to say about stories. josé saramago and stefan zweig are as good a start as any. try the royal game, confusion of feelings, blindness and history of the siege of lisbon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
I think the idea that genre fiction readers can be convinced to read literature through mockery is a bit absurd
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Ass posted:I hesitate to post here because I am not super cultured and don't really know what defines literature with a capital L and what is just popular fiction. I lurk and try to read some of the short stories that are posted and pretend I'd have funny or insightful things to say about stories. A couple questions: What kinds of things do you like to read about, and what do you consider “modern?” As pleasecallmechrist said, “big-L” literature (emphasis on prosecraft, dealing with large issues and themes) doesn’t exclude good storytelling, and plenty of celebrated “big-L” authors cross into and borrow from established genres. So you can still get what you’re looking for and read mysteries, or spy thrillers, or sci-fi/fantasy, or crime dramas, or… “Modern” can mean a lot of things, but one common interpretation is post-WWII, which seems consistent with your tastes. Anthologies are a good way to get a sample of who’s been noted and influential over a certain timeframe, and you can find ones that have been assigned for college coursework cheap if they’re an edition or so behind. I’ve been working through “The Scribner Anthology of Contemporary Short Fiction: Fifty North American American Stories Since 1970” I still have from a class fifteen years ago, myself. You may also want to look into literature in translation - the trend over the past few decades has been for very clear, direct prose, so you may discover new authors that way. Bookstores and libraries (if such things still exist in your area) are good for flipping through editions and seeing if the prose style is something you could get into.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Ass posted:I hesitate to post here because I am not super cultured and don't really know what defines literature with a capital L and what is just popular fiction. I lurk and try to read some of the short stories that are posted and pretend I'd have funny or insightful things to say about stories. Hemingway, David Vann, Etgar Keret, Colson Whitehead, George Saunders, Jose Saramago, Mario Vargas Llosa, Cormac McCarthy, Borges, Kafka, Camus, Orhan Pamuk, Raymond Carver, John Irving, (edit) Carson McCullers, John Kennedy Toole, Flannery O'Conner I wouldn't say each of those authors write with minimalist prose (though most do), but the prose is still direct, clear, and accessible. Shibawanko posted:Shiny-cover fantasy and sci fi aren't technically speaking "books" i don't think though. If people don't get shocked out of their metastasized tastes with some benign bullying they will read Henry Potter poo poo until the grave. Then, technically speaking, what are they? pleasecallmechrist posted:Truth be told this is the scenario where 'bullying' is good because if you have the balls to say poo poo and someone tears it up then you reevaluate, decide if there's any merit to their response and then come back with something better. The people that can't handle disagreement or flat out getting poo poo on usually don't post. Of course that benefit requires thoughtful responses like Hieronynous mentioned. When it comes to discussion, then taking a hard stance that could be seen as "bullying" can be good, as you mentioned. But when it comes to recommending books, or trying to get people to challenge themselves to read something that isn't trite genre fiction, I don't think bullying works at all. In fact, I think it's the opposite. Realistically, how many have actually taken advice or a recommendation from being bullied? Personally, I haven't. I get that this thread fucks with each other about reading choices, and that's cool because that's how everyone here communicates. But I don't think it's conducive to people trying to read better. If a person says "I only read sci-fi, but I would like to read some literature, point me in the right direction", insulting them for reading sci-fi is just self-important condescension and ego masturbation. Like, cool, you think you're better than them because you don't read Terry Pratchett. Way to go, cool guy. It's different when people come in and want to defend Jurassic Park as literature, I get that. But for people that seemingly want this forum to read better and have better discussions, a lot of responses seem to actively go against that interest. I like chernobyl kinsman, they've given me some good book reccs and they have great insights when it comes to discussion, but there's a time and a place to be a condescending rear end in a top hat and deliver lazy burns, and there's a time when it doesn't hurt to be nice to people. Franchescanado fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Dec 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I think the idea that genre fiction readers can be convinced to read literature is a bit absurd extreme same
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
.
whatevz fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Apr 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
Lol if youve managed to convince yourself your desire to belittle other people is for their own good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
i read pretty much exclusively scifi/fantasy for my entire life until this year, and now i think i might never read it again. what happened is i got older and the same fuckign story with the same damnable cliched characters and the same structure and the same everything over and over and over a thousand times got old, so i tried something out of my sphere, and i liked it. i don't know what would have made me try something new earlier. but probably not being called an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Mr. Squishy posted:Lol if youve managed to convince yourself your desire to belittle other people is for their own good. I tend to think our society loves to whine about bullying at least in part because it has this idea of the inviolate individual who shouldn't face social consequences for their tastes and behavior.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
i think there is a big difference between a good matured 'when was the last time you read a book that wasn't about dragons or androids, lol' and 'you are an idiot childe who only reads trash you don't deserve to be called literate'
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
I guess I kinda get keeping the yucks out of that one thread specifically, that's not a ton to ask. I do hate and have argued against the "at least they're reading something" argument before and the thing about pepsi and cheetohs that Shibawanko said was pretty spot on and funny. But yeah better envoys than us probably have better ways of enticing people to not read poo poo rear end garbage than just calling them dummys. So I guess what I am saying is that I am a wishy-washy idiot and can't decide who to agree with!
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:I guess I kinda get keeping the yucks out of that one thread specifically, that's not a ton to ask. I do hate and have argued against the "at least they're reading something" argument before and the thing about pepsi and cheetohs that Shibawanko said was pretty spot on and funny. But yeah better envoys than us probably have better ways of enticing people to not read poo poo rear end garbage than just calling them dummys. Reading this I suddenly realized after 30 odd years that Chester Cheetos is the mascot for that brand because hes a cheetah which sounds like Cheetos so I'm not even sure who the real dumbass is anymore. I just read Remainder by Tom McCarthy which I thought was pretty good, clearly inspired by Lispector in some bits, less effective than Lispector but a bit more current. I liked how the protagonist's best friend is basically Beavis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
“Quit Mocking a Child and Read Some Real Literature”
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I think the idea that genre fiction readers can be convinced to read literature through mockery is a bit absurd I was. Not by having some shallow goony twit who thinks discussion about literature begins and ends with "it's [bad/good]" tell me I'm an idiot for reading nothing but ten-thousand-page Terry Goodkind cumrags, admittedly—but at least partly by Margaret Atwood's recommendations of worthwhile SF as opposed to grimy schlock, which led me into thinking more about what made a good book, etc. And within a year of reading along different lines (aiming for literary quality rather than my previous metric of "number and length of books in a series") my tastes had completely changed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
Powaqoatse posted:“Quit Mocking a Child and Read Some Real Literature” Haha nice
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Tbh though I don’t post in this thread often if I hadn’t been reading it from the start and been aware of how the thread’s tone goes I could definitely see a genre fiction reader could come into the thread and think the people posting here are exactly the kind of condescending overeducated literature reader that genfic readers think they are. Being able to read and talk about literature requires a degree of education and erudition behind what seems like a very high barrier of entry, and that alone is enough to scare off most people. Being a dick and representing the peer group of literature readers as dicks does nothing to convince new readers that the hazing is worth their time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
I mean just recommending stuff is also good. Solaris is probably the best gateway drug for people who only read SF. If they like fantasy, tell them to read Waiting for the Barbarians.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
shadow of the torturer was a gateway for me. after that series everything else seemed so stupid and surface level that i started looking around more
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Historical fiction in general is a good gateway for fantasy fans. It offers that cultural escapism that fantasy worldbuilding attempts to offer and tends to be plot driven. The trouble is that YA historical fiction is the worst kind of YA fiction there is. I was scared away from the genre because of that, but now I'd say it's my second favorite after southern gothic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
pospysyl posted:Historical fiction in general is a good gateway for fantasy fans. It offers that cultural escapism that fantasy worldbuilding attempts to offer and tends to be plot driven. The trouble is that YA historical fiction is the worst kind of YA fiction there is. I was scared away from the genre because of that, but now I'd say it's my second favorite after southern gothic. Wolf Hall for baller historical fiction. I think I'm gonna get that for one of my sister in laws for xmas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:I mean just recommending stuff is also good. Solaris is probably the best gateway drug for people who only read SF. If they like fantasy, tell them to read Waiting for the Barbarians. But is it, technically speaking, a "book"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Heath posted:Tbh though I don’t post in this thread often if I hadn’t been reading it from the start and been aware of how the thread’s tone goes I could definitely see a genre fiction reader could come into the thread and think the people posting here are exactly the kind of condescending overeducated literature reader that genfic readers think they are. Being able to read and talk about literature requires a degree of education and erudition behind what seems like a very high barrier of entry, and that alone is enough to scare off most people. Being a dick and representing the peer group of literature readers as dicks does nothing to convince new readers that the hazing is worth their time. Yeah, this is where I'm coming from, to an extent. I don't think you need a college education to discuss literature intelligently, though. You just need to read. College courses just help build up the "fundamentals" or provide entries into the "canon of literature". Education certainly helps, and allows structure and it's a public forum of discussion being moderated by an educated person, but that's certainly not the only way. It's important to read the Great Novels that interest he reader, and to choose challenging novels outside of their comfort zone. The other aspect is thinking and writing about the books so the reader develops analytical processes for the texts. Essays and papers help, but even writing personal papers or keeping a journal trying to break down the texts is still a way to flex that muscle. The biggest issue is that all the poo poo talking hinders this thread from being a good discussion of literature. Instead, people come in and before any debate or discussion can happen, some smart rear end whips out their literary dick or drops some lazy burns. Alloy's right, this is one of the best places for literary discussions, and most of the regular posters are well read, but many would rather be assholes than just engage each other. This thread gets into really good stuff sometimes: the various aspects of translation, the importance of learning a new language, neuroplasticity in language development, the various literary movements and their flaws, the importance of reading things that aren't Sad White American Male novels, etc. I like this thread, it's the best thread in TBB; doesn't mean you couldn't be nicer or more welcoming to people that just want to participate and chill and talk about Camus and Kafka and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
I don't know if my opinion has any merit but anecdotally I've always found the ratio of pretty great advice to trolling has been just about right, at least in regards to my questions and rec requests. EDIT: Don't get me wrong, when I come on to ask questions I'm fully aware of how ignorant I am and I fully expect to pay an idiot tax for inflicting myself on you lot. That attitude in mind, the amount of civility I usually receive is quite staggering. Plus, a lot of the sick burns I get sometimes just fly right over my head so I'm not effected as much by a lot of it. OscarDiggs fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Dec 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:But is it, technically speaking, a "book"? It's not a book if I wipe my rear end with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:It's not a book if I wipe my rear end with it. I don't see why not, you seem to only read poo poo anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:I don't see why not, you seem to only read poo poo anyway. Well, I read your posts, yes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
lets pit books against eachother based on when we happened to read them! what's the best book you all read this year? for me it was either c+p or lolita i can't decide
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
The best book I read this year was The Passion According to G.H. by a wide margin
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I think the idea that genre fiction readers can be convinced to read literature through mockery is a bit absurd 'If they can not be turned, they must be destroyed'
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Lincoln in the Bardo was my favorite by far, but reading Mother Night in January was perfect timing for a book. The Gene was very good too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:Hemingway, David Vann, Etgar Keret, Colson Whitehead, George Saunders, Jose Saramago, Mario Vargas Llosa, Cormac McCarthy, Borges, Kafka, Camus, Orhan Pamuk, Raymond Carver, John Irving, (edit) Carson McCullers, John Kennedy Toole, Flannery O'Conner I appreciate both your and After The War's responses. I am on mobile and don't know how to multiquote. So forgive the lovely formatting. I am at work but I promise I will come back to this and give a better response on likes and book reading experiences.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 04:12 |
|
|
I'm having trouble remembering all the books I read this year. Highlights included Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy (and goddamn is that a cool book, with an absolutely beautiful printing by NYRB), Molloy, To the Lighthouse, Foucault's Pendulum, and The Futurological Congress, but what's shaping up to be my favorite, though I haven't finished it, is Rings of Saturn by W.G. Sebald. Reminds me a lot of Wittgenstein's Mistress in the way it leads you subtly through literary and historical connections to the conclusion that humans destroy everything they touch—but Sebald, although performing the same kind of associative acrobatics, is easier to follow. I'm almost done and I'm definitely rereading it right away. e: cool cover, too—
Eugene V. Dubstep fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Dec 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 00:49
|
|