Thinky Whale posted:

Isn't Thomas the Tank Engine one of those shows that is bizarrely popular among people who are legit autistic?

HapiMerchant posted:

Right, I'd forgotten someone like Lionheart would be idolized by Tropers. We are talking about THAT groundhog day fic right?

BlueDude posted:

Speaking of people caring way too loving much about cartoons (warning: really, really long):


(For the record: originally, most of this is hidden until you click the words "click to see more". Clearly, someone knows this bullshit needs to be stuffed out of sight.)

Burkion posted:

I mean it's pretty sad they transcribed everything he said and what not

Burkion posted:

Uh, that's not really TV Tropes. I mean the guy COULD be a troper, but mostly he just does this

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheMysteriousMrEnter

I mean it's pretty sad they transcribed everything he said and what not but still.

Runcible Cat posted:

It's a safe bet that he transcribed it.

Cornwind Evil posted:

Tropers can't handle the most basic people interactions, you think they can wrap their heads around complicated things like that?

I was listening to a history podcast recently that talked about how the Mongols had their victims so terrified that one Mongol rounded up a group of people to kill, then realized he forgot his weapon. He told them to wait while he got it, and they ALL STAYED THERE AND WAITED, even though he was ALL ALONE, until he came back and killed them all. Do you really want to work out how tropers would try to understand something like that?

Knowing them, their Assessment would be A Sentence with lots of Randomly Capitalized Words because You Can Define existence by Applying Fiction Concepts To Everything.

Sham bam bamina! posted:

I wouldn't be so sure. For whatever reason, TGWTG-style Internet Video Stars tend to have perversely devoted fans.

WickedHate posted:

Trains are really big with autistic people. I have autism and I've never seen the appeal, personally. It's kind of a stereotype, but there are legitimate things about trains and railroads that appeal to that audience.

Cornwind Evil posted:

This is true. I have Aspergers myself, and the two main Asperger's groups I attended each had, and have, a person who is incredibly fond of trains. Don't know why, but it's true and all.

corn in the bible posted:

Four Kingdoms and it's continuation sequel Four Kingdoms, Continued by Wanda Walker

Recommended by beeruckzII
Synopsis: Four kingdoms exist- The Colubri: the snakes , The Scrofa: the boars , the Aves: the birds and the Equus: the horses . Four characters from each kingdom lead separate lives, but all come together to protect all that they love.
Comments: It's high time someone put this story on here! I haven't read too much of it but what I have read of it is brilliant! Read it! NOW!
Notes: Sexual references, swearing and some mature scenes. There's even a rape scene in chapter 12 of Four Kingdoms Continued! This story is rated T for a reason!

Cornwind Evil posted:

This is true. I have Aspergers myself, and the two main Asperger's groups I attended each had, and have, a person who is incredibly fond of trains. Don't know why, but it's true and all.

Gimnbo posted:

Makes me wonder if there's a connection between autism and fascism.

Gimnbo posted:

Makes me wonder if there's a connection between autism and fascism.

Dethroning Moment/Web Original posted:

The Tundra Terror: I used to have high regards for xRazorFistx's, a.k.a. The Rageaholic's, reviews, however, his retrospective of the Star Fox series let a bad taste in my mouth. About three-quarters into the review, he basically seems to drop everything to rage on about how all "furverts" are animal rapists, because that joke isn't old, and how they are all scum of the earth. Not only is the whole thing awkward to sit through, like one of your grandfather's racist rambling, it was completely unneeded, came out of nowhere, and had nothing funny to say.

The same page posted:

Tropers/ilovedededeAGAIN: If one DMOS had to come out in Super Mario Bros. Z, then that would be definitely the scene in Episode 7 where Mario and Sonic are warped to the Minus World. It starts fine enough until Kolorado and Goombella appear out of nowhere and sass up the scene. The icing on the cake though is when Goombella becomes very sassy about fighting Mecha Sonic. Alvin Earthworm would have known to do better if his fans complained.

Same source, part trois posted:

Darkton: So I was watching the third episode of My Little Pony: Camaraderie Is Supernatural. It was a parody of Call of the Cutie, and was going pretty fine before, then Applejack said "You can't just go around harassing the customers? Who do you think we are, Capcom?" I stopped watching the video immediately after that. Wasn't the premise built on the Elements of Parody? Which one of them was the "Element of Attack Humor", exactly? That's why I call this one of the lowest of the low in terms of humor.

quote:

ldelavina3: It's no secret that every web animation series has its rough times, small or big. Sonic Shorts is no exception, which brings us to their DMoS to me. The "How To Create Your Own Sonic Fan Character" bit from Volume 6. It pretty much implies that everyone who has made a fan character as lazy, unoriginal people. I know that there are a lot of poorly-made fan characters, but this just feels like a giant middle finger to fan character creators and an unfunny one at that.

quote:

eCockpit89: For me, it was Death Battle "Mario Vs. Sonic", and not just because Mario lost. It's because in the fight, Mario got Dizzy after using the Mega Mushroom, which doesn't happen in any of the games the Mega Mushroom is in. C'mon, if you're going to have Sonic win, at least have him win legitimately! To me, that just screams not wanting to piss off the Unpleasable Fanbase Sonic is known for. They've gotten better since, thankfully.

Dethroning Moment/Zero Punctuation posted:

Cerotech Omega: Yahtzee's handling of E3 2014 was kind of lame in and of itself, but his vitriol against (surprise, surprise) Nintendo shows that his hay parachute has fallen apart, and he's grasping at individual straws just to save face. His primary constituents are that Nintendo wanks the Mario and Zelda franchises relentlessly, whilst the majority of the show was taken by stellar entries like Code Name: S.T.E.A.M., Video Game/Splatoon, Yoshi's Woolly World, Xenoblade Chronicles X, and more, with only Splatoon getting a bare mention by him; he complains about the overload of cinematic cutscenes with nary a demo, whereas the latter was the entirety of Nintendo's performance, with every automated sequence being in-engine; and he omits the Treehouse completely, where the fans got to see more of these lovely games in action. Bad enough on its own, but when added to his history of anti-Nintendo sentiment, it paints a very ugly picture on how much of a hypocrite he's become. Ben Croshaw, do the world a favor and slice the "professional" out of your "professional troll" title if this is how you're going to be.

corn in the bible posted:

stuff

GuideDangIt/SurvivalHorror posted:

Ao Oni: Version 5.2 has a puzzle that requires knowledge of counting using a Soroban. This is no trouble for Japanese players, but this isn't the case for western audiences

GuideDangIt/Other posted:

You'd think that if Wii Fit was intended for people who are looking to get more exercise (i.e., aren't already working out), it'd do a better job of explaining which muscles are your "core muscles" (the abdominals, side abdominals, and lower back), instead of just telling people to "use" them in keeping their balance during certain exercises.

GuideDangIt/Other posted:

In Real Life, socializing can be this.

Gimnbo posted:

Makes me wonder if there's a connection between autism and fascism.

Wall Banger posted:

1984: At some point, someone needed to get Orwell away from the typewriter and tell him that enough was enough when it comes to Winston's torture in Part III. Whereas Orwell's contemporary, Aldous Huxley, wrote a compelling debate between rebel and tyrant at the end of Brave New World, O'Brien just gives an Anvilicious, 40-page Mind Rape to Winston. George, there is a way to give a warning about totalitarianism without kicking us in the balls.

On the subject of Brave New World, the finale of that book featured the tyrant giving a long, detailed and perfectly reasonable justification for the totalitarianism of the World State. We're clearly not supposed to agree with him, but you potentially could. And what defence does O'Brien offer? None - all that matters is power. This is a book which is praised for providing a deep insight into the totalitarian mindset, and yet it reduces the advocates of authoritarianism to Saturday morning cartoon villains.

In Animal Farm, Snowball comes up with the idea to build a windmill. Once Napoleon has him exiled, he explains that the plan was his all along. The other animals ask why Napoleon argued so much against it. Squealer explained that Napoleon was using tactics in order to get rid of Snowball. A possible excuse, but what they didn't ask next was if Napoleon urinating on his own plans was also part of the strategy.

Animal Farm posted:

No Endor Holocaust: The end of the animated film. The human farmer is gone, and the only animals smart enough to figure out how to run a farm are gone. Fine, no more dictators, but how will the farm be run now?

Straw Hypocrite: The pigs. For example, when Squealer changes one of the laws from 'Animals shall not drink' to 'Animals shall not drink to excess', he's still in violation of the law, as he's completely drunk at the time he's adding the extra words. This was implied in the novel, since the animals hear a loud crash and run out in time to see Squealer stumbling around near the barn with a ladder and pot of white paint, but they're too dumb to realize what he was doing. In the films it was explicit.
A man took the aged and injured Boxer away. According to the pigs, he was a vet, not a knacker; he had a knacker's vehicle because he has not changed it yet. The book mentions that, somehow, after the man left the pigs got money to buy some bottles of whiskey. The animated film is explicit: they bought whiskey with the money they got from sending Boxer to the knacker.

What? Not enough tropes? If Comrade Napoleon says it, it must be right. I will work harder!

Complete Monster: Napoleon was meant to be an Expy for Josef Stalin, but given the fact that Orwell removed all the positive factors the man had in Real Life, he became even worse than that.

Hilariousin Hindsight: The book's ending is a lot like Doom Repercussions of evil.....

Animal Farh Headscratchers, aka It Just Bugs Me posted:

Completely unlike Molly, Snowball is one of the most important characters in the story. So my question is: where is he now? Is he still alive at the end? Did he get assassinated by Napoleon's followers, like Trotsky was by Stalin's? Did he just forget about Animal Farm while the rest of the animals were constantly on the lookout for Snowball so they can most likely murder him? Did he go to a different farm and try to start another resolution? Why are we never shown what happened to Snowball? The point of view is omniscient. The narrator knows what happens in and around Animal Farm, but gives zero focus on the whereabouts of Snowball. The narrator could have at least hinted what happened to Snowball. But, like the contents of the briefcase in Pulp Fiction, it is never known.

I didn't get the ending. Did the pigs literally turn into humans, or could the animals not tell the difference because of their behavior?

1984 posted:

Downer Ending: The Michael Radford movie ended with a subtler bleak ending, forgoing the bullet to the brain ending, and instead has Winston looking at the image of Big Brother, then thinking, "I love you! I love you!"

Forever War: Causes a totalitarian Hell.

Noodle Incident: Exactly how did the Party come into power?

Society Marches On: As was often the way with mid-century science fiction writers, Orwell didn't guess there was a feminist revolution around the corner. There are, for example, no women in positions of power, and the dreary sexual mores of the world of 1984 clearly pre-date the invention of The Pill. It is rather jarring to reflect when watching the Michael Radford film that in Real Life, a woman had been Prime Minister for five years.

Strawman Political:
The entire point of the book. Big Brother is the Strawman Totalitarian. He's also a Strawman Communist or a Strawman Fascist or Strawman Theocrat depending on what aspects of IngSoc you focus more on.

Mary Suetopia: A Straw Dystopia, where one of the members of State Sec even thinks that The Party will last forever, despite that in reality, there obviously would be corruption, revolts, sabotage and failures in surveillance system, inefficency and crises of economics, lack of professionals and social lifts which will lead to failures in the work of state... the list can go on.

True Art Is Angsty

1984 Headscratchers posted:

Real political purges don't work that way
Orwellian purge of thoughtcriminals doesn't stop its strain for decades, and people are elimnated for mere suspicion of thoughtcrime, like it happened to Parsons and Ampleforth, and actually, ALL named Outer Party members(Winston, Julia, Parsons, Syme, Ampleforth) in the book were arrested by Thoughtpolice and eventually broken and brainwashed. It's a complete nonsence. French Reign of Terror was driven by revolutionary craze, and it ended with terror's inspirators executed, installation of corrupt, but much less violent oligarchy, and later, Bonaparte's takeover. Hitler's Night of The Long Knives was quick and it destroyed his actual political rivals in NSDAP. Stalin's terror was driven partly by his paranoia, partly by necessity of elimination of professional revoluitonaries, who became useless and dangerous for building and maintaining solid and powerful state, and last, but not least, because everyone in the Party were able to write delation on their personal enemies, but that definitely excluded overall fanatism. And remember, Big Teror never lasted for decades, and post-Stalin USSR looks like Equestria compared to Oceania. Chang's White Teror on Taiwan was brutal, but it was commited for completely other reasons. And there is no logical point in eternal witch-hunt against thoughtcriminals.

Party's activities violates postulates of Sun Tzu and Machiavelli

Economics
Shouldn't Oceania economic system simply go bankrupt? I mean, it spends all the money and industrial resources and capabilities on military needs for several decades and plans to do it endlessly. In real life, war is a hardly profitable business. Nazi Germany actually had to attack Poland simply to rob its territories, and USSR became fatally dependent on export of oil and raw resources in exchange for grain, food and consumer goods. Oceania may have a badly equipped army like North Korea, but unlike it, Oceania has to spend much more resources, because it actually wages war. Oceania can't have endless money for endless war!

The Perpetual War Is Pointless (For the Party)
Now, I get it, the war is to soak up resources yadda yadda. And I'm sure that Orwell had this really deep and convincing idea as to how this all worked, but it's still a stupid idea for any political entity to try. Let us assume—and since, all speculation aside, we have no reason to doubt what is said anymore than what isn't—that the Party really does control this vast, sprawling empire and has a gentleman's agreement with their "neighbors" not to use WM Ds and actually WIN the war. Why? Yes, resources, proles, control and all that...but why THAT way? Why the least efficient way possible? By my recollection Oceania is not only the largest but most densely populated by far of the three states. Even if we assume that they have a lower population, overall they have more resources, more land, more avenues of attack etc etc etc. There is NO logical, or even pragmatic Machiavellian reason, to do this thing. Any sane person—even INSANE person—if told "you have twice the land, resources, money and power of your enemies" would respond "kill them all, take their poo poo". And frankly there is no reason to believe, again, that East Asia and Eurasia have a snowball's chance in hell of resisting them, even if they have more money or people. The resource differences, the industrial differences, would win out (assuming that even SOME of America and the UK's industrial resources remain after the war, which they clearly do, or else the other two would never recognize Oceania at all). And even if they were all mauled during the war the sheer size and material wealth of Oceania by stint of simple landmass would win out eventually—they basically control some of the most fertile, energy and materials rich land on Earth. In short, there is no reason for them to go along with this war assuming that they are as powerful as they seem to be, and if they aren't then that opens a whole new can of worms. Why would the rest of the world, for any reason, allow them to exist when they're supposedly a nuclear armed state? That much, the very fact that they have nukes and ICB Ms, is made obvious by the supposedly "faked" attacks on their own territory and the fact they evolved from the UK, a nuclear power. Again even if they got mauled, they still would have some elements of their old nuclear resources and ICB Ms left. In short the entire idea, no matter how in depth it is or how impactful it is, is based on this notion that either: A—a known, pre-war nuclear power with ICBM capability is allowed to fall into totalitarianism with NO ONE stopping or even attempting to stop them; or B—the largest and most powerful state in the world is allowing two lesser states to exist simply because George Orwell says so with no practical, political or logical reason otherwise.

If the state was destroying all means for people to even think about dissenting from the system, wouldn't it only be a matter of time before the system wiped out a concept that was necessary for the state to function?
Say they decided to get rid of the concept of quantum superposition because they don't like the idea that Big Brother doesn't know where his electrons are (which the Nazis actually did try). Now that might not sound important until you realize that the concepts used to design and maintain televisions hinges on concepts like quantum superposition. And guess what Oceania's Ministry of Love depends on.

1984 = A case of Too Good For That Bastard?
It has really good ideas and the odd scene is well written, but the rest of it is very poorly executed. Goldstein's book is dire, the so-called love scenes even worse. At one point Winston says he thought about raping and murdering Julia. Rather than think he's a freak and flee, she laughs merrily? What on earth?

Nobody would want the Party to rise in the first place!
What just bugs me: Why did the Party rise to power in the first place? What the heck, nobody, I mean nobody, would like an oppressive government powered by cognitive dissonance, unless they're masochists or horribly stupid.

1984 reviews posted:

Nineteen Eighty Four film/book review by Peryton 14th Feb 14

A pathetic, ultra-nihilistic work slightly more subtle than a Saturday Morning Cartoon

As the book points out, Nazis and the USSR at least had realistic inner reasonings: notions of highly twisted utopias. The Party? It's not that they care about power only - power hunger is such an omnipresent trait that not even most idealists bother to deny that. But here's the thing: power hunger has limits. A politician feels empowered by the control s/he has over the populace, but most politicians stop there. It's not because of limitations to their "creativity", but because most people simply don't feel like torture and manipulation are worth wasting their time on. They'd rather preffer to abuse their authorithy in self-indulgence: catering to their greed and/or lust, spreading their philosophy, you name it.

There are people who like to do what the Party does, but they aren't politicians nor any sort of master minds. They're petty run of the mill sadists who can never rise to power not even in the most insane possible environment because psychopathy = "dumb", for the lack of a better term. Studies show that emotions directly correlate to decision making, and as proven again and again, people who can only feel sadism or anger are not manipulator material, as they blow their cover very easily. For the idea of a bunch of self aware Saturday morning supervillains to seize control, everyone on the face of the planet would have to be several magnitudes more idiotic than the most stupid jellyfish that has ever existed.

The people the Party is based on, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Salazar, et cetera, they were power hungry, but it was a secondary concern. They killed millions, but they deluded themselves to be the pinacle of moral perfection, and that their actions were probably for the best anyways. They were very monstruous, but they weren't cartoony caricatures that think that Bad Is Good And Good Is Bad. They had human traits, and their atrocities relied on causing death rather than setting people up to torture into being puppets. Their direct followers lived in fear, but to this day several areas in Russia still declare Stalin to be a hero (especially the church. Srsly, National Geographic even made an article about that).

Bottom line, this doesn't work because it demands the reader to be misanthropic as all hell, as well as rejecting all forms of logic. This doesn't mean Big Brother won't exist, but it means the Ministry of Love won't.



Nineteen Eighty Four film/book review by Belfagor 20th Jul 12

Anti-communism masked as alleged "anti-totalitarianism"

The term "totalitarianism" was a Cold War creation to compare Communism to Nazism, which is pure and simple bashing. Orwell's 1984 is a perfect example of this kind of propaganda. The book, praised beyond any objective quality, merely repeats stereotypes that would later make the fortune of Robert Conquest and similar alleged "historians". The worst part is, the author presents his view as the true Socialist one. But this is just Trotskyism and revisionism.

It's rather easy to see what lies behind the curtain: "doublethink" is a sick, twisted parody of dialectical materialism, the description of the Party doesn't show any kind of actual analysis and is just a pile of gratuitously anvilicious Complete Monster traits, Goldstein's section is nothing but an extremely heavy Author Filibuster moment to expose loads and loads of Trotskyist / Social Democratic propaganda.

As a Marxist-Leninist, I find this book utterly revolting and despicable. However, I must admit that it completely succeeds in its main target: to spread every possible lie about the Eastern Bloc and the men who carried on the results of the October Revolution, under the pretense of an "universal message of freedom" that is just imperialistic trash. It succeeds so well that most people believe this is a valid document to judge Soviet Union. What's next, Jurassic Park used as biology documentation in universities?



Nineteen Eighty Four film/book review by osconchur 89 15th Jul 12

If Ayn Rand were a democratic socialist...

I enjoyed this book when I first read it. I've a thing for dystopian futures, artlangs (like Newspeak or Burgess's Nadsat), war, politics, economics, espionage, etc. For me, this book had it all. It really struck a chord with me; I remember actually very disturbed by its grim-seeming ending (the exact nature of which, and whether it's really all that grim at all, is disputed). I love the way the world was simultaneously fleshed out and obfuscated, particularly.

The more I dwell on the book, though, the less I enjoy it. In fact, I've come to dislike Eric Arthur Blair (Mr. Orwell) and Nineteen Eighty-Four's spiritual sister Animal Farm. Several things about it have come to bother me, not the least of which is its political message (in fact, in light of Blair's "demsoc" leanings, I may very well be the type of "bad communist" he wrote this book to vilify). However, I think I can safely say -not as a "Stalinist" but as a reader- that Blair's work here is simply not the poignant masterpiece it's made out to be. I compare Blair to Rand in the title of this review because I find some striking similarities in their works, even if Blair is -no contest- the better writer.

Even where anvils need to be dropped, a clear-cut good-evil binary is simply not interesting, and that's exactly what we have in this novel. The reader is not allowed to come to any conclusion other than to the inherent evil of the Party. Sure, Smith is shown to have made some morally ambiguous statements (acid in a child's face?), but that doesn't mitigate the rather sophomoric moral being spoon-fed to us. Masterpieces have points to make, sure, but they shouldn't have morals in the way a fable might. And that's what this is: not a masterpiece, not a fully matured work of art, but a fable. It's a comic book without pictures and with a seriously downer ending. This is particularly frustrating for someone who wants to read a book to explore new ideas and worlds, not to be converted.

This book is also particularly infuriating in that, despite being a work of fiction and a self-admitted author tract, it tends to color people's view of the Soviet Union, knowledge of its actual history occasionally scribbled in as an afterthought, and socialism in general, despite Blair's personal politics.



Nineteen Eighty Four film/book review by Robotnik 15th Jul 12

Not really sure if it works.

There's not much I can criticize regarding the novel in and of itself; the writing is flawless, as is the actual story. The problems I have are with the underlying implications.

My first problem is that I guess the moral is along the lines of, "If we allow totalitarianism, we get this poo poo, so don't let it happen," but this work didn't inspire or invigorate me at all, partly because George Orwell took apart and shattered what may well have been his own goddamn beliefs. I don't mind a good Downer Ending, and I know precious little about Orwell as a person, but Winston Smith seemed to be a bit of a mouthpiece for his own opinions regarding totalitarianism, a character the reader was supposed to take a lesson from and listen to. Then he got broken and absorbed by the evil mass. So, there's no point in being like him and fighting against totalitarianism, because we're all self-centered bastards deep down and it will always win? Animal Farm didn't end too happily either, but at least there the message seemed clearer. Revolutions usually end up in a vicious cycle, repeating the patterns of their opressors, undoing their own good work and betraying their original intentions. That's significant. In Nineteen Eighty Four, on the other hand, it's as if Orwell disagreed with his own values, crushing them and their vessel in a bizarre attempt to drive people to action by shooting their hopes down.

My second problem is that I'm not convinced totalitarianism is something a society or individual can consciously "avoid" or "prevent". It's not as if the Bolsheviks and the masses who supported them were cackling wickedly in 1917 that everything was going according to plan, that in a few years they'd have Stalin. It's not as if the Germans said to themselves, "Hey, let's put the Nazis in power so we can get a repressive military dictatorship and a Holocaust!" Society will follow the course it thinks is best; hindsight is 20/20. We can read 1984 and think, "Yeah, we'll never let this happen!", but those under the Weimar Republic and Nikolai II probably would have used it as toilet paper. If things get bad enough, so will we. Who needs liberty when you can have stability?

Short version: I think this book shoots its own message, and any lessons garnered from it will be forgotten under the right circumstances.



Nineteen Eighty Four film/book review by Space Doer 15 16th Oct 11

Silly.

This book is just very silly.

I honestly can't take it seriously because... well, the Party is a bunch of Dastardly Whiplash one dimensional Villain Sue, who always win because the plot say so.

Seriously, the entire thing is as realistic as the Never Ending Story, only the later had a more beliavable internal structure and economic work.

1984 is the Poster boy of Dystopia Is Hard and the bad dreams of a Socialist fearing Author. Is broken, badly managed and just plain wrong.

Goodness, at least in Equilibrium show an actually form of Control, how does (somewhat) work and show that in the end is as fragil as a towers of cards in the Middle of a Hurricane. And it was still silly nonsensical blandness (but highly entertaining)

My sense of Disbelief is just not enough to swallow this nonsense. And no, is not like North Korea or Russia Stalin. While those parts are/where very brutal, they have neither the level of control and power that the Party supposed possesd and they have so.. much... trouble that it was not funny and are, as of know/where, only surviving by the tips of their fingers

All in all... meh. It was like reading a 1900 story of how we where going to land to the Moon. The fact that this is show as example Humans Are Bastards is kind of like an Emo Wangst of "Suburbian Kid, my life is hell" kind of seriousness.

Read it, but don't take it serioulsy.

Burkion posted:

So how many of those are idiot teenagers who were forced to read the book in highschool and rebelled against it to be edgy and cool?

Annointed posted:

George Orwell died in vain. He would roll in his grave if it weren't for the fact he spun so hard his corpse left this lovely Earth.

Dr. Killjoy posted:

Well people have mis or half understood 1984 for ages. Look at all the conservatives who conveniently ignore the message warning against nationalism and looking for enemies of the state at every turn.

quote:

There's not a whole lot more I can say about this except how much I loving despise Steinbeck as an author, yes I understand that being poor sucks major balls, you don't have to bend the rules of reality and pull a Diabolus Ex Machina out of your rear end to end your stories. He does it in The Grapes Of Wrath, The Pearl, and this abomination, why would you do that bullshit once, not to mention three times? (If not more, I don't know his work that well.)

Razorwired posted:

Talking about how poo poo the Dust Bowl and Great Depression were = bending the rules of reality.

Does anyone still have that post that's basically, "This story had no real conflict. Why couldn't George and Lennie just beat up the Great Depression?"

Annointed posted:

You had to make me realize we live in a world where George and Lennie don't have a great battle against the unholy spirit of despair before punching it so hard that it explodes into flags and eagles.

Chexoid posted:

If only there was a sudden craze for turning classic books into JRPGs.

Chexoid posted:

If only there was a sudden craze for turning classic books into JRPGs.

The Great Gatsby posted:

The Great Gatsby film/book review by The Questioner 132 23rd Sep 11

Horrid book.

This is perhaps the worst book I have ever read. It's dull, the writing is lazy, the story is annoying, the characters are boring and unempathetic, and any so called "depth" completely escapes me. I understand why this book went out of print.

SirPhoebos posted:

Tetsuya Nomura's Waiting For Godot :nignog:

Lottery of Babylon posted:

Horrid book.

This is perhaps the worst book I have ever read. It's dull, the writing is lazy, the story is annoying, the characters are boring and unempathetic, and any so called "depth" completely escapes me. I understand why this book went out of print.

quote:

...
Okay, since I'm responsible for several percent of the loops on this site at least, and the MLP Loops fic I curate is longer than everything Innortal has done on the subject...
That's saying that quite a lot of my own fic is "total garbage".
Would you care to give some examples thereof?

Annointed posted:

You had to make me realize we live in a world where George and Lennie don't have a great battle against the unholy spirit of despair before punching it so hard that it explodes into flags and eagles.

Tunicate posted:

WickedHate posted:

What's this in reference to?

quote:

Crapsack World: Some of the worst loops. But the worst of the worst is "Slavequestria," a loop where Celestia legalized slavery and allied with Sombra, turning the whole world into a totalitarian hell and her battle with Nightmare Moon into Evil Versus Evil. All the Loopers involved are left traumatized afterwards.
Scratch that, the (mercifully) largely undescribed Loop caused by a massive collection of porn and viruses bleeding into the Equestria Loop. (The loop wherein it's described starts with Twilight and Sleipnir, the administrator of Equestria, walking into Mac's bar to drown their memories of it.)

"Not only was she [Molestia] in charge but she was the pinnacle of what every pony strove to be, the ideal pony in the eyes of her subjects! And Twilight was the only one Awake, the only sane mare in this mad mad mad mad mad mad mad mad world. And then this corrupted world painted a target on her by making her the most desirable mare alive to everyone in said world."

To underline just how horrible this loop was, upon Awakening both Sleipnir and Twilight immediately ran for the gates of Tartarus, fought their way to the lowest levels of Hell, and then locked the door to Hell from the inside. And then Sleipnir called down the Apocalypse and prematurely ended the world. Let me underline that some more. A Yggdrasil System Administrator — who is consistently portrayed as one of the most responsible and level-headed of the sysadmins, at that — chose to deliberately crash a Loop. How desperate are you when risking further multiverse instability is preferable to actually trying to live in that loop world even for a single day