|
I don't understand how just saying "I enjoyed it" isn't sufficient. I make no claims to its quality, and found some dumb little problems myself on a re-read without being someone who is a literary critic or English major. But overall, I still got joy out of reading it because it scratched a couple of particular itches. Do I make any claims to the quality of the writing? No, of course not. But I still feel like I can enjoy a thing that might be critically bad.
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 19:50 |
|
|
SpacePig posted:I don't understand how just saying "I enjoyed it" isn't sufficient. In theory, a person who hates some work of great importance (pick your favorite here) could do a textual analysis of it in some depth and conclude that for as much as that critic loathes the work for moral or philosophical reasons or for the way characters think and behave, there is something of merit in the construction of the work and what it sets out to do that justifies the conclusions it reaches even if the critic disagrees with them. It's possible to be fair in criticism of a work that one enjoyed or didn't enjoy, though I'm not saying that's happening here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Nakar posted:Not that you're saying that, indeed you just said that you only speak for yourself, but for some people the argument goes to the effect of "I derived enjoyment from reading it, so something in the text must be meritorious," which doesn't follow. And yet, at a certain point, the individual anecdotes do become data. A theory of criticism which denies any relevance of individual enjoyment is, however intellectually stimulating it might be in the abstract, completely useless in, among other things, helping a reader identify what other books they might enjoy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
ulmont posted:I'm not understanding your asserted problem here. I enjoyed the Name of the Wind in the same way I enjoyed Baudelino (or The Book of the New Sun); I can't say as I've ever read a book without finding portions that were less powerful or entertaining than others. I confess, I've been unfair with this. So I'm going to try to illustrate what makes some books enjoyable and good. With "enjoyable" I mean entertainment-value, and with "good" I broadly mean the literary merits that elevate them above simple distraction. Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and Gray Mouser stories are enjoyable because they're satirical adventures of thieves in a world both close and dream-like. They're good because they're as cunning as fantasy gets, as the satire will suddenly reveal something dark and abyssal within it. Mika Waltari's The Egyptian is enjoyable because it's a stunning epic, filled with anecdote and adventure that covers the breadth of human experience without ever straining. It's good because this epic scope allows for a profound meditation on human folly. George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire was enjoyable because it's a complex and lurid story of intrigue and war, always kept moving by something new and exhilarating. It was kind of good because it's polyphony and pithy wit made it authentic. Zadie Smith's NW is enjoyable because it's account of London life crackles with the anxieties of class, race, and urbanity. it's good because it gives voice to the fears of the working class, the limitations of the middle classes, and to the brutal street criminal that we fear and hate despite our liberal pretences. But what can one sum up as being enjoyable and good about Patrick Rothfuss's Kingkiller Chronicle? ulmont posted:This is an odd criticism. Kingkiller is a coming of age story so far. It has hints that it might turn into something better - or worse - but, to date, we have a child growing up into an adult. Call it Harry Potter, Magicians, or Taran Wanderer if you want; there doesn't need to be more than that. There are only two stories, after all; this one is a man goes on a journey. It's not odd at all - Kingkiller has no proper story beyond "things happen to Kvothe that made him exceptional". It's no coming-of-age story or Augustinian confession, because Kvothe starts the the story as fully developed and mature as he is ever going to get (there are no psychical differences between Kvothe as a child, Kvothe as a teenager, and Kvothe as a young adult playing at being a bitter old man). It's no journey through a fantasy world, because the setting isn't used to tell a story; it's simply there to provide impressive motifs and environments (which is why a secular university coexists with the Inquisition). It's no adventure because there is no plot. One might then say that Kingkiller is a bold post-modern story that exploits and defies storytelling conventions to create something new... but it's still about a scrappy hero trying to track down Voldemort and his Death Eaters while bedeviled by Draco Malfoy and Professor Snape (and that's a generous description). It's story is neither epic nor focused, neither fantastical or realistic, and it's too conventional to be subversive. All that remains is that the story is about Kvothe. But what does Kvothe represent? Nothing but his own exceptional nature. Granted, the series hasn't completed yet. If the third book is against all odds released and reveals what the story is, Kingkiller is, if nothing, else one of the most impressive feats of legerdemain ever conceived. What else can you call hiding the story for two whole books? Nakar posted:In theory, a person who hates some work of great importance (pick your favorite here) could do a textual analysis of it in some depth and conclude that for as much as that critic loathes the work for moral or philosophical reasons or for the way characters think and behave, there is something of merit in the construction of the work and what it sets out to do that justifies the conclusions it reaches even if the critic disagrees with them. You have encapsulated my position perfectly. e: But it goes the other way around too, doesn't it? What I enjoy in Kingkiller, incidentally, are the occasional elements of brutal realism and grim satire. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 13:54 on Mar 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
I have an easier time understanding this within the context of music. As a scientific academic who has formal classical music training, I think there's a very clear divide in how the academic or critical opinions are weighed against popular opinion for STEM fields and the art fields. In the sciences, you disagreeing with common academic opinion is you being a retard. Those are the anti-vaxxer, anti-global warming people of the world. But in the arts, there is a nebulous quantifiable value that goes towards how the work resonates with the general public. Pop music arguably has no real musical value in comparison to classical, but I still enjoy it as much as I enjoy the classics. It's just a different type of enjoyment. With that said, I have a hard time reconciling the critical opinion in this thread with the praise by people like Neil Gaiman. He might not be trying to, but Bravest does come off like he's thinks those who disagree with academic/critic opinion is comparable to an anti-vaxxer. Calling liking it as just 'bad taste' is questionable to me. Just because he, as an academic, doesn't see or understand the value doesn't mean it has none. I'll admit though, I probably have bad taste. I've read some passages that he's posted of things he loves, some of them read so cacophonous in my head that I had a hard time getting through the passage, some of them are so over the top I kind of just had  in my head the whole time.
Rurutia fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Feb 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Rurutia posted:I'll admit though, I probably have bad taste. I've read some passages that he's posted of things he loves, some of them read so cacophonous in my head that I had a hard time getting through the passage, some of them are so over the top I kind of just had Umberto Eco's works are very dry and dense and The Egyptian is appropriately named because that prose is stiffer than something pried out of a sarcophagus, but the former was an academic first and a novelist second and the latter was written in 1945 so it's understandable. Lamps has a downright fetish for historical fiction, especially from the medieval period. It's a little idiosyncratic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Nakar posted:It's entirely sufficient as a statement in and of itself. It's not much of an argument, so it's just kind of irrelevant to any critical process. A critical analysis can't change whether you enjoyed it, unless you hated it and it persuades you to try it again, or something, maybe, but your statement of having had a personal emotional response to the work doesn't demonstrate any greater merit in the work. Not that you're saying that, indeed you just said that you only speak for yourself, but for some people the argument goes to the effect of "I derived enjoyment from reading it, so something in the text must be meritorious," which doesn't follow. Okay, yeah, I see this point. Saying that there's literary merit to something like Kingkiller is different from just saying you enjoyed it. I get the argument now. However, I do wish it would stop. Please stop, jivjov. Don't let somebody else ruin your enjoyment of a book you so evidently love. I really like NotW, too, but I'm not going to mount a defense for it. Just let Lamps do their dumb thing. Everyone else in the thread is enjoying it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:Lamps has a downright fetish for historical fiction, especially from the medieval period. It's a little idiosyncratic. I'm honestly confused by this impression of yours - I think I've read more literature from the Middle Ages than literature about the Middle Ages (if you don't count Shakespeare). And I've certainly read more history than historical fiction. I've got several hundred hours on Crusader Kings 2 if that helps. e: Rurutia posted:I'll admit though, I probably have bad taste. I've read some passages that he's posted of things he loves, some of them read so cacophonous in my head that I had a hard time getting through the passage, some of them are so over the top I kind of just had Can you name those examples? I'm just curious. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Feb 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Art is nebulous by definition and doesn't stand up to stringent standards. Nothing about art can be "proven" like a chemistry experiment. "People always ask me how we can charge so much for what amounts to gradations of white. I tell them it's not about the artist's name or the skill required. It's not even about the art itself. All that matters is...how does it make you feel?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
jivjov posted:So are you a gimmick shitposter? Or do you actually believe that your opinions are objective truth? Jesus Christ, you are a loving moron. Learn to read, idiot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
ulmont posted:And yet, at a certain point, the individual anecdotes do become data. A theory of criticism which denies any relevance of individual enjoyment is, however intellectually stimulating it might be in the abstract, completely useless in, among other things, helping a reader identify what other books they might enjoy. On the first: Not useful data, necessarily. It's the old "if everybody else jumped off a bridge" or "The Big Bang Theory is the most popular show on TV" argument. It shows you that a ton of people enjoy a thing but does not argue coherently that it's popular because it's good. Quality is not determined by consensus, and millions of anime fans can, in fact, be wrong. Sometimes a great work is universally beloved, sometimes a piece of crap is overhyped; sometimes brilliance is forgotten, sometimes garbage is called out as garbage. Part of the point of textual analysis is to try to get around these perceptions. On the second: It's impossible to engage in objective criticism that at the same time can make recommendations that are relevant to every reader. Some people have such strong moral objections to content that they'll never enjoy a work full of nastiness and the baser side of human nature, however meritorious and well-crafted the story. Some people lack the vocabulary or reading skill in a given language to get through a work without struggling against the act of reading itself and end up frustrated and can't pick out the parts that are great because every part is a slog. Some people will just never be able to take a story with a spaceship in it seriously. If I ask if I'll enjoy some book and get told it's only available in French and Swahili then I'm not going to enjoy it even if it's a fantastic book because I'm not fluent; so it goes. Building off that: Pointing out that criticism may be useless in terms of helping someone identify what they might enjoy is to some extent missing the point, because that's arguably not the point of criticism. Though criticism could attempt to argue that one wouldn't or shouldn't enjoy it, it generally won't unless it has a known and specific audience. Recommendations and reviews have their place, but criticism, a review, and a recommendation are all theoretically different things. A given essay could easily be all three, if it wanted to be, but it could easily leave one or more of those things out. Take a wild guess which of the three is usually discarded. Rurutia posted:I have an easier time understanding this within the context of music. As a scientific academic who has formal classical music training, I think there's a very clear divide in how the academic or critical opinions are weighed against popular opinion for STEM fields and the art fields. In the sciences, you disagreeing with common academic opinion is you being a retard. Those are the anti-vaxxer, anti-global warming people of the world. But in the arts, there is a nebulous quantifiable value that goes towards how the work resonates with the general public. Pop music arguably has no real musical value in comparison to classical, but I still enjoy it as much as I enjoy the classics. It's just a different type of enjoyment. With that said, I have a hard time reconciling the critical opinion in this thread with the praise by people like Neil Gaiman. Same applies to art: There are a great many styles, and artists have flexibility within a style, but they still have to produce something that "looks right" unless they know what they're doing. And the same applies to writing: It is possible to write "wrong." Transgression is necessary in order to produce new styles and new concepts, but those transgressions are rightly open to criticism unless and until the exemplar of the new genre/style comes down the line, a work of genius or at least of extreme competence that does everything "correct" to the point that it shifts the definition of correctness. After that people kind of shut up and accept that this thing (postmodernism, dubstep, whatever) has legs. That said... Rurutia posted:I'll admit though, I probably have bad taste. I've read some passages that he's posted of things he loves, some of them read so cacophonous in my head that I had a hard time getting through the passage, some of them are so over the top I kind of just had I feel that way about Gene Wolfe for example, where a lot of his stuff seems hopelessly pretentious divorced from the context that usually makes it satirical or casts doubt on the narrator's lofty statements. Or pulling one passage from Pynchon or Wallace; their works are too absurdly interconnected for the full weight of something to make a lot of sense to somebody who isn't reading the whole thing. Or if you were to look at a story with a very strong first-person narrative voice; the most profound things that come out of those characters might only make sense once you've acclimated to their voice and gotten into their heads, ruining any impact that an isolated section provides. Smoother prose, like something out of Vonnegut, makes for a better out-of-context quotation. But it's also OK if you just... prefer that smoother style of prose itself. Saying exactly what needs to be said with as few words as possible is an art perhaps requiring more mastery than lengthy "good description" does. Fantasy in particular is clogged with the latter and desperate for people skilled in the former. Rothfuss probably isn't one of the people I'm waiting for there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Nakar posted:It's the old "if everybody else jumped off a bridge" or "The Big Bang Theory is the most popular show on TV" argument. It shows you that a ton of people enjoy a thing but does not argue coherently that it's popular because it's good. Quality is not determined by consensus, and millions of anime fans can, in fact, be wrong. And yet, writ large, if you show me a book that millions of people have liked, and another book that dozens of people have liked, the odds are that I will like the former more than the latter. Nakar posted:On the second: It's impossible to engage in objective criticism that at the same time can make recommendations that are relevant to every reader. I'm not disagreeing; I'm saying objective criticism is a primarily pointless endeavor for the very same reason. BravestOfTheLamps posted:Can you name those examples? I'm just curious. These 2 stick out for me. Titus Groan posted:Gormenghast, that is, the main massing of the original stone, taken by itself would have displayed a certain ponderous architectural quality were it possible to have ignored the circumfusion of those mean dwellings that swarmed like an epidemic around its outer walls. The Egyptian posted:“There will never be war again,” declared the heir to the throne. Horemheb laughed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
ulmont posted:And yet, writ large, if you show me a book that millions of people have liked, and another book that dozens of people have liked, the odds are that I will like the former more than the latter. Plus sometimes you walk out of a movie everybody raved about and think "I don't think I liked that." It's a good thing if you can analyze that gut feeling and decide what it means intellectually, and either abandon your position as mistaken or stand up to people with the confidence that you have justified how you feel and can defend yourself based on what you saw. Otherwise we're just flinging poo poo at each other and going "Nu-uh, it was good/bad!" ulmont posted:I'm not disagreeing; I'm saying objective criticism is a primarily pointless endeavor for the very same reason. To use the example from my last post, it may be worthwhile to actively seek out some uncomfortably nasty work about the terrible depths people can sink even if one is uncomfortable with it, because one recognizes intellectually that this is an important thing to understand about oneself and humanity. But if one is going to do this it's probably not going to help if the work selected is nothing but gross-out gore porn. A good critical analysis with an associated review would be very helpful here in pointing out something that actually gets at the themes of human depravity and says something meaningful about them. Otherwise you'll keep asking "Would I like this?" and getting told "No, because you just said you can't stand anything cruel or violent or depraved."
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
i stand by the quote from Titus Groan. It's good, and a briliant way to establish the tone of the book. The quote from The Egyptian, I admit, was a poor choice since it's not clear who's talking and when. The Egyptian is incredibly dry, yes. It's written to mimic what someone might have written three thousand years ago (with obvious concessions to writing a novelistic epic), and part of this is that the characters act and speak in an unreal and artificial manner. It's also partly what Northrop Frye calls a Menippean satire, and thus characters represent mental attitudes and ideologies. So characterisation is wholly inseparable from the ideas and attitudes a character represents. So while it is dry, it's in a way incredibly straight-forward and honest. Here's more of the conversation. The speakers are Amenhotep IV, future Pharaoh Akhenaten, and Horemhem, an ambitious but lowly soldier also destined to hold the throne. The narrator is Sinuhe the physician. Amenhotep represents utopianism, while Horemheb stands for militarism. quote:The heir to the throne sat up, moaned, and looked dazedly about him. His teeth chattered as he spoke. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Feb 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Nakar posted:Sure, but what you do like right now has no bearing on what it is best to like. I submit that any attempt to define "what it is best to like" is going to end up with utter bullshit, as much as I would dearly love to see the meetings where the Parents Television Council and the editors of Fangoria try to set out their criteria. Nakar posted:An argument can even be made that you should read things you don't like, so a critical analysis or review that declares something meritorious might be a good signpost by which to find something that sounds completely out of your comfort zone but possibly meaningful and interesting. This is a wonderful argument that I would find more engaging if I hadn't graduated high school decades ago. My entertainment time is just that; if I want self-improvement I can go to the gym or study a foreign language or any number of other items. Nakar posted:Otherwise we're just flinging poo poo at each other and going "Nu-uh, it was good/bad!" I submit that you are still flinging poo poo, just setting up an arbitrary (one might say, subjective) criteria for judging works which you will then claim is objective. Nakar posted:Critical analysis of Moby-Dick is equally useful to people who found it boring as to people who found it deeply engaging, and it may be the only way to change a person's mind by forcing them to intellectually confront their emotional response. The problem with Moby Dick is made abundantly clear in Chapter 32 (Cetalogy), in which Ishmael stops the plot to provide a "systematized exhibition of the whale in his broad genera." That is to say, half of Moby Dick is a dry explanation of whales and whaling. BravestOfTheLamps posted:The Egyptian is incredibly dry, yes. I tried the Kindle sample some months ago, and found it sufficiently dry as to bail out before finishing even the sample. I also find the spear being named Throat-Slitter to be jarring in the context of that quote, with all the other Egyptian names.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:i stand by the quote from Titus Groan. It's good, and a briliant way to establish the tone of the book. Yeah, I wasn't rebuking the book's quality, just making an observation. It's definitely more interested in being a novel than Eco's work, which seems to place didacticism first and foremost. I keep putting down Baudolino because I get the nagging feeling I'm missing out on half the appeal by not knowing the history beforehand. At least Foucault's Pendulum educated the reader right alongside the characters, Baudolino just takes much of its background info for granted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
In terms of literary comprehension, I am a caveman amongst scholars when it comes to this thread. I can't even follow half the arguments. Really all I see is, magic, cool. Wacky adventures that will never happen in this world, awesome. I enjoy the world this depicts and the way it takes me away from my boring existence. I enjoy this book, not for the way the sentences are constructed and flow in some literary fashion, but for the base story my imagination can build on. "The sword is like a sharp rock in a flowing stream," no idea what that is supposed to mean, the sword is badass, moving on with the story. I don't give poo poo like that a second thought because I don't care. Maybe that's the difference between the way some of you read and others. Unsophisticated people like me must make Bravest super angry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
I Own Soulz posted:In terms of literary comprehension, I am a caveman amongst scholars when it comes to this thread. I can't even follow half the arguments. The thing is, I don't find anything at all wrong with that attitude and even then you could probably do a lot better than what I've seen put on display here. I don't view literature with anywhere near as much gravitas as Lamps does, but faux-sophistication like sharp-rock-flowing-steam etc etc still makes me twitch because it feels like the writer pulling the wool over the reader's eyes - basically trying to sound intelligent without making the effort to be intelligent, and assuming that because the reader is not intelligent that they'll just go along for the ride. Even if you're not going totally highbrow, there's better prose out there. Stephen King quote comes to mind - "there's enough good books out there so that I don't have to waste my time with bad ones." Jeremy Robert Johnson's Skullcrack City is my go-to example for fun lowbrow work. That book is utter loving nonsense but holy cow is it a fun read.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
ulmont posted:The problem with Moby Dick is made abundantly clear in Chapter 32 (Cetalogy), in which Ishmael stops the plot to provide a "systematized exhibition of the whale in his broad genera." That is to say, half of Moby Dick is a dry explanation of whales and whaling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
I Own Soulz posted:In terms of literary comprehension, I am a caveman amongst scholars when it comes to this thread. I can't even follow half the arguments. What is your opinion on sex fairys and sex ninjas
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
anilEhilated posted:It's... not, though? A lot of the descriptions are outright wrong and Melville - who worked as a whaler - would know it. He's using whales to talk about science as much as he's using science to talk about whales. ...in a completely boring way. But go to 102 / 103 / 104 / 105 for dissection of the whale by Ishmael if you want it to be more accurate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
ulmont posted:...in a completely boring way...
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
ulmont posted:This is a wonderful argument that I would find more engaging if I hadn't graduated high school decades ago. My entertainment time is just that; if I want self-improvement I can go to the gym or study a foreign language or any number of other items. But what if, and just bear with me on a hypothetical here, what if you could both improve yourself and be entertained? If your time is that precious then by all means only read stuff that entertains you, but that doesn't mean you can't get the best of all worlds if you want it. Analytical reviews can probably help you with that. ulmont posted:I submit that any attempt to define "what it is best to like" is going to end up with utter bullshit, as much as I would dearly love to see the meetings where the Parents Television Council and the editors of Fangoria try to set out their criteria. It's entirely valid to argue against a particular methodology of analysis and questioning assumptions and procedures is as essential to literary analysis as it is to science. That does require, however, some sort of thesis backed up by evidence that amounts to something greater than "yeah well I don't agree and think you're a nerd." Note that I didn't attempt to tell you what the good is or what you should find desirable or enjoyable. I'm defending the practice of criticism itself as a means of investigating these things, because you have dismissed the entire notion out of hand as "useless." I don't think that you actually believe this, but if you do, you are wrong in holding that opinion and I don't believe you can defend it. ulmont posted:The problem with Moby Dick is made abundantly clear in Chapter 32 (Cetalogy), in which Ishmael stops the plot to provide a "systematized exhibition of the whale in his broad genera." That is to say, half of Moby Dick is a dry explanation of whales and whaling. Oxxidation posted:The thing is, I don't find anything at all wrong with that attitude and even then you could probably do a lot better than what I've seen put on display here. I don't view literature with anywhere near as much gravitas as Lamps does, but faux-sophistication like sharp-rock-flowing-steam etc etc still makes me twitch because it feels like the writer pulling the wool over the reader's eyes - basically trying to sound intelligent without making the effort to be intelligent, and assuming that because the reader is not intelligent that they'll just go along for the ride. Even if you're not going totally highbrow, there's better prose out there. Stephen King quote comes to mind - "there's enough good books out there so that I don't have to waste my time with bad ones." It's still my personal opinion that you should also read challenging things but I keep two reading lists that alternate between complex self-improvement stuff and things I just think will be fun to read and I'm not personally going to begrudge somebody their fun any more than I'm going to deny it to myself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
When's the next Let's Read Critically coming out, you guys?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
SpacePig posted:When's the next Let's Read Critically coming out, you guys? In process. I'm struggling a bit to discuss the story about Tehlu. I want to say more about the weird mix of pagan and Christian motifs, but that would be kind of irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
ulmont posted:The problem with Moby Dick is made abundantly clear in Chapter 32 (Cetalogy), in which Ishmael stops the plot to provide a "systematized exhibition of the whale in his broad genera." That is to say, half of Moby Dick is a dry explanation of whales and whaling. I enjoyed that part even though the topic is boring because Melville/Ishmael is such a captivating storyteller. Many of the details are wrong --not sure if thats's intentional as Melville wanted to write a definitive guide about whales-- but it fits with Ishmael's characterisation as likeably arrogant. There's a part near the beginning where the crew sorting out the oil is described in a way that made me want to go whaling myself. It's completely against my personality and I had never felt anything even close to that before. I think you need to be a great writer to pull that off. The Ahab-Dick part doesn't take up as many pages as you'd think and the book is so much more than that. I had a very clear image of what I thought the book would be from parodies and references but it turned out to be nothing like what I had expected. It's funny, it's weird and it has great characters. (Only read this very complex book once so please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this) Hughlander posted:Ok, so we just need to monitor someone's dopamine and oxytocin levels while reading Kingkiller. This will objectively show that it's enjoyable and then your Serotonin level will plummet. Right? I volunteer as a guinea pig. Ague Proof fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Feb 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:In process. I'm struggling a bit to discuss the story about Tehlu. I want to say more about the weird mix of pagan and Christian motifs, but that would be kind of irrelevant. Is there anything interesting in the Tehlu myth's use of a wheel? The Christian cross is a particular execution method, and while I know people were occasionally broken on the wheel, a wheel seems more utilitarian than the cross imagery?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Nakar posted:But what if, and just bear with me on a hypothetical here, what if you could both improve yourself and be entertained? Nakar posted:that doesn't mean you can't get the best of all worlds if you want it. Analytical reviews can probably help you with that. Nakar posted:It's impossible to engage in objective criticism that at the same time can make recommendations that are relevant to every reader. Nakar posted:You more or less just called all of philosophy "utter bullshit," so forgive me if I'm a bit dubious. Nakar posted:Note that I didn't attempt to tell you what the good is or what you should find desirable or enjoyable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Is there anything interesting in the Tehlu myth's use of a wheel? The Christian cross is a particular execution method, and while I know people were occasionally broken on the wheel, a wheel seems more utilitarian than the cross imagery? I'm no expert on mythology, but it's obviously a cyclical symbol. Encanis is a Satanic figure who is bound and cast out. Tehlu is a warrior-god who restores social order. It's a pagan story despite the Christian trappings. The mystery is why a stand-in for Christianity has sprung up around a fundamentally pagan myth. "Pagan" religions tend to prize the restoration of social harmony as the highest virtue, while Christianity is based on the disruption and rejuvenation represented by Christ (if you ever find Slavoj Zizek's essay on paganism and Lord of the Rings, I heartily recommend it because here I can only crib from it).
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:I'm no expert on mythology, but it's obviously a cyclical symbol. Encanis is a Satanic figure who is bound and cast out. Tehlu is a warrior-god who restores social order. It's a pagan story despite the Christian trappings. Tehlu also sacrifices his own body, forgives people's sins and casts demons out in the same story; I think it's more Christian than you're giving it credit for. BravestOfTheLamps posted:(if you ever find Slavoj Zizek's essay on paganism and Lord of the Rings, I heartily recommend it because here I can only crib from it). Is that included in The Puppet and the Dwarf? ulmont fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Feb 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
ulmont posted:What is it about books that leads to this suggestion? I don't see nearly the same number of calls for people to stop watching Archer and watch Masterpiece Theatre, to give Zoolander 2 a miss in favor of Kate Plays Christine, or to abandon Fallout 4 for Papers, Please. But Jesus, you read one airplane book, and... Dude I don't know what world you live in that people are never huge snobs about movies or tv shows or games but I would love to live there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
ulmont posted:What is it about books that leads to this suggestion? I don't see nearly the same number of calls for people to stop watching Archer and watch Masterpiece Theatre, to give Zoolander 2 a miss in favor of Kate Plays Christine, or to abandon Fallout 4 for Papers, Please. But Jesus, you read one airplane book, and... Hell, you gave a pretty good example in Archer, which is a goofy cartoon comedy but which also has some interesting referential humor and which is in many respects about shoving dysfunction into the skin of a genre and watching how it falls apart, something that is common to Adam Reed's prior works (at least in cartoons): Sealab 2021 is more of a screwball comedy but it's often clever and its premises and jokes turn on the flaws in the characters' personalities to lead to comedic chaos, and Frisky Dingo is basically about how insecure attention-seekers actually make incredibly lovely superheroes and supervillains. You can draw some interesting comparisons between the works while also laughing at them. It's not Shakespeare but I'd say it's not the TV equivalent of an airplane book either, and I'm sure some people would disagree with me but at least I can explain why I think so. I do still think people should go to see Shakespeare performances though, if they can find the time. ulmont posted:...well, maybe. It might also not be useful to you. That can happen. I still have yet to find someone to discuss Gormenghast with or to read someone's analysis of it that will help me properly understand it. I haven't been terribly impressed with the level of analysis and reviews don't help me because I already read it and they mostly deal in emotional impressions, and I already know what my own emotional impression of those books was. ulmont posted:I think you overread my statements; I certainly said nothing about analyzing ethics or reason. ulmont posted:I'm not disagreeing; I'm saying objective criticism is a primarily pointless endeavor for the very same reason. ulmont posted:I submit that any attempt to define "what it is best to like" is going to end up with utter bullshit, as much as I would dearly love to see the meetings where the Parents Television Council and the editors of Fangoria try to set out their criteria. I have to assume this is hyperbole, but if it is, I'm curious what role you think analysis does serve. I'll be fair about it and answer you, since you asked first: ulmont posted:Let me try again. What is the purpose of your set of objective criteria for analysis, other than to derive a yardstick by which you will then measure the "goodness" of a work? The "goodness" of a work is mostly of secondary importance and evaluated in the synthesis of all the disparate bits of analysis. It's not a summation of positive and negative things, especially if those are debatable. It's more like, given what it does well and taking into account what it doesn't, and taking into account how you felt about the experience, do you think it has been worth your time instead of just a way to pass your time? Has it made you better, smarter? Did it give you a really good joke to use, or did a story told in it remind you of something in your own experience and universalized that experience a little bit? Will the experience be useful in selecting future entertainment, or even in better enjoying future entertainment (understanding references and parody, e.g.)? There's no one metric for whether something is good and there is definitely some subjectivity involved, but it's not all subjective either. You might decide something you emotionally hated is good, but are content to never experience it again; you might conclude that you liked something that's not that great, but don't regret the experience. From my own perspective, I think Infinite Jest is a work with a lot of problems in construction and presentation, yet also a lot of really brilliant applications of coincidence, interconnectedness, and characterization that encompass David Foster Wallace's greater points about addiction and cynicism and personal contact. The point is somewhat diminished at times by the failures of structure or voice but also elevated at times by some deeply resonant experiences that are clearly autobiographical to some extent. I also happened, on an emotional level, to enjoy reading the book most of the time and found the experience to be pleasant and often funny (with a few sober moments). I'd call it a good book, but not one that's completely flawless. If you were to do a critical let's read of IJ and point out these flaws, I'd have to agree with you because I noticed them as well. If you concluded from them that the book is a terrible failure, I'd probably disagree, and I think I could defend my position there. You might be able to defend yours as well. To bring this at last back to the topic: It is possible to agree with every one of the weaknesses BotL is advancing regarding Rothfuss's metaphors or prose and still argue that NotW is a good book because you believe it achieves a lot of what it sets out to do and says some interesting and resonant things in a clever way that's just occasionally off, on top of the fact that you just had fun with the book and enjoyed the experience of reading it. He doesn't agree with that and he'd probably want you to defend it, but I think you (or whoever) could. Not that either of you is changing the other's mind, and I can understand why you might think it a pointless endeavor if you know that going in, but you never know. You might end up rediscovering things in the book you completely forgot about that make you even more sure of your position. Plus as unimportant as it might seem to you it might be valuable to someone following along, particularly given that there's a lot of reviews that claim the book is more than just a diverting fantasy yarn and BotL is pretty firmly entrenched against that belief. Maybe you agree with the reviews and think he's isn't giving it a fair shake; what parts of the text back that up? Anyway I don't want to hammer things home any more than I have and it took me longer than I'd hoped to bring this back around to the Kingkiller books and why it's OK to disagree with BotL but also why it's important to understand what he'd consider proper disagreement in the context he's addressing the books. I fully understand if you don't agree with what I'm saying, but I hope that you understand that many people do consider textual analysis important and that it's frustrating to be engaged in response with non-analytical arguments. I'd just noticed that the thread was entering into a cyclical shitstorm of sorts because he was using terms like "enjoyment" which I think encompass a broader spectrum than what he's actually trying to work with and people were jumping on that for reasons other than what he intended. Possibly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Nakar posted:I have to assume this is hyperbole, but if it is, I'm curious what role you think analysis does serve. I'll be fair about it and answer you, since you asked first: 1) Helping to place a work in context (cultural and/or historical). As has likely been discussed elsewhere in the Book Barn, a modern reader is unlikely to get the same enjoyment out of Shakespeare or Homer without understanding the importance of the specific language used ("Get thee to a nunnery!" being just one example here). This is not limited to works over hundreds of years old; Neuromancer uses "nuyen" as a currency for reasons which are not as obvious now that we've left the 80s behind and the Japanese economy remains moribund. 2) (The reverse of 1) Understanding culture and history through the choices of the works. In particular here, the choices of narrator, protagonist, or viewpoint character often heavily reflect the dominant roles of the society; see how few non-white and non-male characters the classic science fiction of the 1930s-60s has, as one example. 3) Analysis of a work through a particular lens (Marxism and feminism possibly being most famous here) to show how this work's themes and existence support an existing worldview. 4) What I will call, for lack of a better word, technical analysis. Given a specific set of assumptions about a work - ideas the author is trying to convey, moods the author is trying to evoke, and similar, how effectively did the author reach their goal? For example, in Steven Brust's The Phoenix Guards, it's worth opening up The Three Musketeers and looking at the language (and plot, as well) to see how well Brust does in evoking Dumas' style and transposing the plot of the Three Musketeers to Drageara. Nakar posted:To bring this at last back to the topic: It is possible to agree with every one of the weaknesses BotL is advancing regarding Rothfuss's metaphors or prose and still argue that NotW is a good book because you believe it achieves a lot of what it sets out to do and says some interesting and resonant things in a clever way that's just occasionally off, on top of the fact that you just had fun with the book and enjoyed the experience of reading it. I don't disagree with many of BotL's criticisms. I question that his criticisms result in an objective "goodness" or "badness" about NotW, which seems to be BotL's claim. I further - as an aside - question BotL's apparent criticism of NotW as not having a specific goal. A Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich has no particular goal; indeed, to the extent that there is a point, the point is that the day was nothing special, neither particularly good nor particularly bad, simply one of the 3653 days he spent in the gulag (the extra days were for leap years). And yet, I don't think that drags the book down. Nakar posted:I'd just noticed that the thread was entering into a cyclical shitstorm of sorts because he was using terms like "enjoyment" which I think encompass a broader spectrum than what he's actually trying to work with and people were jumping on that for reasons other than what he intended. Possibly. I tend to think that phrases to the effect that "if you like NotW, it's because you have bad taste" were read exactly as intended, but that wasn't the reason I started posting bits I enjoyed. This thread has been running Rothfuss down for a number of mostly justified reasons for several years now (after all, The Wise Man's Fear is 5 years old, and it undercut a number of good things from Name of The Wind). However, there was a time that most people in the thread read and enjoyed NotW, and I would like to remind myself (at least) some of the reasons why.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:Jeremy Robert Johnson's Skullcrack City is my go-to example for fun lowbrow work. That book is utter loving nonsense but holy cow is it a fun read. Aaaaaaaah! I am glad someone else loved that book. I bought it and devoured the whole thing in one sitting. It's so much goddamn fun. quote:It's not Shakespeare but I'd say it's not the TV equivalent of an airplane book either, and I'm sure some people would disagree with me but at least I can explain why I think so. Bojack Horseman is another good example of one of these kinds of shows. Hate Fibration fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Mar 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
Nakar posted:I do still think people should go to see Shakespeare performances though, if they can find the time. People should go see The Comedy of Errors and enjoy the work of a master of jokes about tits, arses, and farting
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:i stand by the quote from Titus Groan. It's good, and a briliant way to establish the tone of the book. The problem with Gormenghast is that it's usually suggested like "Well, if you like that one single phrase in a book that is otherwise not like that at all, might I suggest you read Gormenghast instead, as it is actually a good book?  "To me, this is much like saying "Well, since you liked a bit of salt on that one potato chip, might I suggest you eat this entire loving bowl of salt?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:People should go see The Comedy of Errors and enjoy the work of a master of jokes about tits, arses, and farting
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
Nakar posted:Titus Andronicus has pretty much the best "I banged ur mom last night" comeback of all time, too. Sold. Also less thread making GBS threads more book making GBS threads. I was wondering when people would suddenly blow the thread up with criticisms about criticisms from criticisms by lamps.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
A nonexhaustive list of bits Ulmont liked in The Name of the Wind, Chapter 3: 1) The sword-distilling: quote:It looked as if an alchemist had distilled a dozen swords, and when the crucible had cooled this was lying in the bottom: a sword in its pure form. I know this got semi-deservedly mocked, but I like this as a way of saying, in a more florid fashion: "It was the Platonic ideal of a sword." 2) The sword's name: "Folly." This suggests, more than many fantasy novels, that (a) things have not gone well for our hero and (b) violence may not solve everything. 3) Post-Skyrim, I appreciate that Kvothe's cover for stopping being an adventurer and settling down was that he "took an arrow to the knee", but I admit that wasn't interesting in 2007. 4) Kvothe and Bast's exchange. "Listen three times, Bast....I hear you three times, Reshi." Hints of more with Bast and the Bast-Kvothe relationship again. Edit: Chapters 1-5 are in part 1 of the Jo Walton Tor.com reread from 2011 below, although I'm not looking at them until I'm done with the "bits I liked" notes. http://www.tor.com/2011/04/21/rothfuss-reread-the-name-of-the-wind-part-1-the-cut-flower-sound/ ulmont fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Mar 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 19:50 |
|
|
I am very interested in the continuing critical analysis of this book. Let me level something not-very deep in that I absolutely HATE Bast calling Kvothe 'Reshi'. That poo poo just screams 'I wuv anime' by the author. Its really loving lame.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 05:02
|
|
