|
NGL, I felt a little betrayed.  But I talked him into reading Wallace Stegner's Angle of Repose along with me (new to both of us), so maybe this Shameful Book Opinion will turn out to be a fluke.
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:18 |
|
|
You tried the "Eco invented Dan Brown" angle, right? Sounds like just wasn't fit to pass the Abbey door. Y'all better Rose it UUUUPP in this month's BOTM or I will be the saddest forum moderator That is the moderator of the saddest forum
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
krampster2 posted:Do we talk about historical novels in here? The War of the Roses is something I've been learning about recently and so yesterday picked up The Sunne in Splendour by Sharon Kay Penman. Has anyone else read this book or have any other recommendations for British historical novels? Reading this right now and it's really good, as for something similar, try Edith Pargeter's A Bloody Field by Shrewsbury or The Last English King by Julian Rathbone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
Have any of you read The Master and the Margarita? I tried reading it a couple months ago -and was digging it- but I felt like I needed a companion to understand all the Russian poo poo... so I stopped reading it. I felt like I was missing some of the humor either due to culture differences or the translation I was reading. Any tips on that one since I'm stupid?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
my advice is that it is a funny book and you don't need to "get" all the in jokes about stalin era soviet bureaucracy + the life of jesus to enjoy it and you don't need to get an s+ ranking in reference getting to unlock new book+ or whatever hangup it is that a lot of people seem to have about this book but also like ulysses and gravity's rainbow and whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
that was ruder than i intended. whatever, my "tip" is to stick with it because a lot of the funnier setpieces w/e are later on in the book and are very broad i think. also i've been happy with the endnotes in a lot of the editions i've seen (burgin for one) so check those out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
nah, it's true and not rude. also, the same applies to most books, nt only M&M, GR, U and FW
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 08:52
|
|
|
It's a bad approach that people seem to have on this forum that they can't just like well written books they have to get sad if they think the books are cleverer than them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
Luckily I am very very smart and get every reference I have ever read so have never faced this problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
I find a common mistake that some people make is trying to analyse every page or chapter as they go. I'm not much of a formalist but I do think that all you need to "get it" is read the words from start to finish. I would read to the end and see if I get it. If I don't then I'll move on and come back to it later. If you give up on a book then you are definitely never going to get it. If it is stressful though, it's probably better to read something pleasurable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
You shouldn't read books before you know all of the 25 late imperial russian civil service ranks and how each rank should be addressed
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
watching 20-year old English majors not "getting" Melanctha was the funniest part of college for me
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
Tree Goat posted:my advice is that it is a funny book and you don't need to "get" all the in jokes about stalin era soviet bureaucracy + the life of jesus to enjoy it and you don't need to get an s+ ranking in reference getting to unlock new book+ or whatever hangup it is that a lot of people seem to have about this book but also like ulysses and gravity's rainbow and whatever. It is a funny book and I read it without looking up references and really enjoyed it though I am sure I missed a ton. A book like Ulysses or Gravity's Rainbow is fine to read, as well, without help but I have found that books like that seem all the more brilliant and wonderful when reading something to help you get a better grasp on some of the allusions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
CestMoi posted:It's a bad approach that people seem to have on this forum that they can't just like well written books they have to get sad if they think the books are cleverer than them. One time a guy in the Mieville thread posted that one of the stories in the new collection was bad because it was based around the tale of Orpheus and he had to google who Orpheus was and stories should be able to stand on their own Speaking of reference-laden texts, have any of y'all read David Jones' The Anathemata chernobyl kinsman fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
Orpheus was a kind of Ancient Greek Batman
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Wtf I need to know the English language to read this book this is some supreme bullshit books should be able to stand on their own, transmitting pure thought directly into my brain.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
iccyelf posted:I find a common mistake that some people make is trying to analyse every page or chapter as they go. I'm not much of a formalist but I do think that all you need to "get it" is read the words from start to finish. I would read to the end and see if I get it. If I don't then I'll move on and come back to it later. If you give up on a book then you are definitely never going to get it. If it is stressful though, it's probably better to read something pleasurable. I think most people find it pretty stressful to read pages and pages of text that they don't get at all though My #1 advice is to skip parts where you are getting lost, there's no shame in skipping, even my professors admit doing it
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
mallamp posted:My #1 advice is to skip parts where you are getting lost, there's no shame in skipping, even my professors admit doing it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUk19cWarI
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Invicta{HOG}, M.D. posted:It is a funny book and I read it without looking up references and really enjoyed it though I am sure I missed a ton. A book like Ulysses or Gravity's Rainbow is fine to read, as well, without help but I have found that books like that seem all the more brilliant and wonderful when reading something to help you get a better grasp on some of the allusions. I pretty much gave up on Baudolino because it's just a somewhat stodgy adventure story if you're not familiar with all the history the title character's Forrest Gump'ing his way through.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
University of Helsinki., it's top100, barely, but still Of course you can skip stuff, don't be a slave to the text
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
CestMoi posted:Wtf I need to know the English language to read this book this is some supreme bullshit books should be able to stand on their own, transmitting pure thought directly into my brain.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
For me, it depends on the book. I've found that I'm enjoying this first read through of Ulysses a lot if I read the sparknotes summary first, then the chapter, then the analysis. Sometimes if it's doing a really strange thing with language I'll read parts of the analysis just to know why as I'm reading. It's nice to get a complete-ish picture of what's happening, and it's better than feeling lost. Whenever I do look stuff up though, I always have this weird mixture of pride at the confirmation of what I took from it being "correct", and annoyance that I couldn't spot everything. I always need to remind myself that a) it's not about being "correct", and b) not understanding all of loving Ulysses doesn't make me a moron. For Master and Margarita I'd felt like I was alright going in without much advanced knowledge; just a general knowledge of Russian culture at the time (particularly state enforced atheism) should be enough I feel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Quagga posted:Have any of you read The Master and the Margarita? I tried reading it a couple months ago -and was digging it- but I felt like I needed a companion to understand all the Russian poo poo... so I stopped reading it. I felt like I was missing some of the humor either due to culture differences or the translation I was reading. Any tips on that one since I'm stupid? The book is funny and entertaining independent of the satirical points it tries to make. I know dick about Russia in general and I still found it worth a read. It's a farcical fantasy story at the core of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
I always joke that The Master and Margarita's humor, especially Behemoth, seemed like a weird 1920s prophecy of the internet-age, non-sequitur heavy, frequently dark/violent humor. Definitely the most "modern" comedic work I've read from before 1950 or so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
DoctorG0nzo posted:I always joke that The Master and Margarita's humor, especially Behemoth, seemed like a weird 1920s prophecy of the internet-age, non-sequitur heavy, frequently dark/violent humor. Definitely the most "modern" comedic work I've read from before 1950 or so. The whole theater scene felt like it should have been animated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
Heath posted:The whole theater scene felt like it should have been animated. That's what your imagination is for
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
my imagination is for envisioning the precise hex color value of various members of the sonic extended universe, and their maximum velocities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
blue squares posted:That's what your imagination is for "Could have" rather than "should have" is probably more accurate. The book feels like it could have been a Don Bluth production.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
mallamp posted:I think most people find it pretty stressful to read pages and pages of text that they don't get at all though If you need to practice skipping parts of books, start with the John Galt speech
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
Bilirubin posted:If you need to practice skipping parts of books, start with the John Galt speech start with the whole book, my man. Has anyone here read all of Roberto Bolano's books? I've read the Savage Detectives & 2666 like 3x each, and a few of his other novels, which were also good. I think I'm gonna do it, I'm gonna catch em all. Do any of them stink, or what? I bet they're all good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
2666 is poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
blue squares posted:2666 is poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
It's boring and pointless
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
Nakar posted:A friend recommended it (although I'm not sure if he's actually read it, he has a weird habit of recommending me random things he hears about), but from reading up on it I've learned it's a posthumous work. Is that why it's poo poo? Or is there some bigger issue with Bolano? The bigger issue is that forums poster blue squares is wrong and 2666 is good, which you will be able to confirm, when you read it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
david crosby posted:start with the whole book, my man. well, The Third Reich was alright, but nothing more than that, really. the book, too. makes sense it was among his first proper attempts at long-form fiction. on the other hand, it's about grognard military board games, which gives it some goon+ points
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 08:01
|
|
|
Tree Goat posted:The bigger issue is that forums poster blue squares is wrong and 2666 is good, which you will be able to confirm, when you read it. This
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 10:05
|
|
|
david crosby posted:Has anyone here read all of Roberto Bolano's books? I've read the Savage Detectives & 2666 like 3x each, and a few of his other novels, which were also good. I think I'm gonna do it, I'm gonna catch em all. Do any of them stink, or what? I bet they're all good. anilEhilated fucked around with this message at 12:49 on Mar 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 12:45
|
|
|
blue squares posted:2666 is poo poo Wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
What exactly makes a book pointless?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 13:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:18 |
|
|
Burning Rain posted:well, The Third Reich was alright, but nothing more than that, really. the book, too. makes sense it was among his first proper attempts at long-form fiction. on the other hand, it's about grognard military board games, which gives it some goon+ points Yeah, the Third Reich is the least interesting of his books I've read. It does have this cool feeling of extreme but subsumed evil that Bolaņo does best, but to me, it was never really artistically satisfying why it is was there. Like iirc the dude with the burns who starts to beat the main character at the boardgame is clearly gonna torture & punish our main dude for losing. Why though? Bcuz our main dude is playing as the nazis? I guess, it seems a little too 'clear cut' as a reason for limitless unfair interpersonal violence, whereas in 2666, where the women are killed for no explicit reason, it's much scarier, plus u have to read between the lines and imagine why and who would do that, which makes it more real 2 me. Idk if that makes sense, 2666 is a masterpiece, forums poster 'Blue Squares' just doesn't get it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 13:41
|
|