|
EmptyVessel posted:If we're going to pedant/nitpick: because he describes the windows as glaring "like" fireworks. Fireworks do not glare. Firework propulsion glares. Note that Francis Scott Key says "the rocket's red glare" meaning that the rocket had possession of a glare, not that they themselves were glaring. Fireworks themselves explode and flash which is not a glare. If he wanted to be correct he would have said "the windows glared like the tail of a firework". BITCH
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:33 |
|
|
Who gives a poo poo
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 17:59
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:Who gives a poo poo words matter
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
In a display of irony, I would like to kvetch about McCluhan's prose. He writes like an rear end in a top hat. Rather than putting forth his argument as an analytical technique, he portrays it as a very obvious thing and criticises people who have not realised it, and repeatedly compares them to Narcissus. It's not exactly persuasive, and even when he makes a good point my instinct is to tell him to get hosed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 18:05
|
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:In a display of irony, I would like to kvetch about McCluhan's prose. He does yeah
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
Also he seems to say that Humes problem of induction prohibits us from understanding the production line and uh.... That's quite a bold claim, that really needs more than the one or two paragraphs he gives to it. The substance of his argument is really good, but he mixes it in with some loving bizarre ideas. Like, he argues how the light bulb is important not because of what it illuminates but because of how it shapes our endeavours. And that's cool and good and kind of incisive. But then he claims that "the light bulb is pure information" and I'm back to wondering what the gently caress he's smoking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
Like every writing of the time, there’s some gems mixed in with trash that nobody is supposed to take seriously. Also like OPs posting
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:words matter
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:If an acorn can be a dragon, why can't a firework glare? I got a pm from BotL just now that should resolve this issue Bravest of the Lamps posted:
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:The substance of his argument is really good, but he mixes it in with some loving bizarre ideas. Like, he argues how the light bulb is important not because of what it illuminates but because of how it shapes our endeavours. And that's cool and good and kind of incisive. But then he claims that "the light bulb is pure information" and I'm back to wondering what the gently caress he's smoking. oh little homie wait till you get to Derrida or Foucault
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 18:22
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:because he describes the windows as glaring "like" fireworks. Fireworks do not glare. Firework propulsion glares. Note that Francis Scott Key says "the rocket's red glare" meaning that the rocket had possession of a glare, not that they themselves were glaring. Fireworks themselves explode and flash which is not a glare. If he wanted to be correct he would have said "the windows glared like the tail of a firework". Bit in bold does not accurately or adequately describe all fireworks. Your "glared like the tail of a firework" confirms that you are using the word firework incorrectly to refer only to rockets - Catherine wheels do not have a tail, neither do gerbs or fountains or waterfalls etc. etc. etc.. Maybe this handy glossary will help fill some holes in your knowledge: http://www.firework-review.org.uk/fireworks-glossary/ BITCH Does Wolfe at any point indicate what type of firework Severian is familiar with? Why do you presume that these must be rockets? Is it because they are the only type of firework you are familiar with? There's a word for that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
EmptyVessel posted:Bit in bold does not accurately or adequately describe all fireworks. If the author meant for it to refer to the specific nature of a specific form of firework he would have referred to its by that specific term. By using the most generic term available he is obligating the reader to imagine the most generic form of the object available, which is the traditional chinese rocket-style firework BITCH
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:If the author meant for it to refer to the specific nature of a specific form of firework he would have referred to its by that specific term. By using the most generic term available he is obligating the reader to imagine the most generic form of the object available, which is the traditional chinese rocket-style firework Bit in bold - Maybe where you live. Ethnocentric BITCH Firework: Cambridge Dictionary posted:a small container filled with explosive chemicals that produce bright coloured patterns or loud noises when they explode Collins English Dictionary posted:small objects that are lit to entertain people on special occasions. They contain chemicals and burn brightly or attractively, often with a loud noise, when you light them. Merriam-Webster posted:a device for producing a striking display by the combustion of explosive or flammable compositions Oxford Dictionary posted:A device containing gunpowder and other combustible chemicals which causes spectacular effects and explosions when ignited, used for display or in celebrations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 18:40
|
|
|
Lol half of those definitions are describing rockets bitch
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 18:41
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
this is worse than the dragon argument
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Lol half of those definitions are describing rockets bitch You are really bad at language* if you think that any of those descriptions could be limited to rockets only. None of them include any reference to self-propelled flight (or flight at all) which is kind of central to the definition of a firework rocket. *or possibly Humpty-Dumpty Okay
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 19:03
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:oh little homie wait till you get to Derrida or Foucault I read like half a chapter of Madness and Civ years ago, it was pretty rad. Much less smug than McCluhan And to bring it back to fantasy lit, the big flaw in aSoFaI is how poorly developed its justice system is. We have the Nights Watch and occasional dungeoning, but it feels very inconsistent. As to dragons - I disagree that we should want dragons that are not giant lizards, for me I want to see some symbolic meaning behind the lizards that's different. I'm cool with lizards, but give me a different source for the lizards. Bakker has them as biological nukes, Le Guin has aloof magic-with-a-capital-m, Malazan has them as chaotic semi - hive mind reverse shapeshifters. Like Mudkiper wants, they're still the top of the magical food chain, but their very nature, and the nature of the food chain, is different every time. I'll take a million of them over Rothfuss's generic lizards anyday.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
that moment you realize EmptyVessel wasn't joking around lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
McLuhan reminds me of Zizek a lot, writing-wise
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:that moment you realize EmptyVessel wasn't joking around lol Oh, okay you were only "joking". I'll remind myself that your posts aren't to be taken seriously in future. BITCH
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:In a display of irony, I would like to kvetch about McCluhan's prose. That's good rather than bad
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 22:43
|
|
|
A human heart posted:That's good rather than bad Is it? Half the time he's not even giving an argument, he's just restating his position as self evident.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 22:53
|
|
|
Also like Zizek, McLuhan is a conservative
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 23:04
|
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:Is it? Half the time he's not even giving an argument, he's just restating his position as self evident. I think it's funny that an academic smart man annoyed you by writing polemically
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
A human heart posted:I think it's funny that an academic smart man annoyed you by writing polemically If he can't persuade people about his position then what's the point of him? Edit: I'm being slightly hyperbolic, there are bits when he actually explains his stuff. But there are bits when he says "this is how it works and you're an idiot if you disagree" which utterly fails to move me. Strom Cuzewon fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Dec 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 23:44
|
|
|
A firework in any form is a terrible simile for a torchlit window.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
EmptyVessel posted:Oh, okay you were only "joking". I mean I figured the bitch part gave it away
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
came to this thread because i actually really liked baru cormorant and wanted to mull over my gay feelings, but fortunately reading the last 15 or whatever pages has cured me of wanting to discuss anything
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
is discussion a dragon?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 21:59
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I mean I figured the bitch part gave it away  I know, that's why I echoed your use of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 22:20
|
|
|
Ambivalent posted:came to this thread because i actually really liked baru cormorant and wanted to mull over my gay feelings, but fortunately reading the last 15 or whatever pages has cured me of wanting to discuss anything Same. All books are equally bad but genre books are more bad than others -adapted from some trash genre fic with talking animals
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 22:41
|
|
|
Ambivalent posted:came to this thread because i actually really liked baru cormorant and wanted to mull over my gay feelings, but fortunately reading the last 15 or whatever pages has cured me of wanting to discuss anything I don't want this to come across the wrong way, but what were you expecting? Tangents about what counts as a dragon or a rocket aside, this is supposedly about discussing how genre books typically aren't read through a critical lens and also for reading such books through such a lens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 23:00
|
|
|
Ambivalent posted:came to this thread because i actually really liked baru cormorant and wanted to mull over my gay feelings, but fortunately reading the last 15 or whatever pages has cured me of wanting to discuss anything you're welcome
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 23:22
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:Tangents about what counts as a dragon or a rocket aside, this is supposedly about discussing how genre books typically aren't read through a critical lens and also for reading such books through such a lens. Discussing critical lenses would be cool but the closest thing I saw to discussion in those pages was the brief aside about ‘what is prose and how vital is it’, idk but now I’m posting about posting which is a worse tangent than defining the necessary traits of a firework, so I apologize
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2018 00:01
|
|
|
Ambivalent posted:Discussing critical lenses would be cool but the closest thing I saw to discussion in those pages was the brief aside about ‘what is prose and how vital is it’, It should be that, but effort or elaboration is very sporadic. Otherwise it's the prickly terseness of people who have nothing interesting to say that the rest of SA is most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2018 00:11
|
|
|
Unfortunately the one guy who effortposts here is on probation and the few others who are supposedly smart enough to offer critiques don’t do so because they don’t want to read the books they assume or know they’ll dislike. Botl is the only one with the right mix of critical knowledge and actual background with the subject matter through some absurd source of free time to contribute anything substantial to this thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2018 05:11
|
|
|
Ccs posted:Unfortunately the one guy who effortposts here is on probation and the few others who are supposedly smart enough to offer critiques don’t do so because they don’t want to read the books they assume or know they’ll dislike. Botl is the only one with the right mix of critical knowledge and actual background with the subject matter through some absurd source of free time to contribute anything substantial to this thread. Thanks for your contribution!
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2018 05:49
|
|
|
He’s right though Except mel, mel did actually read that gene Wolfe book
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2018 05:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:33 |
|
|
chernobyl kinsman posted:Except mel, mel did actually read that gene Wolfe book I read some of it. I hit a point where continuing to read that poo poo was not worth the vanity of posting a critique about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2018 05:54
|
|