|
Libluini posted:Yeah and? I said I consider this behaviour dumb. Nothing you say contradicts this. The villains in this case are dumb assholes like many others both in fiction and real life and that's it. Which bunch was the brightest you've ever seen? Edit to at least try and be on topic: Why is submitting to someone else's idea of right and wrong and heaven and hell the smart and rational thing to do? I don't think that recognizing your nature and acting within it means you're irrational or stupid, which is kind of what I see going on with the Consult/Inchoroi (can someone remind me of the difference? I haven't read any of these books since WLW was first released). Like, if you're a murderer and you accept that that is what you are and don't see any reasonable way you will ever stop murdering, why is it more rational to put up with life in prison (eternal damnation, whatever) rather than acting within your nature and murdering all the people who would potentially put you in prison? Maybe not the most elegant of analogies, but I think it's completely rational to want to remove the possibility of damnation rather than be subjected to it. Or are there other things they did that you think are dumb? Inspector 34 fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Feb 24, 2016 |
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
I'm so sick of sranc. Goddamnit I really hope they eradicate the entire species by the end of the book because I really don't want the next one to be about herding and slaughtering sranc again.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
I've read through all this discussion of form, content, prose and all that and while it's kind of interesting I don't really understand the point of it all. I mean, what did you hope to achieve by coming in here and stating the prose is bad and therefore the books are bad? I'm assuming you hoped to have some kind of discussion in good faith about what is good or bad about the prose, but all that's really happened is a talk about what you even meant by your criticism and whether it's a valid one. I think my main problem with this whole thing is the idea that anybody can objectively say "the prose is bad". I'm fine with you or anybody saying you don't like it or that you do like it, but instead of laying out some rules and guidelines for objectively judging the prose you typically just post a bit of text and say "this is absurd" or "this is nonsensical". Are those part of a spreadsheet you keep to score the prose? What else is on the sheet? How does something earn an "absurd" rating instead of some other score? And even then, the best you can say is "by this measure, the prose is bad." Even in your example with the sonnet, a person could simply dislike poetry and prefer your pared down, sanitized version. And I'd say that as long as they are able to comprehend what idea is attempting to be conveyed, then that's 100% as valid as any criticism. Finally, I disagree with the idea that a book is bad merely because you dislike the prose. You can still appreciate the plot, the pacing, the characterization, and any number of other things even if you find the prose grating. Sure, good writing can elevate those things, but that doesn't mean they can't exist even with bad writing. I haven't started TUC yet, but I hope it's an improvement over the last book which I thought was a pretty big step back from the rest. I hope at least that we get a break from the 50 page battles with sranc several times per book. I mean maybe the whole point was to fatigue the reader and desensitize us to the whole thing, but after a while I just didn't feel like reading another chapter of sranc fights.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2017 20:05
|
|