|
| T O P I C | |
|
Good book? I couldn't pick it up!
December 26th 2000, 23:06 CET by Andy There's a BBC story about books that are bought, but not read. The focus is on books given as gifts that the lucky recipient never wanted, but let's extend that a bit... According to the BBC story, some of the most unread books are Ulysses by James Joyce, A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking, and everything by Salman Rushdie. This story really hit home with me, because one thing that infuriates me about myself is my habit of not finishing books. Even books that I like. Just recently I've started reading, enjoyed, but then given up on Glamorama by Bret Easton Ellis, A Game We Play by Simona Vinci, Resurrection Day by Brendan DuBois, Birdman by Mo Hayder, and the first Harry Potter book by J.K. Rowling. The only books I've finished in the last few years have been Hannibal by Thomas Harris, American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis, and the non-fiction On Writing by Stephen King. This week I'm going to order Gerald's Game by Stephen King and, although I expect to like it, I'm sure I'll give up on it after a hundred pages or so. I know that there's very little chance of me finishing it, no matter how much I enjoy it. I don't know why I'm like this. Just for some reason, I rarely finish books. It may be that I have high standards, or perhaps I'm just lazy -- after all, it does take effort to finish a book, especially if you're a slow reader, which I am. Feel free to jump into this thread with any relevant comments, or your thoughts on what is discussed in the BBC story. But personally I'm most interested to know if any of you also have this annoying tendency to abandon books, even when you're enjoying them. Am I the only one who does this? |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: Good book? I couldn't pick it up!
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
|
<b>Andy</b> (#40): <quote>It takes me about five minutes to read an average page. Okay, so if I sat and read at that rate for 24 hours straight, that would be 288 pages per day, but I know people who say they can read books like WoT in half a day. There's something wrong with those people!</quote> I read at about the same rate. It took me a weekend to read Gerald's Game. The main difference is that once I start a book I sit there and read it until I'm through, or until I find myself re-reading a section over and over again, at which point I put it down for an hour or go to sleep. As far as Gerald's Game goes, there're a few good sections to it, but overall it's not something I'd recommend to anyone, definitely not one of King's better works. Usually I have a hard time putting books down, but there're 2 particular books that have plagued me with several start-and-stop reads. I'm not sure if it's just that they lose my interest at some point, or if I just find that I don't have time, and they do happen to be fairly large books (600+ pages iirc) from authors I've read several other books from (one's a Clive Barker book, can't remember the name of it off hand, the other is by Brian Lumley, one of the last of the Necroscope series). I've managed to complete just about every other book I've picked up on my own, though (can't say that about books I was assigned to read in school, as I tended to just read enough to pick up on what I needed for an essay unless I actually liked the book). -PainKilleR-[CE] |
|
<b>Topaz</b> (#61): <quote>What does everyone think of books on tape or cd? I think they're great if you have a long drive to work or go on a trip. The radio gets old.</quote> Probably depends highly on how it's being done. I picked up the Dark Tower (actually someone picked it up for me, I've read it several times), and sitting there listening to Stephen King read is about the best cure for insomnia there is, IMO. Another story he did, called the Mist iirc, was done on tape with different people doing the dialog for each character, and it was rather entertaining, though I'd rather read the thing. -PainKilleR-[CE] |
|
Well, all I know is that this Microsoft Reader thing has got me reading books again after a long hiatus Reader w/ ClearType on PocketPC's like the Jornada 548 and Cassiopeia 125 is simply amazing. of course, it's a little spendy to get a PocketPC just for Reader, but think about how many books you can fit into something the size of one paperback :) |
|
Curious... I just went to look over the MS Reader site, and I think I'm sold. There must be subliminal ads on the page or something :) Seriously though, it's definitely a "cool" idea, and I think it's probably going to be a good way for me to publish my own writings, as well as storing the library of texts that I mentioned previously. And what's more, with a little luck, it might even get my youngest sister reading more if I leave a copy on the new family machine. |
|
Re: A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius Great book!!!!! The author also runs a literary/humor website that's a pretty good timewaster: http://www.mcsweeneys.net/ |
|
RE: 1984 Personally, 1984 is my favourite book. Great ending message; that people who fight for the 'right' cause don't always winning. Also, I noticed none of this "poor writing". Then again, unless something really strikes me as awful, I tend to miss most -- if not all -- of the faults in it. Meh, whatever. _1! |
|
<b>Andy</b> (#31): <quote>Now, I'm well aware of the idea that the reader is just as important as the writer, but this means you're putting the reader ABOVE the writer. Which, as a would-be author myself, I find a little strange. And even a little wrong. :-)</quote> The readers will be the ultimate interpreters of your work..bottom line whether you like it or not... literature has always been given all kinds of crazy readings... Look at some of the different readings of the wizard of oz, or the catcher in the rye... as an artist of any kind once the art is out of your hands it is literally out of your hands...anyone can apply any meaning to it they like... 12xu out<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
szcx (#75): Reader w/ ClearType on PocketPC's like the <A href="http://www.hp.com/jornada/products/540/index.html">Jornada 548</A> and <A href="http://www.casio.com/personalpcs/product.cfm?section=19&product=3553">Cassiopeia 125</A> is simply amazing. of course, it's a little spendy to get a PocketPC <I>just</I> for Reader, but think about how many books you can fit into something the size of one paperback :) Yeah, the MS Reader has ClearType as well ... it's not hard on the eyes either (as I expected it to be) ... --- Warren Marshall Level Designer/Programmer/Corporate Shill Epic Games (www.epicgames.com)<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
That's something I need to do soon, learn to read. I hear it's important. Right now I'm stuck on picture books and MAD magazine. |
|
hmmmm books. i used to read those a lot. hehe I have noticed myself falling into a bit of the pattern that Andy described. Some stories just don't do it for me and I never make it to the end. Then again, there are books I've read 3 or 4 times thru without question. King's Eyes of the Dragon has got to be one of my all-time favorites. The incredible story-telling that he's known to be capable of, combined with a unique and different setting and atmosphere (unlike any other King story I've read). The world of fantasy and magic... very cool. Not something you would expect from an author who does a lot of murder/thriller stories. :) |
|
kanaeda (#82): I have noticed myself falling into a bit of the pattern that Andy described. Some stories just don't do it for me and I never make it to the end. Then again, there are books I've read 3 or 4 times thru without question. King's <I>Eyes of the Dragon</I> has got to be one of my all-time favorites. The incredible story-telling that he's known to be capable of, combined with a unique and different setting and atmosphere (unlike any other King story I've read). The world of fantasy and magic... very cool. Not something you would expect from an author who does a lot of murder/thriller stories. :) That's something I've never been able to do ... read a book more than once. I don't know why ... I can watch movies over and over, but I'm guessing that's because I'm there for the special effects or the humor or whatever. It doesn't require any effort on my part. Just throw the movie in and veg out. Reading requires me to do something and once I've read a book, I dunno, I can't get into it a second time ... --- Warren Marshall Level Designer/Programmer/Corporate Shill Epic Games (www.epicgames.com)<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>kanaeda</b> (#82): <quote>King's <I>Eyes of the Dragon</I> has got to be one of my all-time favorites. The incredible story-telling that he's known to be capable of, combined with a unique and different setting and atmosphere (unlike any other King story I've read). The world of fantasy and magic... very cool. Not something you would expect from an author who does a lot of murder/thriller stories. :)</quote> That combined with the way it ties into so many of his other stories, without a common setting, made that particular book one of my favorites as well. Of course, many people say that linking so many of his stories together is part of what makes him a hack rather than a real writer, but it brings me into the story more when I can spot all of those things. Oh, and re: 1984, I didn't really remember how poorly written it was until it was brought up in this thread. I just remember it being a really good book, and forgot that it took me much longer to read than it should have (it's really not that long of a book, it's just a laborious read, though well worth it). -PainKilleR-[CE] |
|
Reading requires me to do something and once I've read a book, I dunno, I can't get into it a second time ... It's probably the time requirements more than anything. Movies take two hours. Books take many, many more hours. I typically don't replay a lot of games for that very reason. I've actually re-read a number of books though, mostly on airplanes (I don't have a laptop or a Gameboy... just put on headphones for my CD player and read). I used to read Jack Kerouac's "On the Road" every summer, and a couple of my favorite "classics" are re-readable (Adventure of Huckleberry Finn, William Faulkner's "The Sound and the Fury", which I find strangely compelling). I've also re-read Nick Hornby's "High Fidelity" a couple of times... it just has a cool groove it settles in to. It was a good movie too. |
|
Can anyone toss me a bone here? I'm dying everytime I hear how great the MS reader is. I downloaded it, and I'm trying to install it onto my Win2K Server box, but I am getting an error window. The title of this window, is 'Unhandled Execption', and the contents are Error Numer:0x80040706 Description: Object Reference not set. Setup will now terminate. Any of that make any sense to any of you clever guys, or programmer types[1]? I have been pretty pathetic in my current attempts, which amount to a rebewt. [1] Not to imply that programmer types are not also clever. :)<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
ah, feels good to see that i'm not a freak. i haven't ever met anyone in real life who read as fast as i do, but reading this thread, i'm beginning to think i'm more normal (about a hundred pages per hour with most paperbacks - pratchett's for example :D i recommend "the dark side of the sun", which is not a discworld novel, and "strala" for those who know the discworld pretty well). Anyway, I don't use speed reading techniques, i just have a quick recognition of half-sentences and phrases. I used to read everything i could get my hands on, from age 3, starting with "the neverending story". Now I'm reading Douglas Hofstaedter(sp?)'s "Gödel, Escher, Bach" (JEEZ why didn't I find this when I was like thirteen or fourteen? it's so damn good) and as far as i remember, I finished every book i started reading at least once. Must have been around 2000 books in the last 20 years (how fucking sentimental does THAT sound? :D) - strange, I distinctly remember a time that saw me reading at least two books a day, but statistically, it's been less than 2 a week. Nowadays, a lot of my daily reading time is spent on the net. Some books i stopped reading in the second run, though. I just didnt have the motivation to read through them a second time (maybe it wasn't long enough since I first read them - I tend to have a very good memory for plot lines. I also tend to have a sixth sense for plot lines i don't know yet, but that's not my fault, it's the damn crappy tv scripts that are so fucking foretellable) I think reading fast gives me more immersion. I remember reading "Se7en" (the book that I THINK is based on the movie - dont you hate it when they market a book as based on a successful movie when in fact the movie is based on the book?) ultra-fast because it was so DAMN EXCITING (i nearly had a heart attack, my pulse was around 200, i checked it when i was done with the book - i mean, i REALLY was afraid that my condition was critical), I absolutely wanted to witness this in real time, it was so damn exciting because i read ultra-fast. uh. That's "Gödel, Escher, Bach"'s influence - i'm starting to see recursions everywhere. That reminds me - some books aren't meant to be read fast - you gotta be able to adjust. Anyway, reading is probably the most fun you can have all alone by yourself. Or is there anything i have forgotten? hmm maybe trampoline jumping :D or tiramisu. or making music. :D btw did anyone understand my sentence structure? :D rereading the post, i suddenly feel very complicated :D --- way-fu, exercise today! <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
The last book I read was Jurrasic Park, way before they bastardised it into the celluloid garbage they made mega cash off of. The book is MUCH better, IMHO, but that's usually always the case. The best book to film I've ever seen was Stephen Kings Firestarter. Not that it was a good book or film, because it wasn't, but they two were parallel thoughout the telling of the story. If I ever get the cash to make another movie after my first few low budget ones, I'm going to make The Talisman into a kickass film, why, it might actually make a kick ass game.. |
|
I just have to get this off my chest... STEVEN KING IS NOT A GOOD WRITER!!! ahhhh...I feel so much better now... I read a lot, and I mean a lot of King in high school, I tried to re-read The Stand when they re-released it, and wow, it's a real stinker... ok.... now for something positive... for those of you who can't get through your books right now I reccomend Kurt Vonnegut, you can read any one of his books in an afternoon or two and they are entertaining as well as thought provoking... 12xu out<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
Kurt Vonnegut is The Man™ Doug Coupland's stuff (Girlfriend in a Coma, Microserfs, Polaroids from the Dead) is okay too, he tries way too hard to be Just Like Kurt though. |
|
oops, forgot the linkage; Polaroids from the Dead, Microserfs, and Girlfriend in a Coma. |
|
I just remember it being a really good book, and forgot that it took me much longer to read than it should have The quote above and this quote - One phrase I've heard quite often with regard to 1984 is that it's the worst-written masterpiece in the English language - both apply (I think) to The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien. It literally took me two years to wade through that book, even though it is one of the finest I've read. The problem was that the book starts off very fluidly, the narrative moves along beautifully and then - roughly in the middle of The Two Towers - it becomes bogged down in lineage and superfluous history. At times it's like reading the Old Testament. Some of you blokes are probably rolling on the floor laughing, but I really found it heavy going at times - as did at least one other person that borrowed the book off me. Also, it sounds a bit sad but when I finished The Hobbit I was moved to tears because I had become so engrossed. I was twelve at the time though. Girlfriend in a Coma is a fine book, I'd recommend it whole-heartedly. Anything by H.P. Lovecraft is also worth reading, his work can be genuinely unsettling (fans of Stephen King/Dean Koontz horror especially should read Lovecraft to see how it's done). Speaking of Koontz, Dark Rivers of the Heart is a fine read, if a little far-fetched at times. deadlock |
|
Books are for dweebs!!!!!!!! |
|
Andy, if you think Ulysses was a tough book to finish, try Finnegan's Wake . . . I needed a vacation after plodding thru that sumbitch . . . |
|
<b>#92</b> "deadlock" wrote... <quote>Anything by H.P. Lovecraft is also worth reading, his work can be genuinely unsettling (fans of Stephen King/Dean Koontz horror especially should read Lovecraft to see how it's done). Speaking of Koontz, <I>Dark Rivers of the Heart</I> is a fine read, if a little far-fetched at times. </quote> I'd have to agree there, Lovecraft is untouchable, smashing, all that, etc. He is his best even in moments when he ends a tale with an exclamation point. <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>#61</b> "Topaz" wrote... <quote>What does everyone think of books on tape or cd? I think they're great if you have a long drive to work or go on a trip. The radio gets old.</quote> Books on tape are good if you can get the actual work, unabridged, but that seems rare. I used to work in Talking Book Library, as US Library Service for the blind where just about every book you can imagine has been read in it's entirely by actors, most of them servicable in the least. The tapes, however, were of the slow play variety so a special player was required . . . . but I listened to dozens of books in this format, so I'm sold on the potential. Why mention this? To blabber on, I suppose. Best book on sight-disabled tape ever? Valis, by PK DICK -- better than soda!<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
Andy, if you think Ulysses was a tough book to finish, try Finnegan's Wake . . . I needed a vacation after plodding thru that sumbitch . . . Hah, you fell for Joyce's last joke. "Finnegan's Wake" isn't meant to actually be completed or anything. It's designed to sit on your shelf and impress people who know of it but who, like you, haven't actually read it. |
|
<quote>Hah, you fell for Joyce's last joke. "Finnegan's Wake" isn't meant to actually be completed or anything. It's designed to sit on your shelf and impress people who know of it but who, like you, haven't actually read it. </quote> Ho ho! What an enormous brow you must have, sir! To be corked and upfront with my speechy-bits, I did read the damned thing -- took me a gawdaful longtime and I must say, the book is great BECAUSE IT'S REALLY FUCKIN' FUNNY --- I did alot of skipping around tho, as is appropriate in this case, so I may have missed a page or two. It was a grudge match really, and I walked away thinking Joyce wasn't half the man as any Surrealist worth his salt, but hey, fuggerbenay. I did not, as you suggest, place it on my bookshelf; rather I left it on the porch to gather dung so that over beers and puff, chums and I might delight ourselves with impromptu readings in the moonlight. Should you ever visit, Mr. Bauman, I'll stock it duly -- alongside Moby Dick, The Bible and many other books people allegedly do not read but instead foist and foible about for the esteem of thier peers. |
|
Stephen King is an excellent writer. I judge this on personal taste, and by comparing the number of books of his I like compared to the number of books of his I don't like. But I don't believe he is the best writer of all time, in fact if I had to pick one writer that I could just pick any random book of his/hers and instantly fall into it I would pick Ray Bradbury. King writes a lot like Bradbury, which is good but he is not in the same league. But King is still my fave, which makes me an idiot because I like those bastardly mainstream books. I liked Sword of Shannara too. Blasphemy. --jmc |
|
JMCDaveL (#99): But King is still my fave, which makes me an idiot because I like those bastardly mainstream books. I liked Sword of Shannara too. Blasphemy. You like something mainstream?! You shallow minded bastard!! ;) --- Warren Marshall Level Designer/Programmer/Corporate Shill Epic Games (www.epicgames.com)<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>12xu</b> (#89): <quote>STEVEN KING IS NOT A GOOD WRITER!!!</quote> <quote>I read a lot, and I mean a lot of King in high school</quote> Unless high school was last year, you have missed a lot. Insommnia, Bag of Bones, Wizard and Glass... some really good stuff in there. More important than whether he is "good" at any given moment in time... nearly all of his books are each better than the last, and they do tend to haul in the benjamins. What, pray tell, is your idea of a 'good writer'?<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
Re #100 I am a horrible monster and I pray for death. I think Hearts in Atlantis is one of King's best by sheer creep factor alone...the last quarter is quite disturbing. --jmc ~But Robert Jordan does suck.~ ~Shannara=WoT-BoringShit~ |
|
<b>#101</b> "Kallisti" wrote... <quote><B>12xu</B> (#89): <quote>STEVEN KING IS NOT A GOOD WRITER!!!</quote> <quote>I read a lot, and I mean a lot of King in high school</quote> Unless high school was last year, you have missed a lot. Insommnia, Bag of Bones, Wizard and Glass... some really good stuff in there. More important than whether he is "good" at any given moment in time... nearly all of his books are each better than the last, and they do tend to haul in the benjamins. What, pray tell, is your idea of a 'good writer'?</quote> drama / I must step up and say Stephen King is complete ass and writes like a buffoon. His books enjoy the common snowball effect of many writers who have captured the baseness of one-time, one-era popular imagination and publisher glee. I beg fans to step away from his bloated persona and delve into the vast amount of fiction available in your average bookstore. Anyone who cannot end a story should either not start or never finish -- witness every book he has every written. And how many times can we squeal? But I deign, what is a good writer? A writer who makes you finish his book seems to be the popular answer here ... I say a writer is good if he can fuck you unbeknownst. Seed and all. /drama<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
How do you end a story anyway? Unless you manage to blow up the earth in the story or otherwise rid it of all life you must assume that the story does go on. In the end if a book pleases you, you should read it, if it doesn't you should not. It's all a matter of taste. --jmc ~seshual dyenihmoe~ |
|
<quote>In the end if a book pleases you, you should read it, if it doesn't you should not. It's all a matter of taste.</quote> Indeed, it's all a matter of taste -- as Duchamp said (pretension alert) -- Taste is the death of art. Simply speaking, nothing has value if it is a matter of taste, because what is taste? Extreme: You will not like milk if your mother had warty tits -- so is your aversion to tits a taste? There is a manner to speak to the brain and a manner to cludge it -- King is putz who mannerizes, period. |
|
King is a terrible writer - but a truly great storyteller. That's the difference I think you're all failing to recognise. I love his books, and enjoy reading them, but, frankly, I've been able to write better than him since I was 10 :) |
|
I concur with TomC - King is a poor writer but a good storyteller. I loved him in high school, but I can barely read him now. I mean, for example, every character, in every book, uses the same stupid catchphrases - I had no idea that so many different people used the phrase "busier'n a one-legged man in an ass kickin' contest." IMO, he's truly bad. Bad bad bad. That said, some of the stories were great. But as I'm writing this, I'm reflecting on how many of his stories end with (a) hero(ine) facing impossible odds against an ill-defined Force of Evil, (b) hero(ine) looking deep within him/herself for reserves of strength that they didn't know existed, (c) said Force of Evil attacked with phrases/thoughts that have some deep significance to said Hero(ine), and (d) Force of Evil is utterly vanquished in an ill-defined manner. Okay, I know, the point is that the main character grows, learns something really important about themselves, and uses that newfound knowledge to fight the monster. But it smells an awful lot like a deus ex machina to me (no game jokes, plz), and I think that whoever complained that King doesn't know how to end a story is spot on. "It" is exhibit A - how do they win? Magic and stuff! How did they know how to do the magic? Like, it was always deep within them and stuff! Why didn't they use it before if it was always available? They had to, like, learn and stuff first! Am I wrong here? I guess on reflection I don't think he's *that* great a storyteller. :P I looooved King when I was younger, but he doesn't seem to hold up now. -brennan<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
how many of kings books are about a writer/lecturer/academic ? involve an ancient indian burial ground ? are just rehashes of the same, tired, hackneyed, oft-visited plot ? I'd hazard a guess and say almost all of his horror-fiction. Which is why I have always preferred to read his non-horror fiction. Characterisation has always been a strong point for King which is why character-driven tales like Dolores Claiborne and his Richard Whatsit stuff are better, IMO. deadlock |
|
TomC (#106): King <I>is</I> a terrible writer - but a truly great storyteller. That's the difference I think you're all failing to recognise. I love his books, and enjoy reading them, but, frankly, <I>I've</I> been able to write better than him since I was 10 :) OK, so what are we talking about? His grammar? The mechanics of his sentence structure? If the stories are great and you enjoy reading his books ... why is he a bad writer exactly? --- Warren Marshall Level Designer/Programmer/Corporate Shill Epic Games (www.epicgames.com)<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
"~But Robert Jordan does suck.~ ~Shannara=WoT-BoringShit~" Yeah, read George R.R. Martin. A genre fiction writer who can...GASP...actually write!<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
Ergo (#110): "~But Robert Jordan does suck.~ ~Shannara=WoT-BoringShit~" Yeah, read George R.R. Martin. A genre fiction writer who can...GASP...actually write! Yeah! Damn that Robert Jordan! Writing an insanely popular series with millions of fans! How dare he think he can write!! --- Warren Marshall Level Designer/Programmer/Corporate Shill Epic Games (www.epicgames.com)<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
Yeah! Damn that Robert Jordan! Writing an insanely popular series with millions of fans! How dare he think he can write!! Ah c'mon, do we have to play the Deer Hunter/System Shock 2 card? Popularity does not always denote quality and vice versa. |
|
Warren: why is he a bad writer exactly? Um... because his writing is poor. To elaborate, elucidate and expound - he tells a cracking story, but then, so does my grandfather, who rambles disjointed nonsense for half of the story. Do you see what I'm saying now? |
|
Exactly. I've read all the WOT books and have enjoyed (most of) them. But I wouldn't call Jordan a great writer. Competent? Yes.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
TomC (#113): Um... because his writing is poor. To elaborate, elucidate and expound - he tells a cracking story, but then, so does my grandfather, who rambles disjointed nonsense for half of the story. Do you see what I'm saying now? Sure. What I don't see is why you would say someone is a bad writer and then admit to liking their stories and buying their books. Oh well ... --- Warren Marshall Level Designer/Programmer/Corporate Shill Epic Games (www.epicgames.com)<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
Warren, it's really pretty simple. I like James Bond movies. I like old Godzilla movies. Are they good movies? Well, not really, but they're a kick to watch and I enjoy them. See?<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
Ergo (#116): Warren, it's really pretty simple. I like James Bond movies. I like old Godzilla movies. Are they good movies? Well, not really, but they're a kick to watch and I enjoy them. See? Sure, but investing an hour or two to watch a bad movie BECAUSE it's bad is not the same as investing many, many hours reading a book ... --- Warren Marshall Level Designer/Programmer/Corporate Shill Epic Games (www.epicgames.com)<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
I don't read Jordan for his masterful prose--there isn't any. I read Jordan for the incredible, epic (if somewhat cliched) story. I also read the books because I'm curious about how the whole goddamned bloated thing is going to end! ;-) I hope that clears it up.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>Kallisti</b> (#101): <quote>Unless high school was last year, you have missed a lot. Insommnia, Bag of Bones, Wizard and Glass... some really good stuff in there. More important than whether he is "good" at any given moment in time... nearly all of his books are each better than the last, and they do tend to haul in the benjamins. What, pray tell, is your idea of a 'good writer'?</quote> Flannery O'Connor, Kurt Vonnegut, Franz Kafka (his unfinished stuff is better than most people's completed work), Albert Camus, Eugene Ionesco, Dashiel Hammet, Raymond Chandler, Harry Crewes, Jim Thompson, Ernest Hemingway, Henry Miller, etc and so on.... I read so little fiction these days it's hard for me to come up with anymore without having my bookshelf in front of me... <b>TomC</b> (#106): <quote>King <I>is</I> a terrible writer - but a truly great storyteller. </quote> I will agree there...great stories, presentation lacking... I do remember picking up a couple volumes of, what was it, The Dark Tower (?) and actually thinking that King's writing was getting better... Now someone brought up Bradbury, so when do the Aasimov fans come out of the closet? first one to quote the three rules of robotics wins the planetcrap geek of the day award... (by the way I enjoyed bradbury and aasimov both in my time, and enjoy neither of them now) 12xu out<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>#119</b> "12xu" wrote... <quote>three rules of robotics </quote> Rule One- The robot will not harm any human being. Rule Two- The robot will not allow any human being to come to harm. Rule Three- The robot will not allow any harm to come to itself.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>#120</b> "Barneyque" wrote... <quote>Rule One- The robot will not harm any human being. Rule Two- The robot will not allow any human being to come to harm. Rule Three- The robot will not allow any harm to come to itself.</quote> Um correction. Rule One- The robot will not harm any human being to throught inaction allow a human to come to harm. Rule Two- The robot must obey order given to it by a human, unless the order conflict with rule 1. Rule Three- The robot will not allow any harm to come to itself unless doing so conflicts with rule 1 or 2.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>#121</b> "None1a" wrote... <quote><B>#120</B> "Barneyque" wrote... <quote>Rule One- The robot will not harm any human being. Rule Two- The robot will not allow any human being to come to harm. Rule Three- The robot will not allow any harm to come to itself.</quote> Um correction. Rule One- The robot will not harm any human being to throught inaction allow a human to come to harm. Rule Two- The robot must obey order given to it by a human, unless the order conflict with rule 1. Rule Three- The robot will not allow any harm to come to itself unless doing so conflicts with rule 1 or 2.</quote> Damn, denied! :) After tearing my house apart looking for the book, I uhhh... cheated a bit. But I have read the material. On the other hand, be very, very afraid...Were all going to die!. Such a robot to the best of my knowledge does not exist, even the fancy ass pet robots. Ahhhhhh.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: Good book? I couldn't pick it up!
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
| P O S T A C O M M E N T |
|
|
| C R A P T A G S | ||||||||
|
|
| There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details] |
Powered by blah 0.9.1-dev •
PlanetCrap is © 1997-2035 Hendrik "Morn" Mans
|