Labyrinth:
And on the note of Poe, I must admit that I love The Raven. It has such fantastic flow to the poetry, the words roll off the tongue with elegant ease.

Fantastic imagery too.

I will readily agree that Poe's use of imagery is amazing. The ways in which he describes terror actually brings back the memory the emotion so poignantly within my mind that I almost break out in a cold sweat.

That said, I don't particularly care for Poe's works. It's not that I dislike his style, I think I merely dislike the genre.

I never really saw any appeal in 1984 but I might read it someday, but since I trust govorment in general it will probably take a while.

Currently re-reading "The Brothers Karamazov" for the third time (will finish it this time) and am loving it as much as ever. The book really shines a light on how people should act compared to how they do.

Also digging my way throught C.S Lewis and I must say that he is probably the smartest man in the planets history. The Narnia books are truly the best childrens stories out there but they only scratch the surface of his writing. Reading "The Great Divorce" and "Mere Christianity" will help you understand Christianity better then the majority of it's followers. Those books (especially the latter) strip away 2000 years of theology and corruption and show what the religion really is about.

His "Space Trilogy" (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelanda and That Hideous Strength) is also supurb and shows an immense dislike of modern society that makes my heart melt with joy.

Kafka's The Metamorphosis also made me go all warm on the inside thinking "I'm so glad my life isen't like that".

Labyrinth:
In all seroiusness, I've found the current mainstream lifestyle of looking up to 'celebrities' and looking down on everything else to be very Brave New World-esque. It's quite depressing. Added to that the fact that webspeak is really quite similar to Newspeak, and we really are in the shit.

I would disagree. Newspeak was about trimming down the vocabulary and definitions of words so that unorthodoxy of thought became impossible. Webspeak, on the other hand, is about communicating as much information as possible with a limited number of characters.

nilcypher:

Labyrinth:
In all seroiusness, I've found the current mainstream lifestyle of looking up to 'celebrities' and looking down on everything else to be very Brave New World-esque. It's quite depressing. Added to that the fact that webspeak is really quite similar to Newspeak, and we really are in the shit.

I would disagree. Newspeak was about trimming down the vocabulary and definitions of words so that unorthodoxy of thought became impossible. Webspeak, on the other hand, is about communicating as much information as possible with a limited number of characters.

In that way, Webspeak relies on one of the fundamental principles of all language change: economy (or laziness if you're being grumpy). People have always tried to make speaking and writing faster and easier. If they didn't, our language would be fundamentally different and damn long-winded, too. If you can get across your idea in ten seconds instead of 30 then what's the point in 30 besides tradition?
What's more, Newspeak was government intrusion on language; Webspeak is laziness' intrusion. One should be fought at all costs; the other should be somewhat accommodated as a way of cutting the wheat from the chaff. Did you know English had a gender system for nouns at one point? Lucky our ancestors decided it was too much bother.

Well, languages tend to be petty with their forms and such, because so much is blamed on colloquialisms and things like that that it is hard to effect any real set of rules when you have to constantly teach the exception. Hang hanging hung unless its people, read reading read, lead leading led, things like that. Honestly, its no wonder we still have etymologist, since so much is sleight of tongue in that business.

Really, though, English, Newspeak, Webspeak, whatever it is, as long as people have the fundamentals, it'll sort itself out. It's nigh impossible to ease English BACK down the road to Latin and beyond, because if you did, you would be making MORE exceptions to rules instead of actually effecting new rules.

Oh, and I love effect as a verb. :-)

I reread King Lear by Shakespeare recently. Its a completely epic story about a foolish King who makes a bad decision and loses his mind because of it.

Kinda off topic...I'd compare Webspeak more to Droog-speak from A Clockwork Orange, than to Newspeak. But that's just me.

Labyrinth:
I am an avid reader. That's hardly news. However, I was wondering who else felt the same adoration and envy for great authors and their works. I'd also like to suggest discussing the themes of books. (And on a side note, I'd prefer this -didn't- descend into a rant about Twilight. We already have threads for that.)

So to kick-start the idea, I'm going to stick the book 1984 by George Orwell up on the podium.

Personally I loved this. It is well written, and I find it quite a joy to read. Each character is defined by his or her actions, and relations to the totalitarian nature of their society. They act in different ways, reacting to situations according to their own close-held ideals, whether they be the ones installed by the Party or ones brought about through their own conclusions.

Newspeak is also a fascinating idea. The thought that it is possible to restrict human thought and capacity by all-but eradicating any hint of seditious language has always been to me a thing of amoral genius. The true tool of dictatorial governments. Once society had regressed to such a point, there would be little or no need for policing anything other than the language, which would naturally fall to the Thought Police.

One thing which has come up in friendly discussion regarding 1984 is the depressing nature of the book itself. How this is such a bad thing, I don't understand. While it is a negative outlook, the fact that it can make one react in such an emotional way, in empathy with the story, is just another sign of the power of the writing. Then again, I'm biased as someone with a loathing of most happy endings, unless they're very well written.

Thoughts?

(Edit: Some word-flow fixed.)

Wow, so far I've seen you wearing an Opeth shirt and promoting 1984. I still want to marry you :)

RedElectric:
Kinda off topic...I'd compare Webspeak more to Droog-speak from A Clockwork Orange, than to Newspeak. But that's just me.

That was called Nadsat or something like that... and it's completely un-related to newspeak, newspeak was the editing out of all the negative words in the world, Nadsat is just the equivalent of urban slang in an alternate future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadsat

Since no one's mentioned it, Catch 22. I read it in high school, along with A Clockwork Orange, To Kill a Mockingbird and 1984. Four excellent books, mixed in with a lot of crap. I generally dislike high literature - I thought (and still think) Shakespeare was a hack, and made a HUGE mistake in selecting Moby Dick for a book report. I'm a voracious reader - my wife and I spend more on books than on electricity and cable TV/Internet combined. I'm currently re-reading Colonel von Luck's memoirs. I particularly enjoy WW2 German war memoirs because, in addition to the normal struggles of survival and the morality of war, the German soldier and especially officer faced an almost unique mix of ethical issues balanced with professional and ofttimes physical survival. The reactions of humans under extreme stress are generally to me more illustrative of the human condition than is high literature, and the high literature I read in high school and college I thought no more relevant than, say, Asimov or Steakley.

Other than the usual mix of fantasy and science fiction (I particularly love Moon's The Deed of Paksenarrion, Jordan's Wheel of Time, and anything by Stephen Brust or Tad Williams), I read a lot of non-fiction. I particularly like to examine a well-known, well-documented event from several perspectives.

werepossum:
Since no one's mentioned it, Catch 22. I read it in high school, along with A Clockwork Orange, To Kill a Mockingbird and 1984. Four excellent books, mixed in with a lot of crap. I generally dislike high literature - I thought (and still think) Shakespeare was a hack, and made a HUGE mistake in selecting Moby Dick for a book report. I'm a voracious reader - my wife and I spend more on books than on electricity and cable TV/Internet combined. I'm currently re-reading Colonel von Luck's memoirs. I particularly enjoy WW2 German war memoirs because, in addition to the normal struggles of survival and the morality of war, the German soldier and especially officer faced an almost unique mix of ethical issues balanced with professional and ofttimes physical survival. The reactions of humans under extreme stress are generally to me more illustrative of the human condition than is high literature, and the high literature I read in high school and college I thought no more relevant than, say, Asimov or Steakley.

I understand that sentiment. I've always felt that, despite its beautiful prose, there's no guarantee that literature reveals more about human nature than any opinion on the street. And that's what it is - opinion dressed up with fancy words. Still, the fancy words are nice.

sometimes i feel like i am the only KID that likes reading, however i am not ashamed to say it that i have locked myself in my room for days on end reading

i really like sci-fi and medieval books...also books like angles and demons, that was amazing!

Beowulf DW:

Labyrinth:
And on the note of Poe, I must admit that I love The Raven. It has such fantastic flow to the poetry, the words roll off the tongue with elegant ease.

Fantastic imagery too.

I will readily agree that Poe's use of imagery is amazing. The ways in which he describes terror actually brings back the memory the emotion so poignantly within my mind that I almost break out in a cold sweat.

That said, I don't particularly care for Poe's works. It's not that I dislike his style, I think I merely dislike the genre.

I like Poe quite a lot, the little I've read, anyway ("The Fall of the House of Usher" and "The Raven", I think). I saw this really cool animated version of "The Telltale Heart" from the 50's, it was a special feature on the special edition dvd of Hellboy.

Another great old-school horror writer is H.P. Lovecraft. He was just so original and imaginitive, and the prose is archaic but beautiful in it's own right.

And I would totally vote for Cthulhu, Saskwach ;D

Werepossum, have you ever read anything by John Keegan? He's a military historian with an encyclopedic knowledge of military history and theory. Amazing. I have two books by him, The Face of Battle, which I loved, and The History of Warfare, which I periodically take a stab at and never get very far, because his prose is so dense. Wonderfully so, in my opinion. Also, if you haven't read it, I suggest Catapult: Harry and I Build a Siege Weapon. Genuinely entertaining and a pretty good overview history of ballistic weapons.

Speaking of writing about war, I highly recommend Pat Barker's Regeneration trilogy, which is the story of soldiers in WWI who have been hospitalized for shell-shock, and the doctor who treats them. It won the Booker prize in England. Very good.

Ixus Illwrath:
Wow, so far I've seen you wearing an Opeth shirt and promoting 1984. I still want to marry you :)

And I still piss myself laughing at the mental image of me in a wedding dress.

Additionally, for Poe fans, I recently found two things. First is a short film adaptation of "Masque of The Red Death" and second is The Raven read by Christopher Walken.

First: http://cubase.deviantart.com/art/The-Masque-of-the-Red-Death-81602439

Second: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLSmhpwLdEQ

Stephen King's "The Stand". Some of you classical literature types may scoff at the likes of Stephen King, but he spins the most compelling epic yarn. Only the long version counts, which is really all that you can buy now anyway. I'm not much of a reviewer so I'll leave you to find out what's so perfect about the intertwining journies of a group of survivours of the viral apocalypse. And not just a journey, a supernatural journey of good versus evil, written by the greatest writer alive today, perhaps ever.

But anything by The King is worth reading, especially The Dark Tower cycle.

Also anything written by Lee Child. What's cooler than an american wonderer who travels all the miles and all the years with only a toothbrush for constant company? Nothing, that's what.

mshcherbatskaya:
Werepossum, have you ever read anything by John Keegan? He's a military historian with an encyclopedic knowledge of military history and theory. Amazing. I have two books by him, The Face of Battle, which I loved, and The History of Warfare, which I periodically take a stab at and never get very far, because his prose is so dense. Wonderfully so, in my opinion. Also, if you haven't read it, I suggest Catapult: Harry and I Build a Siege Weapon. Genuinely entertaining and a pretty good overview history of ballistic weapons.

Speaking of writing about war, I highly recommend Pat Barker's Regeneration trilogy, which is the story of soldiers in WWI who have been hospitalized for shell-shock, and the doctor who treats them. It won the Booker prize in England. Very good.

I love Keegan, including The History of Warfare. I love his The Face of Battle and The Second World War. I just saw something Keegan yesterday whilst looking through a stack of books, I think The Second World War.

For a fascinating analysis of World War 2, I recommend The Ninety Days: Five Battles That Changed The World by Thomas Carmichael. He examines how the war, which was going so well for the Axis powers, turned against them with five different battles in five different theaters within a ninety day period. He examines Barents Sea, Guadalcanal, El Alamein, Operation Torch, and Stalingrad and explains how these battles subtly but permanently altered the balance of power in each theater, how these reversals were more influential to the overall course of the war than, say, Midway or Moscow. These are some of the best analyses I've read of these battles and theaters, written in the accessible, non-military of Ambrose but with the military insight of Keegan or Marshall.

Labyrinth:
I am an avid reader. That's hardly news. However, I was wondering who else felt the same adoration and envy for great authors and their works. I'd also like to suggest discussing the themes of books. (And on a side note, I'd prefer this -didn't- descend into a rant about Twilight. We already have threads for that.)

So to kick-start the idea, I'm going to stick the book 1984 by George Orwell up on the podium.

Personally I loved this. It is well written, and I find it quite a joy to read. Each character is defined by his or her actions, and relations to the totalitarian nature of their society. They act in different ways, reacting to situations according to their own close-held ideals, whether they be the ones installed by the Party or ones brought about through their own conclusions.

Newspeak is also a fascinating idea. The thought that it is possible to restrict human thought and capacity by all-but eradicating any hint of seditious language has always been to me a thing of amoral genius. The true tool of dictatorial governments. Once society had regressed to such a point, there would be little or no need for policing anything other than the language, which would naturally fall to the Thought Police.

One thing which has come up in friendly discussion regarding 1984 is the depressing nature of the book itself. How this is such a bad thing, I don't understand. While it is a negative outlook, the fact that it can make one react in such an emotional way, in empathy with the story, is just another sign of the power of the writing. Then again, I'm biased as someone with a loathing of most happy endings, unless they're very well written.

Thoughts?

(Edit: Some word-flow fixed.)

Never read 1984, but I'm pretty sure my English teacher is going to make us this year. I don't like happy endings either, unless they're well written of course ;).

My favorite author is, and always be, Tolkien.

I totally agree with 1984. I was fascinated by Newspeak, too. By far, best idea for thought-control I've ever heard of.

Another good book is Roadside Picnic by Arkady and Boris Strugatski. A fantastic concept and a great story. The inspiration for STALKER:Shadow of Chernobyl, and heavily analogized with the Chernobyl disaster. The wiki even says that scientists studying the disaster area (named "the Zone," like the book) have nicknamed themselves "stalkers." Earns the title as one of the "Best Books in the Universe" in my imaginary "Best Things in the Universe" book, which is also one of the "Best Books in the Universe." You can't read that one, though; it's imaginary.

I'm thinking about finding a translation of It's Hard to be a God, also by the Strugatskis.

I hate Darren Shan. I absolutely loathe it, and as such, this post is going to be an exercise in expelling pent-up bile from my otherwise sweet and pristine system.

Ahem.

Darren Shan is a series of books based around the story of an alternate universe where this kid becomes a half-vampire, then a vampire. Insert facepalming cliche right here. He goes on a variety of adventures in this alternate universe, killing things, very pointedly not human things though and saving the world from a horrible apocalyptic fate possibly involving dragons.

The prose itself is near-juvenile in nature. Annoyingly simple with glaring oversights. Additionally, the plot twists are so forewarned it's like someone telling you they're going to pwn your house with a sledgehammer three days before they actually do, giving you plenty of time to inform the police and get a bunch of friends with weapons over.\

All in all, if you want some light literature which takes you gently by the hand and leads you through an all too familiar series of passageways, shitting with every third step for you to tread on, feel free to read Darren Shan. Otherwise, I'd recommend against it.

Ahem I feel a lot better now.

Thomas of Gilead:
Stephen King's "The Stand". Some of you classical literature types may scoff at the likes of Stephen King, but he spins the most compelling epic yarn.

Indeed I do. Scoff, scoff, suggestive gesture.

Eh, King is okay. I just don't roll too well with most of his all-American apple pie style characters. I completely fail to relate to most of them, and it does tend to get long-winded when he goes into detail about someone I don't care about. I do like his short stories though, because there, characterization takes a backseat to the plot. Langoliers and The Running Man? I really liked those for some reason.

Thomas of Gilead:
Stephen King's "The Stand". Some of you classical literature types may scoff at the likes of Stephen King, but he spins the most compelling epic yarn.

I quite like a lot of King, though being The Anti-patriot, I have problems with his overly American characters some of the time. I especially enjoy the fact that he's not adverse to having main characters die, be injured or whatever else (A huge failing in other authors.) My favourite King would be Insomnia, because it doesn't have an entirely happy ending (something else I really appreciate) and I empathise so much with the characters within it.

sammyfreak:

Currently re-reading "The Brothers Karamazov" for the third time (will finish it this time) and am loving it as much as ever. The book really shines a light on how people should act compared to how they do.
.

Why haven't you finished it? I'm curious because I've been struggling to get into the book for a while before giving up. So if anyone has any tips on how to understand it better I'd be grateful. I've never been able to get very far into it but I've found it a bit of a slog (no Ulysses though). I think my main problem is that I'm never quite sure how much of the original meaning of the artist is kept in translations, I've almost been afraid of reading into it too much. I recognise the psychological awareness of the novel but I don't think I've seen anything proving that "Everything there was to know about life was in The Brothers Karamazov". Maybe its just that I haven't read enough of it, or am approaching it with the wrong mindset? any ideas?

And just to give my own view of some literature, I've been reading DH Lawrence recently and he's just a fantastic writer. His work has lot most of its shock factor (labelled pornographic at the time of release) but he really does describe his subject matter well on every level.

pigeon_of_doom:

sammyfreak:

Currently re-reading "The Brothers Karamazov" for the third time (will finish it this time) and am loving it as much as ever. The book really shines a light on how people should act compared to how they do.
.

Why haven't you finished it? I'm curious because I've been struggling to get into the book for a while before giving up. So if anyone has any tips on how to understand it better I'd be grateful. I've never been able to get very far into it but I've found it a bit of a slog (no Ulysses though). I think my main problem is that I'm never quite sure how much of the original meaning of the artist is kept in translations. I've almost been afraid of reading into it too much. I recognise the psychological awareness of the novel but I don't think I've seen anything proving that "Everything there was to know about life was in The Brothers Karamazov". Maybe its just that I haven't read enough of it or am approaching it with the wrong mindset, any ideas?

And just to give my own view of some literature, I've been reading DH Lawrence recently and he's just a fantastic writer. His work has lot most of its shock factor (labelled pornographic at the time of release) but he really does describe his subject matter well on every level.

With a lot of difficult literature, I've found it helps to cross-reference the context. For example, some of the language used in Portrait Of The Artist As A Young Man I didn't understand without looking up some history about Dublin at the time, because it is slang and colloquialisms which are not used elsewhere. Context matters, is I guess the theme of that.

I've got 1984 sitting on my desk right now. I've wanted to read it for ages and ordered it from Amazon like a week ago, so wish me luck people.

My favourite authors, however, are Terry Pratchett, Steven Saylor and - pretentiousness ahead - Aristophanes. I've been reading his plays for my Classics course, and it's bloody hilarious stuff. Bit too many fart jokes, though.

TheBadass:
I've got 1984 sitting on my desk right now. I've wanted to read it for ages and ordered it from Amazon like a week ago, so wish me luck people.

My favourite authors, however, are Terry Pratchett, Steven Saylor and - pretentiousness ahead - Aristophanes. I've been reading his plays for my Classics course, and it's bloody hilarious stuff. Bit too many fart jokes, though.

I think you'll enjoy it, but good luck none the less. Do read the intro, though. It helps.

Thomas of Gilead:
Stephen King's "The Stand". Some of you classical literature types may scoff at the likes of Stephen King, but he spins the most compelling epic yarn.

Okay, you mentioned the Dark Tower series below this, so I don't have to hurt you, but The Stand is horribly over hyped.

It was too long before they extended it, so much so that I was unable to get into the extended version in the slightest - I was more entertained by a passing moth than I the novel when trying to read that book - talk about total lack of immersion.

It started out very well; a brilliant concept, and whilst I was not too keen on the frequency at which King changed locale, character and focus, I was enjoying it.

Then the boring, overly long, seemingly irrelevant drivel started to seep in, it just got worse, and worse, until I put it down and re-read The Gunslinger before I lost all faith in King as an author.

The Dark Tower books are certainly his mangum opus, and I am a fan of King in general, but The Stand is just so poorly written. I can usually get around that with King, as the ideas and concepts in his books are always great, but The Stand just took the biscuit.

Oh, but there were a couple pictures in it that were quite nice...

Labyrinth:
I hate Darren Shan. I absolutely loathe it, and as such, this post is going to be an exercise in expelling pent-up bile from my otherwise sweet and pristine system.

I was a big fan of Shan for a while; I read all of the initial books, even ignored the fact that he had made himself the main character in some kind of egotistical, fantastical and fanciful way of pleasuring himself, but I have to agree that, looking back on it, Shan's books are a steaming pile of arse.

Last month I tried to read the most recent Demonata, and repeatedly asked myself what exactly I had ever enjoyed from his books - the presentation, language, imagery, everything from the description (or lack thereof) to the simple structure is either an abominable, new definition of the phrase 'badly written' or far too over the top to take it in the slightest bit seriously.

I think I must have recieved a blow to the head before I read the Darren Shan novels, as that's the only excuse I can think of for liking them.

Qayin:
Last month I tried to read the most recent Demonata, and repeatedly asked myself what exactly I had ever enjoyed from his books - the presentation, language, imagery, everything from the description (or lack thereof) to the simple structure is either an abominable, new definition of the phrase 'badly written' or far too over the top to take it in the slightest bit seriously.

I think I must have recieved a blow to the head before I read the Darren Shan novels, as that's the only excuse I can think of for liking them.

I've seen better-written trashy teen love novels, actually.

Labyrinth:

I've seen better-written trashy teen love novels, actually.

Well, those novels have the slightest bit of believability, whereas I lose that with Shan as soon as the porky ginger kid starts going on adventures and finds he is capable of destroying demons with his magical mind-powers.

Oh! Maybe someone will have the guts to recommend Twilight, so that we may descend upon them like literate vultures.

Labyrinth:

With a lot of difficult literature, I've found it helps to cross-reference the context. For example, some of the language used in Portrait Of The Artist As A Young Man I didn't understand without looking up some history about Dublin at the time, because it is slang and colloquialisms which are not used elsewhere. Context matters, is I guess the theme of that.

Thanks for the tip. I don't think me not knowing much about that specific part of russian history is my biggest problem, but I'm sure looking into that time would help. I'll do some research before I try to read it again.

Labyrinth:

Qayin:
Last month I tried to read the most recent Demonata, and repeatedly asked myself what exactly I had ever enjoyed from his books - the presentation, language, imagery, everything from the description (or lack thereof) to the simple structure is either an abominable, new definition of the phrase 'badly written' or far too over the top to take it in the slightest bit seriously.

I think I must have recieved a blow to the head before I read the Darren Shan novels, as that's the only excuse I can think of for liking them.

I've seen better-written trashy teen love novels, actually.

Oh, I so you've read Laurel K. Hamilton's novels, too? I can give you the number of the support group I go to. They're great people.

Qayin:

Labyrinth:

I've seen better-written trashy teen love novels, actually.

Well, those novels have the slightest bit of believability, whereas I lose that with Shan as soon as the porky ginger kid starts going on adventures and finds he is capable of destroying demons with his magical mind-powers.

Oh! Maybe someone will have the guts to recommend Twilight, so that we may descend upon them like literate vultures.

Actually, I do that to most Harry Potter fans, but I think that's a result of being too opinionated.

Qayin:

Labyrinth:

I've seen better-written trashy teen love novels, actually.

Well, those novels have the slightest bit of believability, whereas I lose that with Shan as soon as the porky ginger kid starts going on adventures and finds he is capable of destroying demons with his magical mind-powers.

Oh! Maybe someone will have the guts to recommend Twilight, so that we may descend upon them like literate vultures.

Ahem.

Labyrinth:
I am an avid reader. That's hardly news. However, I was wondering who else felt the same adoration and envy for great authors and their works. I'd also like to suggest discussing the themes of books. (And on a side note, I'd prefer this -didn't- descend into a rant about Twilight. We already have threads for that.)

mshcherbatskaya:
Werepossum, have you ever read anything by John Keegan? He's a military historian with an encyclopedic knowledge of military history and theory. Amazing. I have two books by him, The Face of Battle, which I loved, and The History of Warfare, which I periodically take a stab at and never get very far, because his prose is so dense.

I've read those, too!

Another one I'd recommend is Chris Hedges' War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning. I think in particular it complements what A History of Warfare says about war and culture. It's philosophical and personal, though I'd call it polemic as well. Wonderful if you can forgive its excesses, just like Keegan's History (Keegan's excess being all that stuff about Clausewitz).

-- Alex