BF2S Forums BF3s Book Club

Uzique wrote:

as a student with an interest in modernist and postmodernist texts i just don't agree with your comment about authors being dead; as i said, classic authors aren't beatified after death. there's tons of criticism, theory and primary texts out there that all comes from contemporary and still-writing authors. huge amounts. the important thing, though, is to have the 'classical' education behind you, i.e. the older texts very much form a cultural basis. it would be pretty blind and stupid to study only the literature of the now, with no regard to the past. but as for the current authors being worthless until dead? preposterous.

"Professor, I was thinking about reading this book instead of Great Expectations."

"When was it published?"

"1952."

"Mehhhhh...."

Jay wrote:

My dad handed me a copy of the Hobbit and the LotR trilogy (in mass market paperback form in one of those cutesy boxed sets) back in the late 80s. Apparently it was super popular in the 60s and was kicked down the road to me as a kid. Can't complain. Loved the books, but because of my affinity for history and mythology, I actually like The Silmarillion more. The dude designed an entire world right down to its mythological beginnings. Nothing cooler than that imo.

Last edited by Spark (2011-04-03 21:36:58)

Spark wrote:

Jay wrote:

My dad handed me a copy of the Hobbit and the LotR trilogy (in mass market paperback form in one of those cutesy boxed sets) back in the late 80s. Apparently it was super popular in the 60s and was kicked down the road to me as a kid. Can't complain. Loved the books, but because of my affinity for history and mythology, I actually like The Silmarillion more. The dude designed an entire world right down to its mythological beginnings. Nothing cooler than that imo.

Tried to read that once. Heavy. Good, but heavy.

Macbeth wrote:

J. R. R. Tolkien wrote a bit of criticism about the book Beowulf. That's the only thing I read of his and by read I mean I took a quick glance at it and then went back to sleep in my senior English class.

In my senior year we read a bunch of books among them Beowulf and Grendel. I  absolutely hated Beowulf. The Old English was annoying to get through and the story just wasn't interesting enough to justify the annoyance of trying to decipher the actual text. Considering I'm part of the whole Fight Club generation a story with a protagonist who is good and pure in every way seemed boring and hollow.

I loved Grendel. The whole outsiders perspective on the humans actions as well as an deeply introspective narrator really hooked me even if it was just for a short 150 pages. It was probably the most mature (or maybe a better word would be deep?) thing we had to read in high school.

On a sidenote- I have this weird feeling people just roll their eyes whenever I post something longer than a sentence. I feel like Mek sometimes.

Macbeth wrote:

Do you know where George R.R. Martin was born, John?

Also the HBO show looks terrible.

Kmar wrote:

Spark wrote:

Wasn't it like the second-most-bought series of books after the bible in the 20th century or summatlikethat?

True, although I think circumstances of the release date like population growth, literacy rates, and modern mass production/distribution probably gives it a distinct advantage over other "classics".

Jay wrote:

On a related note, I'm kind of annoyed that they've turned George R.R. Martin's series A Song of Ice and Fire into an HBO series. I've been preaching about its epicness for years but now I'm going to be subjected to dozens of people telling me I have to read a series of books that I started reading ten years ago.

Edit - and that is my hipster-underground rant for the day

FEOS wrote:

Uzique wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It's not relaying information (like the written word). It's not providing shelter (like architecture).

What function is it performing?

It's strictly for viewing pleasure. That is not a function.

I'm not casting judgment. Perhaps that's where we've gotten sideways. I don't see performing a function as good or bad. It just is. It does, however, provide an objective measure by which to rate something that is inherently subjective by all other measures. Visual art, on the other hand, is purely subjective. I can't think of an objective measure--unless it had to meet a weight/balance requirement for some reason (but then that wouldn't be artistic in nature, imo).

visual art and sculpture actually have always had functions, mainly thriving in the medieval tradition (before the dominance of the written word and art of literature, pre-gutenberg press) to relay religious instruction and meaning through the immediacy of the visual symbol/sign. sculpture and painting in referential senses acted as simple symbols and metaphors for religious lessons. architecture was also incorporated into this basic 'function' of art's aesthetic; if you look at the construction of medieval churches and cathedrals, their structure is adorned with many carvings and signs for the entering worshipper. visual art and sculpture had a just as big -- if not bigger -- function than the written word: they communicated a theological and pedagogical message to the non-literate masses. so no, i don't agree with you... again.

most art historians would be absolutely shocked by your idea that sculpture/painting is "just for viewing pleasure". right up until the mid 19th century the charge of art's 'aestheticism' would be the biggest dismissal of a piece of art/artist possible. if a painting or sculpture DIDN'T communicate anything, and simply revelled in its own form (as opposed to its intrinsic content), then the work was deemed worthless. the victorians were the high-point of this attitude in art criticism (arguing for art's function in establishing morality and providing standards, such as beauty and truth), with popular thinkers like Ruskin turning precisely to the visual arts for an immediate redeeming 'lesson' for their (perceived) decadent and decaying societies.

You're focusing on medieval and pre-Renaissance visual art to support your argument? Really? So you're saying that those things serve the same purpose today that they did then? Really? Of course they don't, Uzique. Because we can read and write today. So they are appreciated today for their beauty and for the function they once performed (note the tense). In the case of the churches and their architecture, the architectural (vice religious) functional aspect is often more admired today than anything else, due to the relative crudity of the building tools and materials and the state of mathematics available to the builders of the time.

I find it somewhat laughable that you argue against my point by again bringing up others' points of view: "most art historians". It's funny in two ways: 1) we're talking about art today and you're talking about the views of historians (not to say history isn't important, just not germane to this discussion) and 2) you're defending your viewpoint by basically saying "other people think this way" yet you sell yourself here as some sort of high-end intellectual. All you do is regurgitate other peoples' thoughts...particularly if your viewpoint is questioned. Which is sort of the point of a D&ST section.

Last edited by Uzique (2011-04-04 18:45:51)