|
|
Post by devilishlybookish on Jun 16, 2011 17:06:44 GMT -5
I'm sad that a lot of people didn't like the Hunger Games. I know they weren't the greatest ever, but I thought they were well done for being young adult novels. I made it through half of The Hunger Games before quitting because I just wasn't that interested. I mean, it was okay, but as the original poster said, it was painfully predictable and honestly I didn't find the characters that interesting. I can't blame some young people for not enjoying something that's 'well done for a young adult novel'. I personally demand something that's just, well, a well done novel. Why should the age group it's written for matter? |
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 16, 2011 17:40:35 GMT -5
I'm sad that a lot of people didn't like the Hunger Games. I know they weren't the greatest ever, but I thought they were well done for being young adult novels. I made it through half of The Hunger Games before quitting because I just wasn't that interested. I mean, it was okay, but as the original poster said, it was painfully predictable and honestly I didn't find the characters that interesting. I can't blame some young people for not enjoying something that's 'well done for a young adult novel'. I personally demand something that's just, well, a well done novel. Why should the age group it's written for matter? Because when you're selling a manuscript, you have to have an age group in mind. Even when you're writing, you have to have an age group in mind because otherwise you'll have a hard time finding either an agent or a publishing house. |
|
|
|
Post by Pencils on Jun 17, 2011 9:44:55 GMT -5
I made it through half of The Hunger Games before quitting because I just wasn't that interested. I mean, it was okay, but as the original poster said, it was painfully predictable and honestly I didn't find the characters that interesting. I can't blame some young people for not enjoying something that's 'well done for a young adult novel'. I personally demand something that's just, well, a well done novel. Why should the age group it's written for matter? Because when you're selling a manuscript, you have to have an age group in mind. Even when you're writing, you have to have an age group in mind because otherwise you'll have a hard time finding either an agent or a publishing house. Oh, I know! That's not what I meant. What I meant is why should the age group a book is written for imply a greater or lesser standard for its quality? |
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 17, 2011 14:20:06 GMT -5
Oh, okay, sorry for the misunderstanding. And I agree with you. Although, most YA books don't get the credit they deserve because they're YA.
|
|
|
|
Post by BasicallyRun on Jun 17, 2011 17:33:20 GMT -5
I absolutely hated Frankenstein. It might not have been so terrible if Victor weren't such a whiny and irritating "protagonist". I can't even put into words what else about it I didn't like; I just couldn't stomach it. I'm so conflicted about Frankenstein. On the one hand, I adore the general idea of it, and if you gave me a summary, I'd be jumping up and down to read it (sci-fi geek that I am). On the other... well. 'Whiny and irritating' is considerably nicer than how I've been describing him all year. I also hated how ridiculously passive the female characters are ('submit in patience to the will of Heaven', Justine? Really?), though I did end up arguing that this was clearly a piece of clever feminist satire on Mary Shelley's part. I mean, her mother wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Women, it saddens me to think of Shelley writing such awful female characters except as satire. I have to say, though, the book is much improved by out-of-context dramatic quote-hurling, my class' favourite form of revision. 'I ought to be thy Adam!' *drops to knees, hand on heart* |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2011 18:42:13 GMT -5
I've mentioned this elsewhere, but Ulysses by James Joyce is awful. There's stream of consciousness, and then there's not bothering to construct proper sentences or properly signpost who is talking and what the fuck is going on. I just don't get what's supposed to be so insightful or beautiful or clever about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by KatjevanLoon on Jun 17, 2011 20:12:01 GMT -5
I've mentioned this elsewhere, but Ulysses by James Joyce is awful. There's stream of consciousness, and then there's not bothering to construct proper sentences or properly signpost who is talking and what the fuck is going on. I just don't get what's supposed to be so insightful or beautiful or clever about it. This is exactly how I felt about Portrait of the Artist as A Young Man by the same author, to the point where I could not get past the first 50 pages. We were asked to do opinion essays on our assigned reading for that class, and my opinion essay basically said "I could not understand a word this author was saying, marketing this book as "English" seems a lie at best, and why on earth would you ever assign something so completely unreadable?" I did not get a good grade, as I disagreed with the teacher (who thought the book was brill, naturally). That said, I had to read Araby for a different class, which was a different style from Portrait and actually readable and well-written, so I think maybe Joyce should just never ever write stream-of-consciousness. |
|
|
|
Post by Pencils on Jun 17, 2011 21:39:46 GMT -5
Oh, okay, sorry for the misunderstanding. And I agree with you. Although, most YA books don't get the credit they deserve because they're YA. Agreed, agreed! Some of my favorite books are YA, but I feel like sometimes everyone writes them off because of all the crap out there. |
|
|
|
Post by Eternal Lobster on Jun 19, 2011 20:20:00 GMT -5
I have been told by a professor that anyone claiming to have thoroughly read and understood Ulysses is lying.
|
|
|
|
Post by cyanea on Jun 19, 2011 22:01:14 GMT -5
I absolutely hated Frankenstein. It might not have been so terrible if Victor weren't such a whiny and irritating "protagonist". I can't even put into words what else about it I didn't like; I just couldn't stomach it. I'm so conflicted about Frankenstein. On the one hand, I adore the general idea of it, and if you gave me a summary, I'd be jumping up and down to read it (sci-fi geek that I am). On the other... well. 'Whiny and irritating' is considerably nicer than how I've been describing him all year. I also hated how ridiculously passive the female characters are ('submit in patience to the will of Heaven', Justine? Really?), though I did end up arguing that this was clearly a piece of clever feminist satire on Mary Shelley's part. I mean, her mother wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Women, it saddens me to think of Shelley writing such awful female characters except as satire. I have to say, though, the book is much improved by out-of-context dramatic quote-hurling, my class' favourite form of revision. 'I ought to be thy Adam!' *drops to knees, hand on heart* Justine didn't submit to the "will of Heaven", Victor. She was put to death because you're too much of a freaking wimp to take responsibility for your own actions, and then you have the temerity to play yourself off as the victim? The more I think about that book, the more enraged I become.  |
|
|
|
Post by BasicallyRun on Jun 30, 2011 16:22:39 GMT -5
I'm so conflicted about Frankenstein. On the one hand, I adore the general idea of it, and if you gave me a summary, I'd be jumping up and down to read it (sci-fi geek that I am). On the other... well. 'Whiny and irritating' is considerably nicer than how I've been describing him all year. I also hated how ridiculously passive the female characters are ('submit in patience to the will of Heaven', Justine? Really?), though I did end up arguing that this was clearly a piece of clever feminist satire on Mary Shelley's part. I mean, her mother wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Women, it saddens me to think of Shelley writing such awful female characters except as satire. I have to say, though, the book is much improved by out-of-context dramatic quote-hurling, my class' favourite form of revision. 'I ought to be thy Adam!' *drops to knees, hand on heart* Justine didn't submit to the "will of Heaven", Victor. She was put to death because you're too much of a freaking wimp to take responsibility for your own actions, and then you have the temerity to play yourself off as the victim? The more I think about that book, the more enraged I become. But... but the wounded deer is but a type of me! Can't you feel my pain? (By which I mean, whole-hearted agreement here. I have a whole section of my quotes-book headed with 'Frankenstein is a dick not a sympathetic protagonist'.) |
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 30, 2011 20:03:34 GMT -5
Wicked. I hated it. It was way too political for my taste, especially for being a retelling from a villains point of view. Most people were reading it because of the Broadway show, which I hear is radically different from the book anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by onlyaworkingtitle on Jun 30, 2011 21:29:55 GMT -5
(By which I mean, whole-hearted agreement here. I have a whole section of my quotes-book headed with 'Frankenstein is a dick not a sympathetic protagonist'.) AHAHAHAHAyeah... |
|
|
|
Post by KatjevanLoon on Jul 1, 2011 14:12:55 GMT -5
Wicked. I hated it. It was way too political for my taste, especially for being a retelling from a villains point of view. Most people were reading it because of the Broadway show, which I hear is radically different from the book anyway. Broadway show is still pretty damn political. Just happier. (and that is all I am going to say, because I am a huge fan of the Wicked series.) |
|
andy
Young Armadillo
Posts: 80
|
Post by andy on Jul 3, 2011 4:58:56 GMT -5
I absolutely hated Frankenstein. It might not have been so terrible if Victor weren't such a whiny and irritating "protagonist". I can't even put into words what else about it I didn't like; I just couldn't stomach it. I'm so conflicted about Frankenstein. On the one hand, I adore the general idea of it, and if you gave me a summary, I'd be jumping up and down to read it (sci-fi geek that I am). On the other... well. 'Whiny and irritating' is considerably nicer than how I've been describing him all year. I also hated how ridiculously passive the female characters are ('submit in patience to the will of Heaven', Justine? Really?), though I did end up arguing that this was clearly a piece of clever feminist satire on Mary Shelley's part. I mean, her mother wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Women, it saddens me to think of Shelley writing such awful female characters except as satire. I have to say, though, the book is much improved by out-of-context dramatic quote-hurling, my class' favourite form of revision. 'I ought to be thy Adam!' *drops to knees, hand on heart* I hate the idea that female writers have to have strong feminine characters in their novels otherwise they're a disgrace to their gender. Oh, yeah, because a woman can't possibly think that certain women are weak/passive and she can't possibly want to include them in her work they make sense from an aesthetic point of view. There are several feminist undertones to Frankenstein (including, but not limited to, Victor's saying that Elizabeth was his mother's gift to him, the very strong concern with child birth and the fact that Mary Shelley places her novel in the context of the overly male Paradise Lost as a response to its shortcomings), but I don't think that Justine plays a key role in its feminism. |
|
