Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Books => Topic started by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on October 01, 2004, 02:24:00 PM
-
reference: http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=866
ah... EUOL and I have argued this many many times. We'll never agree, though I think we don't disagree nearly so much as our arguments imply. Too bad I'm too tired and sick to go into it
-
EUOL, why can't you just italicize titles instead of capitalize? When you said PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG MAN, I first thought you were adding some massive emphasis to the phrase -- BAM! right in the face.
Knock it off.
Otherwise, I enjoyed your article.
-
Yeah. I figured that since it's something we've gone the rounds on in the forums, it was interesting to deserve a column on.
-
"Everyone things he's excellent from a technical standpoint"
Whoops!
Also, interesting EUOLogy. I think Stephen King should now write a book called Og Like Milk.
Except he'd probably introduce the characters to the concept of constant, unnecessary swearing, so I probably wouldn't end up reading it after all.
"If no man's opinion is more valuable than another's"
I'm not exactly sure how I feel about this, actually. In some cases, I do respect some people's opinion much more than another, and believe that their opinion is more valuable.
That's not to say that the less valuable one isn't valid or important, just that one does, in fact, hold more worth than the other. Granted, this only applies in a few select cases--according to me, anyway.
-
You all know that Tolkien would win. He would arrive with 10,000 orcs and slaughter the both of them.
-
Brenna,
I mean my statement about the value of opinions as a general idea, not as relating to specific cases. For instance, I may respect someone's opinion more. However, I don't think that actually makes it more valuable than anyone else's opinion. It's their opinion, and they have a right to it--and when we say that one person's informed opinion is more valuable than someone else's, I think we're in a dangerous place.
There are restrictions on this, of course. I mean it to be an informed opinion, and about something the person has a right to speak upon. For instance, my opinion on an election in France wouldn't be very valuable. However, if two people were to read a book and have different opinions of it, I don't think you can justify claiming one as more valuable than the other.
The guy I was talking to--a creative writer at BYU--actually said something to the effect of "I guess it's good that not all books are like Joyce, since most people aren't intelligent enough to understand him. There has to be something for everyone else." He's a nice guy, and he said it without arrogance in his voice, but I was dumbfounded. He essentially said "If you are intelligent, you will like the books that I like. If you're not, you can like these lesser creations."
It's that idea that offends me. He thinks his opinion is more valuable than other people's, and he assumes that people who don't think the same way he does aren't as intelligent as he is. He actually believes this.
-
the caps problem should have been fixed BEFORE it was even blurbed. Otherwise someone was editing at the same time I was. So, whoever was doing that. STOP IT. I don't want to ahve to correct everything twice.
-
also, who put in all those <p/> tags with that afterward slash. That wasn't there on my first edit. Who's screwing with the articles?
-
Sorry, I copyedited it before I ran out for errands, and probably screwed up something. I didn't do anything but change a dash, but from now on I'll wait till it's actually posted. It just seems silly to copyedit after everyone's read it, and I was in a hurry to do it before I left.
Don't hate me, SE!
-
Be nice, SE.
The <p/> tags were in my original. Sprig told me that this is the way to do paragraphing, since you don't have to put both a <p> and a </p>. You can just put a <p/> at the beginning of a paragraph, and it makes everything nice and pretty, and dosen't confuse the computer.
Oh, and HoM--it's the industry standard to ALL CAPS for book titles and let the copyeditors change what they want. What industry do you work in, and when are you going to join the rest of us?
-
Okay, then, that makes much more sense to me, though I do still think there are exceptions.
I also hate when people basically tell me that
"If you are intelligent, you will like the books/ideas/politics/topics that I like. If you're not, you can like these lesser creations."
That's why I almost never enter into discussions on politics or other sensitive topics anymore--I am rarely given the courtesy of explaining my point of view before being brushed off as stupid/uninformed/whatever.
-
Who put the Rage pills into SE's food?
-
Well, he did have to redo an edit of an article. That would be pretty annoying. I guess it just hasn't come up that two people would be editing the article at the same time.
I guess there should just be a rule. Once you post 'It's up' on the 'call for articles' page, nobody bot SE is allowed to touch it. SE edits it to his satisfaction, then posts a blurb. After that, Stacer edits it.
-
Works for me.
Brenna, I agree. She and I were just discussing this on IM--there's a discussion going on on my child-lit listserv in which a number of members just discovered that Orson Scott Card is LDS. Then some people pointed out his "Hypocrites of Homosexuality" essay (from 1990, Sunstone magazine) in which he states his views on homosexuals in the Church who demand their orientation/actions be validated, not sinful.
Most of the people on the list have now decided that Card is a hatemongering homophobe, whose books they'll put in the category of "books I love, author I hate." And so now it's turned into a huge long diatribe, one after the other ranting on how much they now dislike Card as a person. I don't feel I can wade into that seething-ness and say what I want to say and be understood.
More on topic with the article, I agree with EUOL that the attitude that you have to have a certain level of intelligence to appreciate certain works is bunk. As I look at denser works with a more critical eye, I do find I can appreciate them despite not liking them as a story. But that's not the same as taste. For example, I'm reading Water-Babies, which is about the dumbest book I ever read, and most critics agree, as a story. But as a Victorian work that opened the genre of fantasy, at least for children (EUOL, I swear, it was about 100 years before you claim), it's an important book, and can be appreciated on other levels besides as a good story.
I guess. I still say it's one of the most boring books I ever read.
-
EUOL, on your website it's linked as EUOLogy #5. Is it 5 or 6?
Oh, um... nevermind. I see. It IS #5.
-
that's really weird. There's no reason to put <p/> because the regular <P> has never needed to be closed.
as for Card, well, Penny Arcade actually had something to say about that. Here's what they said, after I edited the potty words out:
Salon Interview (http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2000/02/03/card/index.html) with Orson Scott Card: After I mentioned reading OSC's Ender's Game, I was (as you'd expect) congratulated for finally getting off my backside. Having only read one book, I hadn't gotten around to investigating the author yet - I'm not sure if I ever would have, to tell you the truth. Every time I've investigated a writer I was interested in, I've been disappointed - and it's not exactly their fault. Their invariable humanity - their absolute refusal to conform to the perfectly acceptable template I have designed for their behavior always frustrates, but the main thing is that writers are circus freaks almost across the board. Some things are best left ambiguous.
Anyhow, I hadn't actively sought out much info about the guy yet, but I was sent this Salon interview by several humans as evidence that Mr. Card was a raving jerk. He may well be a prick, but that doesn't mean the author of the article isn't also a super spacecow.
the comments with original language were on this page (http://www.penny-arcade.com/news.php3?date=2001-08-17)
-
Stacer:
Out of respect for the TWG, I post articles on my own site a week after they appear here.
SE: Jordan said it was something to do with the coding on my site. I wasn't allowed to use <p> without a </p> because it would slow down the server when it tried to find the </p>. He told me, however, that I could use <p/> without slowing anything down, and it didn't need a closing thingy.
-
Yeah, I remembered that after posting. Nevermind! :)
-
Ug. Just read the Salon article, don't know why I did, but there was all the discussion on the list, and I was getting frustrated. I just don't know how to put into words a gentle reminder that they don't act this way with other religions, are careful to act respectfully to anything *except* someone with conservative Christian views. And there are a number on the list, who just silently take it, because speaking up just means getting attacked.
I feel like I should speak up, but anything I say will be less than adequate.
-
Back to the great writer for the masses vs. great writer for the literary crowd topic: Anyone thought about Shakespeare? He was more of a Stephen King of his time than a James Joyce and I don't think there is anyone more universally studied in English departments today than he.
So can we expect Joyce to quietly fade away while King slowly creeps his way into the literary circles? Will our descendants be studying Carrie or Cujo like we studied Merchant of Venice?
-
That's why I almost never enter into discussions on politics or other sensitive topics anymore--I am rarely given the courtesy of explaining my point of view before being brushed off as stupid/uninformed/whatever.
Aww! You can't write everyone off that way just because there are a few jerks who don't like to listen to other people's opinions. (Okay, so there are more than a few, I know, but still.)
The trick I think is to find the right people to argue with--people who are interested in discussion as a means of expanding their perspective rather than a means to prove they are right. Most of my favorite conversations have been about sensitive topics, because when one can both listen and be heard, both people walk away changed.
-
ah, yes, but with most of the people I talk to, I am only allowed to listen--my voice/opinion doesn't matter. Now, the few that do listen as well as speak--those people are fun to argue with. :) As long as it's civil and respectful.
-
I've never quite understood what the good of an argument is when you don't listen to what the other person is saying. What kind of an argument is that? You might as well go argue with a wall.
Although that can be fun too.
-
Skar, the thing about Shakespeare is that he was BOTH Joyce and King. That funky way his characters talk--nobody else did that. In fact, there is record of his contemporaries claiming his writing was too obscure for people to understand.
However, he also played to the masses, as you've noted. He achieved success with both groups. King is trying his best to do the same thing--his writing has gotten more and more literary as his career has progressed, and he has managed to retain his audiences at the same time.
-
that's really weird. There's no reason to put <p/> because the regular <P> has never needed to be closed.
It's becasue EUOL's site is coded in XHTML SE, and XHTML requires all tags to be closed even <p> and <br>, adding a "/" at the end does this. TWG is standard HTML and dosen't need to be closed, but the end "/" dosn't hurt anything.
-
Since we're talking about the philosophy of arguments . . .
I think the difference between a good argument and a bad argument comes when the people involved share the same assumptions. There is such a thing as the hardened skeptic who won't change his conviction that the stars don't exist even when you take him out of his cave and show them to him. Then there are also those who are so zealous about their own points of view that they will patiently listen to your argument and proceed as if everything you just said wasn't important to HIS point. In either case, the argument gets nowhere.
I'm a member of a discussion board that is supposed to be "anything goes." Unfortunately this board is populated by people who think that they are so smart that only idiots think differently. The worst part is that their "intelligence" has been reinforced by a standardized test. Since all intelligent, reasoning beings (and excuse my sarcasm here) allow for truth wherever it can be found--including the truth that any kind of absolute truth is false because it doesn't allow for opposing points of view--then all intelligent, reasoning beings are liberals and hate Bush. For obvious reasons I don't often join in the politics or religion discussions there; I've had too many arguments that resort to ad hominem attacks to want to stick my neck out to give an opinion that isn't really valued.
But here, if we truly value the opinions of others, discussions about politics and religion can be thought-refining to all involved parties. Brenna is absolutely right when she says that it's respect that allows for a good discussion. Some of you guys have been friends for so long that you're like brothers (some of you are brothers): you know all the right buttons to push to irritate and provoke. But dang it! I wish I had the time to contribute.
-
That Card "interview" wasn't an interview at all. It was basically Interviewer asks Card a question, doesn't like the answer, so says how horrible of a person he is. Lather, rinse, repeat.
-
Yep. And that's how I feel this discussion has been on child-lit. He doesn't share my views on homosexuality? Well, then, he's a horrible person! I must rethink whether I can share his books with children! Etc.!
The thing is, if I were to say the same thing about Philip Pullman (which I have, privately), the author of His Dark Materials and an avowed athiest who killed off God in the series, they would jump on me in no time, because what Philip has to say is so new, so amazing.... You get the picture. You've all been there. I'm just venting.
-
Stacer: Then say it. Maybe some of them will take the hint.
-
I think it was in my Human Developement where the professor mentioned that most people measured intelligence in other by how close it measured to their own. So if you like what I like and think how I think, you're intelligent. All others are stupid. Forget about theories of multiple intelligences.
I've found that art, literature, writing, music, film, and related classes adhere to the "one of us" criterea for excellence as their guiding light.
-
That's because those fields are all so subjective. With the hard sciences, it's easier to feel like you have a right answer, even if it is only a theory.
-
I always think that 'Human development' sounds like a Geneneering project. :)
-
That was my undergrad major. Hmm, looks like I missed the most exciting classes. ;)
-
What? So you didn't create El'Spriggo out of random collections of DNA strands?
Damn. There goes that theory.