I've been on an Alien kick lately. I think I'm going to re-read some of the novels I bought and read as a youngster and see if they're anywhere as interesting as they used to be.
I just started reading Richard Powers' The Goldbug Variations
really like it so far, though I've barely started. the last novel I read was Gravity's Rainbow, so at this point I would probably love anything that's willing to sit me down and tell me a damn story
anyway I think I'll probably end up enjoying this a lot, but it's longish and I don't read much now that my friends are back, so I'll probably end up taking it with me to my summer job and finishing it there
so I'll post what I think of it in late august!
redhead on
0
Options
Viscount Islands[INSERT SoKo HERE]...it was the summer of my lifeRegistered Userregular
edited May 2009
I read Summer Knight and liked it alot.
What was Wiggin's problem with it?
Viscount Islands on
I want to do with you
What spring does with the cherry trees.
0
Options
FandyienBut Otto, what about us? Registered Userregular
I'll probably finish all the pretty horses on my impending trip to germany so I have some other choices packed
I think I've got the road, altered carbon, and something else in there
seizureorbs on
0
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
edited June 2009
Currently reading The Beach by Alex Garland. It's pretty good, I'd have to say.
Shorty on
0
Options
FandyienBut Otto, what about us? Registered Userregular
edited June 2009
So I'm mostly enjoying The Forever War by Joe Haldeman, except for his take on sex. It just smacks of "pathetic dude wanting to write in some orgies, so he did". I hate that.
Fandyien on
0
Options
FandyienBut Otto, what about us? Registered Userregular
edited June 2009
My Science-fiction teacher is such a goddamn asshole.
He grades down on papers merely because he doesn't agree with the assertions even if they're technically valid because he's an arrogant, condescending fuck who wrote a few terrible books.
[edit] He graded me down extensively for referring to the characters drug usage as a manifestation of the hopelessness and escapism inherent in Dick's life and the lives of those people with whom he associated. I mean, I can understand disagreeing with the postulation, but rather then refuting it he merely said "big loss for that sentence" with no legitimate justification and I think that makes him a shitty teacher.
Fandyien on
0
Options
Lost Salientblink twiceif you'd like me to mercy kill youRegistered Userregular
edited June 2009
Ugh. That's a problem I've had before, particularly with literature and history teachers. If you were honestly formulating a poorly-written essay with little to no background in the subject matter and conjectured half-assedly in the hopes that you was right, it would be one thing. But when you do have that knowledge and you interpret it in a manner consistent with the facts and materials at hand, I think it's extremely irresponsible for a professor to mark it down based entirely on his own disagreement. If you were wrong, then by all means, grade with that in mind. But I think it goes against the purpose of a university education to refuse your students' attempts to think for themselves, particularly where literature or art is concerned. History's a little fuzzier, but it still gets my goat.
Lost Salient on
"Sandra has a good solid anti-murderer vibe. My skin felt very secure and sufficiently attached to my body when I met her. Also my organs." HAIL SATAN
0
Options
FandyienBut Otto, what about us? Registered Userregular
Ugh. That's a problem I've had before, particularly with literature and history teachers. If you were honestly formulating a poorly-written essay with little to no background in the subject matter and conjectured half-assedly in the hopes that you was right, it would be one thing. But when you do have that knowledge and you interpret it in a manner consistent with the facts and materials at hand, I think it's extremely irresponsible for a professor to mark it down based entirely on his own disagreement. If you were wrong, then by all means, grade with that in mind. But I think it goes against the purpose of a university education to refuse your students' attempts to think for themselves, particularly where literature or art is concerned. History's a little fuzzier, but it still gets my goat.
I think I did a fairly good job on the essay. I'm familiar with Dick, I read the book, and I'm good at interpreting literature.
The Man In The High Castle is, in many senses, a psychological thriller devoted more unanimously to the setting rather then to the narrative itself. It is strung together fairly loosely in a traditionally diasporic format, boasting no main protagonist, per say, but rather following and examining the intricacies of several characters, the actions of whom are intertwined with one another throughout the course of the narrative. Despite the delicate nature of the topic, Dick renders both the oppressors and the oppressed sympathetic characters; eschewing jingoistic tendencies to apply himself from a wholly different perspective, Dick’s desire to paint a thought-provoking portrait of an alternative world is clear.
In terms of technique and structure, The Man In The High Castle is classic Philip K. Dick. It is erratically paced, the vernacular is uniquely jilted, and the line between realities within the novel becomes consistently blurry as the piece progresses. It addresses some of the major psychological themes displayed in much of Dick’s work, pontificating upon the value of history, material, and identity. He addresses the latter even more significantly via hypothetical exploration of foreign cultures through as unbiased a lens as possible, attempting to understand moreso then convey. It is this relatively unique approach that, to my mind, numbers a few of the narrators in The Man In The High Castle as among the most interesting characters Dick has ever produced.
The characters are, to a man, creatures of context, socialized and addressed in an almost relativistic fashion. Though he had endless opportunities – indeed, I believe the whole of the book constitutes an opportunity to do this – to denigrate Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany (thus keeping with popular sentiment.) He chose instead to explore the separate cultures addressed via adherents rather than from an Amero-centric perspective.
Every character represents some aspect of the world Dick has generated. There is the white entrepeneur, morose, a marijuana smoker, a profiteer, and a man possessed by deep shame, Robert Childan. Mr. Tagomi is a manifestation of everything human about the Japanese, widely regarded as callously formal to the extreme; he is a member of the old guard, from before the war, but we remain sympathetic towards his goals and thought-processes. There is Frank Frink, a Jewish man, a manifestation of the American everyman, a hopefully foil to Juliana’s materialism. And, finally, there is Juliana, the only character about whom I could not easily divine as a clear manifestation of any idealogy. She, I suspect, represents the conflict between the postwar reality in which she lives and the Grasshopper-like reality about which she fantasizes. Mr. Baynes and Berthold Reiss are of passing interest; representing, by my perception, the human elements of an inhuman collective (IE, the Nazi party.)
The character that I believe most clearly illustrated conflict between pre and postwar psychological states, however, is Mr. Tagomi. Initially painted as an antagonistic force of stoicism, he is slowly introduced, with great exposition, as an individual overwhelmed by his inner dichotomy. Serene, thoughtful, and supposedly magnanimous in victory and interaction was the creed by which he lived; seeking false satisfaction in nigh-on unverifiable historicity, embroiled in the dissonance generated by the polarity of his rearing and the American context into which he is thrust. Tagomi is the closest thing to a “mouthpiece†or manifestation of Dick’s personality then any other; at the very peak of the book, Tagomi is given the very insight he has sought by a simple brooch he had dismissed for it’s wont of identity. He is overwhelmed by guilt for the deaths he caused, but did not flinch or hesitate in the course of the killing – he lives his life by the I Ching, by the balance of conflicting furies, a futile attribution of significance where none is innate. He is a conflict between the serene authoritarian humanism of Japan, the wanton individualism of America, and the heavy-handed bigotry of Nazi Germany; an inner struggle which, ultimately, transports him to another dimension and causes him to break down.
Much like Dick himself, the characters and the reality they saw around them were confused, intoxicated, and devoid of absolutes. They are frustrated, parts of a negative power structure, but themselves devoted to positive pursuits. The hopelessness and drug use by Childan, Frink, and McCarthy are manifestations of the sad, escapist, desires of Dick’s drug-addled associates. It is a powerful psychological exploration of bigotry, identity, race, and culture; but it is also a unique narrative, technically impressive and of obvious relevance to the author himself.
He graded me down for my mention of Childan's constant marijuana usage and reference to Dick's "drug-addled associates". I don't think that's technically valid.
I am reading The Book of the New Sun, Sword of the Lictor. I really enjoy it.
DouglasDanger on
0
Options
Lost Salientblink twiceif you'd like me to mercy kill youRegistered Userregular
edited June 2009
I suppose he could have interpreted the latter sentence as unnecessarily negative, or perhaps he would have preferred you to phrase it as a hypothesis rather than as a fact. Perhaps he needed context or wanted further elaboration on the associates you refer to for him to consider it as a more relevant closing sentence? I don't know. Really, my only guess is that he was marking down based on the statement's lack of contextual references within the body of the essay, since it does stand out as an extremely strong declaration, yet you don't make mention of Dick's actual life or friends elsewhere. But regarding the former example (which is clearly related to the latter), I think that if the character constantly uses marijuana, mentioning that constant use as a pivotal part of the character should in no way warrant marking-down.
Lost Salient on
"Sandra has a good solid anti-murderer vibe. My skin felt very secure and sufficiently attached to my body when I met her. Also my organs." HAIL SATAN
0
Options
FandyienBut Otto, what about us? Registered Userregular
I suppose he could have interpreted the latter sentence as unnecessarily negative, or perhaps he would have preferred you to phrase it as a hypothesis rather than as a fact. Perhaps he needed context or wanted further elaboration on the associates you refer to for him to consider it as a more relevant closing sentence? I don't know. Really, my only guess is that he was marking down based on the statement's lack of contextual references within the body of the essay, since it does stand out as an extremely strong declaration, yet you don't make mention of Dick's actual life or friends elsewhere. But regarding the former example (which is clearly related to the latter), I think that if the character constantly uses marijuana, mentioning that constant use as a pivotal part of the character should in no way warrant marking-down.
He smokes two marijuana cigarettes in every chapter. And I wanted to elucidate further upon the things I was saying, but he's very clear and vehement about not exceeding three pages / ~700 words. Which is what ultimately irritated me, because if he hadn't limited us so artificially, I would've had more space with which to justify myself.
His comment was-
"What does this mean? Any novel likely has obvious relevance to the author. Without any elucidation on your past, we have no idea what you mean. What does it say about the novel in the end to make vague references to Dick's life? Much loss for "the desires of Dick's drug-addled associates."
Fuck you, guy. Those comments don't make any goddamn sense and they hardly justify giving me a B instead of an A. What it means, in the end, to make "vague references" to the author's life is to substantiate my claims about the relevance of drug-usage and negativity to the characters Dick created. I mean, fuck.
Posts
really like it so far, though I've barely started. the last novel I read was Gravity's Rainbow, so at this point I would probably love anything that's willing to sit me down and tell me a damn story
anyway I think I'll probably end up enjoying this a lot, but it's longish and I don't read much now that my friends are back, so I'll probably end up taking it with me to my summer job and finishing it there
so I'll post what I think of it in late august!
What was Wiggin's problem with it?
What spring does with the cherry trees.
bahaha
there are True Blood books?
i'm so happy
"If you're going to play tiddly winks, play it with man hole covers."
- John McCallum
I've read the first five of them. They're light reading, and their fun. I dug the idea of having sectional sheriffs and shit like that.
at some point i will have to go do some yardwork
but in the meantime, it's time to catch up with dresden
I laughed about that two seperate times for almost five minutes each time.
Without spoiling anything: Yes, yes he is.
Yeah him and his family are moderately important characters
I think I'm going to make another attempt to read LotR, I'll try to pick up Fellowship at the used place this week
And Catelyn is still an irritating character to me.
Wiggin, why'd you hate Summer Knight?
What spring does with the cherry trees.
M-O-O-N, that spells pretty fucking good, oh laws yes.
do you mean A Clash of Kings or A Storm of Swords
either way I've never liked Cat
Was it good book
"Sandra has a good solid anti-murderer vibe. My skin felt very secure and sufficiently attached to my body when I met her. Also my organs." HAIL SATAN
Ugh, I knew I'd make that mistake and I still did.
What spring does with the cherry trees.
It okay
I honestly don't know
there's just something about that story that rubbed me wrong
I've never read it straight through
I've read the beginning, middle, and end, but never all at once
Because I'm not drunk
Jesus, how do you people still not understand this system
It is very simple
Amazon Wishlist: http://www.amazon.com/BusterK/wishlist/3JPEKJGX9G54I/ref=cm_wl_search_bin_1
Which version do you have?
I think I've got the road, altered carbon, and something else in there
He grades down on papers merely because he doesn't agree with the assertions even if they're technically valid because he's an arrogant, condescending fuck who wrote a few terrible books.
[edit] He graded me down extensively for referring to the characters drug usage as a manifestation of the hopelessness and escapism inherent in Dick's life and the lives of those people with whom he associated. I mean, I can understand disagreeing with the postulation, but rather then refuting it he merely said "big loss for that sentence" with no legitimate justification and I think that makes him a shitty teacher.
"Sandra has a good solid anti-murderer vibe. My skin felt very secure and sufficiently attached to my body when I met her. Also my organs." HAIL SATAN
I think I did a fairly good job on the essay. I'm familiar with Dick, I read the book, and I'm good at interpreting literature.
In terms of technique and structure, The Man In The High Castle is classic Philip K. Dick. It is erratically paced, the vernacular is uniquely jilted, and the line between realities within the novel becomes consistently blurry as the piece progresses. It addresses some of the major psychological themes displayed in much of Dick’s work, pontificating upon the value of history, material, and identity. He addresses the latter even more significantly via hypothetical exploration of foreign cultures through as unbiased a lens as possible, attempting to understand moreso then convey. It is this relatively unique approach that, to my mind, numbers a few of the narrators in The Man In The High Castle as among the most interesting characters Dick has ever produced.
The characters are, to a man, creatures of context, socialized and addressed in an almost relativistic fashion. Though he had endless opportunities – indeed, I believe the whole of the book constitutes an opportunity to do this – to denigrate Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany (thus keeping with popular sentiment.) He chose instead to explore the separate cultures addressed via adherents rather than from an Amero-centric perspective.
Every character represents some aspect of the world Dick has generated. There is the white entrepeneur, morose, a marijuana smoker, a profiteer, and a man possessed by deep shame, Robert Childan. Mr. Tagomi is a manifestation of everything human about the Japanese, widely regarded as callously formal to the extreme; he is a member of the old guard, from before the war, but we remain sympathetic towards his goals and thought-processes. There is Frank Frink, a Jewish man, a manifestation of the American everyman, a hopefully foil to Juliana’s materialism. And, finally, there is Juliana, the only character about whom I could not easily divine as a clear manifestation of any idealogy. She, I suspect, represents the conflict between the postwar reality in which she lives and the Grasshopper-like reality about which she fantasizes. Mr. Baynes and Berthold Reiss are of passing interest; representing, by my perception, the human elements of an inhuman collective (IE, the Nazi party.)
The character that I believe most clearly illustrated conflict between pre and postwar psychological states, however, is Mr. Tagomi. Initially painted as an antagonistic force of stoicism, he is slowly introduced, with great exposition, as an individual overwhelmed by his inner dichotomy. Serene, thoughtful, and supposedly magnanimous in victory and interaction was the creed by which he lived; seeking false satisfaction in nigh-on unverifiable historicity, embroiled in the dissonance generated by the polarity of his rearing and the American context into which he is thrust. Tagomi is the closest thing to a “mouthpiece†or manifestation of Dick’s personality then any other; at the very peak of the book, Tagomi is given the very insight he has sought by a simple brooch he had dismissed for it’s wont of identity. He is overwhelmed by guilt for the deaths he caused, but did not flinch or hesitate in the course of the killing – he lives his life by the I Ching, by the balance of conflicting furies, a futile attribution of significance where none is innate. He is a conflict between the serene authoritarian humanism of Japan, the wanton individualism of America, and the heavy-handed bigotry of Nazi Germany; an inner struggle which, ultimately, transports him to another dimension and causes him to break down.
Much like Dick himself, the characters and the reality they saw around them were confused, intoxicated, and devoid of absolutes. They are frustrated, parts of a negative power structure, but themselves devoted to positive pursuits. The hopelessness and drug use by Childan, Frink, and McCarthy are manifestations of the sad, escapist, desires of Dick’s drug-addled associates. It is a powerful psychological exploration of bigotry, identity, race, and culture; but it is also a unique narrative, technically impressive and of obvious relevance to the author himself.
He graded me down for my mention of Childan's constant marijuana usage and reference to Dick's "drug-addled associates". I don't think that's technically valid.
"Sandra has a good solid anti-murderer vibe. My skin felt very secure and sufficiently attached to my body when I met her. Also my organs." HAIL SATAN
He smokes two marijuana cigarettes in every chapter. And I wanted to elucidate further upon the things I was saying, but he's very clear and vehement about not exceeding three pages / ~700 words. Which is what ultimately irritated me, because if he hadn't limited us so artificially, I would've had more space with which to justify myself.
His comment was-
"What does this mean? Any novel likely has obvious relevance to the author. Without any elucidation on your past, we have no idea what you mean. What does it say about the novel in the end to make vague references to Dick's life? Much loss for "the desires of Dick's drug-addled associates."
Fuck you, guy. Those comments don't make any goddamn sense and they hardly justify giving me a B instead of an A. What it means, in the end, to make "vague references" to the author's life is to substantiate my claims about the relevance of drug-usage and negativity to the characters Dick created. I mean, fuck.