Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Novels are an obsolete technology

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Dirty Dingus McGee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Dirty Dingus McGee


    The novel is the greatest form of entertanment in my opinion.No other form of entertainment can transport you to another world so easily.I suspect the opening poster doesnt have much imagination.


  • Options
    #33
    ThirdMan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,700 ✭✭✭ThirdMan


    wilkie2006 wrote: »
    George Martin? Stephen King? OP, in fairness, you've hardly been reading particularly good writers. I've never read King

    You've never read King, but you know he's not a good writer?
    wilkie2006 wrote: »
    Why don't you take a look at people like... George Orwell. These are the ones who can blow a film out of the water.

    People talk all the time about the 'unfilmable novel'. Well Orwell wrote three of them. Two of them were utter rubbish (A Clergyman's Daughter, Keep the Aspidistra Flying) that didn't even translate onto the page, let alone the screen. But the third, Coming Up for Air, is truly unfilmable.


  • Options
    #34
    ThirdMan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,700 ✭✭✭ThirdMan


    longhalloween wrote: »
    Can't beat a good audio book.

    I love silent movies. If only there was a middle ground...


  • Options
    #35
    wilkie2006
    Registered Users Posts: 1,053 ✭✭✭wilkie2006


    ThirdMan wrote: »
    You've never read King, but you know he's not a good writer?

    Ah, come on. You don't need to have read Stephen King to know that he's not considered a writer of literary fiction.


  • Options
    #36
    Dirty Dingus McGee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Dirty Dingus McGee


    wilkie2006 wrote: »
    Ah, come on. You don't need to have read Stephen King to know that he's not considered a writer of literary fiction.


    What exactly is "literary" fiction?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    wilkie2006
    Registered Users Posts: 1,053 ✭✭✭wilkie2006


    Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »
    What exactly is "literary" fiction?

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


  • Options
    #38
    _ciaran_
    Registered Users Posts: 94 ✭✭_ciaran_


    The novel is a literary format, not a technology.

    The only technology concerned is the medium through which the novel is delivered. Paper, audio, e-book etc.

    They're only useful for people to create worlds when they cant make films, whether through lack of talent/interest or finances

    You realise that the guys that actually make and produce films are rarely the guys who write the scripts, right?


  • Options
    #39
    ThirdMan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,700 ✭✭✭ThirdMan


    wilkie2006 wrote: »
    Ah, come on. You don't need to have read Stephen King to know that he's not considered a writer of literary fiction.

    Who said anything about 'literary fiction'?

    Does this mean that only writers of 'literary fiction' are good writers? And that writers of genre fiction are bad writers?


  • Options
    #40
    wilkie2006
    Registered Users Posts: 1,053 ✭✭✭wilkie2006


    ThirdMan wrote: »
    Who said anything about 'literary fiction'?

    Does this mean that only writers of 'literary fiction' are good writers? And that writers of genre fiction are bad writers?

    In my view, the likes of George Martin or Dan Brown can spin a compelling, enjoyable story but no, they're not "good" writers in the technical sense. Their syntax and vocabulary lack sophistication, while their plots - though enjoyable - are single-layered.

    Does that make them bad writers? Not exactly, although I certainly wouldn't consider them good writers.


  • Options
    #41
    ThirdMan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,700 ✭✭✭ThirdMan


    wilkie2006 wrote: »
    they're not "good" writers in the technical sense.

    I feel the same way. I'm just not a snob when it comes to this stuff. You clearly are. Disregarding an author's work without ever reading it is gold standard arrogance.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    wilkie2006
    Registered Users Posts: 1,053 ✭✭✭wilkie2006


    ThirdMan wrote: »
    I feel the same way. I'm just not a snob when it comes to this stuff. You clearly are. Disregarding an author's work without ever reading it is gold standard arrogance.

    I think you're looking for an argument here. You know what I mean. Tell me then, have you ever read Celia Aherne's stuff? Would you not discount her without reading a novel? Right, so there is merit to what I'm saying...


  • Options
    #43
    ThirdMan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,700 ✭✭✭ThirdMan


    wilkie2006 wrote: »
    I think you're looking for an argument here.

    I'm not.
    wilkie2006 wrote: »
    You know what I mean.

    I don't.
    wilkie2006 wrote: »
    Tell me then, have you ever read Celia Aherne's stuff?

    No.
    wilkie2006 wrote: »
    Would you not discount her without reading a novel?

    I wouldn't label her 'not very good' without reading her work. There are whole genres of literature that I have no interest in. Light romance would be one of them. But I couldn't tell you whether individual writers within that field are any good or not.


  • Options
    #44
    Logo
    Registered Users Posts: 706 ✭✭✭Logo


    Am sure Ms Aherne's a really good righter


  • Options
    #45
    HeadPig
    Registered Users Posts: 332 ✭✭HeadPig


    ThirdMan wrote: »
    I wouldn't label her 'not very good' without reading her work. There are whole genres of literature that I have no interest in. Light romance would be one of them. But I couldn't tell you whether individual writers within that field are any good or not.

    It's pretty obvious from speaking to anybody who knows what they're talking about that Aherne is not a good writer. We all rely on opinions of good critics in order to decide what to read, rather than plucking books from thin air.


  • Options
    #46
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,299 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    nyarlothothep wrote: »
    instead of engaging with my post the archetypal human emulates his chimpanzee ancestors by flinging, metaphorically speaking, his own faeces at those he disagrees with
    You come here to fling poop at the people in this forum, and then seem insulted when they fling it back at you? How odd...

    =-=

    Oh, and one could say films are books for people with no imagination to create the worlds described by the authors?


  • Options
    #47
    desaparecidos
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,332 ✭✭✭desaparecidos


    Book w@nkers!


  • Options
    #48
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    I've yet to see a movie that was better than the book on which it was based.

    Fave Book. Nineteen Eighty-Four


  • Options
    #49
    nyarlothothep
    Registered Users Posts: 5,177 ✭✭✭nyarlothothep


    the_syco wrote: »
    You come here to fling poop at the people in this forum, and then seem insulted when they fling it back at you? How odd...

    =-=

    Oh, and one could say films are books for people with no imagination to create the worlds described by the authors?

    Oh ok, so in your world making unpopular arguments equates to flinging so called "poop" at people. That makes me laugh. Thank you syco, you just made me laugh today.


  • Options
    #50
    coffee_cake
    Registered Users Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    nyarlothothep wrote: »
    I love humans, they're so predictable, instead of engaging with my post the archetypal human emulates his chimpanzee ancestors by flinging, metaphorically speaking, his own faeces at those he disagrees with, rather than, oh, I don't know, engaging in thoughtful and reasoned debate. Lol at you humans, you crack me up!
    nyarlothothep wrote: »
    Oh ok, so in your world making unpopular arguments equates to flinging so called "poop" at people. That makes me laugh. Thank you syco, you just made me laugh today.

    :confused:


  • Options
    #51
    nyarlothothep
    Registered Users Posts: 5,177 ✭✭✭nyarlothothep


    Not only that, I made an impersonal, unpopular argument, I attacked books, not people. If you like books that's fine. I dont and my opinion is that they're obsolete. VR, film, internet, games and future technologies will accelerate the absorption of information which is more convenient. I'm reading Bleak House right now and it's so boring and longwinded. Charles Dickens needed an editor, this is exactly the type of book I'm attacking, excessive, boring, serial format. I'm only on page 300 and I've got another 470 pages of Victorian drivel to go.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    nyarlothothep
    Registered Users Posts: 5,177 ✭✭✭nyarlothothep


    bluewolf wrote: »
    :confused:

    That was after the first mud was slung, but hey don't let that get in the way of creating false interpretations.


  • Options
    #53
    nyarlothothep
    Registered Users Posts: 5,177 ✭✭✭nyarlothothep


    And what I like about this is that I'm basically being attacked, albeit in a more covert, sophisticated way. Well done humans. But regardless you're not debating my post, you're debating me, you want to discredit me so that you dont have to address my post because it upsets you though you would be loath to admit it. This is what I find remarkable about humans, you attack some "sacred" cow and humans go wild. Well I went there and I'm doing it!


  • Options
    #54
    mathepac
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭mathepac


    nyarlothothep wrote: »
    And what I like about this is that I'm basically being attacked, albeit in a more covert, sophisticated way. ...
    My post is directed at your hypothesis. Do you have any rebuttal?


  • Options
    #55
    nyarlothothep
    Registered Users Posts: 5,177 ✭✭✭nyarlothothep


    mathepac wrote: »
    My post is directed at your hypothesis. Do you have any rebuttal?

    Oh yeah, I didn't get round to that. Basically your argument that the written word is a technology doesn't refute the fact that books are a technology. Yeah I said novels, whatever, put that in your spreadsheet.


  • Options
    #56
    nyarlothothep
    Registered Users Posts: 5,177 ✭✭✭nyarlothothep


    TV is becoming the new novel, books will be replaced just as the scroll was superseeded by the codex. With the acceleration of technological development we will no longer have to endure sprawling novel monstrosities like GoT or Bleak House. Your argument is valid for the moment but with technological progress books will become obsolete.


  • Options
    #57
    wilkie2006
    Registered Users Posts: 1,053 ✭✭✭wilkie2006


    OP, to what degree do you feel like you engage a TV programme or a film? I'm not trying to be rude, but it sounds like all you're interested in is the plot and maybe a bit of characterisation? What about the editing, the colours, the photography, the cultural context, the script, the casting, the locations, the lighting? The things that make a good film Great are more than what's happening plot-wise. It's the very same for novels: it's not just about the narrative.

    With greatest of respect, I'm not convinced that you really "get" all of this about films, in which case it's not surprising that you can't understand why people enjoy books.


  • Options
    #58
    Dirty Dingus McGee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Dirty Dingus McGee


    nyarlothothep wrote: »
    Not only that, I made an impersonal, unpopular argument, I attacked books, not people. If you like books that's fine. I dont and my opinion is that they're obsolete. VR, film, internet, games and future technologies will accelerate the absorption of information which is more convenient. I'm reading Bleak House right now and it's so boring and longwinded. Charles Dickens needed an editor, this is exactly the type of book I'm attacking, excessive, boring, serial format. I'm only on page 300 and I've got another 470 pages of Victorian drivel to go.

    Why are you reading Bleak House if you find it so boring?


  • Options
    #59
    super_furry
    Registered Users Posts: 27,322 ✭✭✭✭super_furry


    Why do people bother painting and drawing when they can just take a photograph?


  • Options
    #60
    ThirdMan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,700 ✭✭✭ThirdMan


    HeadPig wrote: »
    We all rely on opinions of good critics in order to decide what to read, rather than plucking books from thin air.

    I agree. But I wouldn't read a critical review of a book that the critic never read.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    ThirdMan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,700 ✭✭✭ThirdMan


    efb wrote: »
    I've yet to see a movie that was better than the book on which it was based.

    Apparently the novel Sideways is average enough, yet the movie version is something of a masterpiece. I still intend on reading it though, because a sequel has been written which I'd like to read, and skipping the first one just wouldn't be right.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement