QueenZone discussion #650554

Erin wrote: I never read the boring stuff. That's what Cliff's notes are for..;-)

Serry...<h6>The Negative QZer wrote: "Using of "shall, will" in English language" chapter in "English language for the schools" book.

<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: I think a lot of you people have lousy literary taste.

<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote:

<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: I think a lot of you people have lousy literary taste.

At least I know for sure than Don Quijote sucks donkey balls. What's the point of reading about some lunatic who fights windmills.

You obviously have no clue about the context. Read up on Cervantez and Europe in his day. It'll be a revelation...I sincerely hope, as there would be no hope for you if it's not.

Music Man wrote: I think reading fiction is just a waste of my time. And that's true. There are so many things I would rather do, thus eliminating the only reasonable arguement for reading fiction: entertainment. Non-fiction stories as well. Lame.

Mr.Jingles wrote:

Music Man wrote: I think reading fiction is just a waste of my time. And that's true. There are so many things I would rather do, thus eliminating the only reasonable arguement for reading fiction: entertainment. Non-fiction stories as well. Lame.

Even the most ficticious stories have a strong relationship to non-fiction stories, and many of them are very well constructed in the sense that they bring more substance to what could perhaps be the outcome of a non-fiction story. There's no doubt that the great majority of good fiction stories have something that we can learn from. Saying that that fiction is a waste of time brings it down to the level of watching shows like Jackass, The Andy Milonakis Show, or the great majority of reality TV shows.

<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: I think a lot of you people have lousy literary taste.

<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:

dragonzflame wrote:

<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: I think a lot of you people have lousy literary taste.

That's not fair. Literary taste is as subjective as musical taste, and it's nobody's business to judge what others enjoyed/didn't enjoy reading. I actually liked The Bell Jar, but I'm not flaming whoever it was that didn't like it. Accept that others don't share your tastes and opinions.

There is a difference between quality and appreciation. Style, idiom, use of stylistic figures, originality, etc. can all be objectively measured. For instance, many people do not like James Joyce's "Finnegan's Wake", but it's use of complex multi-lingual puns, phonetic wordings and abundance of stylistic figures, amongst many, many other qualities make it a masterpiece, something which is NOT up for debate. It's like this: I can like or dislike Mozart (I dislike his music, in case you want to know), but I have to admit he was objectively a wonderful composer. I can also like or dislike (I again dislike) Vanilla Ice, but I must also admit that his music lacks every bit of objective quality.

Rockyuk wrote: Tess Of The Dubervilles, Great Expectations and anything by shakespeare stand out as the worst...

Mr.Jingles wrote:

Rockyuk wrote: Tess Of The Dubervilles, Great Expectations and anything by shakespeare stand out as the worst...

My girlfriend is an English major, and she has read tons of books. She told me that Shakespeare books are very well constructed stories with lots of intrigue, and well deserve the praise they get. However, reading them in their original versions of XVII C. English is a major pain in the ass becuase it's like reading a complete different language. Modern English versions of Shakespeare can even be enjoyed by pretty much anyone who likes to read.

<font color="lime">KillerQueen840 wrote: To Music Man: I'm sorry but I disagree with you. Even though my vocabulary does not have a large range, reading has helped it a bit. If I see an author use an interesting word, I'll pick it up. And, I think reading does improve your creativity, well as long as you still have somewhat of an imagination left from childhood. When I read a good fictional book that has so many different turns that I would've never suspected, I am intrigued by the author's ideas. Then, I try to think of something just as exciting. If I read a book and hate the ending, I think of a better ending for the book to try to satisfy my disappointment. That is creativity. Even if I love the ending of a book, I try to think of various other endings that would've worked out just as well or even better. I try to think of possible sequels. Just out of enjoyment. That is creativity. You can also learn from the author's writing techniques.

<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: I'm just glad that this is not a literature-appreciation forum...

Music Man wrote: "Reading builds your vocabulary." Bullshit. "Reading builds your creativity." Bullshit. "Reading builds your intellect." Bullshit. It's almost as bad as those idiots promoting music programs because they "promote good grades."

Bob The Shrek wrote: Have you checked?

Music Man wrote: Something that irritates me, however, is the manner in which schools and society in general praise and worship enthusiasm in reading. Perhaps I can understand reading to familiarize yourself with the classics is one thing, as such familiarity is tantamount to knowledge and may even help with an English degree. But reading the reams of utter literary garbage that pervades the modern publishing industry should not be promoted. Enthusiastic reader...Why don't you reward me for being an enthusiastic text messager or an enthusiastic bowler or some other nonsense like that? "Reading builds your vocabulary." Bullshit. "Reading builds your creativity." Bullshit. "Reading builds your intellect." Bullshit. It's almost as bad as those idiots promoting music programs because they "promote good grades."