Demographics - Reading Material?

Adult Magazines

22 (1.4%)

Sports Magazines

16 (1%)

Entertainment Magazines

25 (1.6%)

Electronics Magazines

88 (5.7%)

Hobby / Crafts Magazines

27 (1.8%)

Home / Garden Magazines

25 (1.6%)

Outdoor  / Guns / Hunting / Fishing Magazines

41 (2.7%)

Fitness / Exercise / Health Magazines

30 (2%)

Music / Scene Magazines

27 (1.8%)

Technical  / Trade Magazines

64 (4.2%)

Newspaper / News Magazines

107 (7%)

Religious Books / Magazines

32 (2.1%)

Sci-Fi / Fantasy Books

148 (9.7%)

Nonfiction History Books

115 (7.5%)

Technical / How To Manuals

91 (5.9%)

Romance Novels

1 (0.1%)

Mystery / Thriller Books

43 (2.8%)

Other Fiction Books

112 (7.3%)

Other Nonfiction Books

125 (8.2%)

Political / Philosophical Issues Magazines

140 (9.1%)

Car / Auto / Mechanics Magazines

28 (1.8%)

Science Magazines

78 (5.1%)

Fashion Magazines

7 (0.5%)

Art / History / Culture Magazines

29 (1.9%)

"Classics" Books

60 (3.9%)

Self (Help, Health, Motivation) Books

26 (1.7%)

Business / Finance / Investing Books

26 (1.7%)

Total Members Voted: 203

[Taors]

who forced you to read said books?

Me.

Are you her daddy?

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Are you her daddy?

I'm her pimp.

[Lindsey]

Harper Lee can DIAF too. 

No.


And as far as Johnson goes, I'm not the least bit interested in what "school" says about this stuff. 

I only ever tried to read To Kill A Mockingbird in high school.  I should crack it open now and see if I feel any differently.  The same goes for The Great Gatsby.  And maybe The Scarlet Letter.  That one didn't make me want to kill people, but I think I would have a better appreciation for it if I read it again. 

You're thinking of Literature through the eyes of the government. Break out of that cage and look at it in an individual, different light.

No...I'm not.  I'm thinking that I didn't like the books when I read them. 

Exactly, and who forced you to read said books?

Nobody forced me.  I absolutely could have just not read them.  I did that with plenty of things. 

[Taors]

Harper Lee can DIAF too. 

No.


And as far as Johnson goes, I'm not the least bit interested in what "school" says about this stuff. 

I only ever tried to read To Kill A Mockingbird in high school.  I should crack it open now and see if I feel any differently.  The same goes for The Great Gatsby.  And maybe The Scarlet Letter.  That one didn't make me want to kill people, but I think I would have a better appreciation for it if I read it again. 

You're thinking of Literature through the eyes of the government. Break out of that cage and look at it in an individual, different light.

No...I'm not.  I'm thinking that I didn't like the books when I read them. 

Exactly, and who forced you to read said books?

Nobody forced me.  I absolutely could have just not read them.  I did that with plenty of things. 

You still read them because they were an assignment.

[Lindsey]

Harper Lee can DIAF too. 

No.


And as far as Johnson goes, I'm not the least bit interested in what "school" says about this stuff. 

I only ever tried to read To Kill A Mockingbird in high school.  I should crack it open now and see if I feel any differently.  The same goes for The Great Gatsby.  And maybe The Scarlet Letter.  That one didn't make me want to kill people, but I think I would have a better appreciation for it if I read it again. 

You're thinking of Literature through the eyes of the government. Break out of that cage and look at it in an individual, different light.

No...I'm not.  I'm thinking that I didn't like the books when I read them. 

Exactly, and who forced you to read said books?

Nobody forced me.  I absolutely could have just not read them.  I did that with plenty of things. 

You still read them because they were an assignment.

I thoroughly enjoyed a lot of my high school reading assignments. 

[Taors]

Harper Lee can DIAF too. 

No.


And as far as Johnson goes, I'm not the least bit interested in what "school" says about this stuff. 

I only ever tried to read To Kill A Mockingbird in high school.  I should crack it open now and see if I feel any differently.  The same goes for The Great Gatsby.  And maybe The Scarlet Letter.  That one didn't make me want to kill people, but I think I would have a better appreciation for it if I read it again. 

You're thinking of Literature through the eyes of the government. Break out of that cage and look at it in an individual, different light.

No...I'm not.  I'm thinking that I didn't like the books when I read them. 

Exactly, and who forced you to read said books?

Nobody forced me.  I absolutely could have just not read them.  I did that with plenty of things. 

You still read them because they were an assignment.

I thoroughly enjoyed a lot of my high school reading assignments. 

Think about what you're saying.

Assignment.

Think about it.

[Johnson]

No, it's subjective.  That's why it's in quotes.

Subjectivity does not preclude an ordinal hierarchical arrangement according to quality and other factors.

Of course not, that's why it's there doing it's sorting duties... In quotes.

I don't like classics, because I don't agree with the principles that popularize old books.

The principles that popularize books - did you even read my post? - have not yet been, and to a degree, cannot be objectively defined.  But you prove your own ignorance by roundly rejecting all the offerings from those in the field of literary analysis and linguistics.

I don't reject all "classical literature". You just DEMONSTRATED that you didn't read my post (ya know, the one you are replying to), where I specifically cited some titles that I have read and enjoyed. You're proceeding to act like an ass. Read the WHOLE post before you reply dingbat. 

Furthermore, as I noted before, the evolution of ideas sometimes turns on a single, simple thought that as of yet had not been made overtly apparent in order to progress; the language of literary analysis is still developing.  The more statist this world comes, the farther away from that true dialog we will become, as government propels literary innovations to its ends where private imagination would have instead - my only consolation is that true genius is rarely muted fully. 

Yeah, and? This supports my point using the Terminology "Classic" and "Literature" is flawed and inaccurate at best.

Like I said... the Grapes of Wrath... The Color Purple... so many books they force you to read in school because they are supposedly classic... Have you ever read some of this shit? There's really nothing special about most of it.

Are you incapable of gleaning good, or do you just rebel against authority so blindly as to deny yourself this ability?

Again demonstrating your ability to act like a complete ASS. Way to go buddy... You're a douche bag! 
Yeah, nobody is allowed to not like something in your little world.
People are only allowed to glean good things from every experience... Even if it's shitty... It someone hands you a pizza smeared with SHIT... YOU talk about it's nutty flavor and strong aroma... WAY TO LOOK ON THE BRIGHT SIDE... I'm glad we have such positive thinkers like you out there to keep everything in the world safe from criticisms other than your own.

The one who knows the history of the evolution of sculpture and seeks to understand it has better tools to recognize the beauty of a great sculpture than the tourist-appreciator.  To be sure, there is an intuitive element that speaks beyond "mere knowledge" to the core of our understanding.  How dare you belittle these humans' artistry, when you claim you don't even like classics, and I therefore imagine have not invested much time in learning what there is to know about them?   

Reading a classic is "mere knowledge;" understanding comes at a higher price.

God damn... you really are SUCH a fucking ARROGANT PRICK. How do you look in the mirror and not just want to punch yourself in that shit eating grin?
Are you really that ridiculously naive to believe that everyone who doesn't LIKE something simply doesn't understand it? Are you really that SIMPLE?

I"ll tell you what... I enjoyed "The Cat in the Hat" when I was a child... If I read it now.. I'd think it was a pile of garbage... Does that mean I don't understand it?
I'm being absolutely proven correct right now about people that like these fucking "Classics"; you really do like the LABEL because it simply pumps your ego and you feel fucking 'advanced' reading them....

Well GUESS WHAT... Some of the "Classics" are actually really easy, simple, boring books. Sure MAYBE they were genius in their day... but NOW they AREN'T.

Maybe they are still popular because Government schools are still forcing them on people, thinking that we need to learn the HISTORICAL VALUE of these titles... WHO KNOWS...  I've got more.. but I think you have another stupid comment here that will help bring it all together...

I'm surprised any of you would expect anything less out of a Free Talk Live host. Of COURSE I'm going to be iconoclastic to the very notion of a book being good simply because it's somehow traditional.

There is nothing iconoclastic about prejudice.

Yep... here we go...

I even like some "Classic" books. I have some Sir Arther Conan Doyle (The complete Sherlock Holmes series) stuff sitting on my shelf... I like Sam Clemens... Love Philip K Dick. HP Lovecraft? I even KIND of like Edgar Allen Poe...

However, F Scott Fitzgerald can suck a dick... and so can Charles Dickens.

Great... so a book was good for it's time, that doesn't mean it's good anymore... Lets move on. 

A great book - a work of literature - is not just "good for its time."  (Did you even try to understand my post?)  That was part of my whole point - there is something transcendent about high literature - something that calls to the betterment of humankind - something that points to our weaknesses and strengths in a way so brilliant that it raises the standard of thought for a generation.  There is nothing inherently elitist or anti-freedom in seeking to understand that "something."

And you don't have to be elitist or anti-freedom to recognize that you, sir, are prejudiced.  EOM.

and this is the crux.... fuck you. Seriously... You call me prejudiced because you are so fucking blinded by your OWN prejudice that you think everything outside your box is wrong. You are like a minority screaming in support of "affirmative action" but doesn't see that the very principle of affirmative action is racist.

You INSULT EVERY OTHER AUTHOR'S writing for every book EVER WRITTEN by calling a select few classics. Or Classic Literature....

Who the fuck are you to tell me that Howard Stern's "Miss America" isn't a classic piece of literature... or Bill O'Reilly's "Culture Warrior" ... or Britney Spears' "Heart to Heart"?

Who the fuck is ANYONE to say those AREN'T CLASSICS? Who decides that? No, really... tell me... Right now... it pretty much seems like government school teachers decide which books are classic to me... Government school teachers and groups similar to Parents Television Council - busy bodies...

SOMETIMES occasionally a book that doesn't conform to the moral status quo will buck the zeitgeist and rise to the top... but that does NOT mean that it is good forever... OR DOES IT according to this SILLY fucking category called "Classics"?

Is a CLASSIC book CLASSIC forever?

Who decides when a book should be taken OUT of Classics? Does a book ever become NOT a Classic anymore?

What about a book that IS genius, and was ahead of it's time... but was never discovered.... Is THAT book a classic even though no one ever discovered it to put in on "the list"?

Classics is a DUMB name for a stupid category.
I'd rather have 10 categories labeling books by age rather than calling some books "Classics" and some books not, simply because some group of total ass bags got together and decided that certain books were good. 

Here's some "Classics" for you...

Mein Kampf, The Satanic Verses, Army of God, Zweites Buch, The Communist Manifesto, American Psycho, and the Anarchist Cookbook.

Right? They're old and well known... they must all be classics right? I'm sure plenty of bookstores put them in that category...

I mean... "Mein Kampf" certainly meets your definition right "something that calls to the betterment of humankind - something that points to our weaknesses and strengths in a way so brilliant that it raises the standard of thought for a generation." RIGHT!?

YOU are the one that's prejudiced for believing the MYTH that is a book is GOOD simply because it's been labeled a classic.  I'm the one that is open minded enough to realize that not every book that gets labeled a "Classic"... really is one. 'Classic' books are just like people... some winners, and a whole lot of losers.

You might not want to be the person clinging to an OLD outdated LABEL when you decide to call someone ELSE prejudiced.

[Lindsey]

Christ, man.  Give that poor girl a break.   

[Taors]

There's no reason to call people names you god damn fat fuck.

[Johnson]

There's no reason to call people names you god damn fat fuck.

Maybe you shouldn't jump into calling people prejudiced and acting like anyone who disagrees with you is simple.
I'm not going to soft shoe around someone who gets up into my face with their arrogance... You can take that shit and just sit right down.

Lets see... I called you an arrogant prick douche bag, who was acting like an ass... Well.. as they say "If the shoe fits!"

[Taors]

There's no reason to call people names you god damn fat fuck.

Maybe you shouldn't jump into calling people prejudiced and acting like anyone who disagrees with you is simple.
I'm not going to soft shoe around someone who gets up into my face with their arrogance... You can take that shit and just sit right down.

Fine, but try not sounding like a ranting 4 year old throwing a temper tantrum the next time you reply to someone in a legitimate debate. Makes you look like a fucking fool, just so you know.

[Johnson]

There's no reason to call people names you god damn fat fuck.

Maybe you shouldn't jump into calling people prejudiced and acting like anyone who disagrees with you is simple.
I'm not going to soft shoe around someone who gets up into my face with their arrogance... You can take that shit and just sit right down.

Fine, but try not sounding like a ranting 4 year old throwing a temper tantrum the next time you reply to someone in a legitimate debate. Makes you look like a fucking fool, just so you know.

You first.

[Taors]

There's no reason to call people names you god damn fat fuck.

Maybe you shouldn't jump into calling people prejudiced and acting like anyone who disagrees with you is simple.
I'm not going to soft shoe around someone who gets up into my face with their arrogance... You can take that shit and just sit right down.

Fine, but try not sounding like a ranting 4 year old throwing a temper tantrum the next time you reply to someone in a legitimate debate. Makes you look like a fucking fool, just so you know.

You first.

I'm not debating you. I'm a bystander. I don't give two shits about Literature. I just think you should have added it as an option.

What I saw was someone trying to get to the bottom of why you think the way you do about a certain category of books, and you screaming your head off in reply.

[Lindsey]

I know this probably doesn't make a difference, but for the record - Free_Marketeer is a woman.  Calling a woman a prick is kind of amusing, though.   

[Taors]

I know this probably doesn't make a difference, but for the record - Free_Marketeer is a woman.  Calling a woman a prick is kind of amusing, though.   

Also buddy, like she's a fuckin' dude or something.