The Free Talk Live BBS

Free Talk Live => The Polling Pit => Topic started by: Johnson on October 10, 2007, 01:27:46 AM

Title: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on October 10, 2007, 01:27:46 AM
Collecting Demographic Info










Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material
Post by: Johnson on October 10, 2007, 01:46:47 AM
If you pick one of the "other" categories... Please consider suggesting a category, and I will consider adding it.

Your answers are editable, so if I add a suitable option you will be free change your answers to reflect that option.

Also, if you feel like sharing your favorite magazines, publications or book publishers...... Go for it.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: John Shaw on October 10, 2007, 02:38:42 AM
Again with the no guns. Gun magazines, please.

And where are "Political Magazines"?

Reason
Liberty

etc.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on October 10, 2007, 03:04:18 AM
Added Political / Issues Magazines


Guns... I believe that falls under Outdoor / Hunting / Fishing.

Edit: However, what the hell... there now its a little more specific.
In case there are others with doubts about that category.... you can throw paint ball, police tactics, and military stuff into that category as well...

This is sort of a generalized survey to attract advertisers from certain categories... So, I want to be a little bit broad... Not too broad... but somewhat.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Phant on October 10, 2007, 03:35:50 AM
Does it count if you download PDF's offa eMule?  ;)
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on October 10, 2007, 03:40:58 AM
Do you buy ebooks?
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Phant on October 10, 2007, 04:01:16 AM
No.  To me, piracy is... a sport, a calling, a way of life...

If I can't download it for free, it's not worth reading.  :twisted:
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on October 10, 2007, 04:33:22 AM
Then... No.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Rillion on October 10, 2007, 05:28:32 AM
No science books or magazines mentioned. 
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: alkanen on October 10, 2007, 06:30:54 AM
Dito on the science.  I picked other non-fictional since I read alot of psychology/evolution books (Dawkins kicks butt if you want ammo to throw at religeous folks =)
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: pinkiemarie on October 10, 2007, 10:16:55 AM
Women's magazines such as Cosmo and Glamour?
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on October 10, 2007, 12:36:18 PM
Women's magazines such as Cosmo and Glamour?

Those are Entertainment Magazines. I will however add a category for fashion, and for science.
I tried to get science to fall under Technical... but that's probably not good enough.

Between Fashion, Entertainment, and Home / Garden... I think women's magazines are covered.

If you read some sort of Atheist Libertarian Feminist Magazines... That would probably go under Political / Philosophical
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: burnthebeautiful on October 10, 2007, 01:22:22 PM
I mostly read political books. I'm currently reading The Fountainhead, and I have Johan Norbergs "In Defense of Global Capitalism" and Milton Friedmans "On Capitalism and Freedom" next in line. I started reading the Sword of Truth series, but I got bored at the beginning of the second book.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on October 10, 2007, 01:55:24 PM
I started reading the Sword of Truth series, but I got bored at the beginning of the second book.

Keep going, the second book has a really slow beginning... it starts to get much better toward the end... That book has probably the worst beginning of the entire series... If you liked the first book, it's worth continuing. The ending of the second book is pretty good.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Gordee on October 10, 2007, 02:00:52 PM
Please add Art books/magazines
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on October 10, 2007, 02:12:14 PM
That is hobbies / crafts, unless it's something like... say digital photography...

Then you might consider it a Technical  / Trade Mag.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Taors on October 10, 2007, 02:16:59 PM
Why does Johnson get to decide what's what?

TYRANNY OF THE POLLS. THE VIOLENCE INHERENT WITHIN THE SYSTEM!
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Gordee on October 10, 2007, 04:25:40 PM
That is hobbies / crafts

What if I want to read about the Fine Art in paintings or Art of Architecture but creating such art aren't my hobbies?
They don't fall into "crafts" category either.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Evenstar on October 10, 2007, 04:46:05 PM
Where would Self Help books go?  I'd think that'd be a rather popular category.  And I guess biographies are under general non-fiction, though they'd usually be set apart.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on October 11, 2007, 12:33:10 AM
I may do a separate poll someday about more specific books, but for now, I'm really just searching for stuff that is more marketable. It would be best to file that vote under health magazines, or under other nonfiction books.

If we attract advertisers from a bigger market than just self help books, maybe we'll get a little more specific.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on October 11, 2007, 03:47:46 PM
What if I LOVE Science Fiction but LOATHE Fantasy?
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Evenstar on October 11, 2007, 04:33:10 PM
The line between them is often rather blurred... I can absolutely see why they're grouped together.  I guess the real question is, if this were advertised on FTL, would you be an appropriate target audience.  So, if there were an ad that was directed to BOTH Sci-Fi and Fantasy readers, would it be more enticing or more of a turn-off.  Vote accordingly.

My two cents.  :)
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Free_Marketeer on October 11, 2007, 06:07:40 PM
What about literature?  And Men's Entertainment/Fashion magazines?
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on October 11, 2007, 07:27:53 PM
Literature is not a category...


Entertainment Mags, and Fashion mags are both already options...

The goal is not superspecifics... For example, I will not be adding "Pet Magazines" for those that read Cat Fancy...
Somewhat general is the point... I'm only looking for things that DON'T clearly fit into an existing category...

Considering Fashion and Entertainment are both there... That is not a new category...
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Free_Marketeer on October 12, 2007, 10:08:54 PM
Literature is not a category...
...

I don't see how you (or a person interested in your statistics for the sake of better marketing) can lump in classic and contemporary literature together with the heaps of relative trash via the "Other fiction," but that's your call.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on October 12, 2007, 11:42:40 PM
I guess I just feel "The Grapes of Wrath" and "The Great Gatsby" are just books... just like any other book. I don't feel the fact that you read books that make you feel intellectually superior simply because they are old and some government high school teachers said that you need to read them somehow lends extra validity to them, or means that somehow there is a special marketing niche there. If "Moby Dick", "Tom Sawyer", or "As I lay Dying" are really so special... I think you are really sort of just being silly.

Besides, I think there are better names for categories of books than simply "Literature". Maybe if a few of those were tossed out I might consider it...

Until then... I will consider the fact that "The Library of America (http://libraryofamerica.com/)" was relatively uncooperative in coming up with a good deal (http://m1.buysub.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10401&storeId=10401&productId=10509&langId=-1) for us to resell some books... So the Literature crowd can go screw...  :D
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Taors on October 13, 2007, 02:17:17 AM
Johnson, you should really add a Literature section.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Free_Marketeer on October 13, 2007, 03:00:05 AM
I guess I just feel "The Grapes of Wrath" and "The Great Gatsby" are just books... just like any other book. I don't feel the fact that you read books that make you feel intellectually superior simply because they are old and some government high school teachers said that you need to read them somehow lends extra validity to them, or means that somehow there is a special marketing niche there. If "Moby Dick", "Tom Sawyer", or "As I lay Dying" are really so special... I think you are really sort of just being silly.

Besides, I think there are better names for categories of books than simply "Literature". Maybe if a few of those were tossed out I might consider it...

Until then... I will consider the fact that "The Library of America (http://libraryofamerica.com/)" was relatively uncooperative in coming up with a good deal (http://m1.buysub.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10401&storeId=10401&productId=10509&langId=-1) for us to resell some books... So the Literature crowd can go screw...  :D

Literature is different by virtue of the nature and depth of its subject matter.  You can't recognize the difference between Steinbeck, Milton, Waugh, and the modern-day ego-authors who get published because they can turn a quick phrase and the (government-protected) top publishing houses realize they can turn an even quicker profit?  Friend, I think you're the one being silly.

...

But since we're talking demographics: the evolution of literature includes a wide range of materials from ancient to contemporary, and further particularization is unnecessary - the "literature crowd", as you (derisively? arrogantly?) put it, will classify themselves accordingly.  I just thought it would be worth something to FTL's advertisers to know that FTL listeners read to a higher standard: I read my Wired magazine cover-to-cover (literally) because the advertising doesn't assume I'm stupid and even (!) makes me laugh.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on October 13, 2007, 02:28:42 PM
I know for a fact that there are more categories than just literature, and have already added categories that show that our listeners read to a higher level and standard than most....

If there were a couple of different categories for literature that were a bit more specific, I might add something.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Free_Marketeer on October 13, 2007, 03:34:22 PM
I know for a fact that there are more categories than just literature, and have already added categories that show that our listeners read to a higher level and standard than most....

If there were a couple of different categories for literature that were a bit more specific, I might add something.

All of the categories listed for books:

Quote
Sci-Fi / Fantasy Books     
Nonfiction History Books    
Technical / How To Manuals    
Romance Novels    
Mystery / Drama Books    
Other Fiction Books    
Other Nonfiction Books

connote different kinds of books than that connoted by including categories for, say, "Literature" and "General Fiction."  I read ancient, medieval and classical romances - I do not read what is connoted by the category "Romance Novel."  I read literature that is dramatic and mysterious - but I didn't choose "Mystery / Drama Books", because that connotes Tom-Clancy-type books that I do not read. 

I know I'm not the only one, here, who reads literature; I've met literateurs with the freedom mindset.  How can you be so crass?  What is it, a knee-jerk reaction against what you derisively called the "literature crowd"?  I've met the stereotype you must be speaking of in real life, and it's their type of thinking - not the subject matter they've chosen to concern themselves with - that sets them apart. 

Anyway, it's your poll and you know what its aims are and what the requirements of its design should best be.  Carry on as you will - I think I've said my piece well enough.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: alkanen on October 13, 2007, 04:13:46 PM
Uhm... doesn't literature just mean "written stuff"?
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Free_Marketeer on October 13, 2007, 04:44:40 PM
Uhm... doesn't literature just mean "written stuff"?

Yes and no; it depends on context.  I spoke of literature in the vein of definition 1, below, as should have been apparent from my discussion. 

Literature bears qualitative distinctiveness as a specialized art and field of study.  Nothing profound in that statement; it's just a division of labor and specialization in the field of authorship.

Quote
lit·er·a·ture      /ˈlɪtərətʃər, -ˌtʃʊər, ˈlɪtrə-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lit-er-uh-cher, -choor, li-truh-]

1.   writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays.
2.   the entire body of writings of a specific language, period, people, etc.: the literature of England.
3.   the writings dealing with a particular subject: the literature of ornithology.
4.   the profession of a writer or author.
5.   literary work or production.
6.   any kind of printed material, as circulars, leaflets, or handbills: literature describing company products.
7.   Archaic. polite learning; literary culture; appreciation of letters and books.
[Origin: 1375–1425; late ME litterature < L litterātūra grammar. See literate, -ure]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literature (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literature)
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on October 14, 2007, 02:24:17 AM
There is really nothing about that definition that made it more specific than "written stuff"
That was amusing.


I genuinely do want you to come up with more specific categories to include what you read... but the word "Literature" isn't going to cut it.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Free_Marketeer on October 14, 2007, 04:06:11 PM
There is really nothing about that definition that made it more specific than "written stuff"
That was amusing.

I genuinely do want you to come up with more specific categories to include what you read... but the word "Literature" isn't going to cut it.

Differentiation beyond "Literature" or "Classics" is unnecessary, for this poll, because there are too many styles, forms, and cultures and cultural languages encompassed in it.  For example: Tales from a Thousand and One Nights is extremely different from Dickens' Bleak House, but both have a rightful place in the evolution of, and are considered literature.

Moreover, literature evolves along with humans, our ways of thinking, and our cultures; there cannot be a definitive list of traits that one can use to define and classify literature in the way dictionaries define things, because we as individuals and cultures continue to evolve.  This is why I said I spoke "in the vein of" the first definition.  Your amused derision is ignorant of the (free market-based) division of labor and specialization that has occurred in the fields of linguistics and literary analysis.

Back to the poll: You want to make sure that poll-takers can meaningfully partition themselves, but it is useless to particularize further, in terms of relaying useful information to FTL's advertisers - they aren't likely to care whether a person is reading medieval epic poetry or eighteenth-century prose; but they probably would like to know whether we are reading that which is commonly called "Literature" or the throw-away novellas of the day (especially since I suspect there are others who would have chosen that option over "Other Fiction".  Book stores use the categories fine to separate the books, and readers know where to find the books they seek in those stores - I don't see what the problem is, 'ya old poll monster.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Laetitia on October 14, 2007, 04:14:33 PM
What? No "Austrian Economics", or even plain old "Economics"?

 :P
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Free_Marketeer on October 14, 2007, 04:19:05 PM
What? No "Austrian Economics", or even plain old "Economics"?

 :P

Nonfiction history for general analysis/layman's stuff; trade manuals for the technical stuff.  I looked for that one, too.  :)
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on October 14, 2007, 04:27:16 PM
I looked through the Amazon (and some used bookstore) sites to see their categories... they rarely mentioned the word "Literature" in categories but I often encountered "Classics". I've added that... for economics.. I've generalized a bit and put in Business, Finance, and Investing.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Bill Brasky on October 15, 2007, 05:21:59 PM
I guess I just feel "The Grapes of Wrath" and "The Great Gatsby" are just books... just like any other book. I don't feel the fact that you read books that make you feel intellectually superior simply because they are old and some government high school teachers said that you need to read them somehow lends extra validity to them, or means that somehow there is a special marketing niche there. If "Moby Dick", "Tom Sawyer", or "As I lay Dying" are really so special... I think you are really sort of just being silly.

Besides, I think there are better names for categories of books than simply "Literature". Maybe if a few of those were tossed out I might consider it...

Until then... I will consider the fact that "The Library of America (http://libraryofamerica.com/)" was relatively uncooperative in coming up with a good deal (http://m1.buysub.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10401&storeId=10401&productId=10509&langId=-1) for us to resell some books... So the Literature crowd can go screw...  :D

Its all I buy.  It has nothing to do with intellectual superiority, unless you'd like to reflect on the other side of the fence for a moment and admit magazines and comic books are indicative of morons (which they're not...)  You want demographs, or you just gonna have a knee jerk reaction and tell all the literati to go fuck themselves?  Doesn't matter to me, it's your accuracy.  But it's not a well thought out plan to ask people their habits then point at a segment and call them snobs.  I like what I do, and I don't recall inviting anyone to call me an asshole because I have a benign habit you might think is lofty, queer, or snobbish.  They're all just books.  Geek manuals, non-fiction, magazines.  I'm sure some of those periodicals and manuals dont sell 170k per year, at $16.95 each, for the last five decades. 

Just sayin' Johnson.  I noticed you added it even before my comment so I'm not trying to kick up any dust.  I just think when you look at the whole thing, classics have a place in that poll.  At the very least it deserves a spot there for honorable mention.  This is a bright crowd and theres a lot of people who will pleasantly surprise you when asked about their reading habits.  I would have never left that option off the list. 
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Lindsey on October 15, 2007, 06:50:26 PM
I guess it depends on your definition of "classic".  I read a lot of literature as well. 
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Bill Brasky on October 15, 2007, 07:26:14 PM
Splitting hairs.  Someone above mentioned "all written text" could be considered literature. 

So, fine.  Narrow it down to a yes/no question:  Do you read?

Otherwise, he wants sub-categories.  I consider "classics" to be fiction thats been through a few re-printings, a few decades old or older.  If he wants to put The Davinci Code in with Ivanhoe, thats up to him.  According to the hot-shots, modern classic is from the 19th century but I don't like to get into pigeonholes.  Theres plenty of good stuff thats only a couple decades old.  If it made a real impact on society, it's a classic.  Its like the Kennedy assisination.  If you can remember where you were when you got introduced to that book, it's probably noteworthy. 
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Free_Marketeer on October 15, 2007, 09:07:30 PM
Splitting hairs.  Someone above mentioned "all written text" could be considered literature. 

So, fine.  Narrow it down to a yes/no question:  Do you read?

Otherwise, he wants sub-categories.  I consider "classics" to be fiction thats been through a few re-printings, a few decades old or older.  If he wants to put The Davinci Code in with Ivanhoe, thats up to him.  According to the hot-shots, modern classic is from the 19th century but I don't like to get into pigeonholes.  Theres plenty of good stuff thats only a couple decades old.  If it made a real impact on society, it's a classic.  Its like the Kennedy assisination.  If you can remember where you were when you got introduced to that book, it's probably noteworthy. 

Good summation, Brasky. 

I wasn't trying to get into a debate about what is literature, only point out that the debate has been raging among people who have chosen to make their life's work the analysis of works that "contribute greatly" to "the human condition" sufficient to justify the inclusion of a "Literature" category in the poll. 

Literary analysts (specialized readers with specialized tools of analysis) mostly agree on there is that there is this thing: "high literature" (what most people imprecisely imagine when thinking of "Literature" - not the abstracted and essentially useless "anything with printed words on it.", i.e., campaign literature.).  They then set out with their specialized, professional tools of analysis in an effort to understand the works different cultures have recognized as "classics" and the commonality among them.

It isn't an elitist claim, though there are people in any field that will use the "appeal to authority" fallacy to coerce their claims with brute force.  I think these people's bad habits is the cause of Johnson's (and many others') prejudices against literateurs.  It saddens me, because I know people in that field with a careful, freedom mindset who have lent new light of discovery to ancient and near works, and who emphatically do not deserve Johnson's unjustified stereotype.  (My God, it feels like I'm back in Pre-Cal, defending my friend from one who levied insults in her absence (didn't know we were friends).)   

The claim merely recognizes that the field has a depth to it, now, that cannot be fully gleaned by merely picking up one of these "classics" and reading it (though every age has its geniuses).  The evolution of human thought is far from understood, but we can safely say that there are stepping stones, building blocks to thought that occur before further extension occurs.

I am not the one to disparage or settle the debate (it's only a hobby I love); neither is Johnson; and neither are, for that matter, all the literateurs discussing these works professionally - they necessarily cannot, because human thought, the human condition, and literature, consequently, continues to evolve, with corresponding uncertainty.

Johnson: Barnes and Noble, by the way, does have a "Fiction and Literature Classics (http://browse.barnesandnoble.com/browse/nav.asp?slinkprefix=z%3Dy%26cds2Pid%3D16743&env=web&visgrp=fiction&bncatid=972778&z=y&cds2Pid=16746&linkid=1009287)" section, so I think your traipse through the world of online bookstore categorizations must have been slipshod.  If any of this has helped you understand, you might change the category to "Literature and Classics" or "Classics and Literature" (not "Classical Literature", because that would be from the specific classical period in time) - and no quotation marks, please - it isn't a quasi-field of study.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Bill Brasky on October 15, 2007, 10:16:15 PM
Well, that was far from slipshod. 

Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on October 15, 2007, 11:53:35 PM
Splitting hairs.  Someone above mentioned "all written text" could be considered literature. 

So, fine.  Narrow it down to a yes/no question:  Do you read?

Otherwise, he wants sub-categories.  I consider "classics" to be fiction thats been through a few re-printings, a few decades old or older.  If he wants to put The Davinci Code in with Ivanhoe, thats up to him.  According to the hot-shots, modern classic is from the 19th century but I don't like to get into pigeonholes.  Theres plenty of good stuff thats only a couple decades old.  If it made a real impact on society, it's a classic.  Its like the Kennedy assisination.  If you can remember where you were when you got introduced to that book, it's probably noteworthy. 

The davinci code would be in mystery / thriller
Ivanhoe as historical fiction, could go into Classics... or Other fiction... *shrug*
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Taors on October 16, 2007, 12:26:36 AM
These polls suck ass.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Bill Brasky on October 16, 2007, 04:06:57 AM
Splitting hairs.  Someone above mentioned "all written text" could be considered literature. 

So, fine.  Narrow it down to a yes/no question:  Do you read?

Otherwise, he wants sub-categories.  I consider "classics" to be fiction thats been through a few re-printings, a few decades old or older.  If he wants to put The Davinci Code in with Ivanhoe, thats up to him.  According to the hot-shots, modern classic is from the 19th century but I don't like to get into pigeonholes.  Theres plenty of good stuff thats only a couple decades old.  If it made a real impact on society, it's a classic.  Its like the Kennedy assisination.  If you can remember where you were when you got introduced to that book, it's probably noteworthy. 

The davinci code would be in mystery / thriller
Ivanhoe as historical fiction, could go into Classics... or Other fiction... *shrug*

You could call it Old Tyme Shyte and most people would just nod begrudgingly.

So, just put the fuckin' dot up.

Oh, you did.

Fine, then I guess my work here is done.

..
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Taors on October 16, 2007, 03:04:54 PM
Splitting hairs.  Someone above mentioned "all written text" could be considered literature. 

So, fine.  Narrow it down to a yes/no question:  Do you read?

Otherwise, he wants sub-categories.  I consider "classics" to be fiction thats been through a few re-printings, a few decades old or older.  If he wants to put The Davinci Code in with Ivanhoe, thats up to him.  According to the hot-shots, modern classic is from the 19th century but I don't like to get into pigeonholes.  Theres plenty of good stuff thats only a couple decades old.  If it made a real impact on society, it's a classic.  Its like the Kennedy assisination.  If you can remember where you were when you got introduced to that book, it's probably noteworthy. 

The davinci code would be in mystery / thriller
Ivanhoe as historical fiction, could go into Classics... or Other fiction... *shrug*

You could call it Old Tyme Shyte and most people would just nod begrudgingly.

So, just put the fuckin' dot up.

Oh, you did.

Fine, then I guess my work here is done.

..


He still put Classics in quotation marks like it was a fuckin' pain in the ass or something...
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on October 16, 2007, 04:14:09 PM
No, it's subjective.  That's why it's in quotes.

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

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.

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.

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.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Lindsey on October 16, 2007, 04:14:51 PM
Oh my God.  The Great Gatsby made me stabby.  Harper Lee can DIAF too. 
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Hologene Relapse on October 16, 2007, 04:15:37 PM
Unless it's from the Antiquity period, it's not a classic.  :twisted:
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on October 16, 2007, 04:19:47 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3514720005444269337






edited for funnier video
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on October 16, 2007, 04:31:48 PM
Unless it's from the Antiquity period, it's not a classic.  :twisted:

So it's essentially not a classic work, unless it was written on a scroll or in a codex eh?
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Taors on October 16, 2007, 04:35:10 PM

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

I can't wait for the new A Christmas Carol remake.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Bill Brasky on October 16, 2007, 06:00:03 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Lindsey on October 16, 2007, 09:21:08 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Evenstar on October 16, 2007, 10:11:14 PM
I have always been an avid reader.  These days, my favorite writing is anything that changes the way I look at the world (or lets me see it from a different angle), so that includes self-help, well-written biography, sci-fi/fantasy, and the like.  But I've read quite a bit from many different genres.  I must say that very few books I've started have I been unable to finish.  But apparently Nathaniel Hawthorne and me don't mix.  I tried to read "Scarlet Letter," couldn't get into it (or through it).  Then I found "House of Seven Gables."  From the description on the back, it sounded interesting, but once again, I couldn't get through it, and it wasn't until I got bogged down in it that I realized that Nathaniel Hawthorne had written both.  I think it had something to do with his flashbacks in flashbacks, but I value my time more than to try to re-read either to be certain as to the reason of my dislike.

I agree with Johnson on the issue that there is no reason to value something simply because it's been valued by others or because it's old.  But I guess I can see where "classics" is a useful category.  /shrug
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Taors on October 17, 2007, 04:02:26 AM
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.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Lindsey on October 17, 2007, 07:38:28 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Free_Marketeer on October 17, 2007, 01:00:14 PM
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.

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.

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. 

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?

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.

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.

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.  :P

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.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Taors on October 17, 2007, 01:37:28 PM
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?
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Porcupine_in_MA on October 17, 2007, 07:17:16 PM
who forced you to read said books?

Me.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Taors on October 17, 2007, 09:32:46 PM
who forced you to read said books?

Me.

Are you her daddy?
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Porcupine_in_MA on October 17, 2007, 09:50:46 PM
Are you her daddy?

I'm her pimp.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Lindsey on October 17, 2007, 10:16:10 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Taors on October 17, 2007, 10:25:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Lindsey on October 17, 2007, 11:34:16 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Taors on October 17, 2007, 11:39:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on October 18, 2007, 12:03:06 AM
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!  :mrgreen:
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.  :P

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.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Lindsey on October 18, 2007, 12:09:11 AM
Christ, man.  Give that poor girl a break.   :?
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Taors on October 18, 2007, 12:15:20 AM
There's no reason to call people names you god damn fat fuck.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on October 18, 2007, 12:22:16 AM
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!"
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Taors on October 18, 2007, 12:24:28 AM
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.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on October 18, 2007, 12:24:55 AM
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.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Taors on October 18, 2007, 12:26:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Lindsey on October 18, 2007, 12:27:36 AM
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.   :lol:
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Taors on October 18, 2007, 12:28:42 AM
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.   :lol:

Also buddy, like she's a fuckin' dude or something.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on October 18, 2007, 12:29:25 AM
I know that Free Marketeer is Monica... and Women are perfectly capable of acting like arrogant pricks - I've yelled at more than one Monica in my life.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on October 18, 2007, 12:33:03 AM
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.   :lol:

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

Although, in my first reply to you... I did confuse you for her.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Lindsey on October 18, 2007, 12:35:10 AM
Righto. 
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Porcupine_in_MA on October 18, 2007, 12:39:40 AM
Hows it going tonight Johnson?
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on October 18, 2007, 12:41:25 AM
I'd also like to add Taors, that you calling yourself a bystander, and then flinging insults at me is pretty cowardly, considering you HAVE been debating this since the first page it was brought up. Rather flippantly also...

Perhaps some of what I said struck a nerve?
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on October 18, 2007, 12:43:00 AM
Hows it going tonight Johnson?

A-OK actually... despite my willingness to enter into verbal altercations....
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Porcupine_in_MA on October 18, 2007, 12:50:00 AM
Did you make it up to the Jello Wrestling party?
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Taors on October 18, 2007, 12:50:40 AM
I'd also like to add Taors, that you calling yourself a bystander, and then flinging insults at me is pretty cowardly, considering you HAVE been debating this since the first page it was brought up. Rather flippantly also...

Perhaps some of what I said struck a nerve?

Honestly, I have no idea what you said because I skimmed past that rambling crybaby bullshit. I didn't see any insults from Free_Marketeer (oh my god she called me prejudice!!), but saw a shitload from you, and called you on it.

I've never read The Grapes of Wrath, I've never read The Lord of the Flies, and I've never read Moby Dick. I probably never will either...I just think you're wrong.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on October 18, 2007, 12:53:05 AM
and you provide nothing to back that up...

Actually... calling me prejudiced didn't annoy me nearly as much as her assumption that anyone that doesn't like 'classical literature' doesn't understand it.

That was the first insult. It was genuinely heartfelt too, regardless of how it was intended.

Also, you really didn't spend any time looking... because this is probably actually about your PERSONAL offense to this...
because I was called ignorant and prejudiced....
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on October 18, 2007, 12:53:48 AM
Did you make it up to the Jello Wrestling party?

? I don't know what you are referring to...
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Porcupine_in_MA on October 18, 2007, 01:02:34 AM
Did you make it up to the Jello Wrestling party?

? I don't know what you are referring to...

Well that would be a 'no' then.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrNFWfPeEkw
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on October 18, 2007, 01:11:38 AM
Did you make it up to the Jello Wrestling party?

? I don't know what you are referring to...

Well that would be a 'no' then.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrNFWfPeEkw


heheh "Freedom is sticky"
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Bill Brasky on October 18, 2007, 02:40:52 AM
I think that was uncalled for.  I opened up at the beginning of this thing with nothing more than a very general comment, and some opinions to back that up.

Its all just talk, dude.

Free marketeer, I just read over that crap, that sucked.  I'm sorry about that.

Johnson....  chill, that was very weird.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Free_Marketeer on October 22, 2007, 03:13:29 AM
Johnson, you misconstrued and malextended my words.  My diagnosis of the problem is still prejudice - and don't take that as a statement of your innate character, as you seem to have done; your inattention to my words and lack of response led to the call, which I maintain.

My original request was simple: "What about literature?", at which you balked, saying "There is no such thing, and fuck the literature crowd."  (The "Fuck off, you hoity-toity bitch." to me came later.)

My responses sought to demonstrate that there is a general category commonly, professionally, and commercially recognized as Literature or Classics.  My responses purposefully attempted not to seek to define what is or is not literature (I later pointed out it was indeed futile to do so, to a degree - but only in the Austrian subjective analysis sense). 

I pointed out that scores of brilliant people have spent their life energies and intellectual powers engaging in painstaking and fruitful works in literary and linguistic analysis, discovery, and theory (across many different genres of books, to refute your claim of eliticism on my part) in an attempt to better understand (which you seem to have misconstrued as synonymous with define): "What is literature?".

Despite my attempt to leave the defining and understanding of literature out of my attempt to secure a category where I could happily place my polling vote (and perhaps give others the option to do so), again you balked, malextending my words to claim I seek to define Literature according to my own tastes. 

So, I pointed out a dry point: that the field of literary and linguistic analysis is still developing (an extant fact) and will continue to develop; and that specialized tools of analysis have developed and are still developing (including better linguistic tools, leading to even better understanding of those works we have with us and why they have endured; and even borrowing from other fields such as archaeology to create better understanding of works that, for some reason, have endured; and, finally, that neither you nor I will end the progress of this field of work, nor can either of us say where its finish line lies.

Your consequent reaction, that because the nature of literature is still being discovered, the term is therefore meaningless, does not follow.  Such categorizations are useful for treading and creating evolutionary paths toward an ultimate understanding of Literature and Classics.  The fact that the terms are employed to evoke, and do evoke a particular category of reference among the general populace and consumers, therefore proves the terms have meaning sufficient to secure one or the other term's place as a polling option, which is all I originally sought to gain.

Moreover, I pointed out another dry point: that many of these critical, analytical tools are semi-removed from any but those who diligently apply themselves to understanding them.  Reading one or two works of literature does not establish a repertoire of enough depth or breadth to begin critical, analytical literary analysis.  The "text" in which the development of these tools occurs is usually professional (and scattered among professional publishings), with its concomitant jargon (specialized lingo designed to collapse and organize ideas and quicken precise discussion of a topic among professionals), and couched in analyses of many disparate works, many of which (by another definition of literature, see above) require "an acquaintance with letters" and languages above and beyond that of most for full (or simply better) understanding. 

Yet, again, I was misconstrued: as personally attacking your capability toward literary analysis - as saying that because a person does not like a particular literary work, they are unqualified to understand or appreciate it.  I dislike plenty of the classics, but personal taste is removed from critical, analytical analysis. 

My devotion to the freedom philosophy has been, so far as my purposes, unfaltering since I read about it for myself at 14-15.  I love literature, and I am happy to share and discuss that which I love; and happier still to hone my knowledge thus. 

All I got for my efforts, this time, it seems, was an undeserved heaping of cloddish scorn based on a series of misapprehensions and a stereotype that you loutishly, falsely attempt to lay on me; for which I maintain my call of untoward prejudice, until such time as your actions prove otherwise.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Bill Brasky on October 22, 2007, 08:03:46 PM
...'An she lit into him with that chicken 'til there was nothin' lef' in 'er hand but a coupl'a legs.  Pa threw his hip out laughin' to bust. 
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on October 22, 2007, 10:55:01 PM
...but you prove your own ignorance by rejecting...

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

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.

There is nothing iconoclastic about prejudice.

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

Maybe you thought I didn't read classics, and so you thought that a meandering milieu of multisyllabic mockery would be overlooked by me, or not quite grasped. I assure you, I have read and understood, a great deal of "classical" literature... and understanding does not always lead to appreciation. I have stated that time and again, and you neglect to acknowledge or accept the idea that a "classic" might actually lose relevance with time. True prejudice comes with the act of prejudging. If a book says "classic" on the cover, you immediately throw it into the bin of "good books I must read".

Even I, as a sci-fi fan, know better than to assume all sci-fi is good. For a genre of books to label itself thusly is grossly inaccurate and arrogant. If the terminology were referring to a time period, or a style mimicking something from a specific time period, as with the term "Classical Music" the terminology would be far more acceptably accurate.

At any rate, I didn't misconstrue anything about your original post. I said I didn't like the terminology used to describe the class of books we are referring to as "Classic Literature" and you took the opportunity to talk down to me, insult me, and generally be rude in a manner specific to me. There was nothing 'malextended' about it.  Therefore I reiterate my reply of... fuck you. Spend a little more time talking to people, rather than down at them, and maybe you won't think everyone misconstrues what you have to say. I understood you quite clearly.

Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Laetitia on October 22, 2007, 11:05:37 PM
Thank you, Johnson & Free Marketeer, for the lovely exchange in your last couple of posts. Ties in beautifully with my day. The Rotary Club just handed out a good old Websters Dictionary to each and every Third Grader in Sandy Springs.  My son spent the afternoon following me around, trying out his expanding vocabulary.

An imaginary +1 to you both.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Lindsey on October 22, 2007, 11:08:20 PM
Thank you, Johnson & Free Marketeer, for the lovely exchange in your last couple of posts. Ties in beautifully with my day. The Rotary Club just handed out a good old Websters Dictionary to each and every Third Grader in Sandy Springs.  My son spent the afternoon following me around, trying out his expanding vocabulary.

An imaginary +1 to you both.

Well, it's good to know I'm not the only person that read the dictionary as a child.   :lol:
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Laetitia on October 22, 2007, 11:23:05 PM

Well, it's good to know I'm not the only person that read the dictionary as a child.   :lol:

Me too. Started with a picture dictionary when I was four. And my first crush was on the middle brother in the Trixie Belden Mysteries book series. He drove people nuts with some really choice words, though being the only kid in the group to know the word pneumismatist did save their butts on one occasion.

Oh. My. God. I'm such a dork! What was I thinking, having kids?
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Evenstar on October 22, 2007, 11:27:49 PM
I didn't read the dictionary, but I did read World Book Encyclopedia.  I was so captivated by the outline at the end of the article on animals that I briefly worked on a fleshing out of it -- if I'd completed it, it would have been a book (or more) about every aspect of animals.

Then again even so, that's not so lofty a goal as when I was going to translate Chaucer's Cantebury tales to a more modern form of English. 

Ah, the passions of youth!
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: zebraflood on October 22, 2007, 11:37:20 PM
Then again even so, that's not so lofty a goal as when I was going to translate Chaucer's Cantebury tales to a more modern form of English. 

It can be done.

http://www.lolcatbible.com/
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Evenstar on October 22, 2007, 11:45:39 PM
True, but at my age, I must have been 10 or so... I think I got the definitions for all the words in like the first stanza or something, gave up on the re-poetry (enlisted my father to do that part), then the entire project stalled.  Still, it was fun.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on October 23, 2007, 12:20:18 AM
I'm wondering if pneumismatist and numismatist are the same, or different.

One appears to have the prefix derived from pneumaticus meaning "of the wind, belonging to the air"  or pneu - "to breathe" like those tubes you see at  you bank (or on the Jetsons)

One has the prefix nomos "custom, law, usage,"  or the base *nem- "to divide, distribute, allot"

Numismatic is in the dictionary... at least... Merriam Webster and Dictionary.com

Pneumismatic... well... that's not... but I can only guess it's someone that studies or establishes facts with regards to wind or breathing...
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Free_Marketeer on October 23, 2007, 01:47:10 AM
...
Maybe you thought I didn't read classics, and so you thought that a meandering milieu of multisyllabic mockery would be overlooked by me, or not quite grasped. I assure you, I have read and understood, a great deal of "classical" literature... and understanding does not always lead to appreciation. I have stated that time and again, and you neglect to acknowledge or accept the idea that a "classic" might actually lose relevance with time. True prejudice comes with the act of prejudging. If a book says "classic" on the cover, you immediately throw it into the bin of "good books I must read".

Even I, as a sci-fi fan, know better than to assume all sci-fi is good. For a genre of books to label itself thusly is grossly inaccurate and arrogant. If the terminology were referring to a time period, or a style mimicking something from a specific time period, as with the term "Classical Music" the terminology would be far more acceptably accurate.

At any rate, I didn't misconstrue anything about your original post. I said I didn't like the terminology used to describe the class of books we are referring to as "Classic Literature" and you took the opportunity to talk down to me, insult me, and generally be rude in a manner specific to me. There was nothing 'malextended' about it.  Therefore I reiterate my reply of... fuck you. Spend a little more time talking to people, rather than down at them, and maybe you won't think everyone misconstrues what you have to say. I understood you quite clearly.


It's patently clear you have not understood what I spoke of, Johnson, if you think I reject the possibility of a work losing relevance over time (my discussion on the evolution of literature should have made quite clear the exact opposite); or that I assume the quality of any work or idea before acquainting myself with it.

I made two remarks which you interpreted as insults.  One, that you are prejudiced against literature and those who work professionally for better understanding of it, and those who choose it as a hobby (who you off-handedly sneer as pursuing base egoism).  My notion was not untoward.  Your too-quick and unjust vilifications of literature were based on unjust, or at least logically vapid, stereotypes of literature.

Second, I noted that merely reading does not fully establish understanding of literature.  Contrary to your assumption that this statement is based on some insult of you, it is merely my recognizing that the field of literary analysis has a depth in consequence of the division of labor and specialization that pretty much all fields have contemporarily.  To deny this time-established depth is not only ignorant, it is an implicit rejection of the very competitive market processes that you, as a libertarian, most probably support otherwise.

I don't understand this intellectual lock-down you've imposed on yourself.  Literature is my hobby, as I've said; and nothing here should be construed as grandstanding on my part.  If anything, I feel I'm more defending my friends and professors with whom I maintain discourse - and am routinely in awe of for their dedication and nuance of understanding - from those who would disparage their work (being unaware - that is, ignorant - of its nature). 

But thank you for your more polite response.  :)  You can keep your fuck you, though - I have little use for such things, as I am my harshest critic.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on October 23, 2007, 02:33:15 AM
You seem to continually miss the fact that I am not disparaging any style of writing... I am questioning a particular terminology which is APPLIED to a multitude of genres.

People don't just sit down and WRITE classical literature... I don't know who your friends and these professors are, but if they set out to create a work specifically for it to be deemed a classic, I think they may be greatly missing the point of what it means to actually create one. I think you have to attempt master one genre before immediately hopping into the ether that is "classic literature".

I doubt Frank Herbert was attempting to write "classic literature" when creating Dune, but it would be far more likely he was trying to master Sci Fi.
I'm sure Herman Melville was not thinking... "this will be a classic" when he wrote Moby Dick. My bet is that his thoughts were on adventure... and a dramatic saga.
I'm sure Edgar Allen Poe was not thinking gleeful thoughts of his place in classic literary history when he inked out Mark's oft-quoted "The Raven"


It is the WORD Literature that I find meaningless... much like the words Liberal and Conservative hold very little meaning.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Laetitia on October 23, 2007, 07:30:36 AM
I'm wondering if pneumismatist and numismatist are the same, or different.

One appears to have the prefix derived from pneumaticus meaning "of the wind, belonging to the air"  or pneu - "to breathe" like those tubes you see at  you bank (or on the Jetsons)

One has the prefix nomos "custom, law, usage,"  or the base *nem- "to divide, distribute, allot"

Numismatic is in the dictionary... at least... Merriam Webster and Dictionary.com

Pneumismatic... well... that's not... but I can only guess it's someone that studies or establishes facts with regards to wind or breathing...


Oops. Was posting elsewhere about pnuemonia. Got my spelling wires crossed.  :oops:
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on October 23, 2007, 09:39:08 AM
and made possibly a new word....

pick a meaning...

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/161
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: lessthanthree on May 14, 2008, 11:47:27 PM
Am I really the only who reads romance novels??  Are there no other girls on this board?????  :shock:
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on May 16, 2008, 08:00:27 PM
Literature is not a category...


Entertainment Mags, and Fashion mags are both already options...

The goal is not superspecifics... For example, I will not be adding "Pet Magazines" for those that read Cat Fancy...
Somewhat general is the point... I'm only looking for things that DON'T clearly fit into an existing category...

Considering Fashion and Entertainment are both there... That is not a new category...
I didn't really appreciate how you grouped Science Fiction with Fantasy.  Anybody who reads Larry Niven is probably in agreement with me here
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on May 16, 2008, 08:46:16 PM
So then you must take issue with these booksellers as well then?
(Amazon)
http://www.amazon.com/b/ref=amb_link_6320642_44?ie=UTF8&node=25&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=browse&pf_rd_r=0WAWAQSCMF13K2M1T668&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=395367201&pf_rd_i=283155

(Barnes and Noble)
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/subjects/scifi/index.asp

(Books a Million)
http://www.booksamillion.com/ncom/books?in_dim_search=1&N=4293071332&id=4109848247785

(Waldenbooks) http://www.amazon.com/b/ref=amb_link_6320642_44?ie=UTF8&node=25&pf_rd_m=A3FIS7KP037V92&pf_rd_s=browse&pf_rd_r=14K8ZKSWF27EEPCW8NCM&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=395367201&pf_rd_i=283155

(Borders) http://www.amazon.com/b/ref=amb_link_6320642_44?ie=UTF8&node=25&pf_rd_m=AKEVKO7DR4RA&pf_rd_s=browse&pf_rd_r=0XZP0Z55E3B6DEFQFCKM&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=395367201&pf_rd_i=283155


I really couldn't think of any other major bookstores... my guess is that you must only shop at hole in the wall little mom and pop bookstores if something like that annoys you so... Am I right?
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on May 16, 2008, 08:48:58 PM
No not at all, I realize that those kinds of bookstores cater to both the SF and Fantasy crowds together, can you take a joke?  :lol:

Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on May 16, 2008, 09:14:33 PM
Can you tell a funny joke?

Maybe I didn't get your joke because I have no idea who that author is. Instead of seeing a joke, I only interpreted pointless complaining.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on May 16, 2008, 09:41:14 PM
Awww so sad.  Perhaps the sarcasm could have been more obvious.  Sorry  :(
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: jimmed on May 16, 2008, 10:06:10 PM
Johnson is wayyyy to serious about everything.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Johnson on May 16, 2008, 10:17:40 PM
Maybe... but I'm also probably finding it hard to laugh right now, because my mother is still in surgery after 9 hours of having her tits cut off, and I'm supposed to be studying for an exam tomorrow... but I really really can't fucking think math right now... at all.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: jimmed on May 16, 2008, 10:39:43 PM
Oh.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on May 16, 2008, 10:47:25 PM
Maybe... but I'm also probably finding it hard to laugh right now, because my mother is still in surgery after 9 hours of having her tits cut off, and I'm supposed to be studying for an exam tomorrow... but I really really can't fucking think math right now... at all.
Good luck on your exam, and if it helps, my father survived cancer as did one of my best friends mothers (she had breast cancer).  I understand how you feel in your circumstance. 
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on July 22, 2008, 06:51:32 AM
I wouldn't expect it to be an option since I am probably the only one on the board that would pick it, but 90% of what I read is Torah (thats the Bible to the rest of y'all).

The remaining 10% is philosophy, and literature.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Taors on July 22, 2008, 09:15:23 AM
I wouldn't expect it to be an option since I am probably the only one on the board that would pick it, but 90% of what I read is Torah (thats the Bible to the rest of y'all).

The remaining 10% is philosophy, and literature.

Wait, are you here to take Joelberg's place? Because we already have our token Jew. You sound a lot more interesting than Joelberg though...maybe we can have you two fight to the death (hand-to-hand Jew combat)?
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on July 22, 2008, 03:40:19 PM
I wouldn't expect it to be an option since I am probably the only one on the board that would pick it, but 90% of what I read is Torah (thats the Bible to the rest of y'all).

The remaining 10% is philosophy, and literature.

Wait, are you here to take Joelberg's place? Because we already have our token Jew. You sound a lot more interesting than Joelberg though...maybe we can have you two fight to the death (hand-to-hand Jew combat)?
No no, he's not taking my place, no-one ever will.  But he is pretty philosophical and more religious than me.
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material
Post by: Tolstoys Fourth on September 14, 2008, 04:18:47 AM
If you pick one of the "other" categories... Please consider suggesting a category, and I will consider adding it.

Your answers are editable, so if I add a suitable option you will be free change your answers to reflect that option.

Also, if you feel like sharing your favorite magazines, publications or book publishers...... Go for it.

I picked Other Nonfiction to account for "Academic" books.  While there are books about history stuff (I also picked Art/History/Culture), a lot can tend to be too plebe-pleasing to really get anywhere in the field I want to jump into someday, which I consider to be a slight different than some of the stuff I read. 
Title: Re: Demographics - Reading Material?
Post by: DontTreadOnMike on October 02, 2008, 01:56:36 PM
Conan.