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]

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...

[Johnson]

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.

[Lindsey]

Oh my God.  The Great Gatsby made me stabby.  Harper Lee can DIAF too. 

[Hologene Relapse]

Unless it's from the Antiquity period, it's not a classic. 

[Johnson]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3514720005444269337






edited for funnier video

[Johnson]

Unless it's from the Antiquity period, it's not a classic. 

So it's essentially not a classic work, unless it was written on a scroll or in a codex eh?

[Taors]

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.

[Bill Brasky]

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. 

[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. 

[Evenstar]

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

[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.

[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. 

[Free_Marketeer]

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. 

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.

[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?

[Porcupine_in_MA]

who forced you to read said books?

Me.