UKRM Book Club

Oh, I forgot to say that mine is bigger than yours.

My wife did a course in Literature and Cultural Studies or some
such bollocks as part of her first degree and she hadn't heard of the
fellow. There's a world of difference between being an educated and
literate chap and knowing about this particular teacher and his
weird ideas.

I expect that you are interested in hi-fi but I wouldn't think
you an ignoramus if you had not heard of Peter Walker or
John Linsley Hood, who both died recently.

 

this is my take on it too - if they just said "I know it's a bit shit,
but I've quite enjoyed reading it anyway", that'd be fine. It's the
fact they try and big it up into something that was really suitable
for adults in the first place that makes them look like idiots.

 

Different kettle of fish entirely!

 

show me a post from anyone on my side of the fence that contains an
"ooh I read harder books than you do" sentiment. All Simian, Blaney,
Champ, and myself have been saying is that Harry Potter is a fucking
kid's book. We're not even saying it's a bad kid's book (though
neither of our two kid's thought it was worth reading past the first
one).

 

Ben Blaney says...

I wouldn't call them shit reading. I equate them to easy listening
music. There are times when I like to listen to something that really
stirs the soul and has me thinking how wonderfully crafted and it is, or
how beautiful the singer's voice[1] is, and other times when I want to
listen to mindless papp that some twat has knocked together in his
bedroom[1]. Each has their own place, and it's not your, nor my job to
say that either is shite or not. To do so just makes *you* appear to be
the snob.

[1] Claire Martin
[2] Waves to Mike Skinner.

 

I'll wave my willie at you if you're not careful.

 

darsy says...

That's certainly not the way it comes across. Perhaps if you were to be
more direct in your posting style we'd be able to make better sense of
what you wrote. Not everyone wants an intellectually challenging read on
the newsgroup too.

 

darsy says...

They aren't shit as such. They are simply written books with an average
plotline and characters that can be identified with, as well as being
easy to read and a bit of a giggle. What they certainly aren't is
challenging nor technically brilliant. Whatever they are categorised as,
they are enjoyable to the vast majority of those who bothered to read
them.

 

Your phrasing reveals your bias.

I can't account for that, sorry. fwiw, I didn't come across Hoggart
as part of any academic program.

True. But this isn't to say that the two things are necessarily
exclusive.

Well, no I hadn't. The truth is that I'm not /as/ interested in hi-fi
as I am in literature and ideas. I'm also much more interested in
music than hi-fi, which a number of hi-fi buffs don't seem to be.

 

They look like idiots to you. And I'm happy to admit to being one of
them.

However, I suspect that quite a few intelligent adults find the books
well written and entertaining. They'd probably consider you
intellectually blinkered. I'm one of them as well.

Vive la difference.

 

you're saying that unless I post material at a Harry Potter level of
comprehension, you won't be able to understand it?

 

<fx: runs away>

 

so, you're really saying that you think Harry Potter books were
intended for adults in the first place? If so, then yes, I think
you're being idiotic.

I've read the first one. In terms of a book suitable for reading by an
adult, it was definitely not at all well written. And I didn't find it
entertaining in the slightest.

so, the fact that I've read one Harry Potter book, dismissed it as not
being suitable reading material for an adult (despite the huge hype
that suggests the opposite), and now hold the opinion that other
adults who enjoy HP are being intellectually lazy, or just a bit dim,
this makes me "intellectually blinkered"? More idiocy on your part,
I'm afraid.

 

I read the first one, to be able to argue about it from a position of
knowing. I didn't like it /at all/. It might be okay for kids, but I
simply cannot understand any adult enjoying it: the plot was awful and
predictable, the characters two-dimensional, the development
transparent, the writing tedious. An utter waste of my time.

 

No - I see the two as contradictory. If you are generally non-idle
then you are not disposed to idleness.

 

I think JKR was canny enough to write books intended to have some
appeal to all ages, and I think to a large extent she succeeded.
What's idiotic about that?

Fair enough.

So we each think the other is being idiotic on this occasion. Time to
call a halt, then. Or name a roundabout.

 

darsy says...

I'm saying that if you are more prone to using 10 long words where 3
short ones will suffice, then I'd probably not bother reading your
posts. There's a time and a place for being *that* clever. As Windy put
in the ukrm FAQ "There are people in here with PhDs rubbing shoulders
with people who can't spell PhD" It would be rude to exclude the latter
purely for their lack of literacy.

I don't mind a good discussion, but when it gets to the level where a
participants level of comprehension is of more importance than the issue
being discussed, then the discussion has fallen apart.

FWIW, I've learnt more about proper use of the English language since I
started to post to ukrm, than I did at school. I passed my English
Language O level a year early with a grade B and went on to take A level
English at college.

 

I'm glad I'm not the only one.

 

Will I like "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time"?

 

I thought it was great. Considering the language used in it, I'm not
even sure I'd call it a proper kids' book.

Far from challenging, but rewarding in that it tried to give an insight
rather than simple. descriptions. of. simple. situations. a la HP.