UKRM Book Club

I'm not sure that's true

What's unique about the Northumbrian pipes, IIRC, is that you only
lift one finger at a time to play a note, rather than lifting fingers
progressively like nearly every other wind instrument - including
bagpipes.

 

Verdigris says...

I think you might have grasped the wrong end of the stick. If the
inetellectually superior feel threatened in any way around here, they
resort to overuse of English to bully the not so clever into submission.
It doesn't matter if it is a book thread or one about wheel bearings,
the wordsmiths attack in their own particular way. There are some
posters who are extremely good at what they do and know, but lack the
skills to convey their knowledge to a reading audience. That doesn't
make them any less a good person, but to some it makes them a target for
ridicule.

I have no intention of dropping out of the thread, but I won't be
replying to everyone willy-nilly. I have my views on certain things, and
I'll attempt to voice them in a controlled, easy to understand manner.
It's worth noting who is spicing up their posts with 'colourful'
language. To me it shows an inability to make yourself understood and/or
laziness.

 

yes, that's a fair summary - cheers.

 

I thought you might, eventually.

 

It always is. That's why people use it.

 

Not for an adult.

 

OPINION.

 

Why can't you type "fucking"?

And, to be honest, of *all* the snobbery in this thread, I find the
inverse snobbery most loathsome.

Don't think that the epithet "snob" upsets me; I won't deny that I am
a snob, in some ways - but there's others in which I'm gleefully and
unrepentantly egalitarian.

So, you don't like me. Well, I can live with that. In fact, can I
convey to you how /little/ that bothers me?

 

Snobbery, perhaps not, since snobbery has negative connotations. But
there should be value judgements made upon literature and music. We
should decide what is good and bad. And we should ignore the bad and
concentrate on the good.

 

<AOL>

 

There's another post from me somewhere details what I didn't like
about the Potter book I read.

No. Huge popularity is no guarantee of quality. Huge popularity is a
result of the hype.

That was what I was saying.

I didn't say that. I don't think you're daft or lazy if you read
Harry Potter.

I do think that IF you said to me that Harry Potter was a good book
for an adult to read, you would be wrong. That is all.

 

Almost exactly the opposite.

I could say, right now: I am happy. But how much would that convey?
Possibly not as much as I could if chose another word for "happy".

A quick look at thesaurus.com (because I don't have time to sit and
think of examples) gives:

Synonyms: blessed, blest, blissful, blithe, can't complain,
captivated, cheerful, chipper, chirpy, content, contented, convivial,
delighted, ecstatic, elated, exultant, flying high, gay, glad,
gleeful, gratified, hopped up, intoxicated, jolly, joyful, joyous,
jubilant, laughing, light, lively, looking good, merry, mirthful,
overjoyed, peaceful, peppy, perky, playful, pleasant, pleased,
satisfied, sparkling, sunny, thrilled, tickled, tickled pink, up,
upbeat

You'd agree that cheerful is different from satisfied, right? And
that contented is different from elated? And that merry is different
from thrilled?

So, if I were to describe myself as mirthful this Monday morning, that
might be considered to be using "colourful language". And you think
that show an inability to make myself understood or laziness?

I think it shows an ability - and a desire - to make myself more
clearly understood. I obviously want to describe more fully what type
of "happy" I am. And to do so obviously disproves any laziness.

 

A few years ago I was doing some work in Sweden, upon my arrival at the
office I was greeted by an attractive and curvaceous brunette.

"Hi, I'm Titti!" she said, reaching out to shake hands.

A momentary brain-hiccup occured, and I replied.. "erm, yes.. yes you
are.... Hello."

Still makes me laugh now.

 

I can't remember ever reading many children's books. Seriously. I
think I might have read some Famous Five, but I'm not sure.

 

so you're saying HP isn't children's fiction, or what?

 

I've not read PP work, because it's for children.

It's really quite simple: if a book is going to be comprehensible by
children, it's going to be too simple and boring for me to enjoy
reading.

 

I still don't see how saying "adults should read adult books rather
than children's books" is snobbish in any way. As I've said elsewhere
in this thread, I'll happily admit to reading loads of books that are
"rubbish", "trash" or "pulp", but they are all books aimed at adults,
with adult themes, complex multilayered plots and stuff that I find
*interesting*.

 

And language is more precise than you give it credit.

--
Marina Mayes - Reading, UK. To email me remove XX from my address
XV535 (sold), GPZ500S (promised), SR250 (in bits). BOTAFOT12, BOD#2, BOTAFOS#2.
KotLBOD#s, KotLBOTAFOS#s,IMC#2, Tart#10-19, SR#3
Original Sinergy - wicked T-shirts for a wicked world: www.originalsinergy.com
I never give in to fear or blackmail; I always give in to temptation.
www.pericles.demon.co.uk
"You're a national treasure" - porl, 18.1.03

 

How much of children's fiction is written by children? I'm talking about
adults writing about children/through children's eyes. You're not reading
anything from a child at all.

This is all fascinating. There's more bitchiness in this thread than there
was in anything about Iraq.

 

it's great, isn't it?