TrueBeliever Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 You are all forgetting this millenium's most popular piece of sh@# to ever waste paper. The Davinci Code What garbage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gwinna Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 One point about the review, you say you have an issue with the end-justifies-the-means philosophy of the characters. While I can understand your objection, I don't think it's a valid criticism of the book - as I see it that's pretty much the whole point of the book, I think Kay intends the reader to conclude that Alessan and his companions do some extremely ruthless things to get to their goal and despite what you say they do admit they are wrong sometimes - Alessan admits to Erlein that he was wrong to ever enslave him when he releases him from the coercion and says then that he has realised there are limits to the things he wants to see done for any cause, even his own. Wow, you actually read my review? I didn't think anyone would. Anyway, are you saying that the point of the book is that the end justifies the means and that the supposed good guys do ruthless things to acheive their goal as well as the supposed antagonists? You may be right, though if so I don't think GGK conveyed his point as well as he could have. I wasn't all that sure what the point was when I read it. But maybe that was my fault not his. The impression I got was that most of the times the characters question themselves, they end up thinking the same as they did before, but there are probably cases as you say when that is not true. In my review that was mostly a response to people praising the book for characters examining their motives and all, because I felt that they weren't really all that unsure of themselves. But honestly, I don't really remember specifics well enough to argue about it - I just remember being frustrated that the characters hardly ever doubt themselves seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry. Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 It's amusing/disheartening to see how many of my personal favorites are being mentioned by a few here. As for me trying to weigh in on what is "overrated," I'd first have to listen to others at length before deciding what to read. I might take suggestions, but nothing more than that is understood to be taking place. That being said, I prefer Fitzgerald over about 99% of the fantasy/SF authors writing today, because he had some excellent, fully realized characters in his tales, even if The Great Gatsby gets relatively little love here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williamjm Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 Wow, you actually read my review? I didn't think anyone would. Anyway, are you saying that the point of the book is that the end justifies the means and that the supposed good guys do ruthless things to acheive their goal as well as the supposed antagonists? You may be right, though if so I don't think GGK conveyed his point as well as he could have. I wasn't all that sure what the point was when I read it. But maybe that was my fault not his. I think the reader is being left to judge for themselves whether the end really does justify the means - obviously the characters mostly think that (although they have some doubts), but we can make up our minds whether they were right to do what they do or not. I think GGK could have conveyed his point a bit better - the characters that think they should do whatever helps the cause do dominate most of the book's discussions about the topic until the last part of the book where Alessan, for example, starts to have doubts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angalin Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 In Tigana, Dianora is the person most beset by doubts about whether what she is doing is justified, and look how that turns out for her (sparing spoilers for those who haven't read the book). I'd have said that the early parts of the book are driven by "ends", and part of the sadness in the last parts comes from the realization that "means" have to count as well. My usual target for overratedness is Laurell K Hamilton, but I think enough people have caught on to her that I don't need to elaborate further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gwinna Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 I think the reader is being left to judge for themselves whether the end really does justify the means - obviously the characters mostly think that (although they have some doubts), but we can make up our minds whether they were right to do what they do or not. I think GGK could have conveyed his point a bit better - the characters that think they should do whatever helps the cause do dominate most of the book's discussions about the topic until the last part of the book where Alessan, for example, starts to have doubts. Ok, I see what you mean, and that makes sense. I like your way of looking at Tigana. But I do definitely think that GGK could have conveyed his point better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kat Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 EDIT: According to wikipedia, The Unvanquished didn't win any major award, so your opinion of it is shared, sort of.... Heh. I guess I should look stuff up before making my posts. :/ I read it a while ago. Maybe it's just that it was overrated by the English department at my high school. Multiple teachers I had swooned over this book, to the point at which I was afraid to say anything bad about it, ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 Excuse me? In foundation the story is the worst bit, and from book to book it only gets crappier. Assuming we're only talking about the original Foundation trilogy, rather than Asimov's later additions, I have to disagree with you. Nicely reworking Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire into a space opera context, and instilling themes that wrestle with some of the key issues of history (individual actions vs social trends) makes for an entertaining read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collaroy Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 The most overrated novel of the twentieth century: The Great Gatsby. Oh, I SO agree with that. *shudders* Also completely overrated IMO: Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci" code. It was hyped and hyped and hyped again, but when I read it I was like- huh? What's the biggie? It's not bad, it's just very mediocre and I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyanna Stark Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 I think I have to re-read "The Great Gatsby" together with "Die Leiden des jungen Werther" by Goethe to renew my utter hatred for these works. May they burn in literature hell. The first totally contrived and un-moving, where not even one of the characters manage to be the least bit interesting or sympathetic, but instead are so shallow and paper-thin an accidental puff of wind would send them reeling. The second is a revolting justification for self-loathing and suicide with a whiney, delusional main character without much of a peronsality (apart from the emo) and a love interest completely devoid of any sort of personality, action or anything. I can't remember that she said a single line during the whole book with any sort of significance. She's basically just a fixture and a shallow excuse for Werther's juvenile feelings of emo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collaroy Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 I think I have to re-read "The Great Gatsby" together with "Die Leiden des jungen Werther" by Goethe to renew my utter hatred for these works. May they burn in literature hell. Let me guess- they made you read those at school? Most of the really bad books I've read were at school- Werther's yet another good example. I have always LOVED to read (and I even like some of the classics), but I hated most of the stuff they gave us to read in literature class. I really have no idea why teachers all over the world choose books like that- no wonder kids don't read any more. Speaking of which- "The Scarlet Letter" by Hawthorne, there's another one for you. God, our teachers must've hated us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Thursday Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 For the most part, I actually enjoyed the books I had to read for school. We had a good English teacher who set us stuff like The Name of the Rose, Heart of Darkness and The Sorrow of War (by Bao Ninh - a Vietnamese soldier's account of the Vietnam War, which is very interesting and has an interesting style). The Great Gatsby was the only novel he assigned that really didn't grab me at all. OK, so he did have some neat metaphors, but I don't think the themes hedonism and general air of decadence was that relevant to me. Perhaps it's just that 1920s US doesn't feel as important as turn-of-the-century Belgian Congo to me. Sir Thursday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 Another book from school: "The Woodlanders" by Thomas Hardy. I found it stupid, pointless and even totally depressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yrael Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 The lions of Al-Rassan. Couldn't get past the 2nd chapter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beniowa Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 The lions of Al-Rassan. Couldn't get past the 2nd chapter. *waits for the inevitable lynch-mob* Though I have to admit, it wasn't my favorite Kay book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyP Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 I agree with you on Shakespeare's plays. Anyone who says they can understand enough Old English to "get" Shakespeare is lying their ass off. from Wiki Modern English is often dated from the Great Vowel Shift which took place mainly during the 15th century. English was further transformed by the spread of a standardised London-based dialect in government and administration and by the standardising effect of printing. By the time of William Shakespeare (mid-late 16th century) the language had become clearly recognizable as Modern English. History of the English language read and be enlightened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zakalwe7 Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 The second is a revolting justification for self-loathing and suicide with a whiney, delusional main character without much of a peronsality (apart from the emo) and a love interest completely devoid of any sort of personality, action or anything. But THAT'S the whole beauty of late 18th/early 19th century German romanticism!!!!! It is so EEMMMMOOOOO!!! It is like taking the piss out of proto-emo kids!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beniowa Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 from Wiki History of the English language read and be enlightened. Okay, fine, it's not Old English, but Shakespeare is difficult to understand! At least it is for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sword of Funny Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 Gormenghast! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gildor Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 The Great Gatsby I found dreary, despite the enthusiasm of my school teacher, it was just totally un-engaging. Same with Wuthering Heights, what is the big deal, I mean really. The repeated story arc and the narration technique pissed me off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.