Thread: Book Burning!

Cool those jets a tad, Mermaid. I agree with you. (Note the "I wouldn't burn any books" line in my post.) I was teasing and I meant it as such... though it is true that burning books to get rid of them only because one doesn't like them can make them popular.

Originally Posted by Hawke

Cool those jets a tad, Mermaid. I agree with you. (Note the "I wouldn't burn any books" line in my post.) I was teasing and I meant it as such... though it is true that burning books to get rid of them only because one doesn't like them can make them popular.

I wasn't aiming at you. Just at those ignorant despots who did accuse the author of practising witchcraft.

Ah, gotcha.

Originally Posted by Mike C

So you proved yourself to be a moron twice?

If being moronic is showing intolerence towards turgid prose, laughably naive social commentary, a love story you could predict the moment the two characters spoke and a pampered middle class woman generally acting out her fantasies for a bit of rough... yes, Mikey Boy, a moron I am

a moron I am

Duly noted, Yoda.


And you should really watch tossing around words like "turgid prose".

Originally Posted by tbs21

I agree with you Mike: Book burning is one of the worst forms of ignorance in history. And on the subject of 'Twilight', I will reiterate, "A vampire romance that seems to have turned everyone crazy doesn't appeal to me." Perhaps I hate them because I'm tired of hearing about them.

No, "Twilight" is just a bad book. Stephanie Meyer really isn't that great a writer but she masks this deficit by abusing the hell out of her Thesaurus to make the book sound more complicated than it really is. Her adjectives can be downright contradictory.

Stephen King is even on record as stating "...Jo Rowling is a terrific writer and Stephenie Meyer can’t write worth a darn. She’s not very good."

Originally Posted by Mermaid on the breakwater

The Bible is full of beautiful language. You throw that in the fire and you should go in too.

"Some beautiful language" is not worth the trouble this book has caused over the ages. If that's its only redeeming quality, into the fire with it and good riddance.

Books I'd burn:

Trance: Formation. The Amazon reviews were all posted by sockpuppet accounts belonging to the author; there's no way this is a 4-star book. Worst book ever.

Dianetics. Pure garbage. Needs no explanation.

Betrayed: The Story of Lisa Clark. I don't know what exactly Jennifer Grant contributed to this book since it's clear from the first sentence that this book was published without ever being reviewed by an editor. I've seen better grammar in a 6-year old's Christmas Wish List.

Originally Posted by quarterscot

If being moronic is showing intolerence towards turgid prose, laughably naive social commentary, a love story you could predict the moment the two characters spoke and a pampered middle class woman generally acting out her fantasies for a bit of rough... yes, Mikey Boy, a moron I am

This all based on what? Considering, as you said, you haven't read the series.

Not saying that what you've said is without merit (I have read the series. All my gal pals were reading it, and I wanted to talk about it with them. I enjoyed them for what they are. Not the smartest thing I've ever read, but enjoyable.) Sounds to me like you've taken other people's opinions and made them your own. I recommend reading it, then hating it, or just don't say anything about it.

Seems like you hate the obsession with it, rather than the book. It's so passe to hate something just because it's popular. People should be able to enjoy it no matter how mindless you think it probably is. I don't see how it could possibly affect anyone else enough to encourage hatred. Ridiculous. Save your hate for something worthy.

Originally Posted by johnnycruger

"Some beautiful language" is not worth the trouble this book has caused over the ages. If that's its only redeeming quality, into the fire with it and good riddance.

What on Earth are you on about? What trouble has the book caused? Explain to me why this isn't complete idiocy. Push you in that fire and good riddance.


Like a Fox: I hate to break it to you kiddo, but he ain't talking about Twilight. Turgid prose doesn't sound a lot like Twilight. Twilight is more mind-numbingly-amateurish prose.

For romantic writing read Birdsong by Faulks.

Love it or hate it, and there are plenty of people on either side of that fence, Twilight is a hugely successful novel in pure commercial terms, and publishing is a business. If your novel can do for a publisher what Twilight has done, you'll be worth something. Stephanie Meyer has achieved what many of us would wish to achieve, but some of us like to think we'd create a better quality product. A huge number of readers couldn't give a damn about a lot of the criticisms other writers have about Meyer's writing.

There are no books I'd burn, though there are some I haven't enjoyed. But hate them? No, I think Like A Fox is spot on, hate is too strong a feeling for me to have about a book.

I don't have a problem with other people as individuals burning books if they want to. I would have a problem with governments promoting or enforcing the burning of books.

Cheers,
Rob

Originally Posted by Rob

Love it or hate it, and there are plenty of people on either side of that fence, Twilight is a hugely successful novel in pure commercial terms, and publishing is a business. If your novel can do for a publisher what Twilight has done, you'll be worth something. Stephanie Meyer has achieved what many of us would wish to achieve, but some of us like to think we'd create a better quality product. A huge number of readers couldn't give a damn about a lot of the criticisms other writers have about Meyer's writing.

Yes, but for writers who are trying to learn a certain style and add complexity to their own, reading something like Birdsong will do an awful lot more for them than Twilight; Twilight will certainly teach them a lot of bad habits.

As for readers who do not want to write themselves, well, I can't see how they'd enjoy rubbish like Twilight but each to their own. It's a not a case of me knocking something because it's popular but because it is so poorly written that none of it stands up. Writers should aspire to great literature - in all genres.

Originally Posted by Mermaid on the breakwater

Yes, but for writers who are trying to learn a certain style and add complexity to their own, reading something like Birdsong will do an awful lot more for them than Twilight; Twilight will certainly teach them a lot of bad habits.

As for readers who do not want to write themselves, well, I can't see how they'd enjoy rubbish like Twilight but each to their own. It's a not a case of me knocking something because it's popular but because it is so poorly written that none of it stands up. Writers should aspire to great literature - in all genres.

I think the idea that all writers should aspire to great literature is misleading, unless all readers want great literature - and many of them don't.

For some reason the idea that all writers should aspire to a quality of writing that's more appropriate for literary fiction often gets pushed as a one-size-fits-all solution in writing forums. Some readers want Birdsong. Some want Twilight. Publishers want to make money and they do that through products that readers want to part with their money for. Whether you're writing for a particular genre or for mainstream or literary fiction, know your audience.

Cheers,
Rob

Very well said, Rob.

Add to that 'great literature' is such a subjective term, much like the phrase 'pretty as a picture'. Or, 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.

Originally Posted by Mermaid on the breakwater

What on Earth are you on about? What trouble has the book caused? Explain to me why this isn't complete idiocy. Push you in that fire and good riddance.

The Bible is a work of Christian mythology. People lose sight of this fact and proceed to judge others and enact public policy based on what remains an unsubstantiated work of fiction. Having "faith" in something does not validate it.

There have been plenty of problems caused by the book, starting with the obvious wars/Crusades. Presently there is opposition to stem cell research and abortion. Opposition to gay rights (true, God may not support it-- but that's a problem for Him to solve, not mortals acting on His behalf). I'm not about to cite them all.

I will submit the Pope's efforts to facilitate AIDS wiping out the entire continent of Africa as my biggest objection. He simply opposes the use of condoms, based on the Catholic interpretation of the Bible. These people, roughly half of whom are followers of Christianity, will die in their geographical quarantine based on the teachings of a mythological work. And he continues to promulgate the anti-contraception policy that, were he to reconsider his position, could bring the crisis under control within a few generations.

I didn't come here to be inflammatory or try to change peoples' minds, only to voice my support for the suggestion that the Bible be destroyed. You called me out on it, I have now given you my justifications for its removal, and I have no interest in furthering its discussion.

Originally Posted by johnnycruger

The Bible is a work of Christian mythology. People lose sight of this fact and proceed to judge others and enact public policy based on what remains an unsubstantiated work of fiction. Having "faith" in something does not validate it.

Mythology? You ought to be careful throwing those words around; there's a a significant degree of historical accuracy regarding the Bible. People shouldn't enact public policy in light of the teachings of Christ then? On the contrary, I think more public policy should be enacted in the true light of his teaching. The alternative is the bigots and the despots.

There have been plenty of problems caused by the book, starting with the obvious wars/Crusades. Presently there is opposition to stem cell research and abortion. Opposition to gay rights (true, God may not support it-- but that's a problem for Him to solve, not mortals acting on His behalf). I'm not about to cite them all.

Those were not problems caused by the Bible, those were problems caused by the ecclesiastic hegemony and the Bible doesn't really teach intelorance.

I will submit the Pope's efforts to facilitate AIDS wiping out the entire continent of Africa as my biggest objection. He simply opposes the use of condoms, based on the Catholic interpretation of the Bible. These people, roughly half of whom are followers of Christianity, will die in their geographical quarantine based on the teachings of a mythological work. And he continues to promulgate the anti-contraception policy that, were he to reconsider his position, could bring the crisis under control within a few generations.

Nonsense. The Catholic church is one of the big problems, for sure, but this is not the fault of a theological resource. That people interpret scripture so erroneously is not the fault of the true message.

I didn't come here to be inflammatory or try to change peoples' minds, only to voice my support for the suggestion that the Bible be destroyed. You called me out on it, I have now given you my justifications for its removal, and I have no interest in furthering its discussion.

So far you have not cited scripture or argued anything damning of the Bible itself. Have you read the Bible? If not, how can you be so damning of it?

I read it for a number of reasons but I am not a religious person, at all. I most certainly believe in the word of Jesus, though. It would be a travesty to remove such teachings from record.

You're looking for all the ills of dogmatic faith and looking to lump every part of Christianity into the same basket which you simply can't do and maintain a logical argument. The world would not be better off without Jesus and the perpetuation of his teachings.

But you're right, there's no need to take the discussion further. These debates go on and on without much in the way of accuracy on these forums. You don't think that suggesting the Bible be destroyed is inflammatory?

Originally Posted by Mermaid on the breakwater

You don't think that suggesting the Bible be destroyed is inflammatory?

I think the burning of any book is - the first reaction of an ignorant society is to burn things. Books, records, witches, flags... to suggest the burning of any book is to align onesself with the lynch-mob and not with the thinkers.