Books discussion

[Akkarin345]

The book is really good. I am doing it for my GCSE this year. What you have to look at is the message that is underneath and how Harper Lee includes it. Although it isn't like some fantasy books with a lot of action it still has its' messages.
Another book i was 'forced' to read but found interesting was Tess of the d'Urbervilles by Thomas Hardy, a good book where he transforms a mere milk maid into a heroine ( not the sort that goes around killing people but one that is pure although shunned by society).

[Snappl]

Next up in engrish class is To Kill a Mockingbird.. I hate that book.

What don't you like about it?

Well, first, i guess i'm biased. I'm usually really critical of anything that has massive amounts of praise...
Keep that in mind.

First, The book has a horrid plot. it's pretty random until the rape bit, and Boo Radley (sp) just seemed completely unnecessary..

It uses some kind of insane engrish that i've never heard before..

No one has names that are remotely "normal" for the south, or anywhere, ever.

It uses a ton of racial slurs.

and, i just don't like it..

[turin]

While I tend to agree with you about the merits (or rather lack thereof) of To Kill A Mockingbird, I don't think this is a valid argument:

It uses a ton of racial slurs.

Using racial slurs in a work of literature is not a bad thing, necessarily; I'd say it's often a good thing. It doesn't mean the author endorses use of those slurs in real life. More often than not, it's used by authors who don't support the viewpoint that the use of those slurs signifies. Is "Huckleberry Finn" a racist book?

[LemonTea]

It uses some kind of insane engrish that i've never heard before..

You never been to American down South in the 30s?

It uses a ton of racial slurs.

Setting. Nuff said.

First, The book has a horrid plot. it's pretty random until the rape bit, ...

Not everything has to begin with 'once upon a time,' or 'a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.'

Try reading Finnegans Wake (three quarks for muster mark FTW) and you'll see how 'organised' the plot of To Kill a Mockingbird is.

BUT...

and, i just don't like it..

Fair enough!

[Rex Umbrarum]

Is "Huckleberry Finn" a racist book?

Well, yes but not because of the racial slurs.
Jim takes a secondary role throughout the book, being pushed aside whenever the plot requires it, and the last third of the book is just horrible.

More on topic, I didn't like TQAM (Edit: To Quill a Mocking Bird? ) either. It was pretty boring. Kinda at the level of The Grapes of Wrath. It's a good book, but not particularly very fun while you're reading it.

[Turuk]

Rex, I do believe that was a rhetorical question. Huckleberry Finn is without a doubt a racist book, but as Turin points out, it was written to convey a point about society. Those racial slurs and the attitude about Jim in the book are Mark Twain's way of waving a red flag about how bad society is treating people who deserve the same rights as everyone else.

[Limabean]

I'm Reading Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury. It's a trippy book. Next up in engrish class is To Kill a Mockingbird.. I hate that book. It deserves none of the praise it gets. Lord of the Flies was better, and William golding couldn't bother to tell you who was talking.

I'm probably just a bibliophobe..

I loved Fahrenheit 451
I'm surprised you hate TKAM, compared with most books I have to read for school it was pretty good. Ever read The Scarlet Letter? Now THAT was painful to read. Everything you have claimed is wrong with TKAM gets multiplied tenfold (except maybe racism). [bracing for the SL fans]

Boo Radley (sp) just seemed completely unnecessary..

Wait until the end. He has a purpose.
Anyway, I think he makes the book much better than it would be without him. His part of the story seems like an innocent child's story while the other part, the trial, addresses far more mature things like racism etc. It's a great contrast.

It uses a ton of racial slurs.

maybe, but it was necessary for the setting to be accurate. I thought the book as a whole portrayed a very anti-racism message. Think about it, the hero is sacrificing his reputation to defend an obviously innocent black man. All the characters we're supposed to think of as the 'good guys' don't seem to be racist at all.

[Elvish_Pillager]

I didn't like To Kill A Mockingbird either, although I slightly disagree about the plot being weak - I think a better writer could have written a good book with the same plot. It's been a while since I read it, so I don't remember what exactly I didn't like about it, but part is that it was too preachy.

I actually rather liked The Scarlet Letter, although I'm sure I would have hated it if archaic language didn't come naturally to me. Criticize him if you like, but Hawthorne can create some very interesting images once you get past his language. Has anyone here read Dr. Heidegger's Experiment?

And, who was using "Worse than Lord of the Flies" as an insult? Lord of the Flies is very well-constructed in what it tries to do. I can see how people could dislike it, but I won't stand for someone calling it a bad book.

[Limabean]

too preachy

lol and you like the scarlet letter? "Be True! Be True! Be True!" writes Hawthorne

Criticize him if you like, but Hawthorne can create some very interesting images

Oh, i'm not going to argue with that. He's a great writer and it's not the language that bothers me, but the plot.
*WARNING: Plot spoilers ahead*
The entire book is about a woman who commits a sin and ruins her own life trying to "atone" (as an athiest that alone annoys me). Then you have a minister who literally dies of guilt as well as the woman's husband in hiding who obsesses about getting revenge against the unfortunate minister. It says something about a book when the most exciting part is when some guy keels over in the public square for no logical reason.

[turin]

/me completely agrees with everything EP said in his last post.

BTW, to return this thread to its original purpose, I've just started reading Frankenstein. Everyone should know what it's about. I really shouldn't read this before now, but, better late than never...

[ElvenKing]

I didn't like To Kill A Mockingbird either, although I slightly disagree about the plot being weak - I think a better writer could have written a good book with the same plot. It's been a while since I read it, so I don't remember what exactly I didn't like about it, but part is that it was too preachy.

Well it has been ages since I read it, so I don't remember much either(other than I liked it), but I think it would be virtually impossible to avoid being preachy considering the plot of the book.

[Elvish_Pillager]

Oh, i'm not going to argue with that. He's a great writer and it's not the language that bothers me, but the plot.
*WARNING: Plot spoilers ahead*
The entire book is about a woman who commits a sin and ruins her own life trying to "atone" (as an athiest that alone annoys me). Then you have a minister who literally dies of guilt as well as the woman's husband in hiding who obsesses about getting revenge against the unfortunate minister. It says something about a book when the most exciting part is when some guy keels over in the public square for no logical reason.

She doesn't ruin her own life at all, and there's a lot more depth to her husband than obsessing over revenge. I take it you don't like internal narratives? There are stories where the most exciting part is when nothing happens at all. Sure, The Scarlet Letter looks stupid if you only pay attention to what happens in it physically...

Well it has been ages since I read it, so I don't remember much either(other than I liked it), but I think it would be virtually impossible to avoid being preachy considering the plot of the book.

You could tell the same story without having the narrator listen to and learn from her wise-sounding father all the time. e.g. the preachier half of the quotes listed here (mostly the ones from Atticus...) could have been left out without changing the plot at all.

[ElvenKing]

You could tell the same story without having the narrator listen to and learn from her wise-sounding father all the time. e.g. the preachier half of the quotes listed here (mostly the ones from Atticus...) could have been left out without changing the plot at all.

True. I guess I'd forgotten how preachy it was in some parts.

Strangely it doesn't really bother me that much, which is unusual, as I normally hate preachy stories.

[Limabean]

She doesn't ruin her own life at all, and there's a lot more depth to her husband than obsessing over revenge. I take it you don't like internal narratives? There are stories where the most exciting part is when nothing happens at all. Sure, The Scarlet Letter looks stupid if you only pay attention to what happens in it physically...

I know plenty happens internally; after all, I had to sit through a class discussion every day for the first month of this school year.
We just enjoy different things I guess. I, for example, don't enjoy books whose most prominent characteristic is that they are classroom fodder in its purest form, without any distracting action.

[Rex Umbrarum]

Rex, I do believe that was a rhetorical question. Huckleberry Finn is without a doubt a racist book, but as Turin points out, it was written to convey a point about society. Those racial slurs and the attitude about Jim in the book are Mark Twain's way of waving a red flag about how bad society is treating people who deserve the same rights as everyone else.

Curse you rhetorical questions!

Well now I've started Under Sea Over Stone in The Dark is Rising Series. Someone mentioned it in the "Favorite book" thread, so I'm expecting it to be good...