PeeperStorm on 22/1/2010 at 02:23
Quote Posted by DaBeast
"DIE MORTAL ETC, he
ejaculated" - interesting use of words I've discovered.
It's just an old fashioned way of saying "exclaimed". We had a teacher in high school who took great glee in assigning us books where characters were (in the teacher's own words) "ejaculating all over the place".
Just finished rereading Vance's
Lyonesse trilogy. He injected a lot of the folklore of the British Isles into it, with generous helpings of Arthurian themes and Celtic mythology. The result meshes really well with his characteristic writing style. I particularly liked the fact that the story is mostly held to a linear time progression, so that when the focus shifts from one protagonist to another there's little of that "jumping back in time a few weeks to see what the other character has been up to" nonsense. If the character did anything significant during that time, he finds other ways to let you know about it. It makes the events seem more "real", which is a good thing in a high fantasy setting.
june gloom on 22/1/2010 at 04:50
Quote Posted by PeeperStorm
It's just an old fashioned way of saying "exclaimed". We had a teacher in high school who took great glee in assigning us books where characters were (in the teacher's own words) "ejaculating all over the place".
I think this needs to be looked into by administrators.
PeeperStorm on 22/1/2010 at 07:15
Nah. This was the same teacher who called me an asshole, taught us how to play poker, and handed out cigarettes to the entire class one day. Best teacher ever.
all on 22/1/2010 at 11:58
Quote Posted by Thirith
How are you liking them? I definitely like Pinter's
Betrayal and I have a weak spot for
The Dumb Waiter, since I directed a production of it in 1998, but I also think his plays get a bit samey after a while in terms of their language and themes. (I taught
The Homecoming and vastly preferred teaching it to reading it.)
Whoa, then you must know his work well. It took me a while to understand how his plays work -- had to read all of Plays 4 and a few critical works before getting the idea -- but I'm having a good time reading them now. I have a class on Pinter and more or less have to gain a global image of his work -- a bit samey, I agree, but not in a bad way. I checked out his (
http://nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=620) nobel prize speech too, which I found incredible (not that I've ever listened to many nobel prize speeches before). The Homecoming is probably the last one I've read, and I understand it's one of the most surprising ones -- I quite enjoyed reading this one, more than Betrayal, which is the very first one I've tackled. But maybe I should give this one another go. Do you still participate in productions?
june gloom on 22/1/2010 at 23:55
So far, really liking No Country for Old Men. It's a bit hard to follow sometimes because he usually doesn't identify who's speaking (and he never ever uses quotation marks) but I'm slowly getting the hang of it.
Renzatic on 23/1/2010 at 04:44
I've been comparatively lowbrow here, and haven't read anything culturally redeeming in the least recently. What I have been reading, and just finished, was Stephen King's new 1074 page monstrosity. It confirms two things I've always thought of the man.
1. He can write. Sure, his prose is a little lacking, but he can pen some great characters, and can definitely keep a good story moving. At least until...
2. The ending. Stephen King couldn't write a satisfying and well rounded ending to save his life.
Under The Dome practically drives those two points home. I mean here's a huge 1000+ page epic, following the lives of 20 odd people who's various stories coalesce grandly during a frankly horrific climax. It's well written, well paced, and always engaging. But just when you think there's nothing else that can be done, and our protagonists are doomed to a slow, lingering death, the last 30 pages...of a thousand page novel, mind...are dedicated to a complete pulled-that-out-of-my-ass stunt that miraculously works and gives us all a happy ending. Well, relatively happy, anyway.
Still, I go into an King novel expecting an entertaining read sporting a bad ending. Still, this one takes it to a whole new level. You're actually believed to think that it's headed in a much darker, sadder direction than most of his books tend to go, then...BAM. YAY! It's so sudden, it almost feels like it was tacked on due to pressure from the editor.
But despite that, it is one of King's better written novels. I loved it...er...up til the end.
Tocky on 23/1/2010 at 05:20
I love King. When he gets it right he gets it exactly right. Stories like The Running Man (no resemblance to the movie) or Delores Claiburn resonate a clear note. When he is concise as with The Shawshank redemption it is like a godgiven story shot straight to him. Unfortunately his longer works are rambling and although interesting ultimately unfocused and meaningless. The Stand was a good example or Tommyknockers. Oh he can write a well rounded ending all right when they are not forced into happyhappysunshine. Thinner was horrible and ended horribly well.
Nuth on 23/1/2010 at 07:56
The Grass Crown by Colleen McCullough, second book of her "Masters of Rome" series.
Zerker on 24/1/2010 at 13:19
I'm about halfway into "Reap the Wild Wind" by Julie Czerneda, which is the first book in her "Stratification" series (a prequel series to her earlier Trade Pact books). I've loved all her books so far, and I'm looking forward to getting into the following two novels (all of which I got for Christmas).
SubJeff on 24/1/2010 at 15:41
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Stephen King couldn't write a satisfying and well rounded ending to save his life.
This.
This is why I'll never read him again. I've read a few that started great and then just turned to mush.
Don't read King, read some good classic sci-fi instead.
