authors that you have read everything they have written - Page 5

J.Brown · #41 06-19-2006, 11:41 AM

concerning Chuck P.

i think i get the point.

i have read everything he has written, at one point i really liked, enjoyed, "got" his stuff.......that has changed a bit for me personally, i think his stuff has been really enjoyable and good (fight club, choke, stranger than fiction, his book on portland) and not so good lately imho....i thought diary and haunted were both really bad.

i am not sure why you are including me in the chuck p. bashing, all i said was i was waiting for a few of "my" authors to be ripped on w/chuck at the top of the list because he is any easy target.

please fill me in on what i am missing other than giving my own opinion. thanks. J.

Borodog · #42 06-19-2006, 12:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Never read his books, but after that review, I can never imagine wanting to.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should imagine thinking otherwise, as the reviewer (along with the person who posted said review) is about as far away from The Point as one would fear.

I don't have a problem with people who don't like something and just say, hey, it's not for me. But trying to justify it by blaming the work rather than your inability to comprehend it (or your personal bias that won't allow you to enjoy it) is contemptible -- and Lisa Miller might as well have wielded a flag that read: "Agenda Ahoy!"

[/ QUOTE ]

Trying to paint someone's completely subjective dislike of a particular author and his work as an "inability to comprehend it" is contemptible.

Literary discussions would be quite boring if no one was allowed to express why they didn't like a particular work, but were only restricted to saying, "Hey, it's not for me."

tdarko · #43 06-19-2006, 12:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Trying to paint someone's completely subjective dislike of a particular author and his work as an "inability to comprehend it" is contemptible.

Literary discussions would be quite boring if no one was allowed to express why they didn't like a particular work, but were only restricted to saying, "Hey, it's not for me."

[/ QUOTE ]

Boro,

Yea, but Boro, there is barely a time when Chuck's name slips by you w/o you mentioning your extreme distaste for him. I certainly don't have a problem with your literary preferences but this just seemed like a time when you could have let it go, nothing was provoked and the thread wasn't even about CP at all. I mean we already get it by now anyway, you don't like Chuck, just as we know JaBlue doesn't either (there are many others but you two have flooded threads).

I am just making this comment b/c it seems you that you went out of your way this time, wheras at least the other threads were about a CP book or CP himself.

BarronVangorToth · #44 06-19-2006, 12:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Trying to paint someone's completely subjective dislike of a particular author and his work as an "inability to comprehend it" is contemptible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said already that I have no problem whatsoever with anyone saying in regards to anything that it's just not their cup of java.

Lisa Miller's article is nothing but agenda.

You didn't just say that you didn't like CP (which you and a few others have said what seems like a bazillion times) -- you put forth Lisa's article as what you were thinking.

Which means you get the same brush, sorry, but that's just the way it rolls. Trying to defend it after the fact under the banner of Everyone Has A Right To Have Their Own Personal Opinion And All Opinions Are Wonderful Snowflakes is fence-straddling, when you already flew the Agenda Ahoy flag.

Borodog · #45 06-19-2006, 12:19 PM

Look, the thread is spiralling away from the OP. I made a one-liner quip about CP. I got called a book snob. I made a one-line response to that in turn. Then I basically got called an idiot for not liking CP. I posted a one line response to that and included a review that I pretty much agreed with about CP. The YOU tell my I'm too stupid to comprehend the depths of Palahniuk's genius, and tdarko is accusing of "flooding threads" for 3 one-liners, a quoted review, and defending myself.

Whatever.

Chuck Palahniuk is great. Best thing since sliced bread. I love Chuck Palahniuk. I'm going to name my firstborn child Palahniuk Owen. Happy?

BarronVangorToth · #46 06-19-2006, 12:25 PM

Fair enough. For the record, I didn't call you stupid, as I wouldn't say something like that. I mentioned either an inability to comprehend him (which still doesn't make someone stupid) OR a personal bias against him. In your case, since you now love him, I guess it's neither.

tdarko · #47 06-19-2006, 12:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
and tdarko is accusing of "flooding threads" for 3 one-liners, a quoted review, and defending myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

You apparently didn't even read my post.

[ QUOTE ]
Look, the thread is spiralling away from the OP

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you realize that this is b/c of you?

[ QUOTE ]
Chuck Palahniuk is great. Best thing since sliced bread. I love Chuck Palahniuk. I'm going to name my firstborn child Palahniuk Owen. Happy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody cares if you like him or not, but the fact that you completely hi-jack and derail a thread and tell a poster that all of his tastes and examples are now nullified b/c of one author that he has read completely is trolling, sorry, but that is what it is. I know you aren't a troll, but come on Boro, you have to see that this thread didn't even call for your comments or the repitiveness of posting that article YET AGAIN, and having your thoughts on him said YET AGAIN. It's as if everytime I see Chuck's name I have to wait for you or JaBlue to jump in and say the same thing over and over again. Just let the thread be for once, we don't care that you don't like him...you were thinking that I was defending Chuck when I was defending J. Brown.

John Cole · #48 06-19-2006, 01:01 PM

While I agree that our biases and inability to comprehend do, if fact, keep us from reading critically and thoroughly, I'm not sure what sort of "agenda" the critic has. (I will concede, though, that's it's often easier to write a review that trashes a work rather than one that looks perceptively at a work. Lisa Miller, however, does seem to justify her harsh words by offering evidence.) Do you know of some personal agenda the author has?

Borodog · #49 06-19-2006, 01:05 PM

Whatever. You win. Move on.

BarronVangorToth · #50 06-19-2006, 01:11 PM

I couldn't pick Lisa Miller out of a line-up.

However, read enough reviews -- regardless of what is being reviewed -- and you can start to see those that Offer (Somewhat) Unbiased Analysis and those that Have An Agenda.

In my view, she has one. It's akin to some people who make "documentaries" who just edits bits and pieces together in order to paint any picture they want, much like you could have a tape where some politician says "I hate the people in my district," but he really said "Intolerance is something I hate. The people in my district know that."