Fun Stuff > ENJOY
What are you currently reading?
KharBevNor:
Just because Sartre posits something doesn't mean it's true. I don't do much thinking about literature (such a restricted form of communication is beneath me), but you seem to be suggesting something similiar to the idea in aesthetics whereby a work of art is taken to be like a conversation and people find aesthetic value in the same sort of things they value in a conversation. Value/quality and meaning are not the same thing at all however, although the two things may have already been rather confused in the conversation above, but not in the same way. My argument, which I think is perfectly sound and pretty difficult to assail, is that the intent of the author is ultimately uncertain and thus cannot be used as a qualifier to sort works into two sets ('literature' and 'not literature'), because it makes the two sets meaningless, and thus the terms meaningless.
New thread?
Stephquiem:
Desires of the Dead by Kimberly Derting. It's... eh, okay. I remember really liking the book before it, but I re-read it before this one came out and couldn't remember why. It's getting better as I get further along, anyway.
Elysiana:
I finally spent my Christmas gift card and picked up:
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (have never read)
Pale Fire by Vladimir Nabokov (have read before and wanted a copy of it)
A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess (have seen the movie but never read the book)
I'm starting with Brave New World and have gotten a few chapters in so far. Not quite sure what I think - normally I love a good dystopian novel, but so far I'm finding this one a little strained and often downright corny. We'll see.
Johnny C:
--- Quote from: KharBevNor on 25 Feb 2011, 03:53 ---Just because Sartre posits something doesn't mean it's true. I don't do much thinking about literature (such a restricted form of communication is beneath me), but you seem to be suggesting something similiar to the idea in aesthetics whereby a work of art is taken to be like a conversation and people find aesthetic value in the same sort of things they value in a conversation. Value/quality and meaning are not the same thing at all however, although the two things may have already been rather confused in the conversation above, but not in the same way. My argument, which I think is perfectly sound and pretty difficult to assail, is that the intent of the author is ultimately uncertain and thus cannot be used as a qualifier to sort works into two sets ('literature' and 'not literature'), because it makes the two sets meaningless, and thus the terms meaningless.
New thread?
--- End quote ---
good call
Tom:
So, I'm about 100 pages through Perdido Street Station and it more or less feels like a Discworld novel written by Upton Sinclair in his twilight years.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version