Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » "Conservativism" Strikes Again, War Declared on "Bronies" (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: "Conservativism" Strikes Again, War Declared on "Bronies"
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
See it here

quote:

But should Hollywood really be enabling this phenomenon?
Hell no. It’s a freaking embarrassment.
All the while, as these pathetic sissies giggle like school girls over magic unicorns that spray rainbows from their horns, real men – and women – who have put aside the temptation to retreat into a frivolous fantasy world are tromping through the wilds of Afghanistan. Such young adults, some younger (in years) than the “bronies,” are protecting all of us – including these pathetic weirdoes.
It makes me want to wretch.

..

As sickening as it is, we can’t just ban grown men from acting like idiots because we disapprove of their lifestyle choices – after all, we aren’t progressives. It’s still a free country – coincidentally due entirely to the efforts of men and women who put aside childish things to contribute to society instead of feeding at the trough and then sitting on their expansive backsides as they eagerly clap like seals at the antics of colorful cartoon steeds.
If these losers want to waste their lives lingering in a childhood fugue state, Hollywood has every right to serve them up more of the same cultural slop and pocket the cash proceeds. But it shouldn’t.
Hollywood is famously nonjudgmental about anything that happens to undercut the foundations of American society, gleefully mocking traditional morality, conservatism, and now what the LA Times calls “tired stereotypes of what boys should or shouldn’t like.” Trashing positive values is standard operating procedure in Tinseltown.

...

I find it funny that this is apparently where a number of his readers draw the line; "Hey man, lets not go to far, my best friends are Bronies!- I know a brony who serves mange. - Its actually a good show." [Smile]

Not a Brony, never seen MLP, but you know the old Armenian saying, "Always protect the Jews. Because after them we are next." Gotta declare solidarity.

Possibly relevant: https://www.facebook.com/militarybronies

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Blayne, the column couldn't be more transparent trolling than if its name were 'This time, under the bridge!'

I mean, hell, Republicans certainly have some nasty prominent public voices to answer for (as do Democrats, but I usually think it's pretty tipped negatively towards Republicans), but this guy? Well, c'mon, conservatism? This guy? Just because he manages to weave in a few talking points doesn't mean that.

Posts: 16394 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AchillesHeel
Member
Member # 11736

 - posted      Profile for AchillesHeel   Email AchillesHeel         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes yes... the bronies are the ones who are the problem. Not the Mexican cartels, or the ever pervasive racist and nationalist groups who vomit their hate and violence freely.

Yup.

Posts: 2294 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rakeesh do you realize what site this is from?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yup. I also realize that while many conservatives respect (for some reason) the name Breitbart or at least hold up some of his 'accomplishments' for admiration, few will ever drill down that deep into his infrastructure.
Posts: 16394 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Hollywood is famously nonjudgmental about anything that happens to undercut the foundations of American society, gleefully mocking traditional morality, conservatism, and now what the LA Times calls “tired stereotypes of what boys should or shouldn’t like.” Trashing positive values is standard operating procedure in Tinseltown.

But perhaps now it’s time for Hollywood to get a bit more judgmental. Perhaps it’s time to say, “Hey, glad you like the show, but it’s for little girls and maybe you man-children ought to find something better to do with your lives. Which would be anything.”

Fandom, even potentially nerdy fandom, need not be destructive. For example, the original “Star Trek” had real merit. The character of Captain Kirk provided an example of true manhood – note that the attributes commonly associated with ‘manhood’ are not limited by mere gender, as heroes like Sergeant Leigh Ann Hester proved – even within the concept of science fiction.

Article distilled to essence: "I, Kurt Schlichter, am so terrified of anything that challenges what I consider to be heteronormatively acceptable to boys that I have written an article for breitbart.com wherein I suggest that the very foundations of american society — conservative, of course — are so brittle as to be 'undercut' by men liking a cartoon pony show."

quote:
the column couldn't be more transparent trolling than if its name were 'This time, under the bridge!'
You wish. This is what it is really like in the goony, breitbartian levels of conservatism. His attitude is real. He is emblematic of conservative heteronormative weirdness. Men watching a show that doesn't fit into male gender roles that are traditional enough for him makes him feel physically nauseous. This really happens.

I did a little look-see on his history and — oh, what a surprise — this very same manly manly breitbart dot com man contributor man column manly men man has also proffered some jaw-droppingly idiotic opinions on women in the workplace, vents his frustration at workplace sexual harassment programs, tries to stand up for Limbaugh as 'misunderstood' when he was calling sandra fluke a slut, and pinch-hits homophobic dog-whistles in his twitter under the hashtag #caring.

Ok, everyone laugh at the man, tally up another emblematic absurdity of the site, and move on.

Posts: 14067 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But the point does remain that we cannot use an article written by a breitbart chode as being emblematic of conservatism as a whole.
Posts: 14067 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am just about heteronormative as they come. I am unabashedly heterosexist. I believe that men should be men, and women should be women.

I am so stereotypically conservative it's almost comical.

I am also a fan of MLP:FIM. It's a great show.

Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Blayne, the column couldn't be more transparent trolling than if its name were 'This time, under the bridge!'

I mean, hell, Republicans certainly have some nasty prominent public voices to answer for (as do Democrats, but I usually think it's pretty tipped negatively towards Republicans), but this guy? Well, c'mon, conservatism? This guy? Just because he manages to weave in a few talking points doesn't mean that.

What Rakeesh said.

Besides, isn't the requirement for it being "okay" to have idiots in a political party that a sufficient number of other people in that party call them on their idiocy? Or something? Surely the mere existence of such idiots means little by itself.

From my glance through the comments, more than half of the ones I saw were defending the Bronies. And from your comments, it seems like you noticed this too (though I'm not sure what "serving mange" might entail. Sounds gross.)

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aros
Member
Member # 4873

 - posted      Profile for Aros           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Like furries and emos, I won't pretend to understand bronies. I find them weird and more than a little creepy. But I served in the military so that everyone could have the right to be who they want to be -- whether they're a furrie, emo, bronie, or d-bag bigot conservative.

But I firmly believe that none of the above should be allowed to marry. They weren't BORN bronie (or conservative).

Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is it lost on people that I specifically put conservative in "quotes" for a reason?

But don't rush all at once to apologize now.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You also quoted "Bronies".
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
yep.
Posts: 14994 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Is it lost on people that I specifically put conservative in "quotes" for a reason?

But don't rush all at once to apologize now.

Was it your intention to mock this guy's claim to speak for conservatism by poking fun at his absurd, completely over-the-top hysteria? If it was, then you're right, I definitely misunderstood you, and I apologize.

What it read like to me, though, to be honest, was another 'Look at how laughably stupid conservatives are!' thread of yours. To be clear, lately I am really, genuinely irritated, angry, or exasperated with the state of Republicans in general in this country and conservatives in particular, so I'm hardly a knee-jerk reactionary. I just felt that this was a silly example with which to indict conservatives in general.

------

quote:
You wish. This is what it is really like in the goony, breitbartian levels of conservatism. His attitude is real. He is emblematic of conservative heteronormative weirdness. Men watching a show that doesn't fit into male gender roles that are traditional enough for him makes him feel physically nauseous. This really happens.


Sorry, I didn't mean trolling in the sense of a cynical, deliberate effort to say something absurd to garner reaction. I should've said 'yeah, another bit of lunacy from the lunatic fringe'. Of course that sort of thing happens. Weird libertarian religious conservative conspiracy whack-a-doodle guy at work spent last night about how we shouldn't just listen to doctors, and then went on to quote (supposedly) an article in the NEJM about how a population in Crete lived longer and had fewer doctors, while not recognizing the irony there, and then wrapped up with pointing out that he doesn't believe in vaccination 'early', and his kids were actually *gifted* because they didn't get vaccinated.

So yeah, don't get me wrong, I know the lunatic fringe is out there. Unfortunately I don't just encounter `em in the bowels of Brietbart's website. My general point could be phrased this way: sticking conservatism with something Rush Limbaugh says, or Glenn Beck, to me that carries some weight (not unlike Moore, though of course they're both more popular and more respected amongst conservatives than Moore amongst liberals). They're big names, they get respect, they have an impact. Some mouth-breather from deep within Brietbart's jug of kool-aid, though...

Posts: 16394 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The question is, is the author a true Bronophobe, or is he really a secretly closeted Bronie. I expect to hear startling revelations of some Bronie-of-the-evening to come out with a tail-all story of how he was paid to watch cartoons with the above writer.
Posts: 1856 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Hatrack" strikes "again"

quote:
Some mouth-breather from deep within Brietbart's jug of kool-aid, though...
ha! well, at least he's getting attention.
Posts: 14067 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AchillesHeel
Member
Member # 11736

 - posted      Profile for AchillesHeel   Email AchillesHeel         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hehehe... bronophobia.
Posts: 2294 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It sort of irrationally bothers me that people are saying "bronie" as the singular.

It's derived from pony, people. The plural is bronies, but the singular is definitely brony.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have always been outspoken in my understanding that modern American conservatives are reactionaries, not conservative on the political spectrum.

Conservatism is about defending the status quo and preserving the integrity of institutions. Modern American Republican right care about neither.

quote:

You also quoted "Bronies".

And the logic isnt equally valid here why? Note the huge strawman erected to represent the writers enemy here; does this accurately reflect reality? It is just as much reality as 2+2=5.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
odouls268
Member
Member # 2145

 - posted      Profile for odouls268   Email odouls268         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Expansive backsides"

calling them fat seems a little uncreative, no? Going to the well a little quickly, considering that something like 117% of americans are overweight/obese.

Posts: 2525 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wonder if we're all supposed to be soldiers, or if some of us can have regular jobs.
Posts: 3986 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would think a big name site like that would catch the retch/wretch typo.
Posts: 3986 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
I have no idea what you're trying to say.

It makes me feel better to realize you've been reading him a lot longer than I have and still have the same reaction.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
I am just about heteronormative as they come. I am unabashedly heterosexist. I believe that men should be men, and women should be women.

I am so stereotypically conservative it's almost comical.

I am also a fan of MLP:FIM. It's a great show.

it is. Princess Luna is my favourite in the whole show she rocks and i am like at least 3 or 4 of the mane six.
That guy seems very annoying. I am not sure if I should read this article lest it frustrate me. It seems like that article by some guy who thought that adults reading young adult and children's books is ridiculous and immature when some of the best books in the world are targeted at children. He is missing out. Someone should sit him down, tie him up and make him watch both seasons of MLP FIM and DARE him not to like it.

Also, I never know what men should be men women should be women means.

Posts: 9883 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I see what you did there.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Foust
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for Foust   Email Foust         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
when some of the best books in the world are targeted at children.
No. Just no. Ugh.
Posts: 1482 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Foust:
quote:
when some of the best books in the world are targeted at children.
No. Just no. Ugh.
While I agree that she's exaggerating quite a bit, is the "ugh" really necessary?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, it's true. Have you read some of them? Many of them have the same complexity as a lot of adult books, but they are shorter and simpler. The Giver is just a shorter, simpler 1984 after all.

Do not be a book snob. It's a bit irritating. You can't cut yourself off from something that may be interesting because it's written for children. It doesn't mean adults can't find some meaning in it.

Posts: 9883 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Foust
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for Foust   Email Foust         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
While I agree that she's exaggerating quite a bit, is the "ugh" really necessary?
How great could a book that is specifically written for an audience that has minimal experience with reading be?

Books written for kids assume their audience has read a handful of other books, because yeah, they're kids. Books written for teens assume a bit more.

The less demanding a book tries to be, the less chance it has to be beautiful. The better something is, the harder it is.

And yes, many of them are as complex as a lot of adult books - but that's because a lot of adult books are crap.

Posts: 1482 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The better something is, the harder it is.
That's a ridiculous and easily disproven claim. I think you'll find after a moment's thought that there is no strong correlation between a book's "difficulty" and its quality; if there were, Foucault's Pendulum would have been even better if there were more lengthy, untranslated passages in it.
Posts: 36934 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Foust
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for Foust   Email Foust         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Edited: Sorry for the all-too-quick thread drift, I'll start a new thread.
Posts: 1482 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dobbie
Member
Member # 3881

 - posted      Profile for Dobbie           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Foust:
quote:
While I agree that she's exaggerating quite a bit, is the "ugh" really necessary?
How great could a book that is specifically written for an audience that has minimal experience with reading be?


http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2009/11/sarah-palin-book-tour-latest-news-and-info/
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Foust:
quote:
While I agree that she's exaggerating quite a bit, is the "ugh" really necessary?
How great could a book that is specifically written for an audience that has minimal experience with reading be?

Books written for kids assume their audience has read a handful of other books, because yeah, they're kids. Books written for teens assume a bit more.

The less demanding a book tries to be, the less chance it has to be beautiful. The better something is, the harder it is.

And yes, many of them are as complex as a lot of adult books - but that's because a lot of adult books are crap.

Not true. Do you have any idea how many of these so-called children's books have been banned?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguides/fullview/R35VVPN7OSI8N Here. Go read these books first and THEN judge. I have a whole list of fantastic books I can make. If you judge before you read them, you miss out. Heck, Seventh Son was a young adult book that got me into OSC in the first place! Not all children's books are cardboard books with just one or two words in them. You're missing out on a whole wonderful world of books if you dismiss them.

Posts: 9883 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Do you have any idea how many of these so-called children's books have been banned?
Just because it's been banned does not mean it's a great book, in the sense that I think Foust is using the term "great."

Nor does it mean it's complex.

Or insightful.

Or particularly well-written.

A ban indicates that the book is merely controversial.

Controversial is EASY.

Posts: 14497 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not always. I really think people are missing out if they dismiss it and turn their noses up and go, this is just for children. *Scorn* Most of the books that have shaped the kind of person I am were for children and young adults and full of good solid values.
Kind of like this show. Also it's pure enjoyment too, and that is always good.

Posts: 9883 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Most of the books that have shaped the kind of person I am were for children...
To be honest, I think you could probably do with a little more complexity in your reading. That said, I think Foust is doing children's lit a disservice nonetheless. [Smile]
Posts: 36934 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Harsh. I thought someone would say that.
But it is not as if I don't read a variety of different books from different genres for all sorts of ages.
Ultimately I came to the conclusion that it's more about ENJOYING the book. Enjoying SOMETHING in this frustrating world full of 37.5 work weeks where you spend half the day trying to calm down angry people on the phone who are ready to take their rage out on you so you can keep earning money and be independent. In my case, I need to relax. I need to unwind. I need LESS STRESS and the concept that difficult situations CAN be overcome.
You get that in most young adult books and fantasy books. It's the concept that you have some sort of ultimate evil you can stand up to and defeat with simple friendship and love.
It's kind of reassuring.
Wally Lamb's I Know This Much is True is a book targeted towards adults and like She's Come Undone it's just pure misery. Every tragedy that can be crammed into those books has been. Books like Speak or Cut or Born Blue deal with similar issues and with the exception of Born Blue by Han Nolan (a fantastic writer, by the way.) have SOME sort of hope in terms of overcoming these problems without resorting to stereotypes and cliches.

Posts: 9883 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ultimately I came to the conclusion that it's more about ENJOYING the book.
I largely agree with you. But that's not the standard by which Foust would consider something "great." In fact, as you describe the criteria of "enjoyable," that fits almost entirely into what he's describing as escapist "fantasy."
Posts: 36934 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think he just has a different criteria than I do... von Trier movies vs. Pixar comes to mind.
Posts: 9883 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Enjoyability is an aspect of art- but it's foolish to think that art comes down to a binary proposition whereby a book is either enjoyable or not. Edification, insight, and the exploration of moral themes are not always enjoyable on a visceral level, but many people read books for these things. We do not, as a rule, only experience art for our own pleasure- that's the trap many people fall into- thinking that entertainment is about self-gratification. It often is not.
Posts: 9552 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I suppose. But I really would rather just read, watch and listen to things I love with wonderful tastes, textures and smells. Such as THIS IAMAMIWHOAMI SONG THAT IS JUST WONDERFUL. I LOVE IT SO MUCH.
It's really quality.

Mostly because I am not sure I need MORE stuff to make me miserable. Like getting through this book about Jaycee Dugard is difficult. Or reading about women escaping the FLDS which is extremely interesting.
For example, von Trier movies are beautifully directed, but they give me motion sickness and make me MISERABLE. Pixar movies are well made, make me cry and make me happy. Michael Bay movies just make me angry. They are popcorn flicks with tons of explosions but no depth.
I think I want a middle ground between something extremely deep and enjoyable, fluff, and something that is deep but makes you so miserable

Posts: 9883 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For example, the magnificent 'Grave of Fireflies'. Beautiful, evocative, and soul-shattering. It's a great movie I'd qualify as art, but one I did not necessarily enjoy (and will not watch again).

Contrast to the Doctor Who episode 'Blink.' Beautiful, clever, and scary. I'd qualify it as both art and enjoyable.

Posts: 14497 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I could never watch that again.
I will cry so much. And also get annoyed with folks for caring more about war than children.
I could also never watch Requiem for a Dream again either.

I am not embarrassed to admit I have watched Luna Eclipsed several times though. I love Princess Luna!

Posts: 9883 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AchillesHeel
Member
Member # 11736

 - posted      Profile for AchillesHeel   Email AchillesHeel         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll just put my two cents in, despite the fact that I can't fathom how this is even an issue.

The Secret Garden is one of the best fiction books I have ever read, my first reading of it was within the last two years and I still think it is an amazing work. It has always been for adult and juvenile readers alike, and is no stranger to a child's bed time story bookshelf.

Ugh indeed.

Posts: 2294 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
For example, the magnificent 'Grave of Fireflies'. Beautiful, evocative, and soul-shattering. It's a great movie I'd qualify as art, but one I did not necessarily enjoy (and will not watch again).

It's funny you should say that, because I've got that film-got it about, I think, five years ago?-because I'd heard from many people how very powerful and compelling it was. So I thought, alright, great, can't wait to watch it!

Then I made the mistake of reading the back of the box, which had one very relevant and very major spoiler! I haven't seen it yet, but I think I know it's the biggest one in the film, the reason it is so moving to many people, and such a sad film.

So I decided to put off watching it, not because I don't want to get choked up (I suspect I will), but because I keep hoping I'll forget the brief little one-line spoiler I read (stupid freaking DVD box), but it hasn't happened yet. The very act of seeing it mentioned here as a deeply powerful film was enough to bring the exact sentence back into my mind. I figure at some point I'll just give up on ever actually forgetting, and watch it anyway.

Posts: 16394 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I love the Secret Garden so MUCH.

Love it. It might be slightly racist in one part, naw, that's probably the wrong word but it is so... ENJOYABLE.
I really also want a fox, a raven, a lamb, ect. LOVE THAT BOOK. Mainly because it's about kindness, friendship, love, magic, grieving, gardens and Dickon is so AWESOME. LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE. And ROBINS!

Posts: 9883 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Foust:
The less demanding a book tries to be, the less chance it has to be beautiful. The better something is, the harder it is.

http://i.imgur.com/USUO0.gif
Posts: 14067 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SteveRogers
Member
Member # 7130

 - posted      Profile for SteveRogers           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
2+2=5.

Good song. [Evil]

Edited to remove double post.

Posts: 6019 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Foust:
quote:
While I agree that she's exaggerating quite a bit, is the "ugh" really necessary?
How great could a book that is specifically written for an audience that has minimal experience with reading be?

Books written for kids assume their audience has read a handful of other books, because yeah, they're kids. Books written for teens assume a bit more.

The less demanding a book tries to be, the less chance it has to be beautiful. The better something is, the harder it is.

And yes, many of them are as complex as a lot of adult books - but that's because a lot of adult books are crap.

This is rather unsubstantiated, while it could be argued that most books accessible and noteworthy for children may not have been specifically written with them as the target audience they are still accessible. Mostly it depends on your definition of what "children" is.

For me its anyone under 14-16 years of age, with 16-18 being "Honorary Adult Until Act of Drunk Stupidity, then you are a full adult".

I read "The Old Man and the Sea" at age 15 and enjoyed it as a rather melancholy and sad story about a latin american fisherman down on his luck, getting in one last major accomplishment before he dies.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2