AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Unfortunately, "it's boring" isn't a pro argument. I don't get kicks out of sitting in the garden staring at rocks, yet, geology is a thing that exists. Objectively interesting is not. And, a character not changing and just whining is in itself commentary on both society and the character. Have you read The Stranger? Very little happens in that; dude shoots a guy, that's about it. Yet it's a book with a lot to say about nihilism. "Nothing happens" is, in my experience, generally what people say when they're out of anything else to critique. Unless it's a book where a guy sits and stares at a wall for five hundred pages, then, shit probably did happen.

See, this is what we call things happening. This is a plot, or sequence of events. It's a take on his character, in that he's avoiding responsibility, and doesn't want to deal with the consequences of his actions. This is telling us something about his personality; character development, which you said doesn't occur at all.

Just looking at the wikipedia article, apparently Time magazine listed it as one of the 100 best books since 1920! You'll forgive me for assuming they know slightly better what they're talking about than you do, yes?

Geology isn't sitting around in a garden, staring at rocks.

Geology is studying the way the ground works. Staring at rocks is... staring at rocks. A geologist would stare at the rocks and wonder how they were created, and then go off and figure it out.

That was honestly a fairly bad metaphor.



I really, honestly, don't see how that makes a character any better at all. You can analyze anything, anything at all, but that doesn't change what it is. No matter what he's supposed to represent, Holden (I think that's how his name is spelled) is still a very boring and uninteresting character.



I never, and will never say that a lack of action is what, alone, makes a book bad. A book about two people talking, as long as it is well written and the characters are extremely likable, would make a good book.

Not to mention, a murder? That's interesting. That's something happening.



Yeah okay, if you wanna take the smartass route then yeah, "things happen."

Do important things happen?

Does anything actually matter in the end?

Does anyone get anywhere?

That's actually things happening, that's a story progressing in at least a BASIC manner. Nothing important happens in Catcher in the Rye, nothing matters in the end, nobody gets anywhere.

That's what I mean when I say nothing happens. Nothing of any notable importance occurs in the entire book.

It's not that I don't have anything else, because I do. It's just that it is actually a very large, glaring flaw.



Actually let's use the definition of character development. Character Development is when a character changes over the course of a narrative. Luke Skywalker goes from a regular farmer into a Jedi, Neo goes from a scared computer hacker into a digital superhero, Ralph decends from a leader into a scared child running for his life, while Jack becomes the savage hunting him.

That's character development. That is the character actually developing, even if it's blunt or subtle or anything at all, it's actual progression of the character's basic attitude.

Holden does not change. He does not alter. Holden is exactly the same the entire book. He's a whiner, he's a hypocrite, and he's generally a little bitch about everything. He stays this way. He doesn't change, he doesn't realize anything, the book ends with him learning nothing at all.

So no, there is no character development.



There are people who read books, and people who "read" books. By "read" I mean they look at everything and try to discern any sort of meaning they can. It's not a bad thing by far, because yeah usually these people do have something. May not be what the author intended, but they do understand books better than most.

Most people do not "read" (and I really, honestly only use the quotes for lack of a better word,) they read. And just reading the book? It's not impressive. It's not fun. It's not any sort of dramatic.

So if I were to take the book, and break it down into bits and think about each one for a good time, then yes I might be able to discern meaning from it that is not outwardly obvious.

That does not, however, change the core of the book, which as I have said before, nothing happens in.

I would also like to say that it IS actually a point with many people that Holden is a whiny, hypocritical person. I would ALSO like to point out, that since the 1970s, it's "themes of teenage confusion" has been more than obsolete, they've been crushed into the ground and buried, flowers and trees have long since grown there. That's what held the book up until then, although not as much as the "shocking" amount of adult themes.

If I was a teenager in the 1920s, I might have liked this book. I might have understood it from Holden's perspective. I might even acted much like Holden.

I am not. I did not and I don't. I couldn't act less like Holden if I tried.

It is not a good book. I do stand by that. The plot revolves around nothing of importance, the character does nothing of importance then whines about it, and none of it even matters any more because the book has aged so badly it's lost the main charm it had.

Every point you've made there is a subjective one, you realise? You don't think the events of the story are important or interesting. That's fine! That's great. I'm glad you've thought it through; but I still really don't see, at all, how it's objectively of poor quality.

There is, honestly, a reason why I didn't give any objective points.
Because, in most literature there are none.

If a book makes it out to the market, if it's actually published, it's usually, about 9.9 times out of 10, decently written.

That's not exactly a feat, because decently written essentially boils down to no grammatical errors and a coherent plot. Even Twilight. The characters are mostly stupid and bland, but they're not spouting out nonsensical words every five seconds, nor do the books misspell basic words. I'm not seeing many time paradoxes either.

So no, from a completely objective standpoint it's not bad. Nor is it good. It's fairly middle-ground.

But if you're looking for objective things, when reading a book? It's mostly missing the point.

Although, thinking about it, it does now lack the ability to communicate with the stereotypical modern teenager, which is objective.

I haven't read this book and don't read much fiction any more in general, but I want to add something.


Likeable=/= interesting. I don't always want to read or view fiction wherein all the characters are nice, reasonable or at least understandable people. Sure, such feats make a character more identifiable, but that is not always the authors goal. If you read/view a lot of fiction, all recurring character traits eventually become boring. Authors who try and write differently and try new things should at least be applauded for effort, for it's indeed more difficult to keep the viewer/reader interested when he can't identify with the characters.

Also GM, you shouldn't take yourself so seriously. I've noticed this before, you're very convinced of your own viewpoints about subjective things. It's coo' if you find this book dull or that you find it bad. But you have to accept that other people might have different opinions and your viewpoint isn't better than theirs.

So I guess literary criticism is an entirely intellectually bankrupt exercise if 99.9% of books have no objective qualities, then?

Well that's a fair point, yes, but as you've said a few times now, it hasn't aged terribly well; I'd say that's more of a large difference between current and past social trends.

Sorry, it's getting to actually be morning around here so I'm having a hard time with words.

I don't mean likable as in, "oh hey, i think this is a very fair and nice character" I meant likable as in "I want to read more of this character"

I really used the wrong word though, that's my fault.



I actually really just like arguing.



I have never seen literary criticism that didn't involve how someone felt about a book, or if the characters were good, or if the setting felt real, ect ect.

Which are all subjective things.

so recently i found my collection of Roald Dahl books
shit The Witches was a dark book how did i never notice it as a child

Nobody can ever say "this is a good book" ever? Nothing has inherent worth?

That sounds like someone saying it's a good book.

That sounds like somebody saying they enjoyed it. I enjoyed Troll 2, but it's still a terrible film. Things have subjective qualities that are not necessarily linked to subjective enjoyment. Besides, I was questioning you there; as in, whether or not you think anything can have inherent worth, whether or not you think anybody can say a book (or something else) is objectively good or bad, considering you said they have next to no objective qualities past spelling. This is the point of discussion, yes? Me asking you what you think, not what that other guy thinks?

Okay so I finished the Nancy Farmer Sea of Trolls series and it was pretty good. It wasn't the best fantasy trilogy I've read, and at some points you can tell it was geared for children, but it is still a good series.

The series starts on a good pace. Jack is an eleven year old growing up in a post-Roman time and is learning to become a bard. Suddenly plot happens and Jack and his sister are captured by Viking Berserkers and enslaved. There is a lot of plot in this story and many allusions to another epic that is set during this time, Beowulf. The main antagonist of the story is billed as the sister of Grendel's mother, but it adds more plot to the story. The story climaxes in Jack and and shield-maiden named Thorgil (real-name Jill (Jack and Jill, get it)) finding the tree of Yggdrasil and drinking for Mimir's Well. Overall it is a great book filled with plot and action like fighting dragons and the like. It also challenges the belief structure of the time, drawing lines between Christianity (Jack's father is an ardent Christian) and the Norse Religion, which makes you think.

The second book (The Land of the Silver Apples) kind of falls off the rails a bit. Jack's sister is kidnapped again, and it's up to him, Thorgil, and Jack's master The Bard to go save her from the Elves that captured her. This story kind of drags a bit, especially at the middle when Jack and Thorgil are trapped in the forest of the Elves. However at the end there is closure, as well as a good set-up for the final book.

The third book (Islands of the Blessed) revives the action of the first book, however the action is introduced by the need of a mundane task. A spirit called a draugr begins haunting the town Jack, Thorgil, and The Bard live in, and it's up to them to banish it. I can't really speak of the plot much because there are many ties to the past books, but the book climaxes well and has no shortage of the supernatural (mermaids, anyone?). Overall the series is a good read for adults, and would probably be a decent read for kids.

If I ever stop checking out manga from the library, I can focus on Vampire Hunter.

reading Tom Clancy novel
what one you ask?
the one with the terrorists, the secret US military strike team, a fictional weapon, and too much detail about the guns involved.

Heh, I've read quite a few of those. They're pretty fun.