What are you reading?

[ranemaka13]

Good book. I'm suprised they didn't make you read it in high school or college.

I'm thankful they hadn't. If I were forced to read it, I wouldn't enjoy it nearly as much.

I enjoyed the in-between chapters, describing the sweeping changes in the aftermath of the depression, rather than the actual story itself  But I'm sure I'm alone in that regard.

Yeah, I'm not very far just yet, but I do quite enjoy those chapters. Though, I do quite enjoy the presence of Rev. Casy. =)

 

[Holsety]

Yeah, all you 1984 haters are lame. It was a great book. Really makes you think about government in a new way.

Also The Metamorphisis is alright, but I had a hard time finishing it. Never really grabbed me by the nuts and dragged me along like some books do.

Personally I think 1984 is a good book but that Brave New World - to which it is oft compared - is better. More than anything else, because BNW depicts a government that believes it is doing good, while 1984's govt feels like control for the sake of control.

However, I'm not a great respected of dystopian books in general. The recent dystopian movie (based on a comic) V for Vendetta - which I have not seen - carried the slogan "People shouldn't be afraid of their governments - governments should be afraid of their people." I am of a similar mind, more terrified of the masses than of the dictators. Dictators can be overthrown by force when in power, but a mass of immoral, or simply foggy-minded people are more dangerous. People forget that the internment camps for Americans in World War II were markedly safer than remaining in the highly prejiduced society. (In fact a number of officials, like Stimson, tried to attack biases based on former nationality but Americans wouldn't have any of it).

 

[Proj2501]

http://www.darkhorse.com/profile/profile.php?sku=13-541
Has anyone read or heard about this?

 

[ranemaka13]

Just bought today:

 

[Bacongod]

I recommend "Fantazius Mallare" by Ben Hecht. It's a tale of a sculptor, and his decent into madness.

How can anyone dislike "1984"? The last line is the single most depressing thing I ever read.

 

[Walter]

Just bought (Catcher in the Rye) today:

Man, are you just now getting to your high school reading list? Where'd you get that wacky cover? I thought he and his publisher agreed back in the 50's to only do text-based covers...

Anyway, Catcher is a great book. It's probably one of the most influential books of our generation, and from what I remember, it was almost everyone's favorite book in high school. Once you finish that, if you enjoy Salinger, pick up 9 Stories. The first and last in there are legendary, and are more ... universally applicable than Catcher's mostly intrinsic value.

A little bit of info on Salinger, his daughter released a book several years ago, and revealed that her father has dozens of completed novels that he'd been working on since he went into seclusion in the late 50s. He gave her strict instructions that when he died, she was to release the books over a period of years. So... I and the rest of the Salinger-loving world has been counting down the days till he finally croaks... tenacious bastard

 

[ranemaka13]

I think an assassination is in order.

On my new "reading list," I've never had the opportunity to read these Classics of litterature. I'm taking this chance I have to do so now.
I promise that my next won't fall into this category.

It's a pretty quick read for me, so far. I'm already on Chapter 6, waiting for him to leave lousy Pencey already, and I just started last night. Goddam.
That's quick for me.
It's funny reading this today with all the "controversial" as hell language. I read that some lousy parents and teachers refused the hell out of reading this in public schools. Gives me a royal pain in the ass.
As I was saying, about the "language," I get the impression that Salinger used such language simply because it was controversial in the 50s. Controversy for controversy's sake.
My girlfriend, however, pointed out that it could be - and probably is - Holden who thinks this way (using such language just for the controversy it'd bring) and not, neccessarily, Salinger.
I think it's funny and kind of annoying at times.

I was, actually, thinking of picking up Franny & Zooey instead. How is it?

 

[HawaiianStallion]

Hah wow I didnt like a lot of the great books we read back in high school; respect them for what they did and meant, but just never liked a lot of the writing styles. I did like Hemmingway and Kerouac's stuff though.

 

[Walter]

I promise that my next won't fall into this category.

Well, so far they're all great books. I'm just suprised your school didn't cram them down your throats during high school. It's better to read these now. I couldn't appreciate most of these books to their full extent until I was in college.

I get the impression that Salinger used such language simply because it was controversial in the 50s. Controversy for controversy's sake.
My girlfriend, however, pointed out that it could be - and probably is - Holden who thinks this way (using such language just for the controversy it'd bring) and not, neccessarily, Salinger.
I think it's funny and kind of annoying at times.

It's definitely Holden's voice, not Salinger's gimmick. Your girlfriend is astute The whole book , like I said, is very introverted. All the observations are in Holden's head, and since he's such a REBEL, he uses language to spit in the face of the MAN.

I was, actually, thinking of picking up Franny & Zooey instead. How is it?

Well, to me, Salinger is hit or miss. Franny & Zooey, two of the stories in 9 Stories, and Raise High the Roofbeam Carpenter are all tied together as their protagonists are part of a family of "child geniuses." You don't have to read them all to appreciate it, they just focus on different times and different children. I personally only REALLY liked 9 Stories. F&Z and Carpenter are pretty sprawling.

 

[CnC]

While its not a novel, I've been reading "State of Denial" by Bob Woodward while I'm out of town.
I'm about halfway into it and its really quite interesting. I recommend it to anyone regardless of how they feel on the issue, as its very informative without bias.

 

[ranemaka13]

So, I ended up enjoying Catcher quite a bit. I loved the explanation Holden gave of the title.
By the end, my feelings toward the cynical little prick that is Holden Caulfield changed dramatically.

This next one's a quick read, but I'm personally very excited about it:

It's signed, too.
Most probably don't care of my experience at the Photography Convention held in Boone, NC two weeks ago, but I'll briefly share anyway.
First, it was freezing the night we arrived (my friends and I went camping, and I found myself unprepared for the most part), so waking up for the convention found us mostly miserable.
We were surprised that we somehow wandered into a Photo Con that held Photoshop in higher esteem than conventional photography. I swear, it was probably even sponsored by Adobe!
The day started with a woman giving a VERY long lecture on Adobe's newest: Lightroom and another verison of Photoshop. While I found the information somewhat useful (I am required to have a working knowledge in photoshop for my computer graphics courses) and the logistics of the programs (especially Lightroom) were interesting, but it wasn't at all what I came 7+ hours for.
The rest of the day was spent looking at other artists so-called "photography" that liberally apllied photoshop to bring about the results. Granted, there may not be anything wrong, per sé, in using PS, but it's not something that I particuarly support in the realm of photography, so much so that I rarely even consider it such. Meaning (if that didn't make sense) if someone uses PS too much to add or subtract parts of their composition, I no longer consider it photography. Digital cameras are on (the lower part of) my shit list, too.
Perhaps I'm being a bit too strong here.
Moving on.
Finally there was a release. A very nice woman actually came and gave a lecture on the photos she took with her cameras! Large view cameras and pin-holes were all that she used! Oh, what a relief it was! (I later thanked her for it that night. )
And then there was dear Sam Abell (he's pictured on the right of that book up there): documentary photographer, both personally and for National Geographic for many years, and inspirational speaker.
His lengthy, but enjoyable lecture, was a reinvigorating sermon. My friends and I found ourselves nodding to his thoughts and theories of photography in a way very similar to how a congregation nods when the preachers preachin' the Word.
But I don't want it to sound like I'm idolizing him. In a frustrating day, here was a man who admitted to not owning a computer or a digital camera; a man who claims those who use digital lack the faith inherent in photography.
After the Word was spoken, we had the opportunity to buy the book above and have it signed by him. When my turn came, I asked to shake his hand and thanked him for reaffirming everything I thought photography was supposed to be about.
He was very humble when I spoke to him and wrote, in amazing script:
For Brandon,
With appreciation for your thoughts and best wishes for you work.
Sam Abell.

 

[Aazealh]

We were surprised that we somehow wandered into a Photo Con that held Photoshop in higher esteem than conventional photography. I swear, it was probably even sponsored by Adobe!

Well this explains that.

 

[ranemaka13]

Well this explains that.

That was sarcasm. There was no actual proof that Adobe sponsored the event. They probably didn't and had nothing more to do with the event than advertise their product. If there were, I wouldn't have been so surprised, and thus would never have mentioned it.

I should've made that clearer.

 

[Aazealh]

That was sarcasm. There was no actual proof that Adobe sponsored the event. They probably didn't and had nothing more to do with the event than advertise their product. If there were, I wouldn't have been so surprised, and thus would never have mentioned it.

Oh, I see. Well to reply to what you were saying, I don't think digital cameras really change all that much as far as photography goes. Both digital and traditional have their advantages and are more suitable depending of a variety of factors (how you'll be displaying the picture, what's the environment you're shooting in, etc). A real photographer shouldn't have trouble nor qualms using a digital camera, and actually the majority of professionals doesn't. Sure, it's not as "romantic" as being oldschool, but these considerations are mostly reserved to amateurs that like to develop their B&W photos themselves in a makeshift darkroom. If you (general "you") reduce photography to the type of lens you're using then you're pretty much missing the point.

Now, heavily modified works using digital tools are a different matter. If the main interest of a picture is related to the fact it was digitally altered, it isn't on the same level anymore, IMO.

 

[ranemaka13]

Oh, I see. Well to reply to what you were saying, I don't think digital cameras really change all that much as far as photography goes. Both digital and traditional have their advantages and are more suitable depending of a variety of factors (how you'll be displaying the picture, what's the environment you're shooting in, etc). A real photographer shouldn't have trouble nor qualms using a digital camera, and actually the majority of professionals doesn't. Sure, it's not as "romantic" as being oldschool, but these considerations are mostly reserved to amateurs that like to develop their B&W photos themselves in a makeshift darkroom. If you (general "you") reduce photography to the type of lens you're using then you're pretty much missing the point.

Now, heavily modified works using digital tools are a different matter. If the main interest of a picture is related to the fact it was digitally altered, it isn't on the same level anymore, IMO.

Certainly, I'm sure digital has its advantages, but I prefer the process of film. Call it "romantic" if you want, but it goes beyond romanticism for me. I prefer actively developing the film and prints to sitting in front of a computer, adjusting the color and contrast.
And I don't think there's anything particularly amateurish about that, is there? That's not saying that I believe myself to be anything other than an "amateur," or what have you. I have quite a lot to learn, I know, and expect my opinions to change on certain matters as time goes on. Perhaps I'll accept its usage more, maybe I won't.

 

[Aazealh]

And I don't think there's anything particularly amateurish about that, is there?

Developing your own films is pretty amateurish actually, as far as high quality art-oriented works go. It's a job in itself, separate from basic photography. Or at least it was until the digital era, now it has almost disappeared, for obvious reasons.

Perhaps I'll accept its usage more, maybe I won't.

If you were to make it your job, I'm pretty sure you would. Anyway I'm not trying to convince you, just do it your own way.

 

[ranemaka13]

I've never had so many books to read, or felt the need to read so many at once. Most are photography books, however, so that makes everything a bit easier:

Last is the one I meant to read immediately after Catcher, but didn't have the funds:

 

[ranemaka13]

The thickness of the book looks like an exaggeration. Those tomes you see in movies that weigh 20lbs.
It's daunting at first, just considering how long it may take me, but I'm looking forward to it.
More than any book I've read in the past few months.

 

[Aazealh]

I take it you're planning to read it in French.



Trick question.

 

[Walter]

Jesus man. Just get the abridged version, unless you want to hear 50 pages on the description of a candlestick (literally).

 

[ranemaka13]

I take it you're planning to read it in French.



Trick question.

I'll read it aloud with a thick french accent!

Jesus man. Just get the abridged version, unless you want to hear 50 pages on the description of a candlestick (literally).

That must be some candlestick!

 

[Scorpio]

Im not much of a reader, but I'd like to be. I just never really get around to it.

Still, I did recently manage to read Japan Unbound. Its a pretty good book about the Japanese identity, or rather, the lack thereof and how that is changing. The later part also follows a lot of recent politics, which I really knew nothing about. Not an amazing read, but definitely interesting.

So now I've picked up Catch-22. I've heard nothing but good things about this book, so I look forward to getting farther in. So far I love it, being a fan of cynical humor.

After I finish that (which will take a long time, if my previous history with books is any indication) I was thinking about reading The Complete Sherlock Holmes. I also want to read 1984, and Brave New World, among other things... I just wish I was a more motivated reader.

 

[ranemaka13]

I just wish I was a more motivated reader.

Maybe stop watching t.v.??

 

[Scorpio]

Are you kidding me? Television projects out to me, whilst reading requires me to look in. Not to mention tv is addictive...

 

[Rhombaad]

Not to mention tv is addictive...

I used to think so, too, but television seems to be getting shittier and shittier these days (IMHO). I'd rather spend my time re-reading Feist's Midkemia novels or diving into Ian Fleming's Bond novels.