Hera. That's my recommendation at least.
When routine bites hard, and ambitions are low.
When resentment rides high, and when emotion won't grow.
We're both changing our ways, taking different roads.
Love. Love will tear us apart. Again.
My roommate wanted a hammock in his room.
Therefore, he drilled several holes into his ceiling (fuck stud finders amirite?) until he finally relented and asked for help. He has finally drilled whatever it is he hopes to hang his hammock on into the ceiling beam; I do not foresee this ending well.
Not so much here. Everything the book refers to had already happened when it was written (besides the very end, obviously). Orwell didn't predict "events that wouldn't happen for years to come."I also realize that the author predicted events that wouldn't happen for years to come.
But that's besides the point. The reason you can't complain about Animal Farm being predictable is because it is first and foremost a satire, and an unsubtle one at that. You have prior knowledge of the history of the Soviet Union, so you should know most of the events that unfold. You can't blame the book for that.
More than that, the book takes the corruption and spread of the Soviet Union to its logical extreme. It kind of had to in order to make its point. When you take anything to its logical extreme, anyone that is logical should be able to predict what will happen. That's just how things work, and it's stupid to complain about it.
So yeah, go find some other reason not to like it.
Do you really think that? Granted, I'm not an English major like you are, but I think ascribing whatever meaning you want to literature is asinine. If you do it right, you can justifiably misconstrue the meaning of any story beyond recognition. I mean, don't authors write stories explicitly to convey some specific message?
hit he can get past peoples' bullshit detectors.
B) To me, that thing you just said about parents whining to teachers is the most relevant of all the grievances against the education system, and is therefore my favorite, so aces for bringing it up.
Yeah, that does make sense, but I don't like the way it also assumes that the reader has to be, or rather, is, intelligent enough to understand the message. We've already seen the problems with that... in this very thread. And besides, wouldn't the meaning behind something, like, say, Candide change if the author were going for something else? I mean, as it stands, it is considered a brilliant and scathing satire. But if Voltaire had written the exact same thing, yet only intended for it to be an entertaining read, wouldn't we look at it differently? (or not look at it at all, more like, roflmao)Originally Posted by kochoupink
I, like, never generalize. Ever.Originally Posted by Lbsweet96