General Chat Thread

[Zazie]

Ed, Edd, and Eddy is stupid because the animation direction was crap, the sories were all moronic and revolved around jawbreakers, and the other chrachters like Jimmy were just plain annoying.

The animation isn't crap, it's an homage to the style of limited animation pioneered by UPA in the late 40s and early 50s.

[Zibdas]

"Loki" was a God from Norse Mythology, The god of Fire. I like the name, but it is a man's name so... yeah :/

I want to do something with Mythology for her name, maybe Nyx.

I thoguht he was the god of trickery and stuff?

[Moltanic]

Name her Icarus!

That's also a man's name. Try Hera. That's my recommendation at least.

You think that's bad.

That was originally supposed to be a stoner show on Adult Swim if that explains anything.

[Paradoxe]

I'm 18. So yeah I grew up in Ed, Edd, and Eddys prime. I just don't like it. Everyone has prefrences.

BEcause I didn't like one show. Sad but I will move on.

Because calling somone stupid isn't an insult? Since when? This news need to be broadcasted to the masses.

I don't care if people don't like me for an opinion on a stupid show from back in the day. I'll go back to my readding like I did back then.

ssshhhhhhh

you're just making it worse

So I may be getting a new kitten on Saturday. She is so cute. Well, at least in the pictures I've seen of her. I am thinking of some names for her, right now I am thinking "Loki", but I don't know :X

Name her Persephone.

[Jb]

"Loki" was a God from Norse Mythology, The god of Fire. I like the name, but it is a man's name so... yeah :/

I want to do something with Mythology for her name, maybe Nyx.

Can't go wrong with Mittens.

[bel9]

I enjoy reading but mainly only modern books. Books that are full of wonderful and new worlds.

And what modern books are those? Are you implying that modern books can't be classics?

[The Oncoming Storm]

And what modern books are those? Are you implying that modern books can't be classics?

Mainly fantasy and scify. I like Harry potter, Inheritance Cycle, Riordan, and the dresden files to name a fwe.

[bel9]

Mainly fantasy and scify. I like Harry potter, Inheritance Cycle, Riordan, and the dresden files to name a fwe.

I would be more careful how you throw around the word modern. Those are recently written books, but I'm not sure of them being modern.

[The Oncoming Storm]

Modern meaning books that were wriiten in the last 10-15 years.

[Lbsweet96]

Animal farm was completly predictable.

Of course it was predictable. I highly doubt you have any comprehension of what the book was about or the conditions under which it was written. If you were to dislike the book for any reason (and there certainly are reasons to dislike the book), predictability is among the worst.

[Cassiopeia]

Modern meaning books that were wriiten in the last 10-15 years.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think belbackinblack is referring to the ideas behind the books.

[The Oncoming Storm]

Of course it was predictable. I highly doubt you have any comprehension of what the book was about or the conditions under which it was written. If you were to dislike the book for any reason (and there certainly are reasons to dislike the book), predictability is among the worst.

I do know exactly what the context of the book is. I realize that Animal Farm is the soviet union. I also realize that the author predicted events that wouldn't happen for years to come.

[bel9]

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.

[Jb]

So i'm backing up my Pictures/Marco/Gif/Banners/Wallpaper folders.

Gonna be a long night.

[Lbsweet96]

I do know exactly what the context of the book is. I realize that Animal Farm is the soviet union.

Good job on this one.

I also realize that the author predicted events that wouldn't happen for years to come.

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."

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.

[GrizzlyB]

Authorial intent is irrelevant.

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?

Reading the book discussion in Misc. always makes me vaguely queasy.

Good, so it isn't just me. ("To Kill a Mockingbird is a misleading title." "Romeo and Juliet isn't very realistic, because true love doesn't happen right when two teenagers meet each other!" Brrrr.)

I'm more of a Dan Brown reader. Orwell's essays are great reads though.

Are these statements even allowed in the same paragraph? Granted, the only Orwell essay I've read was one about simplifying language to stop misleading people by confusing them, or something, but opposite of that is Dan Brown, who, as far as I can tell, basically just wants to see how much bullshit he can get past peoples' bullshit detectors.

Ray Bradbury would be proud.



Because they have to find some way to punish those who neglect to read.

The real question is why do teachers often times poorly evaluate the books with pedantic test and quiz exercises (i.e. multiple choice, matching, scan-tron) rather than essays?

The answer is that it is a bitch to read and grade that many essays. Not to mention that high school teachers are often at the mercy of bitchy parents whose "little billy is really smart; he just gets too bored with school."

A) To me, Fahrenheit 451 is the most relevant of all the dystopian books I've read, and is therefore my favorite, so aces for bringing it up.

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.

I have to admit, the first time seeing Family Guy was enjoyable, but once you're use to its humor, it just sucks. It's just one of those things that is so overrated a lot of people hate on it more than things that equally suck as much.

Not to necessarily defend it or anything, since I certainly haven't watched it in years (or any TV, for that matter), but Family Guy did used to be good, back before it was cancelled.

[kochoupink]

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?

Occasionally they do, and if they are good authors then the message is conveyed. So their intent is irrelevant by being made unnecessary. But if they intended a message and fail to deliver it, then their intent is irrelevant because they suck at communicating. Does that make sense? I'm a little sleepy.

Good, so it isn't just me. ("To Kill a Mockingbird is a misleading title." "Romeo and Juliet isn't very realistic, because true love doesn't happen right when two teenagers meet each other!" Brrrr.)

It's like watching eight-year-olds discuss modern art. "I don't like the way it's just red. I could do that."

[GrizzlyB]

Occasionally they do, and if they are good authors then the message is conveyed. So their intent is irrelevant by being made unnecessary. But if they intended a message and fail to deliver it, then their intent is irrelevant because they suck at communicating. Does that make sense? I'm a little sleepy.

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)

[Lbsweet96]

Good, so it isn't just me. ("To Kill a Mockingbird is a misleading title." "Romeo and Juliet isn't very realistic, because true love doesn't happen right when two teenagers meet each other!" Brrrr.)

I thought you were just making a generalization, then I went a few pages back and wept.

[GrizzlyB]

I thought you were just making a generalization, then I went a few pages back and wept.

I, like, never generalize. Ever.