Conquer Club

(RE: THE BOOK, by Hemingway).


What's the deal? Why is this book considered to be so great? It's pretty boring, and half of the time I'd accidentally bump into his written masturbation sessions, which was embarrassing for both of us.

Story: An idealist American teacher/professor joins the Spanish Civil War (1936ish) as a Communist guerrilla, and his mission is to join a guerrilla band and blow up a bridge. The story spans three days and 570 pages. Most of the time, you've got Hemingway repeatedly stating the same crap over and over and over again. Gets dulls halfway into it. It could easily have been cut by 450 pages, so as the marginal cost would have been decreased, higher gains in profit could be realized.

Perhaps a certain kind of mold grows on certain books, and after years of adaptation, a particular species thrives on this mold. We call them literary academia.

I think I had to read it in high school and it seemed pretty heavy then. Maybe you're being too cynical bbs.

Funkyterrance wrote:I think I had to read it in high school and it seemed pretty heavy then. Maybe you're being too cynical bbs.

Cynical? It bored me! That's not being cynical at all! Far from it, if you ask me! Did you ask me? Well, it doesn't matter then because I'm not at all being cynical!

BigBallinStalin wrote:Story: An idealist American teacher/professor joins the Spanish Civil War (1936ish) as a Communist guerrilla

Therefore, the educational complex is attempting to indoctrinate all of our youth into Communist ways. The end.

I haven't read the book though.

570 pages describing three days? That better be three really exciting days! Keep in mind that Frodo traveled for way longer in Mordor, Tolkien used fewer pages to describe his days there and it was stil boring as hell!

I think Silver Linings Playbook is appropriate.

Of modern authors, I've never been that interested in Hemingway's literature. However, his offers keen fashion guidance:

show

--Andy

The OP was boring. It should have been about this.



Discuss.

Bollocks.

BigBallinStalin wrote: It could easily have been cut by 450 pages, so as the marginal cost would have been decreased, higher gains in profit could be realized.

I think this is your problem right here probably. Your problem that is, not the book's.

Iliad wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote: It could easily have been cut by 450 pages, so as the marginal cost would have been decreased, higher gains in profit could be realized.

I think this is your problem right here probably. Your problem that is, not the book's.

Well sure, someone with the name of "Iliad" would think so. <grin>

(Welcome back...long time, no see.)

Iliad wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote: It could easily have been cut by 450 pages, so as the marginal cost would have been decreased, higher gains in profit could be realized.

I think this is your problem right here probably. Your problem that is, not the book's.

Can a book have a problem?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Iliad wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote: It could easily have been cut by 450 pages, so as the marginal cost would have been decreased, higher gains in profit could be realized.

I think this is your problem right here probably. Your problem that is, not the book's.

Can a book have a problem?

Sure, I was never disputing that. But if you're using economic jargon and terminology to discuss the artistic merit of a book, well that's not a particularly great discussion then.

Great to see that you're enjoying your economics course, but no need to bring that stuff in here.

Iliad wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Iliad wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote: It could easily have been cut by 450 pages, so as the marginal cost would have been decreased, higher gains in profit could be realized.

I think this is your problem right here probably. Your problem that is, not the book's.

Can a book have a problem?

Sure, I was never disputing that. But if you're using economic jargon and terminology to discuss the artistic merit of a book, well that's not a particularly great discussion then.

Great to see that you're enjoying your economics course, but no need to bring that stuff in here.

Sure, it's great to bring it here. All I said was this: As I keep reading page after page, I become less enthused. If it was a short story, I would've enjoyed it much more.

Serbia wins this thread.

Timminz wrote:Serbia wins this thread.

No he doesnt. Metallica sucks nuts.

On topic, I havent read the book BBS but I suggest that while your point might have some merit, the obvious unintended consequence is lowering the level of art down to the lowest common denominator. America is doing a perfectly fine job of that in modern society, no need to go back into history and do it as well.

If you really gave a f*ck and didnt just want to do some government-funded-artist-bashing (afrementioned mould), then you'd actually be digging up and disecting papers that contain postive critical analysis of whom the bell tolls (and therefore doing your own negative critical analysis).

But do try to avoid being phattist and only cherry picking the completely retarded examples.

Fun quote: "It also is fertile ground for EH's many detractors..." regarding Whom the Bell Tolls.

It's obviously a work of very subjective quality. Hardly worth a post declaring your apparent dislike, and subsequent generalisations about literary art.

Lootifer wrote:

Timminz wrote:Serbia wins this thread.

No he doesnt. Metallica sucks nuts.

Sure, now.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Iliad wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Iliad wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote: It could easily have been cut by 450 pages, so as the marginal cost would have been decreased, higher gains in profit could be realized.

I think this is your problem right here probably. Your problem that is, not the book's.

Can a book have a problem?

Sure, I was never disputing that. But if you're using economic jargon and terminology to discuss the artistic merit of a book, well that's not a particularly great discussion then.

Great to see that you're enjoying your economics course, but no need to bring that stuff in here.

Sure, it's great to bring it here. All I said was this: As I keep reading page after page, I become less enthused. If it was a short story, I would've enjoyed it much more.

This pretty much sums up how I feel about the religion thread here in OT.

Timminz wrote:

Lootifer wrote:

Timminz wrote:Serbia wins this thread.

No he doesnt. Metallica sucks nuts.

Sure, now.

Nope. They're still awesome.

Bollocks.

Serbia wrote:

Timminz wrote:

Lootifer wrote:

Timminz wrote:Serbia wins this thread.

No he doesnt. Metallica sucks nuts.

Sure, now.

Nope. They're still awesome.

Bollocks.

Metallica is simply okay.

Lootifer wrote:

Timminz wrote:Serbia wins this thread.

No he doesnt. Metallica sucks nuts.

On topic, I havent read the book BBS but I suggest that while your point might have some merit, the obvious unintended consequence is lowering the level of art down to the lowest common denominator. America is doing a perfectly fine job of that in modern society, no need to go back into history and do it as well.

If you really gave a f*ck and didnt just want to do some government-funded-artist-bashing (afrementioned mould), then you'd actually be digging up and disecting papers that contain postive critical analysis of whom the bell tolls (and therefore doing your own negative critical analysis).

But do try to avoid being phattist and only cherry picking the completely retarded examples.

I never mentioned anything exclusively about government-funded academics, so I don't really get your response.

BigBallinStalin wrote:(RE: THE BOOK, by Hemingway).


What's the deal? Why is this book considered to be so great? It's pretty boring, and half of the time I'd accidentally bump into his written masturbation sessions, which was embarrassing for both of us.

Story: An idealist American teacher/professor joins the Spanish Civil War (1936ish) as a Communist guerrilla, and his mission is to join a guerrilla band and blow up a bridge. The story spans three days and 570 pages. Most of the time, you've got Hemingway repeatedly stating the same crap over and over and over again. Gets dulls halfway into it. It could easily have been cut by 450 pages, so as the marginal cost would have been decreased, higher gains in profit could be realized.

Perhaps a certain kind of mold grows on certain books, and after years of adaptation, a particular species thrives on this mold. We call them literary academia.

This is true for so many books: Jane Eyre, Pride and Prejudice, Tale of Two Cities, etc.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Lootifer wrote:

Timminz wrote:Serbia wins this thread.

No he doesnt. Metallica sucks nuts.

On topic, I havent read the book BBS but I suggest that while your point might have some merit, the obvious unintended consequence is lowering the level of art down to the lowest common denominator. America is doing a perfectly fine job of that in modern society, no need to go back into history and do it as well.

If you really gave a f*ck and didnt just want to do some government-funded-artist-bashing (afrementioned mould), then you'd actually be digging up and disecting papers that contain postive critical analysis of whom the bell tolls (and therefore doing your own negative critical analysis).

But do try to avoid being phattist and only cherry picking the completely retarded examples.

I never mentioned anything exclusively about government-funded academics, so I don't really get your response.

Oh my bad, for some reason I assumed you were a reincarnation of Heinlein... nvm.

I still hate the way we as modern society assume that because we personally dont like something it simply must not contain any value, therefore, since the masses are stupid and have bad taste, art is being lowered to the lowest common denominator. Simply look at music.

Lootifer wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Lootifer wrote:

Timminz wrote:Serbia wins this thread.

No he doesnt. Metallica sucks nuts.

On topic, I havent read the book BBS but I suggest that while your point might have some merit, the obvious unintended consequence is lowering the level of art down to the lowest common denominator. America is doing a perfectly fine job of that in modern society, no need to go back into history and do it as well.

If you really gave a f*ck and didnt just want to do some government-funded-artist-bashing (afrementioned mould), then you'd actually be digging up and disecting papers that contain postive critical analysis of whom the bell tolls (and therefore doing your own negative critical analysis).

But do try to avoid being phattist and only cherry picking the completely retarded examples.

I never mentioned anything exclusively about government-funded academics, so I don't really get your response.

Oh my bad, for some reason I assumed you were a reincarnation of Heinlein... nvm.

I still hate the way we as modern society assume that because we personally dont like something it simply must not contain any value, therefore, since the masses are stupid and have bad taste, art is being lowered to the lowest common denominator. Simply look at music.

No worries, and yeah I agree because individual tastes and preferences FTW, and profit and opportunity cost are defined subjectively. I just enjoy complaining about certain works of art and calling those academics as worthless as mold.

I've been reading some other non-fiction, and I'm beginning to think Hemingway's was pretty good. It still could've been shorter without incurring much of a loss.