Moderator: Community Team
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.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Story: An idealist American teacher/professor joins the Spanish Civil War (1936ish) as a Communist guerrilla
saxitoxin wrote:Serbia is a RUDE DUDE
may not be a PRUDE, but he's gotta 'TUDE
might not be LEWD, but he's gonna get BOOED
RUDE
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Timminz wrote:Serbia wins this thread.
Lootifer wrote:Timminz wrote:Serbia wins this thread.
No he doesnt. Metallica sucks nuts.
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.
Timminz wrote:Lootifer wrote:Timminz wrote:Serbia wins this thread.
No he doesnt. Metallica sucks nuts.
Sure, now.
saxitoxin wrote:Serbia is a RUDE DUDE
may not be a PRUDE, but he's gotta 'TUDE
might not be LEWD, but he's gonna get BOOED
RUDE
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: DirtyDishSoap