Soccer Fan Threatened With Criminal Prosecution for Posing Fully Clothed at a Match

Jay/Cris wrote:

But you cannot, cannot go and dismiss 1984 as a 'pile of shit'. It's depressing as hell, but it's a wonderfully written novel...

...eh.

Jay/Cris wrote:

that perfectly exemplifies all the dangers of any sort of totalitarian regime without ever descending into a parody of one sort of government. It's a tricky thing, but Orwell pulls it off flawlessly. V for Vendetta is good, very much so, but 1984 encompasses a broader sort of message.

I'm really only quoting this part because I agree with the sentiment and don't want it to get drowned in my halfhearted disapproval of your categorization of Orwell as a gifted writer. He's a bit...utilitarian, for my taste.

TheHedonist wrote:

Jay/Cris wrote:

But you cannot, cannot go and dismiss 1984 as a 'pile of shit'. It's depressing as hell, but it's a wonderfully written novel...

...eh.

Jay/Cris wrote:

that perfectly exemplifies all the dangers of any sort of totalitarian regime without ever descending into a parody of one sort of government. It's a tricky thing, but Orwell pulls it off flawlessly. V for Vendetta is good, very much so, but 1984 encompasses a broader sort of message.

I'm really only quoting this part because I agree with the sentiment and don't want it to get drowned in my halfhearted disapproval of your categorization of Orwell as a gifted writer. He's a bit...utilitarian, for my taste.

motherfucker you want utilitarian then read some goddamn hemingway

orwell was marvellously gifted for his time even if hes a little stark by our standards

we like more urple nowadays and you gotta remember that back then, less was more

Quote :

motherfucker you want utilitarian then read some goddamn hemingway

I don't think I've ever read a Hemingway piece that didn't sound like it should be a Tom Waits song.

But anyway, maybe the Hedonist is more of a Southern gentleman? Faulkner, Eliot, that more your poison?

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Quote :

motherfucker you want utilitarian then read some goddamn hemingway

I don't think I've ever read a Hemingway piece that didn't sound like it should be a Tom Waits song.

But anyway, maybe the Hedonist is more of a Southern gentleman? Faulkner, Eliot, that more your poison?

naw i bet his standard of high art is fuckin my immortal or some shit

SirDixonDongs wrote:

motherfucker you want utilitarian then read some goddamn hemingway

orwell was marvellously gifted for his time even if hes a little stark by our standards

we like more urple nowadays and you gotta remember that back then, less was more

That's fine, but there are plenty of less-is-more authors I like quite a bit, is the thing (you mentioned Hemingway, Cormac McCarthy comes to mind). I just don't consider Orwell to be one of them. Gifted storyteller, and I agree, he managed to get his points across without being super-preachy. But in terms of word-for-word writing, I was never impressed.

Admittedly when it comes to literature I tend to be in the Nabokov-and-Woolf camp. Wordswordswords, feelings, et cetera, et cetera. But still.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

But anyway, maybe the Hedonist is more of a Southern gentleman? Faulkner, Eliot, that more your poison?

Sometimes! I went on a huge Flannery O'Connor kick last year and I'm pretty sure at some point in high school I read Tennessee Williams' collected works.

Jay/Cris wrote:

But you cannot, cannot go and dismiss 1984 as a 'pile of shit'.

Well, yes I can. That's sort of the whole point of having an opinion.

I literally couldn't get past the sentence "Winston! Give your little sister back her chocolate!" That was it for me. I didn't even make it to Room 101. I skipped to the end where Winston is crying with happiness because he's been successfully reprogrammed. I read all of Angela's Ashes (albeit stopping periodically to go "For fuck's sake") and I loved Animal Farm. I think it was Winston. I couldn't connect with him. He was just not very sympathetic.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Jay/Cris wrote:

But you cannot, cannot go and dismiss 1984 as a 'pile of shit'.

Well, yes I can. That's sort of the whole point of having an opinion.

I literally couldn't get past the sentence "Winston! Give your little sister back her chocolate!" That was it for me. I didn't even make it to Room 101. I skipped to the end where Winston is crying with happiness because he's been successfully reprogrammed. I read all of Angela's Ashes (albeit stopping periodically to go "For fuck's sake") and I loved Animal Farm. I think it was Winston. I couldn't connect with him. He was just not very sympathetic.

Fine.

I've never understood this need for a sympathetic character, really. Animal Farm has no sympathetic character. I think I liked the horse who betrayed them all over sugar cubes the most, and she's not exactly someone to root for. Still adored Animal Farm.

Huh. I never realized I had such a boner for Orwell.

Cyberwulf wrote:

He was just not very sympathetic.

I think that was part of the point, though. That monstrous governments create environments that raise monstrous people. Well, maybe it wasn't the point, exactly, but it certainly fit the environment of the book quite well.

I can't blame you for not liking "1984", though. Orwell reminds me of Tolkien. Great at crafting a story, but with prose that is dry and sometimes a labor to force yourself through. "Animal Farm" was definitely a more enjoyable read, though I found "1984" more rewarding.

The only big thing that irks me about "1984" and "Animal Farm" are some of the fans. Conservative republican types that use the books to reinforce their own political view without reading anything else by Orwell and with complete obliviousness to the irony that Orwell was a socialist who fucking loved the Spanish anarchists.

Quote :

That's fine, but there are plenty of less-is-more authors I like quite a bit

Not only that, but I don't really think a comparison of Orwell and Hemingway is quite apt. Hemingway's prose, while spare, isn't nearly as dry as Orwell.

And I need to actually read something by Cormac McCarthy. Any good starting points for you to suggest?

Quote :

Sometimes! I went on a huge Flannery O'Connor kick last year and I'm pretty sure at some point in high school I read Tennessee Williams' collected works.

Dude, you need to read Charles Chesnutt. Probably the greatest forgotten author of the post-antebellum period. Maybe even the greatest post-Antebellum author, period.

I'm also on a pretty heavy Kate Chopin kick.

But seriously, Charles Chesnutt. "The Conjure Woman" is probably his most debated work and probably the most "Southern Gothic", but everything he wrote was more or less awesome.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

And I need to actually read something by Cormac McCarthy. Any good starting points for you to suggest?

A lot of people will tell you The Road or No Country for Old Men. And they're both fantastic (er, uh, The Road is, I've never read No Country For Old Men myself). I, myself, prefer All the Pretty Houses.


I've never heard of Chesnutt or The Conjure Woman. Next time I'm looking for a read I'll check it out.

Jay/Cris wrote:

I've never understood this need for a sympathetic character, really.

Fair enough. I have to care about at least one character to watch/read a fictional story, otherwise it's just a bunch of stuff that happened and what's the point. That's one of my problems with Family Guy and dear god I have to make that thread, seriously.

Quote :

Animal Farm has no sympathetic character.

Well, Clover. And Boxer. They really believed in Animalism and really thought it would lead to a better life for all of them. They trusted the pigs, as their intellectual betters, to lead them fairly and they were betrayed by them. I quite like Benjamin too. I always got the feeling that as cynical as he is throughout the book, he did believe, a little bit, and when Boxer worked himself to the point of death and was sold to the knacker's, it hit him harder because the pigs did it instead of the farmer. YMMV, of course.

Quote :

I think I liked the horse who betrayed them all over sugar cubes the most, and she's not exactly someone to root for.

Ah, Molly. I don't know if she actually betrayed them, I think she just left. She's supposed to be the White Russians or something. Maybe Napoleon said later that she betrayed them to the enemy but then Napoleon tells lies. And eh. She liked sugar and ribbons. No sugar and ribbons after the revolution, why not leave? Good for her.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

He was just not very sympathetic.

I think that was part of the point, though. That monstrous governments create environments that raise monstrous people.

I suppose. I dunno, I find Eric Finch in V for Vendetta sympathetic and he's a tool of a totalitarian regime. Maybe it's because he's floored by what his doctor friend did at Larkhill. Maybe it's the insight into his mind when he's tripping balls later in the book.

Quote :

The only big thing that irks me about "1984" and "Animal Farm" are some of the fans. Conservative republican types that use the books to reinforce their own political view without reading anything else by Orwell and with complete obliviousness to the irony that Orwell was a socialist who fucking loved the Spanish anarchists.

I'm just fed up of people spouting "thought police" and "double plus good" in an effort to look intelligent when they haven't even tried to read the book.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Jay/Cris wrote:

I've never understood this need for a sympathetic character, really.

Fair enough. I have to care about at least one character to watch/read a fictional story, otherwise it's just a bunch of stuff that happened and what's the point. That's one of my problems with Family Guy and dear god I have to make that thread, seriously.

Yeah. I find it very easy to sympathize with people, so maybe that's less of an issue with me? I don't know. I find none of the characters in Les Miserables particularly sympathetic, but I still love the novel, so...

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

Animal Farm has no sympathetic character.

Well, Clover. And Boxer. They really believed in Animalism and really thought it would lead to a better life for all of them. They trusted the pigs, as their intellectual betters, to lead them fairly and they were betrayed by them. I quite like Benjamin too. I always got the feeling that as cynical as he is throughout the book, he did believe, a little bit, and when Boxer worked himself to the point of death and was sold to the knacker's, it hit him harder because the pigs did it instead of the farmer. YMMV, of course.

Clover and Boxer I found terribly annoying, mostly because they were so damn gullible. They were far stronger than the pigs, but they just bought their lies at face value, never thinking for themselves and simply having faith --

Yeah, wow. Seriously. Props to Orwell for the simple but wonderful allegory. It always works.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

I think I liked the horse who betrayed them all over sugar cubes the most, and she's not exactly someone to root for.

Ah, Molly. I don't know if she actually betrayed them, I think she just left. She's supposed to be the White Russians or something. Maybe Napoleon said later that she betrayed them to the enemy but then Napoleon tells lies. And eh. She liked sugar and ribbons. No sugar and ribbons after the revolution, why not leave? Good for her.

Yeah, she was supposed to be the remaining group of nobles that quietly departed to other parts of Europe after the change of regime. And of course, the leaving is, in some way, a betrayal. Then again, she arguably ended up the happiest because of it, so...

Quote :

I quite like Benjamin too. I always got the feeling that as cynical as he is throughout the book, he did believe, a little bit, and when Boxer worked himself to the point of death and was sold to the knacker's, it hit him harder because the pigs did it instead of the farmer.

See, I always got the impression that Benjamin was the critic but never the creator. He was always ready to pull apart the system at hand, but when it came to actually coming up with developing a replacement system he was useless because he lacked imagination and could only be pessimistic.

I don't think he believed in Animalism for a minute, but then, it's been years since I've read "Animal Farm".

Quote :

I'm just fed up of people spouting "thought police" and "double plus good" in an effort to look intelligent when they haven't even tried to read the book.

Oh, trust me, they have read the book. It's a must read for The Rush Limbaugh Book Club (probably nonexistent, but you get it). But they think of it as a criticism of anything that isn't conservative republicanism and not Stalinism/tyranny.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Quote :

I'm just fed up of people spouting "thought police" and "double plus good" in an effort to look intelligent when they haven't even tried to read the book.

Oh, trust me, they have read the book. It's a must read for The Rush Limbaugh Book Club (probably nonexistent, but you get it). But they think of it as a criticism of anything that isn't conservative republicanism and not Stalinism/tyranny.

That's sort of the point, isn't it? It's not just an attack on Stalinism, it's an attack of tyranny in general. That's why it still works. The conservative republicans can read it as a warning of what will happen when the commies take over, but the same goes for the democrats who can read it as a warning of what will happen when the Tea Party seizes power. 1984 works because it criticizes the idea of power-abuse by any regime, not just one political regime in particular.

Quote :

It's not just an attack on Stalinism, it's an attack of tyranny in general.

Fair. Using "1984" in debates is kind of it's own, special brand of Godwinning.

Jay/Cris wrote:

Clover and Boxer I found terribly annoying, mostly because they were so damn gullible. They were far stronger than the pigs, but they just bought their lies at face value, never thinking for themselves and simply having faith --

I don't quite agree with you there. The sheep are the wilfully ignorant ones, bleating whatever they're taught. Boxer and Clover both have a sense that the farm after the revolution is not what Old Major had envisioned. Boxer challenges Squealer's revisionism, although he falls in line once Squealer tells him that it's coming from Napoleon. Clover notices when the pigs breaks the Seven Commandments, and they both know the purges mean that something has gone wrong. I don't think it's so much that they're gullible, it's that they're both aware of their limitations and are hamstrung by them. Boxer can only remember four letters of the alphabet at a time, and therefore assumes he's stupid and that the pigs, who can read and write, know better. Clover knows the alphabet, but can't read words. After the purges, she can't articulate that watching your fellow animals be slaughtered isn't how it's supposed to be, and that the society she envisioned was one where the strong protect the weak instead of terrorising them - she has to settle for singing "Beasts of England" instead. Neither of them have it in them to challenge the status quo, even when things go bad.

Interesting turn this thread has taken.

What Reefer Madness was set and filmed in the 1930s

Disco Stu wrote:

What Reefer Madness was set and filmed in the 1930s

that movie is probs the best one ever to watch whilst blazed

Jay/Cris wrote:

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Quote :

I'm just fed up of people spouting "thought police" and "double plus good" in an effort to look intelligent when they haven't even tried to read the book.

Oh, trust me, they have read the book. It's a must read for The Rush Limbaugh Book Club (probably nonexistent, but you get it). But they think of it as a criticism of anything that isn't conservative republicanism and not Stalinism/tyranny.

That's sort of the point, isn't it? It's not just an attack on Stalinism, it's an attack of tyranny in general. That's why it still works. The conservative republicans can read it as a warning of what will happen when the commies take over, but the same goes for the democrats who can read it as a warning of what will happen when the Tea Party seizes power. 1984 works because it criticizes the idea of power-abuse by any regime, not just one political regime in particular.

One of my college professors had us read both 1984 and Jack London's The Iron Heel for perspectives on tyranny on both sides of the aisle. What I remember most from what he said was that the most extreme people politically are very, very similar, and that political beliefs are not a straight line but rather a circle--so the most extreme right-wingers and the most extreme left-wingers are separated by very little. (Moderate left- and right-wingers are also very similar in beliefs, but you seldom hear about moderates being tyrants.)

SirDixonDongs wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

What Reefer Madness was set and filmed in the 1930s

that movie is probs the best one ever to watch whilst blazed

I dunno, "Hobo With a Shotgun" was beast-mode as fuck.

But then I was tripping magic mushrooms when I saw that, so maybe it isn't the same on weed.