Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Seven of the top ten books of all time are by Ayn Rand or L. Ron Hubbard... who knew?
Posts
Seems like you guys started early.
As someone currently working on their Masters in English, let me tell you I hate Faulkner. I think he's massively overrated.
the Valar in general are incredibly lazy throughout the history of Middle Earth, with the one notable exception of the War of Wrath
I can't blame them.
I am also very lazy.
Hey Gurl, let me show you my Sting
it glows
This is one hell of a pipe dream
talk about plot hole right
man
What classifies literature vs. a book
like there are books that we consider to be great works or important works and least and we classify those as literature right? But what makes it that way. I would say I've read some books that I enjoy a great deal more then classic lit, but they aren't considered great works.
That shit's not canon, though.
You could summon Tom Bombadil to come fuck shit up.
also gandalf uses fireworks as his primary attack
that seems pretty rude
Twitter Steam Facebook Tumblr Secret Satans
And he WRECKS SHIT MERRILY
then attached the ring to it
because
This is a question that every generation asks itself and I think there is never really agreement
As a tentative answer I would say the book should illuminate some aspect of human experience in a way that transcends the time in which it was written, and is relatable to a large portion of humanity by virtue of its themes/content/characters
vis a tergo | Blog | Twitter | Blip.fm | Dropbox
so does "weird forest scatman" function as an advanced bard class
steam | xbox live: IGNORANT HARLOT | psn: MadRoll | nintendo network: spinach
3ds: 1504-5717-8252
the closest I've ever heard anyone get to answering this (I haven't heard a lot of people try to, though) was "the book needs to have more going on than what happens"
which is loose, sure, but it elegantly excludes a lot or even all of what isn't literature
God, yes. Not knocking the book either, but it is not deep. It's gimmicky, and gimmicky is fine if you dig the gimmick. But it also means you have to willingly buy into the gimmick to dig the book at all. Doesn't make it a bad book, just not nearly as clever as it thinks it is.
how big of a ding dong the person making the distinction is
see also: movies vs films
nah he's great
though even excluding his novels and short stories, i would still love him endlessly for his howard hawks screenplays
It's pretty cool. Not the greatest thing ever written or anything, but genuinely creepy and the gimmicks actually work.
how about Flannery O'Connor?
It's a pretty cool read, especially considering the fun little formatting techniques shine when you actually read the book (as opposed to reading about it or being told about it or whatev)
I wouldn't necessarily say the book is gimmicky. If the formatting were more conventional it'd still be well written. And there's not much of the book where the formatting is really that weird beyond the footnotes.