The Books thread.

POOPERSCOOPER · Post by **POOPERSCOOPER** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:55 pm

I finished Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson, it was pretty cool but had some slow parts in the middle.

Anyone have any recommendations for me? I might just take a break from reading but I'm not sure.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 12:17 am

Heroes Die, by Matthew Stover. It will knock your socks off.

Nicolai · Post by **Nicolai** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 12:19 am

Poop: Read Armor by John Steakley. Go dig up some reviews or something

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:04 am

Read Shakespeare, you'll be an English language tough guy.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 10:35 am

I never digged the old-fashioned language thingy. But beyond that there are also other reasons why I don't like his work. Although that comedy of his, Taming of the Shrew, was kinda hilarious, I don't like most of his "serious" work, like Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet. McBeth was sort of cool. Being dark, mad, gothic and all.

But I really don't understand someone who really, really fancies reading Shakespeare. It's a pain in the ass, at least for me.

Most (if not all?) are plays after all, meant to be seen on stage (or film?), not read like a script.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 3:54 pm

You're right, reading Shakespeare doesn't give you the proper effect. It's a play, it has to be seen to be properly enjoyed. Still, Shakespeare did have a lot of interesting things to say on a lot of issues and his mastery of the language was remarkable.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:25 pm

Yah, perhaps. I just don't have the patience or wit to really get the point.

Ernesto · Post by **Ernesto** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:05 pm

Spazmo wrote:You're right, reading Shakespeare doesn't give you the proper effect. It's a play, it has to be seen to be properly enjoyed. Still, Shakespeare did have a lot of interesting things to say on a lot of issues and his mastery of the language was remarkable.

It's well known that Shakespeare did write his plays to be watched. It was either Christopher Marlowe or Ben Johnson that purposely wrote his plays to be read and published. Because of the style of language used, I find watching a Shakespeare's play then reading it is the best way to fully understand what William was writing about.

By the way, they say that Shakespeare created about 8.5% of his own vocabulary, so I guess that's pretty damn impressive.

YOU DONT KNOW SHAKESPEARE UNLESS YOUVE READ IT IN KLINGON. QIPLACK. And Shakespeare is overrated, especially that piece of shit Romero & Juliet.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:10 pm

Created? Vocabulary?

It's a confusing idea, really. On the other hand it sounds impressive and intelligent, on the other hand it feels like he had run out of words so he had to start making them up to cover the fact that his grasp of English wasn't as great as people thought it was?

Bleh, enough with the conspiracy theories. Shakespeare didn't even come up with most of his stories by himself. Like Romeo and Juliet, for example, there's a reason it's set in Verona - it's an old Italian legend, folklore, a fairy tale, whatever. Along the time Shakespeare heard about it it was something like 200 years old and William boy decided to make a play out of it. So. Like anyone cares, just thought I'd share it with you.

Post by **Retlaw83** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 9:57 pm

That's how most plays were back then. Also, if a playwright came up with an original idea, his contemporaries would steal it and try to improve it. It was kind of like the east coast/west coast rap fued, except with long-ass plays.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 10:01 pm

Shakespeare's plots seem stale and overdone to us because so much of anglophone fiction's plots are taken from Shakespeare.

Fez · Post by **Fez** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 11:42 pm

Yup, people pillage his work all the time when they are short of ideas.

You can see his skill develop as a writer over time if you look at his early works and then compare it to his later ones.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 8:03 am

Aye, could be. I'm no expert on this, have only seen a few and read even fewer of his works, so I can't really say much.

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 3:56 pm

Modernized versions of Romeo and Juliet really piss me off.

Ernesto · Post by **Ernesto** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 5:10 pm

Didn't the 1960s version of R&J have borderline child porn?

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 5:16 pm

Indeed it did. It wasn't modernized, though. I'm talking more about hip-hop versions of Romeo and Juliet.

Fez · Post by **Fez** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 6:23 pm

Child porn, the sixties and Shakespeare. What a wonderful world.

@atoga: There was the modern version with DiCaprio in it, I guess that one was part of the hated? I've seen versions of Shakespeare plays done all on rollerskates and with uzis too.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:01 am

Well, originally Juliet was something like 13 and Romeo was 17-19 ?
Child porn Shakespeare, here I come!