| |
|
M. Utopia
it's easier to have these discussions with non-lith friends because someone can always let someone else borrow a book. that doesn't really work out here, as many of us have no defined relationship with the thousand other people on the board, many of which reside on other continents. i think that this is why 1984 comes up quite often here: it's standard fare that has a really deep and inescapeable point.
See, I don't think this. It's easier to have these discussions with non-Barbelith friends (I feel) because you then get the feedback of having realtime communication with someone you know, and having some concrete sense of whether they're getting what you mean when you start off on a rant about a book. But I don't think that the value of conversations here is lessened by the occasional difficulty (or stiltedness) that this medium had. I reckon 1984 and texts of that ilk tend to get mentioned here pretty frequently because it's a fairly common book to find around - most people've either done it at school, or at uni, or whatever - and also because it's considered (looks around) "invisible" to a certain extent. Ditto The Illuminatus Trilogy or Pynchon or whatever; discussion has previously tended towards them because they fit in with the perceived mindset of the board; the "headfuck" or the fuck-shit-up school of lit. I don't think it's because, necessarily, of a deep meaning - it's because they fit in with the decor to a certain extent. Deep meaning is there, but I don't think it's the primary reason for choice, here. Rather, or was - discussions on books seem to be a bit more planned out now, which is better, I think - this prep-time is the equivalent of getting a friend to loan you a book that you should read; you can go out and find a copy for yourself, instead of feeling at a loss. Let's face it, too: most of the things under discussion here are found - with a little digging - either second-hand or pretty cheap online.
(I also, just as an aside, think that there are some pretty defined relationships here. Not in the "is she really going out with him?" kind of sense, but in the standard buddy-buddy way; I've never met a load of people off the board here, though I feel like they're my friends anyway, and I value their opinions as much as people I know in real life.)
On to less contentious waters. I don't know what gets me talking about books. Anything, really, I spose; I always have books with me, be they chunky behemoths or slimliners. I'll ramble on at length about writers and their works if prodded, largely because it interests me. I don't think there's much of a degree of critical rigour to it, though some points are occasionally made that tend towards this direction. I'm more of the school that will try to explain why I like something, which I think is conscious, because I really dislike it when people say "Yeah, it's great!" and then refuse to go into any deeper detail. Grrr. I think this is what Trijhaos is talking about in reference to lists; they're fine, but only if people give us the goods on why something is on there! Otherwise it becomes just namechecking, and is a bit depersonalising. I can understand people not wanting to weight would-be readers' expectations, but a little info goes a long way, I think.
I wish I could talk more constructively about books, and I wish that when I talked I sounded less like an enthused fanboy than I do... but I think that's just me. |
|
|
