Okay, Now I have read all the comments - and am a bit confused re all the fuss.
I can’t speak for other persons.
I am not familiar with Oprah’s bookclub and I don’t watch her shows. I have seen them a few times in the paste and - for me - it is mostly a waste of time.
But when I like a person and/or admire his/her intelligence I am inclined to read a book when this person encourage me to do so. (if only to find out if my valuation meets his/hers). And I think this is what most people do or want to do.
A agree with all who says more or less : “whatever can get people reading I am all for.”
For the ability to read - and the use of it - I consider one of the biggest treasures in this world.
Dedalus, what bothered me is that you wrote:
“In fact, it's astonishing to me that a person who claims to love reading so much, and who aspires to be a writer, can so consistently and carelessly make the crude spelling and grammatical mistakes you do. Your writing online is simply appalling. Let's hope that's because you're careless and casual here, and not because your don't know any better.”
I am sure that there are big errors in my writing - due to the fact that English is not my language - but even when it was my language.
This kind of remarks remembered me at my beginning time as a JW.
Every time I was puzzled about something, they told me “that's because you don’t see the light yet - you will see when you grow in the truth” thus making it impossible to discuss what I want to know.
--------------------
Talesin, your alias came from the arthurian legend, but in the “Arrow” series from Mercedes Lackey It appears to be the name of a magic using tribe.
I am sure Mercedes Lackey read the arthurian legend as well....
Diana Gabaldon wrote “Outlander” in 1991 - and it is a great book.
---------------
Branda
So, for all you fans of big fat books (like, say, Harry Potter) ...
by dedalus 61 Replies latest social entertainment
-
Country_Woman
-
SheilaM
In fact, it's astonishing to me that a person who claims to love reading so much, and who aspires to be a writer, can so consistently and carelessly make the crude spelling and grammatical mistakes you do. Your writing online is simply appalling. Let's hope that's because you're careless and casual here, and not because your don't know any better.”
Ded: What a rude, arrogant ass you are. No, I don't spend all day pouring over my posts to make sure I am grammatically correct. I don't write my posts in word and carefully edit them for morons like you. I have much better things to do with my time. I post quickly and let others know how I think or feel. You are so rude. Also, if you knew anything about being a writer that is why they have editors. I really don't want you to ever, ever reply to anything I post nor will I you.
-
SheilaM
, I understand you better: you read to escape
You are the one that can't read. I was describing other reasons to read, such as the women that are waving the book. You choose to see and hear what you want. I read for many reasons and it dependes on what I read at the time of course. For me I really read the books not just the excerpts before I choose to make a decision on there worth as literature.
-
talesin
tks,country woman. outlander - wow what a book. she also wrote 3 sequels.
glad to see there's another 'mists' fan out there, robdar
i don't know about others who grew up jw, but reading (often sneaking books into the house) saved my sanity as a kid. and still does ...
-
dedalus
Lisa,
I understand that since you are such an intellectual, these ‘shallow’ discussions are at times tedious for you. Obviously the show is not for people as ‘deep’ as you.
Hey, I thought we'd agreed that I'd watch Oprah and see for myself what the discussions are like. The comments she made in the article I posted, however, were shallow, and you don't have to be any sort of intellectual to see that.
You have called the people who read books on Oprah’s book list middle-aged,
No, no, no. I observed that a camera shot of her audience showed a group of mostly middle aged women waving the books around. This is an fact. Middle aged women are Oprah's demographic. This is also a fact. I never said that everyone who reads the books she recommends is middle aged.
Oprah-messiah followers
I never called them that, either. The phrase "Oprah-messiah" was used in a complementary way, indicating that she was doing something useful that wasn't being done in universities (you know, where all we snobbish intellectuals cower and hide).
who engage in shallow discussions of literature just so they can brush with Oprah’s celebrity.
As stated, I'll be tuning in to make a more informed judgment of the discussions. And I never said they read "just" to have a brush with celebrity. I speculated that this was a part, perhaps a big part, of why they read what she's recommending. I think it's a good speculation, too.
You say they would not read if Oprah didn’t tell them to.
I wondered. I didn't say.
None of these statements have any basis in objective fact.
Some of them do. Some of them are opinions and speculations and I never claimed otherwise.
You lump a great deal of people into one group. You have a bias. You have a prejudice. You are stereotyping, just as Sheila said you were. It is really annoying.
You've misunderstood a great deal of what I've said. You've conveniently skipped entire paragraphs I've written in which I expressed uncertainty and characterized my remarks as speculative. But what I have written is still on this thread, and makes plenty of sense to me. I'm not going to keep repeating myself.
Yes, it is literature. Children’s literature.
If you reread my remarks, you'll see that my concern is the enthusiasm with which some adults read the book.
And finally, Dedalus, you were incredibly rude to Shiela in that last post and were a real ….(no name calling allowed on this board, but you know what you were).
I was incredibly rude to Sheila -- and what have you and she been to me? Whatever else they were, my remarks about her writing were correct, and there's plenty of objective evidence to prove it. I never would have said anything about it, indeed, I hardly would have noticed it, if she had not been boastfully proclaiming her great love of the written word as she simultaneously abused it.
Sheila,
Ded: What a rude, arrogant ass you are. No, I don't spend all day pouring over my posts to make sure I am grammatically correct. I don't write my posts in word and carefully edit them for morons like you. I have much better things to do with my time.
From complete ignorance to crass insults, you're at least consistent in one thing: your utter irrelevance in relation to the ongoing topic of this thread.I post quickly and let others know how I think or feel.
Yes, I thought you probably did, which is why I wrote: "Let's hope that's because you're careless and casual here, and not because you don't know any better."
You are so rude. Also, if you knew anything about being a writer that is why they have editors.
If you know anything about being a writer, you'd know that editors have better things to do than fix grade school error mistakes. Correcting goofs with there, their and they're is not what editors do.
I really don't want you to ever, ever reply to anything I post nor will I you.
Well, too bad. You're on my thread, and you've been consistently rude to me. You've dismissed me because of my age, mischaracterized my remarks, and butchered your native language while proclaiming your love of it. Anyone bold enough to call herself an writer should take care to write at least somewhat correctly. It doesn't take all day to fix a painfully obvious mistake. A second or two, since you're in the company of adults, is all that's required of you.
You are the one that can't read. I was describing other reasons to read, such as the women that are waving the book.
So was I, in great detail, only you've never once responded to any of that, deeming it unworthy of your attention.
I read for many reasons and it dependes on what I read at the time of course. For me I really read the books not just the excerpts before I choose to make a decision on there worth as literature.
I've read enough of the Harry Potter books to say a thing or two about Rowling's style, tone, and narrative structure. But 95% of this post hasn't even been about Harry Potter.
Dedalus
-
-
lisaBObeesa
I addressed the whole adult readers of Harry Potter thing..I said I think adults read it for fun.
And what about the couple paragraphs I wrote that starts with, "HOWEVER..."? Why no response to that?
You've misunderstood a great deal of what I've said.
I don't think so, but maybe I have. I really think I understand what you are saying. I just don't agree with it. (It could happen, you know.)
You've conveniently skipped entire paragraphs I've written in which I expressed uncertainty and characterized my remarks as speculative.
Didn't I say, "Ambivilant. Got it." or some such thing? I got it that you are ambivilant, ok?
Well, this has been great fun in a really dysfunctional sort of way!
Relax and Peace Out!
-Lisa
-
dedalus
Lisa,
Oh, your "however" paragraphs were good and I basically agreed with them.
Didn't I say, "Ambivilant. Got it." or some such thing? I got it that you are ambivilant, ok?
If you get that I'm ambivalent, please don't accuse me or prejudice and stereotyping.
Dedalus
-
safe4kids
Ok, first thing I have to admit is that I am totally at a loss as to why two people who I've always considered decent, nice posters at are at each other's throats...it confuses and saddens me. But then, perhaps this is just the way of discussion boards, which might explain why I don't feel a desire to post more often.
Dedalus, I'm trying to understand your point, but I'm wondering what is the purpose in all of this. Is it truly a big deal to you or did this whole thread start as just a musing on your part? That's not intended as a slam, by the way, I am merely curious. You said:
As for encouraging people to read, the distinction has to be made that she encourages people to read the books she herself selects and endorses. I doubt that many of Oprah's viewers read without her at their side. This brush with celebrity -- the thrill of reading what Oprah has read and understanding it more or less as she has -- is the draw, more so than the literature itself. Or so I'd argue
I suppose you may be right, but honestly, in the larger scheme of things, is it all that important? As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I read a couple of books because they were brought to my attention due entirely to the fact that they were on Oprah's book club list (I was working in a book store at the time) and I found them to be fascinating, but probably wouldn't have read them otherwise. Not because I allow others to dictate to me what I read, but merely because I am constantly on the lookout for new authors to explore. Your comments about crass commercialism have merit, but at the same time, that is exactly the society that we live in. Personally, I don't choose books to read based on commercialism or literary value, for the most part. I choose them because I find them interesting, entertaining, or informative. I think that it's a mistake to generalize about a large group of people, assuming that they are reading solely on the basis of what Oprah likes, but then again, who knows? More importantly, to my way of thinking, what difference does it make? And therein may lie the fundamental difference in our viewpoints.
As for Harry Potter, well, I happen to love those books, as do my children. Are they literature?? I don't know and frankly don't care, to be honest. We like them, they're fun to read, and the movies were pretty damn good, imo. So what else is there to say?
Dana
-
dedalus
I guess there's not much else to say, Dana. Just trying to understand what I think is a bizarre thing, certainly not dastardly and evil, but yes, bizarre. I appreciate your ideas, and the one that makes the most sense to me is:
Not because I allow others to dictate to me what I read, but merely because I am constantly on the lookout for new authors to explore. Your comments about crass commercialism have merit, but at the same time, that is exactly the society that we live in.
Is there a difference between the crass commercialism of the Oprah logo emblazoned on the cover of a novel, and the logo of the publisher who printed and distributed the novel? Maybe not.
I think that when we understand how society works we gain a bit of personal freedom. We recognize when we're being manipulated and toward what end. Anyway, excluding the nasty bits between Sheila and me, I did get something out of this thread. My view of things now is not as dire as it was when I first posted. I plan to watch the Oprah episode when it airs, for kicks if nothing else. Maybe I'll report back later about it.
As I sort of said to you in a PM, the only thing that makes me ... unique, whatever ... is the reading I've done in my life. For that reason, perhaps, I get carried away with topics like this.
Finally, I didn't intend to generalize in the sense that, if one is an Oprah viewer, one must therefore blindly follow the cult of Oprah. I'm sorry if anyone came away from what I wrote with that impression.
Dedalus