controversial movie/book/non-metal music opinions thread

[unknown]

anyway. I think Jane Austen, the Brontes and most other writers during the romantic period are shit.

I'll amend this and go so far as to say the 20th century produced far better writers in terms of originality, depth and form.

 

[TheInsane]

I watch 'Waterworld' in the context of, 'this has the potential to be so much more amazing if...' and enjoy it like that.

I agree. It should have been way more awesome but its far from as bad as its reputations. Its an alright movie with potential. I would love a new take on the concept actually.

ONe thing I didnt like was the very 90's action movie feel I got especially from the bad guys and how they acted and were portrayed.

Kevin Costner I think is an actor who does not affect the quality of a movie either way.

Very true. I used to like him when I was a child though but only because he was Robin Hood. Then I wanted to see everything he was in. I dont think I ever did but I did try reading "dancing with wolves" (yes not watching, reading). For a chld 9 or 10 years old it became a task way bigger than I expected at the time. I think I did read the book eventually. BUt that must have been years later.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

A Saucerful of Secrets may be Pink Floyd's best album.

or it may not be...

 

[Einherjar86]

I'll amend this and go so far as to say the 20th century produced far better writers in terms of originality, depth and form.

I would agree, absolutely, but you also have to consider the evolution of the novel and how new its concept was during the Romantic period. There was still so much debate as to whether the novel (in its simplest form) could be considered high art like poetry. So, in that sense, I suppose that many people considered the novel form to be original and revolutionary in itself. Of course, by the twentieth century, after we've suffered through the likes of those you mentioned (as well as Dickens, Kipling, and the Victorians), the style and techniques of writers like Joyce, Woolf, Conrad, James, et al are indeed much more profound and interesting.

I posit that Mary Shelley is still one of the best novelists of all time, though.

 

[unknown]

Yeah, I know that...it's like The Beatles. What they were doing back then was considered revolutionary and helped pave the way. Plus, at least in America, the novel wasn't ever really considered a respectable form; poetry was considered the high art. Novels and reading novels was considered to be a waste of time, and there wasn't much (explicitly) that you could learn from them.

There are Romantic and Victorian authors that I like...but I find more value in 20th and maybe even 21st century authors.

 

[no country for old wainds]

shakespeare already did everything anyway, literature should probably just give up trying to chase him

 

[Zephyrus]

I prefer Milton over Shakespeare in terms of English literature.

 

[unknown]

that doesn't really surprise me since you're a fan of epics

 

[Vimana]

The Mahabharata is the greatest epic ever.

 

[Zephyrus]

Yes, Paradise Lost to me completes a holy tetrarchy of Homer, Vergil, Dante and Milton.

That said, I do enjoy Shakespeare, The Tempest and Julius Caesar my favorites.

 

[no country for old wainds]

shakespeare is just unfathomable and impossible and kind of scary

 

[Ender Rises]

^Pfft. He's brilliant if you learn how to read the lines, which isn't that hard, you just have to translate each one into modern speech as you go.

Midsummer Night's Dream is my favorite Shakespeare.

 

[no country for old wainds]

i think you misunderstood my post. not that i expect anything else from you ender. post that pic of you in a suit that i used to have as my msn background plz.

 

[Ender Rises]

I apologize for missing the sarcasm, my sarcasm detector is generally set to fail.

 

[no country for old wainds]

it wasn't sarcasm either. it was more like an awestruck compliment.

i wasn't joking about that picture. i think you were wearing a tux.

 

[Einherjar86]

There are Romantic and Victorian authors that I like...but I find more value in 20th and maybe even 21st century authors.

Point taken, and I honestly would agree. My undergrad thesis is actually focusing on theatricality and objecthood in twentieth century literature (Sylvia Plath, Nathanael West, and Cormac McCarthy to name a few). It's a topic that has been addressed in visual art to an extent, but hasn't been explored much in literary art, although several writers have dealt with this idea in their works.

I prefer Milton over Shakespeare in terms of English literature.

Yes, Paradise Lost to me completes a holy tetrarchy of Homer, Vergil, Dante and Milton.

Milton is extremely overrated, in my opinion. I love Paradise Lost, but Milton didn't really conceive anything else of immense importance or interest. Comus is mildly entertaining, but most of his catalogue is just boring.

As far as the epics go, Vergil, Homer and Dante definitely deserve upper-echelon recognition. Both Milton and Dante are in debt to Vergil and Homer, but Dante was far more creative and original, in my opinion.

Personally, I believe that William Blake and John Keats both deserve recognition for their epic works. Interestingly enough, Keats never actually finished Hyperion because he felt that his style was becoming too much like Milton's (not meaning to imply that Keats disliked Milton, he loved him; but Keats was always plagued by the anxiety of influence).

 

[no country for old wainds]

i was reading the western canon chapter on emily dickinson the other day, made me want to read her. ugh i'm so poorly read.

 

[Ender Rises]

it wasn't sarcasm either. it was more like an awestruck compliment.

i wasn't joking about that picture. i think you were wearing a tux.

 

[cookiecutter]

My favorite Shakespeare is Hamlet, although I haven't read some of the major ones like Macbeth.

 

[Ender Rises]

^Yeah, I need to read quiet a bit more, especially Shakespeare.