Great idea, Potat!
I need to get ready, so I'll visit this later.

For now:

Corporate American Polititricks:
Crucial Confrontations by Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillian, Al Switzler
Strengths Finder 2.0 by Tom Rath
Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Coleman

Managers in corporate America read these books and practice them on the job. From my understanding, this is common practice/required readings in certain higher education business schools in the USA.

My current reads:
Grace: A Memoir by Grace Coddington
Grace Astounding in Bolshevik Russia by Dr. A. McCaig (this book is from 1929, I found it in a thrift book shop for $2).
How to Land an A330 Airbus by James May (bought this for the SO, he didn't read it, so I kinda took it back)))

My all-time favorites:
Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
Franny and Zooey by J.D. Salinger
The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald
Hackers by Steven Levy
Everyman by Anonymous (c. 15th century)
Resistance, Rebellion, and Death Essays by Albert Camus
Doctor Faustus by Christopher Marlowe
Macbeth by William Shakespeare
Grimms' Fairy Tales by Grimms Brothers
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
1984 by George Orwell
Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner by Alan Sillitoe
Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse
Nature by Henry David Thoreau

It's hard to remember them all. I definitely recommend Master and Margarita, as others have suggested. This game is hard.

Did you mean Crucial Con-versations-?

I recommend downloading this for your car.
Rating - ANYONE -
TL:DR how to bring up sensitive, urgent, unpleasant arguments and getting to the bottom of the issue without getting derailed

I like your style - always good to stick with classics until you positively are sure another book has "made the cut".

A couple good example of such books:
Still Life With Woodpecker by Tom Robbins
The World According to Garp by John Irving

My Family and Other Animals by Gerald Durrell

read? nigga it's 2013, readin takes a long time son, just watch the movie

As someone with film major I approve this message.

nope

skip shit books, read twilight and 50 shades of gray

i see it's applied on various sections of life

mirin much coz i made you look stupid, which tbh wasnt hard?

the very fact i'm seen talking to a retard doesn't really go in my favor, that's for sure

stop talking with yourself then, wont look so fishy

TROLOLOLOLOLOL REPEPEPEPED

actually a good thread, please start your own thread for retarded troll-babble

fuck, you stalk me maggot?

i wont be ur boyfriend because im not gay, faggot.

didn't mean to "stalk" you, just so happens that every thread i read has your nonsense posts and they can't be avoided. now that i look closer, i see that your nonsense was posted a while back, so let's just be adults about it and drop it...didn't mean to start shit, just wanted to read a clean thread about an interesting topic.

fuck off fucking stalker

that went well...

catch-22 is damn good

It's very good, but I found it quite hard to read (difficult english).

Is there not any good German translation?

I don't like reading translations if it's not 100% necessary.

edit: this sounds like I know a lot of languages, but I'm actually only reading stuff in german or english^^

Hah, this reminded me of my friend who once asked me "you're reading the original?" when I was reading English version of Master and Margarita :D

Man, this book! Which version were you reading? Specifically, who translated your version? There's some bad copies (poorly translated, almost intentionally) floating around. D:

The best English translation I've found is a Penguin Classics version translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky.

Mine is from Wordsworth Editions, translated by Michael Karpelson. I actually bought because it was the cheapest version, so I won't be surprised if it's one of the flawed :D nevertheless, I always wanted to read a Polish version because it is probably easier to translate it to a quite similar language (and culture?).
Thanks for the info anyway, I will be more cautious when searching for another one. Ah, did you hear about editions in which pretty much about 40% of the book is added to explain the rest? Is it really worth reading?

Lord of the Flies and From Here to Eternity.

interesting, will deffo check them out

The last book I read (in bits and pieces) was The Lebanese Kitchen by Salma Hage. Of the Arabic kitchens, the Lebanese is the most refined and of the best reputation

For fiction, the classics. Anything by Joseph Conrad.

Can you recommend me a Joseph Conrad novel to start off with?

Heart of Darkness - a short and very disturbing piece on evil

cheers

Reading "Games of Thrones" is fun, but not as good as the hype makes you believe.

yeah I tend to ignore hype, but the novel has been sitting on my bedside table for 6 months so it would only be mean to never read it

the series as a whole is quite well done though, one could not argue. hype or no, they are well written books

ye, I think they're good fantasy books, but not really "must-read".

Umberto Eco - Cemetery of Prague

any good?

Brilliant so far

Reading Nabokov's (Lolita) memoirs, doesn't really speak to me. The first sentence about life and death was gripping, but after that it waters down to flowery descriptions (incl. french expressions) of gardens he spent watching flowers or some shit. I really can't connect to butterfly-collecting la-di-da-boy from rich family at emotional level.

i read the english translation twice - first time i felt the same as you, second time i really got it. maybe give it another shot?

I'm not going to, but I might try Laughter In The Dark (freely translated)

Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson.

still have to read that, have it now for 10 years ...

It's been so long since I last read fiction now I only seem to read biographies and books about science.

dreams of a final theory by steven weinberg is a really well written book. It's about high energy physics but it is so much more. A view on the framework of a scientist's thinking and reasoning.

I'm also a great fan of autobiographies and science books, but have a weak spot for sci-fi ))

Maybe you try Doris Lessing - Shikasta. And the whole "Canpous in Argos" series.

thank you!

Doris Lessing died yesterday morning.

shit, I just read her wiki article the day before ://///

Yes, it's sad.. but she lived a long and full life and leaves a great work that can give inspiration to many people. Don't know how much more one could ask for. Such a great woman!

I'm a big fan of the Culture series by M Banks, and I'm glad you've picked up a couple. I read them all in order, and really enjoyed all of them apart from the one on the shell world (I think it's now the second last one?).

The first one can take some time to get into (the one with the Changer as the protagonist, and I do love the Idirans)

Of the ones i finished most recently i can recommend:Ursula K LeGuin - The dispossessed. I've read a bunch of crap this month, but last month i finished Victor Hugo - Les Miserables, it's worth the time.

If you plan to watch the movie and haven't read the book yet you probably would want to read Orson Scott Card - Enders Game

I watched Ender's Game the other day... but I guess I will still enjoy the book correct?

oh noo, you gotta do it the other way, then you can bitch around and tell your friends how much better the book was.

I haven't got any friends.

Shit, don't let Jamerio see that comment.

jam-ham in a in a book thread? he is safe.

the book is great, but Enders shadow is better. Read that after, it's from beans POV of the same story =)

I personally hated Ender's shadow. These three reviews encapsulate my feelings exactly: link 1 - link 2 - link 3.

did you like the film enders game?

No - it felt rather empty in terms of character development (a fascinating aspect of the book), and I thought most of the acting was sub-par. I thought the final battle scene with the "drone shield" could have been handled better as well. What about you?

Yeah I had the same feeling, I had no care about the characters just felt like the rushed it. Think splitting that up into a few parts could of made it more interesting. But oh well!

The Evolution Man, Once Upon an Ice Age, What We Did to Father - Roy Lewis. It's funny and short.

Skinwalker Ranch.

Did anyone read the nem Stephen King yet? Dr. Sleep im contemplating whether to buy it or not as the previous one was good but not very Kingish (Joyland)

The Gentleman Bastard Sequence by Scott Lynch

The Lies of Locke Lamora (June 2006)
Red Seas Under Red Skies (July 2007)
The Republic of Thieves (October 2013)

Definitely worth a read. I read all the time.. Literally. I'm mostly into fantasy/fiction and could give you a lot more suggestions. Those books I just mentioned are the most recent ones that I've finished, some really great characters. Don't really wanna say too much as it'd spoil them. :) Have a quick google and see what you think!

The whole Priscilla Hutchins/Academy series is awesome. There is a new book by Jack Mcdevitt just out now Starhawk which is a 'prequel' to the series. You could probably even start with that and then move onto Engines of God.

Highly recommend you start with the series :)

thanks for pointing me in the right direction man, I was a bit worried about that!

I ordered "The Player of Games" right after I've heard DDK and Thorin talk about it. I was looking at the chat and everyone was bored by the talk and to me it was like the highlight of the stream haha. Haven't started reading it yet tho. Right now I'm reading Necronomicon- The Best Weird Tales of H.P. Lovecraft, Commemorative Edition. It's almost 900 pages so it'll take a while. Finished reading Let the Right one In by John Ajvide Lindqvist earlier, very unconventional vampire story. Definitely recommend it.

Let the Right One In :)))

Just starting The Algebraist by Iain M. Banks... so far it's 1337.

So, what did you think? :)

9/10! Superb story.

What else can you recommend?

Small Gods by Terry Pratchett :D

Thank you kind sir!

Finally got round to reading this, 8 years later. Great stuff, I've added a few more Pratchett novels to my winter reading list.

Next!

am reading through some classics at the moment.
i had
war of the worlds, which is great,
journey to the center of the earth, which is great,
kafkas metamorphosis, which is funny,
the canterville ghost, which is amusing.

thinking about starting heart of darkness or three men on a boat.

not sure

I'm all up for classics :)

I'm halfway through Three Men In A Boat now.... it´s fucking hilarious :_D definintely recommend it.

Discovered very recently and reading right now, seems good so far: Kahnemann - Thinking fast and slow. (link to pdf: http://vk.com/doc23267904_175119602?hash=8e08...a7217e1962 my pc is still running, so i guess it's safe)

Dune
The Stars My Destination

But really books are one of the worst story telling formats.

But really books are one of the worst story telling formats.

dude wat

The only one that I could think of being worse is a painting...

let us know about the best story telling format

So far, movies.

but book format is beyond the story telling thing per se; you can take it anywhere and enjoy it by yourself, doesn't need electricity and it's up to your imagination, not to mention the amount of stuff you learn, language-wise and culture-wise.

"I'd rather read the worst novel ever written than sit through the best movie ever made."

lmao, books, when immersive, are the closest thing to timetravel or parallel universes. Movies barely scratch the surface in comparison, and I'm a big fan of movies. That feeling when you finish an amazing book and return to reality.

If you think Dune the movie tells the story better than Dune the novel......................................... I don't know what to say :l

No, I don't think the movie Dune tells the story better than the novel, but I believe a movie format has the potential to. And because of other factors, I'd rather watch the movie than read the book again.

Movies, when immersive, are much more immersive than a book can ever be. Music too.

Books are limited strictly to language. Movies can use senses such as hearing and vision to drill in the point so much stronger.

As an example:
"... and then suddenly, the monster with the scariest features you can ever imagine x10 jumps in front of the-lead-character and she's screams bloody murder!"

Use your imagination, be immersed in it... Did it scare you? That would be great if it did. Seeing an actual representation of the monster suddenly pop up and then hearing a really hoarse scream.

You don't actually use too much imagination when reading a book anyway. Sure, you have to paint a picture in your mind of every scene, but I can't think of a book that holds back from giving you every little detail you need to know.

There's subtleties to movies such as symbolism and foreshadowing (the kind like Nibler's shadow in Futurama, I don't know the technical name for it) that are much easier to achieve, and more effectively than in a book.

The more senses you can use, the more immersed you will be. Which is why I said "So far." I just hope someone can use all 5 effectively at some point without being super cheesy.

well books often tell much more of the story than the film, obviously you also have to bring up more time with a book and you cannot lean back so easily on your couch ... what books are much better in is in describing thought processes and feelings, they also tend to be more philosophical

Tend to be, maybe, but the movies I consider best easily trump any book in the philosophy department.

You think that movies are a better medium than books to discuss philosophy? Oh lawd

Neither is necessarily better in this regard. I stated simply that I've seen it done better in movies than in books. Granted, these are the most elite of movies.

I'd contend that that philosophical discussions are represented with greater depth, across a wider focus, and with higher peaks, in book as opposed to film. I think that's pretty unquestionable.

What exactly constitutes as depth, focus, and peaks?

This is one category I might consider a draw between the mediums.

Depth, the issues has been studied rigorously, and carried out to their logical ends.
Wider focus, it ponders a broader spectrum of philosophical issues.
Peaks, it has helped achieved a greater understanding of philosophical issues.

There is just no way that a movie can compare to a text in this field, sorry.

The issues would appear to be studied more rigorously because everything is spelled out for you over a long period of reading.
Either medium can take things to their logical end.

Either can handle any philosophical issue.

Peaks, in practice books possibly take this category, but only because books have been around centuries longer. If movies were around the entire time, they could have done the same job.

2001 helped take us into space. Dr. Strangelove may have aided ending the Cold War. Those are some serious philosophical resolves.
I can't think of a topic that Xavier: Renegade Angel didn't touch and bring to a completely ridiculous (while still logical) conclusion.

The band Cattle Decapitation almost 2 years ago brought us the antithesis of 2001 (overcoming technology), by showing us the logical conclusion of humanity not overcoming it.

We're talking about all of humanity being dealt with in a handful of movie formats. It doesn't get broader or greater than that.

I love films, I'm even majoring in film studies as I mentioned above in this thread and I can tell you that is a complete bullshit.

Movies are a lot more limited than novels. They are a subject of money, technology, and lots of other stuff, such as people's bladder size.

In books you can literally do anything.

Also, your example:

"... and then suddenly, the monster with the scariest features you can ever imagine x10 jumps in front of the-lead-character and she's screams bloody murder!"

Well. That's what called bad writing. Of course it's bad. Read John Dies at the End if you want monsters with the scariest features written excellently.

Also, the best stories are character-driven. In a novel (1) it's much easier to enter a character's mind (2) you have a lot more time to get to know/bond with the character. Movies use character stereotypes/archetypes because 90 to 180 mins are not enough time to flesh out real characters. So they go with types people already know.

That's why a lot better storytelling format than movies are TV shows. But I would still think novels are the best.

Bladder size is irrelevant, after all, Barry Lyndon is 3 hours long and uncompromised on it's length because art isn't about the audience, it's about the artist and the statement.

We're dealing with hypotheticals and potential. Technology has no limits. It used to, but artists found ways of achieving things which are in their own right, inspiring. Take Eraserhead as an example. Low budget, but it still managed to create it's own universe vastly different from our own. And people STILL don't know how Lynch made the baby.

The best stories aren't character driven, they're theme/idea driven. 2001: A Space Odyssey, for example, doesn't even have a main character at all, instead it has vignettes. And the vignettes are about common themes.

Themes and ideas can translate into real life. Characters can only translate into real life when they are used to create themes and ideas. HAL9000 is a character that presents interesting ideas and themes, thus why people like him as a character. A character-driven story can still suck even if effective in being driven by characters

Novel's "character's mind" thing can be replaced by the following in movies:
1.) Voice over narration (often cheesy)

2.) Character perspective based non-verbal storytelling (in cases where films stay inside of the character's understanding of reality without giving winks to the audience).

3.) Surrealism (if surrealism is a good fit for the story being told, as is the case with any random David Lynch film which tell stories almost entirely through being inside of the character's mind. Examples including Eraserhead, Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive)

Bonding with the character doesn't really matter, because the character isn't what's important, they're just words on a page or a face on a screen. What they represent is what matters. I don't need to be convinced that a character is real, I need to be convinced that they matter because of what the artist is saying through the characters.

Movies CAN use stereotypes and archetypes, but so can books.
For example, Twilight was a book series first.

To say that movies use stereotypes because it's an inferior storytelling format is just stupid. You're applying a trait to some movies that doesn't apply to all. Either way, a stereotype or archetype can easily be used to make a commentary. Movies, at their best, present characters that stand for something that the artist is trying to say in such a way that keeps the storytelling consistent and interesting

Films like 2001 don't present a character and then quickly fill you in on the details. The characters appear fully fleshed out before you even encounter them and then it's your job, through details and gradual revealing of indirect characterization, to figure out the character's traits without the film spelling it out for you.

Books spell it out to you over 500 pages. Well, not all books, but there are still plenty of examples of film NOT spelling it out, and more importantly, not wasting your time. Growing to know and like a character shouldn't have to take 500 pages.

Edgar Allen Poe said if a book can't be read in one sitting, there's no reason to read it. Imagine watching a movie that goes on for 3 weeks... You wouldn't want to do that because it's a waste of time. Movies are shorter because film-makers are aware that wasting time on every last detail misses the point of storytelling as an art form, which is a concrete message and complete artistic and intellectual integrity towards that message. Books sacrifice intellectual integrity by forcing you to learn more details than are necessary to any themes.

Lynch and Poe present a story in a raw form that doesn't require a million details to work. The millions of details are irrelevant when the point is made more effectively in shorter amount of time and in more interesting ways.

TV shows are just drawn out movies for the most part. I can't think of a TV show that isn't a comedy that isn't garbage. I'm not saying it's impossible.

The best TV shows also carry heavy themes.
Xavier: Renegade Angel
Wonder Showzen.
Arrested Development is as good on average as those other two shows, but it's interesting for different reasons.
I also expect Louie to head more into this direction as the show progresses. It's hard to call Louie a comedy, it does a very good job at being dramatic, so we will see.


Here's a question: What can a book do that a movie can't?

Where your argument goes wrong is that you bring up art. The more artsy a movie is the less it is about telling a story. 2001 is not about storytelling, it's an audiovisual journey. You don't get a complete story out of it. The entire 30 minutes or so are up to your interpretation what to make of it. You also brought up surrealism. Surrealist movies don't tell stories either. It's about expression, not a narrative.

Movies use archetypes not because they are inferior, but because it's hard to tell a story in 90 to 180 minutes. So they have to compress. And they have to use themes people already are familiar with. Storytelling movies are genre films. Art house films are not focused on telling a story.

The notion that "The more artsy a movie is the less it is about telling a story" is absurd because expression and story are inherently intertwined. The more artsy a movie is, the MORE it is about telling a story because it gives more context TO the story (when well done). They circumvent conventional storytelling standards because those conventional storytelling standards compromise the key point of the story itself. The story, and the point, which is inseperable from a story, are what matters to an artsy film. It's just that the way it's told is a weird presentation.

You watch a surrealist art film like Eraserhead and a story is being presented to you indirectly. People want direct because they're dumb, but art films provoke people to not accept the dumb, direct storytelling boredom of most other things.

"John fell down a hole" is much less interesting than seeing someone fall down a hole. A novel can say "John fell down a hole", and a movie can show John falling down a hole. What makes the movie better is that within the same space of time, it can also use cinematography, editing, score, and acting to it's advantage. So while the novel has said "John fell down a hole", the film has created an atmosphere where you know whether to laugh or be frightened or be indifferent, all of these by design.

It all goes back to the phrase "a picture's worth a thousand words." Well a picture's a thousand words, and a film is a thousand pictures. So a film is thousands of words and it's also music and so much more.

My little brother's bone cut video on 2001 demonstrates how something as simple as an edit can tell so much more than a description from a book.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT8aPKcXDUk

You can say those are elements that are open to interpretation, but provoking thought is more admirable than spelling everything out.

The greatest of films expect more and offer more than any novel out there, so you can have your hand be held if it really helps you make it across the storytelling street, but I prefer to figure things out myself and not be told how to feel.


It's not hard to tell a story in 90 to 180 minutes. I've already told you a story that took you less than 2 seconds to read. Movies don't compress, books draw out.


2001 is not about an "audiovisual journey" alone, it's about everything that art is, including about storytelling. 2001 tells a story but Kubrick was interested in changing the storytelling form. Thus, the film's storytelling is matched by it's style. The film contains crypticism because it's partially ABOUT crypticism. The monolith is left open ended as to it's purpose or function because the story itself is open ended in that regard. As in, humanity doesn't quite understand what the monolith is in regards to the story so the film doesn't explain it. Think of it as the movie equivalent of a "3rd person limited" perspective.

As for the ending (which I assume you are talking about), it's not entirely left open to interpretation. Parts of it are and for good reason. Dave, the main character, is experiencing something unfathomable and cryptic in nature. Thus, the ending had to have been unfathomable and cryptic in nature. The ending also incorporates lots and lots of symbolism for a reason. First of all, how do you show the elevation of consciousness through evolution? Well when he showed the monkeys evolving, they were evolving to our level, to the early stages of man. He didn't show what it was like inside of their minds, but what the monkeys witnessed was most likely as intensely confusing and scary as the ending of the film. And when Dave, a human, evolves to a state beyond that of humanity, we finally get the revelation of what evolution looks like.

Are the events to be taken as literal events? Maybe, but they are symbolic regardless, and the symbolism is there to help the audience gradually come to an understanding of the meaning of the ending as Dave himself is doing. You can tell just by looking at the character that he is gradually coming to terms with the information being shown to him at a rapid pace. He is gradually understanding what's going on as we are doing the same.

If Kubrick had leveled with the audience and at any point explained what the ending was about, it would ruin the intellectual and emotional core of the film. The point of the film is evolution, and achieving higher levels of thought. He couldn't have helped people achieve higher levels of thought if he explained everything because then he's doing the thinking for the audience. It provokes thought because the film is ABOUT provoking thought. It confuses people because the film is ABOUT confusing people

It's when you make those connections, much like Dave did within the context of the film, that you get more out of the film than just about any other film out there. It's evolution of thought on screen, it's a story that has a point, and the two are inter-twined in such a way that both become lost on people not willing to sit still and pay extra close attention.

It doesn't make you feel smart, it demands that you become smart.


Again, What can a book do that a movie can't?
I know of the only answer, but I'm curious as to what you can come up with.

Please tell me the story of this film then:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lq6R7WHY85I

If you can't, your statement is wrong. And I challenge you to find a non-artsy movie that is NOT about storytelling. You will fail because the moment you take your focus off the story, the film starts to move towards the direction of art house. (e.g. The Shining or Lynch films, even some Cronenberg).

And you can stop with defending 2001, because it's one of my favorite movies, I know its strengths. Yet, they aren't storytelling strengths. In storytelling, the most important thing is to tell your story the most efficient, understandable and enjoyable way.

The goal there was never to tell a story, and it's not art. It's an experimental film, more like a scientific demonstration.

And I challenge you to find a non-artsy movie that is NOT about storytelling.

This only proves my point that they are intertwined...

You will fail because the moment you take your focus off the story, the film starts to move towards the direction of art house. (e.g. The Shining or Lynch films, even some Cronenberg).

Are you serious? Are you trying to say that The Shining and Lynch films do NOT focus on the story? You have to be kidding me. Everything 'artsy' that Kubrick and Lynch do only emphasizes the story beyond conventional methods.

And you can stop with defending 2001, because it's one of my favorite movies, I know its strengths.

You've made it fairly evident that you don't.

In storytelling, the most important thing is to tell your story the most efficient, understandable and enjoyable way.

Which is what Kubrick and Lynch do best...

Most films and books tell a story based on a rigid structure, an art film or book is something that transcends that structure because not all stories fall into neat piles.


Third time: What can a book do that a movie can't?

Dada /ˈdɑːdɑː/ or Dadaism was an art movement of the European avant-garde in the early 20th century.

It's art. The only sole purpose of this film is art.

Are you trying to say that The Shining and Lynch films do NOT focus on the story?

They do not have 100% focus on the story, but the picture. Story is just an exuse to make the film. Kubrick doesn't care about it, that's why he destructed it in a way that made Stephen King hate the movie.

Stephen King, the author of the book on which the movie was based, was quite disappointed in the final film. While admitting that Stanley Kubrick's visuals were stunning, he said that was surface and not substance. He often described the film as "A fancy car without an engine."

Stephen King has been quoted as saying that although Kubrick made a film with memorable imagery, it was not a good adaptation of his novel[39] and is the only adaptation of his novels that he could "remember hating".

Stephen King is a storyteller. Kubrick was not. So when Kubrick made a stunning piece of film, which totally cramped the story, King was mad.

You are funny...

According to Hans Richter, Dada was not art, it was "anti-art."

Stories are about messages/themes/ideas, and when Kubrick read the book version of The Shining, he found a message/theme/idea that resonated with him, one possibly not even intended by Stephen King, and he reconstructed the story to his liking so that they better suited the themes.

The Shining film is like a final draft compared to King's somewhat campy original. Kubrick took out the things that simply weren't scary or interesting and left a more minimalist story that's more heavily rooted in ideas than it is in generic, fill-in-the-cliche storytelling.

It's not that King hates it because it's less of a story, King hates it because it's a different story. He stripped out the parts of the story that were unnecessary to the idea that Kubrick wanted to tell. The end result is something that people care more about. The only time people even mention The Shining book anymore is in comparison to the movie. The movie is a timeless classic and the book simply isn't. Kubrick made a classic by making a better reinterpretation of the source material than what King had in mind. King's artistic vision usually sucks but he has some great ideas brewing between the garbage.

Kubrick was the one director who found better ideas and scrapped the ones that weren't as good, thus why it's the most famous and most highly regarded King adaptation, as well as among the top 5 most well respected horror films of all time, the horror genre not being one that's known for any sense of class or art. He brought meaning to the genre by not falling for King's usual traps.

Just because of this fact and the fact that he cut down story elements (that sucked), does not mean that Kubrick was not interested in telling a story. If he wasn't interested in telling a story, he would have gotten an office job. He's using stories to tell ideas, themes, and messages that stand for something more than an average story.

The longevity of an art work is mostly contingent upon the artist and their message, it's hardly ever because of the storytelling elements themselves. Story is a foundation to lay a much bigger picture on top, and novels negate this by making story more important than theme, thus making novels closer to escapism than art, at least not "art" in the sense that will matter in 50 years.


To quote Kubrick:

I don't have the slightest doubt that to tell a story like this, you couldn't do it with words. There are only 46 minutes of dialogue scenes in the film, and 113 of non-dialogue. There are certain areas of feeling and reality—or unreality or innermost yearning, whatever you want to call it—which are notably inaccessible to words. Music can get into these areas. Painting can get into them. Non-verbal forms of expression can. But words are a terrible straitjacket. It's interesting how many prisoners of that straitjacket resent its being loosened or taken off. There's a side to the human personality that somehow senses that wherever the cosmic truth may lie, it doesn't lie in A, B, C, D. It lies somewhere in the mysterious, unknowable aspects of thought and life and experience. Man has always responded to it. Religion, mythology, allegories—it's always been one of the most responsive chords in man. With rationalism, modern man has tried to eliminate it, and successfully dealt some pretty jarring blows to religion. In a sense, what's happening now in films and in popular music is a reaction to the stifling limitations of rationalism. One wants to break out of the clearly arguable, demonstrable things which really are not very meaningful, or very useful or inspiring, nor does one even sense any enormous truth in them.

Fourth time: What can a book do that a movie can't?

Book can spark up your imagination in a way that no movie can.

That's not true.

Let's do an exercise:
Give me some examples for a book sparking your imagination in a way that a movie can't, and I will try to match it with the movie equivalent.

Any book will do, movies don't give you freedom to imagine things. Instead, you'll see things as they're pictured in the movie.

I went over this needlessly extensively with brandan just about my discussion with 24.

You said the same thing twice, give me specific examples.

Dunno about specific examples because doesn't every book do just that, lets you picture things whereas movie does it for you. Also just for the record, most people think that the book-version of the story is better than the movie-version, haven't thought where that comes from but that's the way it is I suppose.

http://esreality.com/post/2555690/#pid2542822

Start here :)

Yea, but book gives you more freedom when it comes to imaging things and that's something a movie won't do no matter how you look at it D: And dunno about me or you but most people consider book > movie, heard that so many times.

ps. complete copy of my previous comment isn't it :l

Are you deliberately ignoring everything I previously said?

Most people are also stupid.

No I read what you pasted but it didn't change my reply single bit, those two things I stated are not very debatable are they.

You need to read the next 4-5 replies as well.

Couldn't disagree more. There are much fewer narrative options. For instance, doing first person narratives are not really cohorent w/o a voiceover narrative and that rarely works for movies.

Keyword: "rarely"
When it does, it's much more effective. Please read through my discussion with brandan and 24 :)

No thanks. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I agree that I'm right :)

Fine with me if you think you're right. But it is in your own interest, not mine, that you recognize you are wrong and start to appreciate the power of written language.

Please read our discussions. I believe I've made some good points.

i like you gogs but that's a dumb opinion gg no re

Please read through my troll-a-thon :)

I did, and I can only conclusively state based on the two books you DID recommend and your trollathon that you're predisposed to disliking books over movies and I'll tell you why.

First, you're a highly introverted (or, at least in your adolescence/teenage years) human being who has spent a significant amount of time on the computer. Reading to you was a chore you had to do in school and something you enjoyed when people were discussing things YOU enjoyed, like the best players of all time in TFC or conc maps or whatever. Reading is an introverts activity but when you're spending a significant time doing one solitary and quiet activity (computer nerdin') the idea of doing another is not something you're going to really want to do. You're going to seek out interaction. You read alone, but movies are a social thing.

Second, while you speak of 'immersing' yourself, which is easier to do with a movie because it occupies sight and sound which are the two main focal points of attention in humans, yeah movies have books on that regard, no doubt. But film in it's current form will in no way ever, EVER, replace books as the ultimate medium for the transfer of ideas. Films can make you tear up or smile or half rage at an asshole but books can make you think, which is far more important than any level of immersion. 'the art isn't about the audience, but the artist and the statement.'

Lastly, I hate all discussions containing the word 'art' or anything related to it because there's nothing more fucking annoying than the pretentious rabble who all have something different to say about the same fucking thing, all of which is irrelevant and meaningless.

No movie has ever made you think? Have you tried to dissect a Lynch/Kubrick film?

As for reading being a chore, yeah, it's pretty boring. But I do have ~10 books under my belt leisurely. It's not many at all, but this is all a moot point. I look at things without perspective. It's as close as I can get to objectivity.

I believe I've made a solid case. If you would like to disagree, that's fine with me.

But I do have ~10 books under my belt leisurely.

wow

thank you, thank you.

I'd like to thank me mum. Without her collection of ~5000 books I couldn't have done it. I'd also like to thank Frank Herbert for being probably the only person to make sci-fi books interesting. See you next year.

this is gonna boil down to subjective views. i'm glad you enjoy good movies :>

did you actually just say you've only ever read 10 books?

I've finished 10 books that I enjoyed. I've started maybe 40ish and they got boring.

not enough explosions for you?

Is that really the tactic you want to go with after I wrote pages about how great I think 2001: A Space Odyssey is?

I tried to get through your posts but reading is so boring, maybe you could reformulate them in the superior medium of film?

My brother's youtube got taken down :(
I was gonna link you a baller short film.

But yeah, I agree with everything you just said. Glad we're on the same frame.

malazan book of the fallen > game of thrones.

I tried to read Malazan, but honestly, it just seemed so one dimensional.

'one dimensional'

imo... its really bad to call malazan in this way ;]

First half of malazan is awesome, second half.. not so much.

However it is one dimensional, but this is not a bad thing because most fantasy, especially modern "gritty" fantasy is one dimensional. Older "farmboy happens to have magical powers and saves the world" fantasy is also one dimensional..

If I was to recommend books I would lean towards the newer authors who write this style. They are not doing ten book series, you get your fix in three books and the story is concluded. I used to recommend martin and erikson but not so much anymore. Even to people who like got tv.

Scott R Bakker Start reading here

Joe Abercrombie Start reading here

Both these authors write in a similar fashion to martin and erikson. Bakker is a bit cazier and strange, abecrombie is an easier read.

Both are worth reading, imo before erikson and especially martin (who may never finish..)

Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell was a fantasy book without being on dimensional :(

I enjoy Bakker and Abercrombie for the most part, curious how do you like Mark Lawrence?

I have not read him but he gets mentioned quite often..

I do notice you enjoyed sanderson, the only one of his I liked is first of stormlight. Mistborn not so much - I like twists but found them to be too much, right at the end of the trilogy.

Peter v brett gets recommended a lot as well. I have trouble working out what he wants his books to be. At times grimdark, modern fantasy style, at other times (in the same book) farmboy discovers magic sword and saves the world style. Not sure I would recommend or not.

I definitely recommend Lawrence, but like I said the third book in his trilogy is disappointing imo. As far as sanderson goes his best is definitely the first of stormlight, I'm looking forward to words of radiance next month. I thought warbreaker was pretty good and elantris decent...Mistborn was pretty good I thought but yea the end was kind of out there. I honestly didn't read any of Sanderson until he took over the wheel of time series for Jordan, because I thought The Gathering Storm and especially Towers of Midnight were the best books of the series other than the original Eye of the World. A Memory of Light kinda sucked though imo, just seemed like it was trying to throw it all together.

Heartbreak House - G. B. Shaw... It's incredible as a book, and even better acted, highly recommended. :)

La nuit des enfants rois - Bernard Lenteric.
I can't find the english name sorry, there is a bad animation movie called "the prodigies" inspired by the novel.

One of the best sci-fi story i've read yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prodigies_(film)

Discworld series

Currently reading an oldy in Dutch by Stephen King
de Ontsnapping which is Shawshank Redemption

The Wool series as far as sci-fi is one I can remember recently that I really enjoyed (I think it may be in the making for a movie), read so many cheap deals on kindle I lose track of them.

For fantasy I think someone already mentioned the Gentlemen Bastard sequence by Scott Lynch which was fairly memorable for me, Also the series by J.L. Doty comes to mind though I don't remember the name of the series. Also the Broken Empire trilogy by Mark Lawrence was excellent, though I thought the first two were much better than the third.

I've pretty much enjoyed anything by Brandon Sanderson as well, sci-fi or fantasy
Also Brent Weeks I've found to be thoroughly enjoyable, the Night Angel trilogy was awesome and his new Lightbringer series has been just as good

I think it's very different to the other books suggested here, but I strongly recommend "The Little Prince" by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. It's a circumstantial-philosophical short novel about the experiences of The Little Prince. It's just brilliant...(but don't expect a serious book)

Yeah, we all had to read that for our French class at school, was pretty $$$

I believe that should be €€€ =)

Anyone else got a GoodReads account?

malazan book of the fallen

10 books ><

check out lonesome dove. underrated american classic.

INFOCRACY

Byung-Chul Han
Infocracy
Digitization and the Crisis of Democracy

long time lost real democracy since tv + radio even more because of internet