The Song Fight Bulletin Board

c hack wrote:Ah, I see. Have you guys read the graphic novel "From Hell?" (No, the movie doesn't count -- they murdered it). In the GN, Alan Moore presents Jack the Ripper as a freemason who realises that these killings have to take place in order to advance the flow of time past the 18th century. The best part is that he did a crapload of research into the real Jack the Ripper and made it so everything in the book theoretically could've happened.

Great graphic novel. I actually liked the movie for what it was. But the most important word here is 'theoretically'. The simple truth is, like the JFK assination, we will never know. The problem I have with conspiracy theorists and those who go completely the other way to disprove them, is the psychological reasoning behind those who come up with them.

The facts we have in the Ripper case are the murders. Everything else is conjecture. 'Solving' the ripper case won't help the people who died. Imo, it's just trying to pin a little order onto the gaping chaos of the unknown, trying to make fact into some kind of God, that if only we look hard enough there's a pattern to everything. So JtR may have been a freemason, he may have been the crown prince, he may have been a blood-drinking lizard from the planet Antares. He may just have been a nutter. How does knowing change anything now?

Damn that reads a bit pretentious

j$

Jim of Seattle wrote:Ah, OK, you're really young after all. Just when I was starting to think you were mature beyond your years (sigh).....

I think David Sedaris is a terrific example of a mediocre writer people have gone all apoplectic over. I read one of his books. I didn't laugh much if at all.

It's a matter of taste, friend. I mean, he writes for the New Yorker, a pretty decent magazine for that sort of thing. Me, I'd say that Dan Brown is a good example of that, along with Hemingway. I have English major friends that hate Hemingway, love Sedaris, hate Dan Brown, ones that love Hemingway, are Sedaris-neutral-to-positive, positive on Dan Brown, ones that love Wilde and Joyce and think everything else is bollocks.

What I meant by my previous comment: Da Vinci Code seems like a novel written to be popular, and from what I've heard from my friends is that it's too clever by half. I like the Indiana Jones series of films, but I'm not going to pretend that they changed my life or that they have anything to do with reality. I see Da Vinci Code and I see something with very little chance to be anything much better than your average Dean Koontz or Tom Clancy novel.

I'm sick of stupid conjecture shit about the Catholic Church and the Illuminati and Mona Lisa's smile and freemasonry and etc. etc. Stigmata was shit, Tomb Raider was shit, Angels and Demons was shit, Left Behind was shit. That new Jerry Bruckheimer film, National Treasure, I have every reason to believe that'll be shit. I hate shit that acts intelligent but is about intelligent enough for me to figure out what's coming up five minutes ahead of the book or film. Sixth Sense didn't impress me, Unbreakable, Signs and The Village made me roll my eyes. The Others had a good enough cast that I was only a little annoyed with how things went down.

Then, whatever. I haven't read it, maybe I'd like it if I did, but I don't intend to read it. Make fun of me as you will.

tviyh wrote:anyway i read a book of short stories a while ago called "NAKED"

yes, David Sedaris wrote Naked.

Freudian Slip wrote:I don't really understand what you meant by the first statement(s). How does the mere act of reading someone else's ideas "make" YOU feel "clever"?

Uh, I'm operating on the assumption that there's a lot of people who like to figure out puzzles, like those in Da Vinci Code, and then feel good when they're proven correct. Example: My stepmom watches a lot of CSI and Law and Order, and is always projecting what's coming up. "That's the sweater that the murderer was wearing!" "No, he can't say that, because that proves he was at the scene of the crime!" That kind of shit. I always want to say "Jesus Christ, Robin, we fucking know, everybody that's seen anything ever and knows anything and has any power of deduction knows. Why the hell are you parroting this shit. Jesus. Jesus Christ." But I don't because I'm courteous. Anyway, point is, people like to figure things out, it makes them feel smart. Even if they're dumbasses who liked Oprah's Book Club until it started getting all Gabriel Garcia Marquez and John Steinbeck on them. Those kind of stay-at-home moms love that Da Vinci Code shit.

Hey, Jim, what Sedaris did you read? The man, in my opinion, is equally capable of boring tripe and seriously powerful writing.

c hack wrote:I'll skip it in favor of American Gods. Which, Rabid, is now next on my list, after I finish the 2nd Gunslinger book (and it looks like I'll have to check out The Talisman too).

Dude, flattered, thanks. Makes me want to write up some Tim Powers books on here (well, over there, you know?) to spread the good word.

Crabs. Heh.

Marcus, what, exactly, is wrong with "popular"? Popular means a lot of people are likely to enjoy it. Of course, there's "inexplicably popular", which I would agree with you is extremely vexing. But Da Vinvi Code is not inexplicably popular.

Basically, your arguments are based on your impressions of other people's impressions of the book, so they don't hold a lot of water.

Jon, I don't remember which Sedaris book it was. Might have been Naked, or Me Talk Pretty. If I remembered any of the stories from it someone could tell me, but I don't. If someone said "Did it have a story about such-and-such", then I could deduce it. It was about 5 years ago.

Rabid Garfunkel wrote: Dude, flattered, thanks. Makes me want to write up some Tim Powers books on here (well, over there, you know?) to spread the good word.

Tim Powers = genius. 'Nuff said.

j$

Jim of Seattle wrote:I don't remember which Sedaris book it was. Might have been Naked ...
If someone said "Did it have a story about such-and-such", then I could deduce it.

well "naked" is the only one i have read, and i particularly remember there was a story about visiting a nudist colony. i think it sticks in my mind so much because he mentioned a few times how all their literature and communication emphasised the need to bring a towel, and he couldn't figure out why, until he got there and saw all the furniture and etc. was covered with little curly black hairs.

Hey forget all other half-baked ideas about history - I have conclusive proof there was NO history before the middle ages (except they'll have to be renamed the First Ages obviously)

http://www.new-tradition.org/

*insert page long precis of dodgy website with slight anti-semetic undertones here*

j$

DELETED

...I did read Dan Brown's "Digital Fortress" on the way down to SF Hot and Bothered, and it totally soured me on Brown.

The characters were poorly developed and mostly just pieced together from stereotypes. What would, in a better-written book, be "twists of plot" turned into something more like the expected weaving and bobbing from a drunk driver.

The central "technical" premise of the book is just silly, though... Mr. Brown has become too comfortable with the "biological analogies" that people make between computer viruses and infectious diseases, and ends up writing this book in which computer viruses are architecture-neutral and can "infect" computers by being exposed to them as data. It's really frustrating, and though it sounds like I'm harping on a techncial point, it's so fundamentally important to the whole plot that it's simply inexcusable. I live in fear that my Customers are going to read this kind of stuff and develop idiotic notions about how computer viruses work 'cuz, ya' know, that guy who wrote "The Da Vinci Code" wrote a book about them. *sigh*

I just finished Angels and Demons, and I thought it was pretty good. It felt similar to Da Vinci Code in that there was an obviously large amount of research involved in the project. The book is full of information, to say the least.

It felt different from the Code, though, in that this novel didn't seem to have as much of an agenda as the Code did. It's more of.... a novel. The Da Vinci Code got me all pissed off and ready to fuck some shit up, but this book just made me go "ahh, what a nice story."

I don't know. Many of the same elements were there, it just didn't have the same effect. Granted, some of the conspiracy-theory stuff was enlightening, but in the end it was just a story, and not much more.

Overall, I'd say it's a good book, but it certainly deserves the amount of hype it's gotten - which is to say - none.

just bought The DV Code...it's pretty good so far...the short short chapters make for weird pacing...'course, everything seems weird (reading wise) since House of Leaves...

the sober irishman wrote:I just finished Angels and Demons, and I thought it was pretty good.

i bought that for my mom for xmas (because i know she liked TDVC so much) -- so when she finished reading it (A&D) she told me i should check it out. i think i read about 200 pages that night, and the remaining 300 or so the next night. i thought it was really fascinating with all the historical information (however much of it was made up, though, i don't know) linked together via all the (supposedly accurately described) artwork and architecture and stuff, and the way all these little details come together to drive the plot. also the mystery and intrigue (thinking several times i knew who was behind it all, and when i thought it all finally made sense, everything gets totally flipped upside down at the end... don't want to say more and risk giving it away). anyway as you said, sober, it seems not quite so much conspiracy theory oriented, as just a intricately pieced together novel, but anyway a really worthwhile (and fastpaced) read.

NOTE: this is coming from somebody who has not read the davinci code ... (that'll be next on my to-do list)

Just finished da Vinci Code - good yarn, badly written.

Dan Brown must be the luckiest bastard alive. He's nicked a thesis straight from Holy Blood, Holy Grail and poorly fictionalised it with one-dimensional characters. Suddenly he's a literary phenomonon. The books a good read, no doubt about it, but it's nothing to go silly over.

The Harry Potter hysteria I can understand. JK Rowling writes beautifully. Dan Brown is nowhere near her class.

oK. I just finished TDC a few days ago, and there is a noticeable hole in my daily routine now. Like many, I could NOT put this book down...it accompanied me everywhere in my home...if you were talking to me at the dining room table, don't look away for even an instant, 'cuz I might have time to pick up the book again...

That said...it wasn't brilliant. It contained alot of really neat tidbits, enough facts to give it cred., but it suffered from a lack of depth somehow. It felt like the kind of book you might buy while waiting for a plane, you know those cheap but good-to-kill-some-time kind of books...only this one I just couldn't stop. The subject matter is the reason why it's so insanely popular, that and I think the short chapters make it easy to pick up and put down, another plus for the masses. Dan Brown is pretty clever with his tense, the-shit's-gonna-hit-the-fan kind of brewing trouble that lay like a dirty carpet all through this book.

But I've read much better written novels. This one seems to make really good use of novel writing tools-n-tricks to keep the pages turning, and for most people, that equates a really kick ass book.

As it was, in the grand scheme of books I've read, I give this one only half a kicked ass. Which means that I'll definitely read more Dan Brown, until I read a real stinker, then, like King, I won't read him anymore.

I was going to pick up TDC when the guy at the book counter told me that he thought Dan Brown's first book that first features the hero in TDC was better. So I grabbed it to take a gander. Reminded me of an upped Robert Ludlum on many levels. Better in many ways. Definitely hard to put down. Good plots and twists. Fun airplane fodder. If Angels and Demons is anything like TDC I'll prolly read it, but I think I'm gonna wait til it comes out on paper back. I'll have to reserve judgement until I read it. Might be soon. Kind of know what to expect though.

This is hilarious. This linguist dude is going off on it because it's very bad. He continues on here, here, and here.

as a "linguist" he thoroughly discredits himself by including the following sentence in the footnote on the first page:

I just wish one of them was me.

[edit: in an attempt to curtail any discussion that may stem from this comment, i'd like to say that in my opinion the sentence should have been worded "i just wish i were one of them" but possibly it could be more correct a different way or possibly the original COULD be considered correct although i personally don't think it is. i know the songfight community in general is infamous for ranting for three pages on a point like this, so i am hereby disclaiming any and all responsibility in the event such a rant should commence.]

Use of the subjunctive makes people hate you. Failing to use the subjunctive makes people like you. Early mixtapes with Skee-Lo's "I Wish I Were a Little Bit Taller" had to be scrapped when people he didn't even know would drive by him and tell him he was a short little bitch.

15-16 puzzle wrote:Use of the subjunctive makes people hate you. Failing to use the subjunctive makes people like you. Early mixtapes with Skee-Lo's "I Wish I Were a Little Bit Taller" had to be scrapped when people he didn't even know would drive by him and tell him he was a short little bitch.

It's only important if you set yourself up as someone who cares about that sort of thing. So when you screw it up, people are perfectly justified in pointing out your mistake and laughing at you.

I wish I had a girl. If I did, I would call her.

True, but just because he's a linguist doesn't mean he has to be a linguist who refuses to believe that language changes. Either way you get laughed at: if you use the subjunctive, people will laugh at you for being a smartypants grammar nazi, and if you don't use it, smartypants grammar nazis will laugh at you for calling yourself a linguist.

It's much easier to get people to agree that "kaleidoscope of power" is an awful turn of phrase. We can all agree with that.

I AM A UNITER NOT A DIVIDER

tviyh wrote:as a "linguist" he thoroughly discredits himself by including the following sentence in the footnote on the first page:

I just wish one of them was me.

I'm no linguist myself (J$ back me up/discredit me here), but it looks like he's using the passive tense, which is a big no-no, prolly the biggest one from Strunk & White. Of course, you took it out of context. If he was like:

"One of them was smart, one of them was good-looking, and one of them was strong. I just wish one of them was me."

Then that would be perfectly fine, cause it fits stylistically.

As for was vs. were, I've never been able to figure out which one goes where.