The Most Overrated Books Showing 2,151-2,200 of 5,680

[Daniel]

There's also another thing: even if we were to concede that something is "just a story", that does not preclude further analysis. After all, what is a story anyway? Stories have certain mechanisms which they use in order to successfully get from A to B. Even if an author writes for no ulterior motive, he must exhibit some "analyzable" technique in his writing.

[Ron]

I would also like to add that kids also need to be taught that sometimes a story is "just a story" and that reading can be fun

[Ron]

Dan, define Analyzable technique

[Daniel]

Sure. A very handy method I was taught a couple of years ago consists of dividing a story in 7 parts. I'll try with Gatsby:

-Synopsis of the anecdote, with no interpretations of judgments on your part (Nick Carraway narrates his relationship with a reclusive and millionaire neighbor)
-Themes (nostalgia, the american dream, crime & corruption, etc.)
-Symbols & Motifs (the green light, Gatsby's shirts, Gatsby's white suit, etc.)
-time structure; is it linear, fragmented...? (this one's pretty linear)
-characters: how do they look physically, how do they behave, and what is their voice? Why? (this is too long to do here)
-narrator: is he/she inside the story or outside of it? to what degree? (Carraway here is a witness narrator; he is inside the story, but not at its center)
-style: how does the writer write? does it feel poetic? journalistic? (I'd say Gatsby's prose is elegant and melancholic, for example)

Now, do I know why did Fitzgerald write Gatsby? Not really. He might have been trying to make a buck for all I know. But the way he wrote this story tells us something about the way literature works, and that should be analyzed.

[Carrie]

Geoffrey wrote: "Lucie wrote: "Karen wrote: "As I Lay Dying was absurdly funny; disturbing also. That's why I love Faulkner; his books have everything, dark humor and tragedy, not necessarily in that order but at t..."

As I've said before, I love Faulkner. I love the dark humor. I like being uncomfortable and disturbed. His books do that for me.

[Anne Hawn]

Unfortunately, if they haven't learned that reading can be fun by the time they reach high school, then it is unlikely that they will learn it in English class. Not impossible, but highly unlikely. Since they probably won't like anything they have to read anyway, the teachers should concentrate on what they need to learn since this may be the only chance they have them captive. The other kids who do think reading can be fun will just get more out of their reading by being taught how to read and understand literature.

[Ron]

thanks Dan. I see what you're getting at, but I simply don't do that. I'm guessing a lot of people probably do, but I'm all about the story. I simply don't care what the politics, environment, social, economic, etc factors are. take L.Frank Baum's the wizard of oz, Apparently it was written about economics I can't remember exactly what it was but it had to do with silver and gold. I don't care. the story stands on its own as quality entertainment.

[Renee E]

Reading has some commonalities with sex.

Sometimes you do it just for fun and sometimes there's more to it than recreation.

[Ron]

Love the analogy Renee

[Ron]

time for bed. thanks for the discussion it was fun to hear all of your opinions. who knows you may have influenced mine, but I still love a story simply for the joy of the read. Not that studying one doesn't also have merit.

night

Ron Scheer

[Gary]

I once jokingly presented the theory that Winnie the Pooh is about the nature of 19th century British Imperialism. It's funny, but if you think about it, it makes sense. Pooh is the generally ineffectual British government; he's kind of Winston Churchill as a youth. Owl the moribund education system. Eeyore is the listless and basically doomed royals and nobles. Kanga is the Church of England. Roo is the colonial peoples. Rabbit is the business/economic system, particular the East India Corporation. Tigger is, of course, the black man. Christopher is the British public. Hunny is money....

My point in bringing this up is that there's probably no such thing as "just a story." Stories have an extra-textual quality. Consider the classic example of facts versus story:

The king died and then the queen died.

The king died and then the queen died of a broken heart.

Were it "of a heart attack" rather than "of a broken heart" it'd still be just a set of facts. The broken heart makes it an entertainment because it's emotive and symbolic, which opens it up to a whole range of things that are more than the plot, character list and descriptions.

Some stories are, no doubt, more meaningful than others, but I don't think there are any stories that exist in a bubble as "just stories" per se.

[Karen]

Carrie wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "Lucie wrote: "Karen wrote: "As I Lay Dying was absurdly funny; disturbing also. That's why I love Faulkner; his books have everything, dark humor and tragedy, not necessarily in th..."

Haha! Yes, if you're uncomfortable being uncomfortable don't read Faulkner.

[Karen]

Anne Hawn wrote: "Unfortunately, if they haven't learned that reading can be fun by the time they reach high school, then it is unlikely that they will learn it in English class. Not impossible, but highly unlikely..."

I agree with you, but I think it was me who stated in an earlier post that many students who are required to read a certain book and take a test on it are ambivilent towards literature. This does not mean they should not be required to read it. Good lit teachers can make most books fun to read for these students, I really believe that, and I have seen it happen.

[[deleted user]]

Anne Hawn wrote: "Kallie wrote: "And a lot of people get their lifelong names from their initials: T.J., A.C., etc. Yeah, and I remember the front porch stories of an evening, an uncle telling me grisly stories whil..."

You make me want to travel to the South for couple of months and meet the natives. Such fun!

[[deleted user]]

Karen wrote: "Anne Hawn wrote: "Unfortunately, if they haven't learned that reading can be fun by the time they reach high school, then it is unlikely that they will learn it in English class. Not impossible, b..."

Maybe the trick to make people read is telling them NOT to. I taught myself how to read age 4, and my whole family spent a lifetime telling me to stop reading and go out, play with other kids, do sports.My elderly mother is stil; telling me every time I talk to her that I read too much, and that is why I have ( quite major)problems with my eyesight.
But I am still reading!
A lot!

[Kallie]

Anne H. wrote:
It's a little hard to understand why we feel that kids should just read what they like. Do they get to only do algebra or geometry problems that they like? Do they only study the parts of history that are fun, the Roaring 20's and skip all the boring parts like the framing of the Constitution? Do they only do the science experiments and not study the textbook?

I think that is part of the recent philistine emphasis on 'practical' learning (education leading to science, technology, product innovation, business -- making money) exerting it's far too important emphasis on American education. The result: many Americans see studying literature as a sort of frill. They will read the latest Tom Clancy clone or whatever genre they consume but don't want a book to bother their heads or disturb their feelings because they are tired from the required 40+ hours of work their jobs demand.

[Cosmic]

Anne Hawn wrote: "Cosmic wrote: "Anne Hawn wrote: "I personally did find the southerners to be conformist and want you to conform as well. Perhaps it isn't apparent when you all ready fit into the mold. But this is ..."

One of the books that really gave me a different feel for the south was the book Of Courage Undaunted (I hope this is the Lewis and Clark story).

Anyway, do you remember that Nixon said that if you could win the south political you could become president? I thought a lot about this. The south of course looked different in 1970 than it does today. It was more black and white with few foreigners from the north or immigrant. I was raised in the South and have moved back a couple of times. I have lived all over the Northeast and Oregon and Northern California. I spent some time living in fly over but like the edges better.

Anyway what I think is interesting about the south is all the military bases. More patriotism both for the country and for their football teams. A homogenized society that is suspicious of outsiders. That says "you all come back" or "we will see you later" but doesn't mean it. We just are very polite. We say and do the right thing but I am not sure where their heart is...except at church and duty. We worry about what people will think...but not all people. They talk about racism in the South but I saw that there was more in the North, because there were more ethnic groups. We just saw black and white. We didn't have neighborhoods of immigrants. We worshipped (majority here) one God. We believed in one book. We carried with us the same programming. We didn't take original ideas that challenged these basic cultural tenets lightly, but saw them as a threat to our way of life. I am stereotyping of course. But this is the stereotype that you will see on TV. I guess the book Undaunted Courage kind hit home how these people were from the south for many generations. They identified with the land(The Idiot) and so we're more patriotic. They spoke with a southern accent but could you say they spoke with a French or Italian accent? No they even had an identity in that...which makes it hard for them to get out of the South and be taken seriously.

These are my observations and are not meant to be taken as fact. You may go to the South and find a different experience (example Huntsville, AL doesn't have as much of a southern feel to it because it has more transient types that have influenced the area, starting with rocket scientist.

[Cosmic]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Re: Cosmic and Hamlet

Hamlet is a Dane not a Saxon. The Danes and Saxons are historically enemies, but at the time of the play England is ruled by the Saxons. Hamlet's uncle the king sends him to ..."

I think unread this...

The Saxons (Latin: Saxones, Old English: Seaxe, Old Saxon: Sahson, Low German: Sassen, German: Sachsen, Dutch: Saksen) were a confederation of Germanic tribes on the North German Plain, most of whom settled in large parts of Great Britain in the early Middle Ages and formed part of the merged group of Anglo-Saxons that would eventually carve out the first united Kingdom of England.[1] Some Saxons remained in Germany, where they resisted the expanding Frankish Empire through the leadership of the semi-legendary Saxon hero, Widukind.

In WW1 the British crown distanced themselves from get by changing their name http://german.about.com/library/bltri...

Here is everything that I think about the football game in The Catcher In The Rye.

1. It is the first game mentioned, the next sport is fencing and then the talk about how life is a "game".

2. You are suppose to do a cheer. And since it was a home team there were more Pencey Prep students there than the Saxon Hall.

3. You were suppose to commit suicide if old Pencey didn't win. Sound fatalistic. Sound like a war, to me.

4. What I really like is the reference to Shirley Temple and the broken record. Shirley Temple's first movie was called Stand Up And Cheer. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_...!

It was released in 1934 and was a propaganda piece before the war even started. So it show a plan of intent to go to war.

This is a broken record and Salinger hints at this in another musician mentioned
http://carrington.wikia.com/wiki/Este...

Her big hit was "We're Off to Cuba".

The Catcher In The Rye was first printed in 1945 with some changes in the 1946 and 1951 edition. (I don't know what they are it is just simply stated in the front of the book.)

Clearly no one was thinking about Cuba...right? But then ten years (from 1951 at least) and we are talking about The Bay Of Pigs and what a great threat Cuba is.

In the bookDecadence: And Other Essays on the Culture of Ideas it says:

"The Latins, who made great use of the word liberty, meant by it the privilege of the Roman citizen. It is seen that there is often an enormous gap between the common meaning of a word and its real
significance in the depths of obscure verbal consciousnesses, whether because several associated ideas are ex-ressed by a single word, or because the primitive idea has been submerged by the invasion of a secondary
idea. It is thus possible—especially in dealing with
generalizations—to write sentences having at once an
apparent and a secret meaning. Words, which are
signs, are almost always ciphers as well. The unconscious conventional language is very much in use, and there are even matters where it is the only one employed. But cipher implies deciphering."

[Renee E]

Cosmic wrote: "Anne Hawn wrote: "Cosmic wrote: "Anne Hawn wrote: "I personally did find the southerners to be conformist and want you to conform as well. Perhaps it isn't apparent when you all ready fit into the ..."

...A homogenized society that is suspicious of outsiders. That says "you all come back" or "we will see you later" but doesn't mean it. We just are very polite. We say and do the right thing but I am not sure where their heart is...except at church and duty. ...

And don't forget the litany that lets you know someone's getting ready to say something snide about a friend or acquaintance: "bless her/his heart . . ." If a southerner looks at you and says, "bless your heart," it's not a good thing, lol.

[Petergiaquinta]

Catcher was published in 1951. Those two earlier dates are publication dates of three or four short stories with Holden Caulfield that more or less became chapters in Catcher. You might want to read them; I dunno if they'd help with your theories, but they definitely provide insight into the mind of Salinger as he is working Catcher toward publication. They were published in the New Yorker and Colliers, I think. Also you might want to check out the unpublished story "An Ocean Full of Bowling Balls," or something like that. It's floating around the Web. You can find it on a number of pirate websites. The portrayal of Holden there is curious.

[Cosmic]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Uh...Twain was being a bit facetious when he said that. He was a funny guy, dealt in a bit of irony, understatement, overstatement even...but you knew that, right?"

Glad you said this.

[Cosmic]

Gary wrote: "I once jokingly presented the theory that Winnie the Pooh is about the nature of 19th century British Imperialism. It's funny, but if you think about it, it makes sense. Pooh is the generally ine..."

I love your interpretation on WinnieWinnie-the-Pooh

I wonder how much it differs from Disney?

I would think quite a bit!

The The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is another one that has a story but also one that needs to be ciphered. Dorothy shoes were silver and not red. The video The Secrets of Oz talks about the symbolism in the book. But if we were to go with the ruby red shoes do you think it would be war? Seems like it to me. Not something that Baum was talking about at all...but does seem to have something to do with gold.

I liked the "honey is the money". Now I want to read it again.

Another interesting way of viewing these books is YouTube video....Dark Side Of the Moon and the Wizard of Oz or Alice in Wonderland.

Would love to create a list of these kinds of allegories. A story for children and adults.

Oh, yeah don't miss Bambi

[Cosmic]

Karen wrote: "Anne Hawn wrote: "Unfortunately, if they haven't learned that reading can be fun by the time they reach high school, then it is unlikely that they will learn it in English class. Not impossible, b..."

Maybe they shouldn't test the students. Maybe this is where education fails. They test because it makes the educational system feel significant but is it really good for the student? Does it provide a quality education? Are there not better ways for a student to demonstrate knowledge?

This is what the book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values was about. We have a lot of test but only don't think that proves learning. I think it does just the opposite it proves testing.

[Cosmic]

Lucie wrote: "Karen wrote: "e the trick to make people read is telling them NOT to. I taught myself how to read age 4, and my whole family spent a lifetime telling me to stop reading and go out, play with other kids, do sports.My elderly mother is stil; telling me every time I talk to her that I read too much, and that is why I have ( quite major)problems with my eyesight.
But I am still reading!
A lot! ..."

We don't need everyone to be a classical literature major. We need some people to invent things. Some to be artist. Some to tell stories, even the classical stories so that those that don't feel they have time can benefit. But this ideal that this set of facts needs to be poked into these heads is dehumanizing.

Reading is a skill. Some people do not develop this skill right away. Others do not develop it to the proficiency that makes them able to read literature with all the extra-textual qualities.

School is like a god that wants to create man in its own image. It started out for the religious sect and the same priestly attitude reign. Teaching kids to seek an expert (image) rather than understanding.

Well I m procrastinating. I need to clean house so I will get off this soap box.

My suggestion to all of you is to read Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling

[Gary]

Cosmic wrote: "The The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is another one that has a story but also one that needs to be ciphered. Dorothy shoes were silver and not red. The video The Secrets of Oz talks about the symbolism in the book. But if we were to go with the ruby red shoes do you think it would be war? Seems like it to me. Not something that Baum was talking about at all...but does seem to have something to do with gold."

The book is all about economic puns, but I'm pretty confident the movie is a Freudian dream/nightmare. The shoes are a good example. They are silver in the book (because they represent coinage) but turn into "ruby slippers" in the film and are, symbolically, the onset of Dorothy's menses or the loss of her virginity....

Aside from having Judy Garland walking around lisping like a little girl, there's a whole bunch of actual dialogue is particularly funny if you consider the innuendos:

Miss Gulch: [stopping bicycle and getting off] Gale?

Uncle Henry Gale: Well, howdy, Miss Gulch.

Miss Gulch: [comes into the Gales' yard] I want to see you and your wife right away about Dorothy!

Uncle Henry Gale: Dorothy? Well, what has Dorothy done?

Miss Gulch: What she's done? I'm all but lame from the bite on my leg!

Uncle Henry Gale: Oh! You mean she bit you?

Miss Gulch: No, her dog!

Uncle Henry Gale: Oh, she bit her dog, eh?

[Uncle Henry tries to shut the gate, but it hits her on the backside]

Miss Gulch: [exasperated] No!

[Cosmic]

M.R. wrote: "Sorry, I have no sympathy for that argument. 1) kids are always going to hate being assigned something if they don't enjoy going to shcool; tough -- they're there to learn, whether they like it or not.

This is why schools are not the best place to learn. They are threatening to the spirit of the curious which is what a child needs to have to learn.

"2) Being exposed to literature actually introduces some kids to things they never realized they'd like, even though they may not be able to admit that at the time."

Cosmic: Being exposed to something is different from being assigned and tested. Wonder if a child could pick all of his reading material and it was ok by Tue teacher but not assigned? Just like we do here on Goodreads?

"3) We're talking about adolescents here: they're flooded with hormones, and their brains' logic circuits won't finish growing in until they're 21 or 22; why on earth would we assume they're making any sense? "

Cosmic: I think kids are making a lot of sense. They see the disconnection between their teachers reality and theirs. I don't think teachers have taken up to the fact they can no longer say do this and this and this and we promise you a McCastle with a blond princess and Mercedes-Benz. They don't offer the salvation they used to.

"More likely, kids are simply more distracted than they used to be, and reading literature competes with texting, video games, and preening before your peers. The answer isn't to stop assigning them literature to read but to start limiting their TV time before they get to school and keep exposing them to a lot of different books instead, ban video games at home, and stop giving them cell phones before they're 18. The preening before peers you won't be able to do anything about: that's part of growing up. ..."


Cosmic: School monopolies most of a child's time. The rest of the time is used to decompress from being in school. They don't have the motivation to involve themselves in anything because that time is given to the educators too, in the form of homework. Schools micro manage children and families. How is that freedom in education?

School teaches disassociations rather than associations. Because everything is broken down and disjointed. Bell undermine the child's ability to concentrate on one thing for as long as he wants. Distractions reign. For some of us school was a terrible place to learn.

I invite all of you to make a list of the things that you know that you can talk intelligently about with another person in that field. Now beside each of those place a check mark if you learned that in school. Now does this justify the amount of time wasted in school?

[Karen]

Cosmic wrote: "M.R. wrote: "Sorry, I have no sympathy for that argument. 1) kids are always going to hate being assigned something if they don't enjoy going to shcool; tough -- they're there to learn, whether the..."

Invitation declined.

[Gary]

Karen wrote: "This is probably funnier than I think it is because I am not getting something. I am a bit dense sometimes, which adds to my charm."

Miss Gulch is gay.... In the Freudian dream to follow, she'll turn into the Wicked Witch and will try to steal Dorothy's Ruby Slippers (virginity/womanhood.)

"I'll get you, my pretty, and your little dog too!"

[Cosmic]

Karen wrote: "Cosmic wrote: "M.R. wrote: "Sorry, I have no sympathy for that argument. 1) kids are always going to hate being assigned something if they don't enjoy going to shcool; tough -- they're there to lea..."

Invitation declined? I didn't say anything about sharing it with the group. But maybe it feels threatening to you somehow?

[Kallie]

I invite all of you to make a list of the things that you know that you can talk intelligently about with another person in that field. Now beside each of those place a check mark if you learned that in school. Now does this justify the amount of time wasted in school?

Yep.

[Cosmic]

Gary wrote: "Cosmic wrote: "The The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is another one that has a story but also one that needs to be ciphered. Dorothy shoes were silver and not red. The video The Secrets of Oz talks about ..."

I missed it to but after your insightful explanation got it.

[Petergiaquinta]

Cosmic wrote: "Maybe they shouldn't test the students. Maybe this is where education fails. They test because it makes the educational system feel significant but is it really good for the student? Does it provide a quality education? Are there not better ways for a student to demonstrate knowledge?"

Ah, but right now public schooling is all about testing, and there's little else that administration is interested in than testing, testing, testing, and the worst sort of testing, too: standardized, objective testing on "skills," the most sorry development that has occurred in the history of public education since the administrators of Athens administered hemlock to Socrates.

But I shouldn't jest. Incredible numbers of school days are being eaten up by pre-testing, formative assessments, summative assessments, etc., etc., ad nauseum. In the high school English classroom, two to three novels have been dropped per year to make way for these precious tests. And, if you speak to a teacher when an administrator is not within earshot, he'll tell you that very little of it really matters.

These foolish tests are given to gather the all-precious data to the detriment of teaching anything remotely close to the "quality" that Pirsig invokes in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Sure the administration wants to find out if the students are learning, you betcha. But how? By destroying the autonomy of classroom teachers to focus on what they think is beneficial for their particular students...by creating a uniform, lock-step curriculum that enables the ease of obtaining objective data...by taking away three-plus weeks of teaching time in the classroom to administer these inane tests. And what's the result? Kids sure aren't getting any smarter, are they?

If you think I'm overstating what's going on, you don't know much about what is happening these days in the sorry realm of public education.

"Quality"? Ha!!!

[Karen]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Ah, but right now public schooling is all about testing, and there's little else that administration is interested in than testing, testing, testing, and the worst sort of testing, too: standardize..."

I don't think you are overstating at all, I work in a middle school. The problem,as you know, has not much to do with teachers, it's the Department of Ed.

[Renee E]

Don't forget the funding extortion: arbitrary, sillydamn test scores not high enough, federal funds withheld.

Frank Zappa made a lucid observation about education: "If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want an education, go to the library."

[Petergiaquinta]

Cosmic wrote: "Now beside each of those place a check mark if you learned that in school. Now does this justify the amount of time wasted in school?"

But there's a mistake in thinking logically here about what the role of schooling is and where knowledge comes from. If you are asking a 50-year-old how much of his life's sum total knowledge he learned in school, well obviously the 38 years out of school outweigh the 12 in school, so that's an illogical question to ask. If you ask a 15-year-old, then it's a very different response.

But even more so, the point of schooling is not to fill a kid's head full of knowledge that he will take with him the rest of his life, not needing to learn anything else. It's a starting point for a lifetime of learning. And I'd suggest that what a student "learns" in school that's really important isn't the "book learning." It's figuring out one's place in the world; it's learning to listen, something kids today aren't going to get anywhere else; it's learning to sit still and shut the eff up, a valuable lesson for the rest of one's years; it's learning to assert oneself, play with others who are different from oneself, feel uncomfortable in a relatively safe place; it's about doing things that would otherwise be impossible: play an instrument, be on stage, go out for a sport, sing...what a kid learns in school is essentially the foundation for everything else they do for the rest of their lives. And the "learning" in books is just a small part of that.

[Petergiaquinta]

And "homework" is an essential part of the learning process. How else could a novel be studied in class? How else can math be learned without practice? There's a horrible tendency for schools to devalue homework right now, as well. And that's not helping kids one bit.

[Cosmic]

Anne Hawn wrote: "Ron wrote: "the comment Literature is never just about the story isn't true In fact Mark Twain / Samuel Clemens even made the comment that his books were only stories and should not be interpreted ..."

I have been thinking about Huckelberry Finn. He represents freedom. All the different people/situations that he comes in contact those institutions that would encroach on his freedom...including school. He found his identity outside of the classroom and in the real world. There are preachers, swindlers, and family feuds (isn't that what these wars are? You killed someone in my family and I am going to get even.) To name a few.

I think I would opt for The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn over Tom Sawyer.

But since you had to teach to the test maybe you couldn't point out all the things that are like real life. This is the problem of the test. They test the answers that the student is suppose to believe are true. This stifles creativity and the ability to think.

[Cosmic]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "And "homework" is an essential part of the learning process. How else could a novel be studied in class? How else can math be learned without practice? There's a horrible tendency for schools to de..."

Well what do you think Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values would say about this? If you didn't have test or grades then you could also do away with homework.

[Asab]

Maria wrote: "Which books do you think are overrated?

Here's a quick sampling from various internet sites that recommend skipping these:
The Catcher in the Rye
Moby Dick
The Great Gatsby
Waiting for Godot
The..."

Greetings,
how can you even put twilight and the da vinci code on the same list as the others? Apart from personal taste, the other books are modern classics, reading them i don't think can be a waste of time as long as we consider the importance of philosophical reflection.
I didn't read the two books above, and i won't; of the list i read the catcher, moby dick, the gg, the stranger, i don't know what kind of book is atlas shrugged. As for ulysses, I started reading at the university, in italian, long before forming an habit in reading books in the original language. I have a vague sense that i will have to return to it. That's almost my view of the question.
As for the catcher in the rye, i read it at college; sometimes i have a vague feeling that the emotions it provoked in me were of a ephemeral nature, i was adolescent etc. After i read the nine stories, zoe, i can say that i don't like the stories but i like the writing.
We can't even consider da vinci code and twilight, it's insulting to literature, to the writers who suffered for the books they wrote.
Here is it, i won't cancel it.

Kind Regards

[[deleted user]]

Well over rated means " thought of better than it is".
While I personally do not consider Twilight or Da Vinci Code as high literature it is most likely also over rated as light entertainment.

I like some of the other books and do not agree they are over rated, but then I am sure some people would say the same about Twilight or Da Vinci Code

[Paul Martin]

Asab wrote: We can't even consider da vinci code

One day in the not so near future we will probably witness the invention of a story-generator; some sort of machine that can mass produce generic plots and characters for the money making bestsellers. The publishing houses won't need any editors, agents or even authors. Just a big machine spewing out unlimited amounts of crime, romance, fantasy and whatnot.

Or (view spoiler)[maybe not. (hide spoiler)]

[Karen]

Paul Martin wrote: "Asab wrote: We can't even consider da vinci code

One day in the not so near future we will probably witness the invention of a story-generator; some sort of machine that can mass produce generic p..."

Well, how far into the future do you think this will start? I viewed your spoiler alert but there was no information.

[Paul Martin]

Karen wrote: "Well, how far into the future do you think this will start?

Never, I think. But auto-generated storylines could, in time (and with the right technology), become normal. Will that make authors redundant? Probably not, seeing how TV and computers failed to do so.

[Cosmic]

Paul Martin wrote: "Asab wrote: We can't even consider da vinci code

One day in the not so near future we will probably witness the invention of a story-generator; some sort of machine that can mass produce generic p..."

I love the use of the spoiler! Very creative!

[Petergiaquinta]

Cosmic wrote: " If you didn't have test or grades then you could also do away with homework. "

Pirsig's big ideas about quality, the good, conformity/nonconformity are great...but he's also a bit airy-fairy, and by that I mean over-idealistic. We, and kids especially, need structure. To do away with tests, grades and homework sounds great. But then how will kids be encouraged to do the work to do the learning? And learning does take work. It takes a lifetime of work that is predicated on those first 12 years (10 in Europe?) of schooling.

There is much to be learned by floating down a river or riding along county highways on a motorcycle, but there's another essential kind of learning as well that happens in a classroom with a great teacher or professor. And if we're all "good readers" here, how can we expect our students to possibly benefit from the study of long works of fiction if they are not reading 20 or more pages outside of class and preparing for thoughtful classroom discussion?

[Cosmic]

Paul Martin wrote: "Karen wrote: "Well, how far into the future do you think this will start?

Never, I think. But auto-generated storylines could, in time (and with the right technology), become normal. Will that mak..."

They will use compiled emails and like a reality show regurgitate the stories. Then they won't need writers. The decline and fall of a civilization.

[Petergiaquinta]

Paul Martin wrote: "One day in the not so near future we will probably witness the invention of a story-generator; some sort of machine that can mass produce generic plots and characters for the money making bestsellers."

George Orwell writes about this in 1984. Julia works in the Fiction Department of the Ministry of Truth (funny thing that, since everything the Ministry of Truth propagates is fiction!) where she maintains the novel-writing machines. She even experiences a work-related injury there, but Oceania's prolly not so good with workman's comp.

The most successful product in the Ministry of Truth's Fiction Department is produced by Pornsec, despite (if I'm remembering right) there only being six basic plots. But just think of the ease of the programming: swap out pizza delivery guy for new paperboy or plumber on his lunch break or Mormon proselytizer. Switch out bored housewife with stern librarian or demure farmer's daughter or tipsy socialite...it practically writes itself!

[Renee E]

Paul Martin wrote: "Asab wrote: We can't even consider da vinci code

One day in the not so near future we will probably witness the invention of a story-generator; some sort of machine that can mass produce generic p..."

There are "writing programs" available now that essentially do that.

[Paul Martin]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "George Orwell writes about this in 1984."

Haha, there's no end to his clairvoyance - everything from intelligence to porn!

Maybe that method could be combined with the one that South Park accuses the producers of Family Guy of using: a bunch of manatees swimming around in a pool, picking "idea balls" which form the basis of the next episode.

Example: Paul Wolfowitz, Bananas, Lice, Slovakia.

[Paul Martin]

Renee wrote: There are "writing programs" available now that essentially do that.

Yeah, but they're still at a basic level, are they not?