Thread Of Dire Judgment

[Juniper]

Alex wrote: "I'd even combine fiction and nonfiction. What if you looked up Iran and found the awesome graphic novel Persepolis next to Reading Lolita in Tehran and...uh, an Iranian n..."

Exactly what I was thinking because, today, I took Reading Lolita in Tehran out from the library.

I do think Chabon is onto something here. I am with Mel though concerning whole cheesy romance/bodice ripper/TV spin-off books. I am totally a book snob when it comes to these types of books and the lack of value they bring to society (in my thinking). I am sure, before I get hollered at, more than one PhD has been earned studying the effects "his manhood filling the room" has had on culture and booyah for them. I would even be curious to learn about these studies and hear about any potential merits but the rusty doors of the brain are pretty tightly closed in this area. I just shudder, and not in the awesome geekgasm kind of way, when I think about who is reading these books and why? Are they the National Enquirer of the fiction world?

Have I mentioned judging things is fun? LOL!

[Jayme]

You totally have a point, Alex! And to answer your question, Mel, in my bookstore, crappy books are so banned. Unless they happen to be crappy books I personally enjoyed! It will not be a book democracy in there, that's for sure.

[Sasha]

As long as you don't skimp on the Jewel poetry.

[Jayme]

Of course I won't...I'll keep right next to the copies of Little Girl Lost.

[Sasha]

I knew you'd have my back.

[JSou]

And don't forget What up Dawg How to Become a Superstar in the Music Business.

[Juniper]

Charity, I have a question. I love that you have an "effing awesome" shelf, but how come not all of the books are five star on that shelf? Can you explain how four star is f'ing amazing? as opposed to just regular awesome? I am seriously curious. :D How people rate books gets me curiouser and curiouser. LOL!

[Esther]

I think GGK and similar authors are the reason for the emergence of the 'seculative fiction' genre.

[Charity]

Charity, I have a question. I love that you have an "effing awesome" shelf, but how come not all of the books are five star on that shelf? Can you explain how four star is f'ing amazing? as opposed to just regular awesome? I am seriously curious. :D How people rate books gets me curiouser and curiouser. LOL!

HA! I never even thought about that before. See, once upon a time it was just called faves, but that was super boring so I simply renamed it effing-awesome to try and express my enjoyment of those standout books.

However, you are 100% correct, if something really IS effing awesome then it simply MUST be a 5-star read, cover to cover. Therefore, thanks to you, oh-so-observant-and-pensive Jennifer, I have dumped the rather great 4-star reads into a new shelf inspired by The Princess Bride...the mostly-awesome shelf.

Does that work? :)

P.S. Thanks for being so pedantic. Love it!

P.P.S. just regular awesome....I'm still cracking up!

P.P.P.S. "The cure for boredom is curiosity. There is no cure for curiosity." — Dorothy Parker

[Juniper]

Hey Charity!!

I love that I bring mirth and merriment to your world! Truly! Huh, I think I have to go re-do my shelves now and make a mostly awesome shelf and an effing awesome shelf too. Yep, pedantic...as I said to Alex yesterday, it always matters to somebody, somewhere. But, for the record, I really don't follow rules very well and prefer the word punctilious. I like the way it rolls around on the tongue! Seriously though, I clicked on your effing awesome shelf expecting all 5 stars, so my curiosity kicked in seeing the 4 stars and being unable to explain it to myself. I am such a geek.

[Charity]

I really don't follow rules very well and prefer the word punctilious. I like the way it rolls around on the tongue!

Love it...punctilious. Tongue rolling indeed!

Seriously, many thanks for pointing it out. My 5-star reads were prolly wondering what gives. I highly recommend making a few awesome shelves...as well as a sucky shelf. threw-across-room perhaps? Or maybe propping-up-table?

[Juniper]

Charity wrote: "Or maybe propping-up-table?"

Okay, seriously, you peeking in my window? Ivanhoe is currently propping up my small file cabinet. Ssshhh!! It's a horrible thing to do to a book, I know. I have only ever thrown two books: The Gargoyle and Lost Girls. They would be filed on the effing horrible bin of woe shelf.

[Sasha]

Punctilious! Whee.

Heh, Lost Girls. Man, what an impenetrable pile of pretentious bullshit that book was. Alan Moore has been well off the rails for a few years now.

[Susanna]

I'm subjecting myself to judgement by posting but I can't help but point out that Jennifer linked the Andrew Pyper book, not the Alan Moore book.

[Sasha]

So she did. Woops. New theory: it's impossible to write anything called Lost Girls that doesn't suck.

I was referring to this one.

[Susanna]

I thought so. Damn book is on my TBR list.

[Juniper]

Alex wrote: "So she did. Woops. New theory: it's impossible to write anything called Lost Girls that doesn't suck."

I for one will never read another book with the same title, ick...I just vomited a little bit in my mouth. Frickin' Andrew Pyper!

Okay, in relation to the Moore book? All I can say, based on this from your review, Alex: "...featuring lesbian sex between Alice (of Wonderland) and Dorothy (of Oz).", is WHY? Why in the name of humanity. I get what you're saying - he did it for just that reaction, but c'mon, try a little harder for a more purposeful point, no?

[Kaion]

Yeah, besides we all totally know Dorothy was for Ozma. Her bestest transgender fairy princess friend/dictator.* (Oh Baum, and feminism for the win!)

*Yes, Kaion outs herself as being equal opportunity for femslash.

[Madeline]

I've spent the better part of my 8 hour work day stiffling giggles as I read all 18 pages of this thread. I love it!

You know I can't remember the name now, I read it ages ago, but there was a series by Larry Niven that was all about a low gravity planet where people lived in trees, very lush. I couldn't get into it though. he had people that had different length legs and I kept panning over to a scene in my head where these people were trying to walk... it disturbed me. I guess James Cameron's Pocohontas in space is kinda the same thing too.

Long live the moose-eaters! It's my favoritest meat.

Oh no... I picked Lost Girls up off the shelf once. I thought Nifty! A comic book about three classic female characters. Then I looked inside. That was a sad day.

[Sasha]

Madeline wrote: "Then I looked inside. That was a sad day. "

Ha!

[Esther]

For sucky books I have get_this_off_my_shelf and for really sucky I have a gag_me_with_a_spoon shelf.
I also have a read-em-before-they-collapse ‎shelf which I feel is self-explanatory.

[Kaion]

It's really not, Esther. (Your books collapse? The strong nuclear force overcomes the electromagnetic force?)

On topic note, only two stars for Brave New World? Not subtle writing on any account, but two stars?

[Esther]

Kaion wrote: "It's really not, Esther. (Your books collapse? The strong nuclear force overcomes the electromagnetic force?)..."

Sorry I have a bad habit of just assuming that everyone has inherited a ton of 1960-1970 bad quality mass market paperbacks that more or less disintegrate as you read them :0)

On topic note, only two stars for Brave New World? Not subtle writing on any account, ..."
I started off my adult reading with 1984, then devoured quality scifi from Asimov and Herbert after which I tried Huxely and his writing just seemed childish.
I am heavily influenced by characterization and emotional development whereas Huxely has caricatures and symbolism.
I don't like fairy tales or allegories either.

[Kaion]

Ah, there's something symbolically interesting in self-destructing literature... (and now with electronic reading they have that too with expiring books!)

That's interesting, Esther. I've found many science fiction authors don't pay particularly good attention to characterization or emotional development.

I love Asimov's ideas, but his dialogue and his people? Rough going. But it does mean robots play to his writing strengths.

[Esther]

Kaion wrote: "...That's interesting, Esther. I've found many science fiction authors don't pay particularly good attention to characterization or emotional development.

I love Asimov's ideas, but his dialogue and his people? Rough going. But it does mean robots play to his writing strengths. ."

I actually became quite fond of the Mule in Foundation and the girl from Gaia annoyed me. But I do agree his dialogue is dry and reading 5 books from Foundation one after another made my brain hurt!