What's your favorite fiction book?

[DaveWadding]

I forgot to mention anything by Steinbeck and Hemingway is always worth reading

I've always found Steinbeck unbearably dry: The Pearl, Of Mice and Men, The Red Pony etc.

[Prince Adam]

I just finished reading Steinbeck's East of Eden last week, and I could barely stand it-there was no point to it at all! Just a lot of unnecessary sex and a weak biblical parallel.

[The Lizard King]

If you consider the Bible as fiction, yeah it makes a great fiction book, but I personally consider it as a historical book with factual information.

Is The Holy Bible historical? Absolutely. But, what factual information are you refering to? Do you mean the Garden of Eden was real and not a metaphor for human free will (and a convenient means to justify the subjugation women for "tempting" man)? What about Jonah and the Whale? Or how about Noah and the Great Flood? Are these events factual information to you?

TLK

[AwallaceUNC]

Do you mean the Garden of Eden was real and not a metaphor for human free will (and a convenient means to justify the subjugation women for "tempting" man)?

...or the devil.

-Aaron

[The Lizard King]

Do you mean the Garden of Eden was real and not a metaphor for human free will (and a convenient means to justify the subjugation women for "tempting" man)?

...or the devil.

-Aaron

the devil = human free will?

or

the devil = women?

I'm not sure what your response is refering to.

TLK

[Prince Eric]

As much as you seem to value this notion of some sort of unquestionable academic truth and those who champion it, it seems that you're forgetting the most important lesson a college education (and again, I'm wincing at placing this much importance on college) can bring: there are few, if any, academically accepted absolutes. Most issues have two sides, both of which are viable in their formation, and simply charging them as incredulous (or, in your case, bordering on insult) isn't a constructive way of going about debating them.

-Aaron

You sort of just negated everything by that one paragraph. You say that issues have two sides, yet the whole point of this arguement is because you say one side is not literature, so it doesn't matter. Actually, there are NO academic absolutes, which is why I'm arguing that postmodernism is valid. (I can't escape the fact that your arguing against postmodernism WITH postmodern mantras. )

You are still not answering what the problem with postmodernism is. OK, here's a traditional view of the Scarlet Letter:
Hester Prynne was a model for women and men to live their lives. She sinned and she repented.
What's wrong with taking the postmodernist approach?
Hester Prynne was a strong woman who did not care for what society imposed on her. She was not of her world. She lived for herself and for her lover.

(I was asking for traditional works that fuse politics with text. Allegories are literature, but that's usually the exception as far as political lit is concerned.) OK, here's what contemporary (that's American and British now) says: The Author Is Dead. The individual brings his own values to the table and comes up with his own summation. Therefore, the intent of the author does not matter, and why would it? If the text was written a hundred years ago, it obviously has no moral bearing, so why not let the reader come up with his own truth?

Why did I say "Texan Republican?" It shows that this woman is a true scholar, and despite her own inclinations, she understand literature, and realizes that the written word is a tool meant for ALL people and not just the intellectual elite.

Oh yeah, could you stop with the petty, "Are you trying to say such-and-such about me" and "this is clearing insulting/arrogant", because that really degrades the discussion and is an insult to me. It shows that you are becoming flustered and are resorting to grade school school antics to get your point across.

[AwallaceUNC]

TLK- I meant that the devil is the one who tempted Adam & Eve, not Eve herself.

You sort of just negated everything by that one paragraph. You say that issues have two sides, yet the whole point of this arguement is because you say one side is not literature, so it doesn't matter. Actually, there are NO academic absolutes, which is why I'm arguing that postmodernism is valid. (I can't escape the fact that your arguing against postmodernism WITH postmodern mantras. )

No, that's not the point of the argument at all. Actually, the whole thing begun as a statement of my preference and my defenses following the subsequent attacks on that preference.

You are still not answering what the problem with postmodernism is.

I guess you're just missing it. I'm not going to keep typing the same things over and over.

(I was asking for traditional works that fuse politics with text. Allegories are literature, but that's usually the exception as far as political lit is concerned.)

As I said, traditional literature by nature isn't as "issues-driven" as postmodern literature is, so you aren't going to find nearly as much politics in it. My point that politics and <i>art</i> are often intentionally fused extends to all areas of art (music, film, art... well, look at me, I said I wasn't going to repeat myself, yet here I am).

OK, here's what contemporary (that's American and British now) says: The Author Is Dead. The individual brings his own values to the table and comes up with his own summation. Therefore, the intent of the author does not matter, and why would it? If the text was written a hundred years ago, it obviously has no moral bearing, so why not let the reader come up with his own truth?

Not that it matters, but my feeling is that the author is the one who originated the work. His intention is all that matters. Of course some authors intend that you derive meaning from your own interpretation, but unless that is the intention, I'm not interested in the reader's interpretation, but only the author's intention.

Why did I say "Texan Republican?" It shows that this woman is a true scholar, and despite her own inclinations, she understand literature, and realizes that the written word is a tool meant for ALL people and not just the intellectual elite.

My question would be, why should conservative inclinations be viewed as any more biasing than liberal? I agree, though, that the written word is a tool for all people. But again, it doesn't seem to matter.

Oh yeah, could you stop with the petty, "Are you trying to say such-and-such about me" and "this is clearing insulting/arrogant", because that really degrades the discussion and is an insult to me. It shows that you are becoming flustered and are resorting to grade school school antics to get your point across.

Oh ok, I'll stop then, Eric.

Flustered? Grade school antics? Think what you want, you can even take this as retreating in defeat if you wish, but as this discussion clearly can't be saved from remarks like these, I have no intention of going any further with it and don't feel the need to defend academic prowess here. I've engaged in plenty of lively discussions that are far more divisive and ire-invoking than this on the forums and been treated with a lot less hostility and lot more civility/respect from those who disagree with me than I have been here. I feel that I've afforded you that calibur of respect, and that I've presented my side and listened to your's. It's obvious that this isn't going anywhere, though, except maybe down. I don't come to Off-Topic debates for this sort of thing, so my part in this discussion ends now. Thanks for engaging with me for at least a little while, though.

-Aaron

[Prince Eric]

Oh ok, I'll stop then, Eric.

Flustered? Grade school antics? Think what you want, you can even take this as retreating in defeat if you wish, but as this discussion clearly can't be saved from remarks like these, I have no intention of going any further with it and don't feel the need to defend academic prowess here. I've engaged in plenty of lively discussions that are far more divisive and ire-invoking than this on the forums and been treated with a lot less hostility and lot more civility/respect from those who disagree with me than I have been here. I feel that I've afforded you that calibur of respect, and that I've presented my side and listened to your's. It's obvious that this isn't going anywhere, though, except maybe down. I don't come to Off-Topic debates for this sort of thing, so my part in this discussion ends now. Thanks for engaging with me for at least a little while, though.

-Aaron

Whatever. How can you say you've treated me or anyone with civility when you are quick to lampoon a response against your post. My initial response wasn't even intended to start a conversation on the matter, but you were to quick to make sure you had to "defend" your side of the issue and have the last word. Normally, I'm OK with that, but this time, when your opinions are so one-sided, I'm not going to let you have it. Let me remind you that you initiated these types of remarks. Again, you didn't answer any of my questions or were adequately able to support your opinions, and I did. I tried to get you to see my point of view, but for some reason, I wasn't privy to yours. I'm glad you were engaged, though, even though this left me exhuasted.

[tomothy81]

If you consider the Bible as fiction, yeah it makes a great fiction book, but I personally consider it as a historical book with factual information.

Is The Holy Bible historical? Absolutely. But, what factual information are you refering to? Do you mean the Garden of Eden was real and not a metaphor for human free will (and a convenient means to justify the subjugation women for "tempting" man)? What about Jonah and the Whale? Or how about Noah and the Great Flood? Are these events factual information to you?

TLK

Yes actually I do believe that these were factual events. The Flood, The parting of the Red Sea, God creating woman out of the rib of Adam, et cetera. All of these things I believe to be factual, many of which take quite a bit of faith to believe.

Adam and Eve were both tempted by the serpent (Satan).

[chaychay102royal]

I do, too.

[Isidour]

And here we go again...

Come on, please, If there´s something that the past plots had teached us is than we can´t get agree in religious stuff.

Why to bother in argue?

By the way, do you like more to read the book or watch the movie?

[AwallaceUNC]

By the way, do you like more to read the book or watch the movie?

That's hard to say, and I take it on a case by case basis. I guess that in general, I would have to say read the book. That's especially true for things I really enjoy (Harry Potter, for example). There are stories, though, that are better suited for films, and sometimes movies actually do a better job than the book (I think Lord of the Rings is an example). Of course reading takes more time, as well.

-Aaron

[chaychay102royal]

The movie? Of what? The Bible? There isn't one...well, some would say there's lots of them but there has not been one film that details the whole Bible that I know of.

[AwallaceUNC]

^ That would be a very long movie! I think he just means books and movies in general.

-Aaron

[tomothy81]

And here we go again...

Come on, please, If there´s something that the past plots had teached us is than we can´t get agree in religious stuff.

Why to bother in argue?

I am not arguing, I am simply discussing.

I have no intent on forcing my religious beliefs on anybody, I was simply making conversation, and trying to add my opinion.

There is no reason to keep quiet if you believe that you have something inteligent to add to a conversation.

[tomothy81]

The movie? Of what? The Bible? There isn't one...well, some would say there's lots of them but there has not been one film that details the whole Bible that I know of.

Yeah, I don't know of one film.

It would definitly have to consist of several DVD's, but there have been some decent movies made about some of the books, or sections of the Bible.

[tomothy81]

By the way, do you like more to read the book or watch the movie?

I mostly enjoy the books better then the movie, In the case of 2001: A Space Odyssey, I found both the movie and the book to be great, but I enjoyed reading the book much more then watching the movie.

I also liked the book War of the Worlds much more then the original movie, but I am excited to see the remake of the movie this summer.

[Isidour]

I meant movies made from the book in general

I know than you were not arguing, but this is like a little snow ball than roll and roll down the hill and turns into a huge snowy problem.

[tomothy81]

I meant movies made from the book in general

I know than you were not arguing, but this is like a little snow ball than roll and roll down the hill and turns into a huge snowy problem.

Well, I don't plan on letting this escalate into a huge arguement.

If you are talking about movies made from different books of the Bible, well I enjoy reading the Bible rather then watching the movies. I am usually able to paint a great mental image of what I am reading, for instance if I am reading through the book of Exodus, I am able to paint picture Moses standing in front of Pharoah before God unleashes the plagues. I feel that I am able to gain more knowledge through reading the Bible instead of watching a movie.

Sometimes I enjoy watching movies that were made of the different books of the Bible, but that is only if they are acurate. I hate when a movie takes away, adds, or changes something.

[chaychay102royal]

I meant movies made from the book in general

I know than you were not arguing, but this is like a little snow ball than roll and roll down the hill and turns into a huge snowy problem.

Yeah, I know. I've been there. I've been doing this program with "talented youth" and we're constantly bickering about religion.