|
|
Post by MsPoet on Mar 5, 2003 15:35:45 GMT -5
okay, fine, so I had my share of Sweet Valley HIGH and TWINS (my sister collects them)... any Sweet Valley readers here? I hate Elizabeth, she's SO inhuman! I hate Jessica too, my favorite character is Lila Fowler (haha) and in TWINS, the whole Unicorn girls. They're so stuck-up, they're so hilarious! The most boring book I read, I am sorry to say, is Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice". . Oh well, Donna, now I'm blabbering!  Noo noooo....you're not blabbering!!! lol I read Sweet Valley High in high school, too!!! LOL....I had a TON of those books...I gave them away, tho in a mass Donna-gives-away-the-books-she-read-but-doesn't-wanna-keep-cuz-they-don't-mean-a-lot-to-her thingy. lol.....(I still have a TON of books; you have no idea). Anyway, I didn't care all that much for Elizabeth, either. I mean, ponytail?---she's goody-goody and has to wear nothing but a ponytail 24/7? Wouldn't her hair split in the middle, then?  ....I liked Lila Fowler, too! As for Jane Austen, I haven't even tried to read one of her books, but I absolutely LOVE all those movies based on them. And yeah, esp. Pride&Prejudice! AWESOME! Donna |
|
|
|
Post by ausaims on Mar 5, 2003 18:55:53 GMT -5
I didn't mind Austen's "Sense and Sensibility." That is the novel I'm talking about, although I have also seen the movie which wasn't too bad.  |
|
|
|
Post by Sampaguita on Mar 5, 2003 20:53:38 GMT -5
Speaking of "Sense and Sensibility," that's a book that I've got to read for one of my English classes (18th century British Lit). I really loved the movie, though I think they could have cast a better looking Robert. I really liked Mrs. Jennings' daughter's husband, though. He was really good in the role.
I liked the A&E series of "Pride and Prejudice" but I haven't read the book. Colin Firth is SUCH a hottie!
|
|
Catriona
Full Member
Dear Diary: Alcohol units, 0; Cigarettes, 0; Mudbloods killed, 14; v.g. Go me!
Posts: 159
|
Post by Catriona on Mar 7, 2003 23:18:10 GMT -5
Oh no! I completely disagree with you Mandragora. I liked Elizabeth, because I was so much like her. I have a sister who is a year younger and she is completely shallow and superficial, like Jessica. I always felt sorry for Liz because she had to put up with Jessica. But I gave those books up when I was about 12!
As for Pride and Prejudice...yes, it is a difficult novel, but wonderful all the same. Jane Austen is so good at capturing the many aspects of human nature...again, my sympathy with Lizzy for putting up with her shallow younger sister(s).
|
|
|
|
Post by Mandragora on Mar 8, 2003 4:51:04 GMT -5
HAHA, not that I hate those 'responsible' types (actually, I WAS, until...) Speaking of English lit, my favorite female character is Jo March, not only because we're pretty much the same (heehee), it is also because she's full of spunk. Yep, Jo March, my cosmic sister in English Lit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sampaguita on Mar 8, 2003 13:15:24 GMT -5
You might not say that when considering some of the literary theories about the character Jo March.
But then again, I'm not sure I completely agree with most of those theories. Alcott, I believe, did pine after Ralph Waldo Emerson in her youth... so maybe the professor is based on him.
Some theories, I believe are pretty whacked out... Too many d**ned agendas. Case in point-- in academia-- Susan McClary... ugh.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mandragora on Mar 8, 2003 14:29:01 GMT -5
HA, what do those theorists know about literary characters? Well, okay, so every work of literature is worth analysing its theoretical grounds, but I don't know, for me literary works are subjective. An author/creator should be respected for her/his works, but then everyone's open to criticism, which I believe, should be shouldered by the author, not the characters that are created. As much as any character is based on any non-fictional figure, they remain fictional. Therefore, I don't really care if Henry Winter is based on some true to life psycho-serial killer maniac Donna Tartt heard of, but still, he's Henry Winter and I luuurrrvvveee him. But then of course, theories are the substantial elements of these translations... but if the grounded theory is faulty yet the translations are good, is it superficial? But then personally, if the translations don't strike me much, I must've overlooked its substance, and it wouldn't matter to me anymore. Am getting random thoughts. Am DIGRESSING! I am supposed to be in bed but I cannot sleep....! So I guess that's the thing with us non-Lit/English majors, e only take the characters as depicted, and not much on the story behind the story (like we'd initially care?) Unless of course, it gets featured in docus like "Great Books" at the Discovery Channel (which I haven't seen in a while) |
|
|
|
Post by Sampaguita on Mar 8, 2003 17:08:17 GMT -5
On a very basic level I agree with you... theorists are just that. It's all subjective. But then saying that kinda invalidates the work I do. Because when it comes right down to it, in both Literature and Music (as well as film, and performance) theorists use the analysis of texts (which include music, film, performance, media etc.) to prove their own agendas, hegemonies, and justifications for culture.
Some of the (pardon the expletive) shyte that theorists come up with is SO off the wall and imbued with their personal issues and politics that it's disturbing. I brought up McClary earlier. I'm told that some of her theories revolved around a piece of music that Beethoven wrote as a site of his exercising and forcing his sexual power over a woman... and in some of her other writings she brings up what she calls "feminine endings" (a type of resolution between moving from a dissonant harmony to a consonant harmony) and calls his sexuality into question. And I have to say that some of it is absurd because she ignores a lot of stuff.
In terms of Louisa May Alcott and her character Jo March... I strongly disagree with A LOT of the theories that are thrown out about both the author and the character. I do not believe that "Little Women" is the site of late 19th century repressed Sapphism. (I'm not TOO sure on the specifics of that theory-- I was only briefly exposed to it while sitting in on Dr. Doyle's class.)
THEN there's the whole Herman Melville thing and the politics of the title "Moby D---." The whale is supposed to represent an unattainable SOMETHING... I'm just not sure that it has anything to do with sex or eroticism. (Which is why if I was going to take English 31 it would be with Cohen and not Doyle.)
I also strongly disagree with the theory that "Alice in Wonderland" is a how-to manual for psychotic sex-offenders. (Lewis Carroll was a pedophile, for those who didn't know that.) Certainly, the author's fixation on youths is apparent in the text, but I do not believe that the narrative is propaganda for the crime.
And in constructing these theories, facts that debase the theory are ignored, so that the validity of the argument is called into question.
I guess it all comes down to the personal agenda of the theorist. I personally like to steer clear of gender theories and arguments as of late. Give me stuff on racial discourse, and I'll gladly look at that, but anything else... no thank you. It's all too problematic for my taste.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mandragora on Mar 10, 2003 1:22:20 GMT -5
I agree Sam. Theories are based on personal agendas. While I was doing my thesis on architectural research, I was initially encouraged to do the Marxist approach, since that my thesis topic is grounded on commercial structures, but I don't really want my study to look like a critique based on some "-ism".
Okay, now I need advice. I want to read a well-written inspirational fiction. I badly need to read a book like that since that Ian McEwan makes me paralyzed caused by his fiction (but he's still really good), and I don't want to read "The Alchemist" again. Any suggestions? I require humor, and I am not big on romance.
Actually, to be direct, is there any good book on 'finding the real thing' that is based on the contemporary times?
|
|
....I liked Lila Fowler, too! 
