Read the book before you say something

[Athena Bast]

I'm so sick and tired of hearing people mouth off about books and slamming them while not reading them themselves, getting their assistants to read them for them or just reading the naughty bits.

Some of the obvious ones are the Harry Potter books.

I remember the Opus Dei ranting about how they were portrayed as "evil" in "The Da Vinci Code" and having read the book myself I'm thinking... um, 1) work of FICTION, 2) it was just two of the people who were a part of the group in the book that were doing the sinful things. I'm guessing Opus Dei is kinda like The Sith, but I guess nowadays the saying "One bad apple doesn't spoil the bunch" and the whole baby and the bath water deal.

I'm watching the special about the coming together of Motley Crue for the reunion tour last year. One of them was talking about how Tommy was trashing Vince in his book, "Tommyland". I read the book and Tommy will say the Vince is a wonderful frontman but it's some of his personal issues that Tommy has issues with.

I just wish people would read what they want to bash before hand.

[Jonathan Bogart]

I'd go further ... say nothing at all about The Da Vinci Code or anything related to Motley Crue, good or bad, for any reason at all, ever.

[Infra-Man]

My assistant read me the naughty bits of this thread and I am outraged!

[Donald M.]

This isn't really going to be a very successful thread because it seems no one cares about books any more unless they directly offend them somehow, such as in the two examples you give.

Video games, now . . .

[Rabid Trekkie]

This isn't really going to be a very successful thread because it seems no one cares about books any more unless they directly offend them somehow, such as in the two examples you give.

Video games, now . . .

Yeah, to quote my brother "Reading isn't a habit of excellence."
His last two years of high school and first semester of college ruined that kid.

Not reading that many new books, what always gets me is the contraversy that surrounded some of the old sci-fi books. Especially Heinlein.

[The Foreigner]

I haven't read it, but someone told me that this thread is really offensive. I hope you are banned!

[Karl J. Barnes]

I got the Cliff Note's for this thread...I may read it later.....

But seriously, yes. It would be nice that you read a book,see a movie etc before bashing it or at least, have some idea what they are about, so that you can make some general opinion about it. The Harry Potter novels didn't interest me, maybe it was the hype that detracted interest in it for me(though I LOVE the movies).

[Slam_Bradley]

But seriously, yes. It would be nice that you read a book,see a movie etc before bashing it or at least, have some idea what they are about, so that you can make some general opinion about it.

I agree with you 100%. I've even started similar threads on the Comm and the TV/Film board at various times.

While this is common enough in real life, the practice seems to have reached a reached an artform on the internerd.

[Shellhead]

I think that it's okay to say something negative if you have only read part of the book, at least about something so negative that it made you quit the book. This should be even more acceptable in the case of a series of books, where someone forms an opinion based on the first book being so bad that there is no desire to continue with the second and later books. Same with comics, at least for a given creative team on a title.

For example, I read part of The Damnation Game, by Clive Barker. It started out great, and I was really enjoying it, up until a scene which required Barker to describe, in excrutiating detail, a picture of a monkey eating feces. It wasn't horrifying or interesting or especially pertinent to the story, at least as far as I could tell. It was simply repugnant and ruined my enjoyment of the story, so I stopped reading it. Clive Barker is such a good writer that I am always willing to start one of his books, but this isn't the only time where I stopped in the middle.

For a second example, I read just the first book in the Wheel of Time series, The Eye of the World. The opening was okay, and the dramatic conclusion was okay... I liked the pseudo-nazgul villains in that last section. But otherwise, I strongly disliked this book. Most of the main characters were annoying and stupid, and I really didn't want to read any more about them. I shouldn't be required to read any more books in The Wheel of Time series. Especially since I have been hearing that books two and three are about as good as the first one, and then it's downhill after that, with heavily decompressed storytelling.

[Solaris]

I've seen this with books, movies, you name it.

One of the things that irks me the most is when some group decides a book should be "banned" from somewhere... and then when you ask, *possibly* ONE person from the group has read it. Maybe. If you're lucky.

More often than not, someone ELSE "told them" about the "offensive/devil-worship/smutty" material; sometimes providing out-of-context quotes, more often than not NOT providing anything, other than someone's assertion that the book is "bad" for "x" reason.

:rolleyes:

[Dr. Banner]

^^^
On one hand, though, if someone who knew your tastes extremely well (best friend?) read a book or saw a movie, and you inquired about it, and they said you'd hate it and gave some reasons why, would you make a mad dash out there to prove them correct? More than likely not, that's why critics are out there as well. If we understand their point of views, we can agree/disagree with them to help us make up our minds on whether or not to fork over the money for the movie or whatever.

[Jonathan Bogart]

What if I want to say good things about a work? Do I have to have read it then?

Like saying, for example, that Eugene O'Neill is the greatest (or at least the first great) American dramatist. I haven't read or seen a scrap of his plays, but I still believe the statement to be true, based on what I've read about them, and the weight I give to the judgements of critics I respect.

And if that's acceptable, why should negative opinions be different?

[Infra-Man]

What if I want to say good things about a work? Do I have to have read it then?

Like saying, for example, that Eugene O'Neill is the greatest (or at least the first great) American dramatist. I haven't read or seen a scrap of his plays, but I still believe the statement to be true, based on what I've read about them, and the weight I give to the judgements of critics I respect.

And if that's acceptable, why should negative opinions be different?

I personally find statements like that to be just as bad, actually. Since both the negative opinion and the positive opinion are based on other people's opinions rather than one's own, it strikes me as disingenuine to offer a secondhand opinion as one's own.

Now, if someone didn't read O'Neill's plays but did read other people's opinions on O'Neill's plays, I'd have no problem if someone were to say "I've read that Eugene O'Neill is one the greatest American dramatists" or "I've read that Eugene O'Neill is overrated." That's fine because the person admits they haven't formed an opinion on the subject themselves but are communicating the opinions they've heard from others.

I guess getting back to the thread's main topic, people should actually read the book, watch the movie, listen to the album, or watch/read the play before formming an opinion on it. Stating an opinion on a book without actually reading the book or being swept up in prevailing sentiment concerning a book is inauthentic and a petty pretense. And having hung out with a bunch of pretentious wannabe lit geeks who pretended to read a lot of stuff, it's pretty lame too.

[Jonathan Bogart]

I personally find statements like that to be just as bad, actually. Since both the negative opinion and the positive opinion are based on other people's opinions rather than one's own, it strikes me as disingenuine to offer a secondhand opinion as one's own.

And portmanteau words like "disingenuine" (assuming you meant to compact "disingenuous" and some negative version of "genuine" like that) strike me as insufferably cutesy.

I don't think there is such a thing as an "authentic" response to a piece of literature, movie, musical work, or comic book; it's always colored by extraneous data, including the opinions of others. Of course any decent person should fess up as to their actual knowledge of the thing under discussion (as I did with O'Neill), and everyone should at all times hold their opinions on sufferance, subject to revision after further reflection, closer inspection, or increased data, but interim opinions -- like my impression of the value of O'Neill's work, not gained by direct observation but informed by a more general understanding of American letters and dramatic tradition -- are entirely valid.

I haven't read The Da Vinci Code nor listened to Motley Crue (more than I could help), but I have no problem holding a low opinion of both. It would be rude for me to force my low opinion of them on someone who finds value in either, but I find that prejudices like that are an invaluable innoculation against the tedium of actually investigating them when my tastes don't run that way.




(Yes, most of the above is tongue-in-cheek. I like to play the pompous devil's advocate, and a slight defensiveness in some of the above posts nettled me.)

[Infra-Man]

And portmanteau words like "disingenuine" (assuming you meant to compact "disingenuous" and some negative version of "genuine" like that) strike me as insufferably cutesy.

Well those last two words are me in a nutshell ;)

I think more of it being a long day, being a little tired, and letting bad grammar slip into message board posts. You should see how mangled my ICQs are at work.

It's kinda funny that I edited the post but left typos and non-words in. D'oh.

I don't think there is such a thing as an "authentic" response to a piece of literature, movie, musical work, or comic book; it's always colored by extraneous data, including the opinions of others.

Total agreement there since people's opinions are always influenced by other opinions to a degree. Yet, I'd throw in that there's a difference between having an opinion on a work that a person has actually read or watched and having an opinion on a work simply because someone is telling that person to have an opinion (e.g., someone believing the Harry Potter witchcraft stuff without familiarizing himself or herself with the books).

Of course any decent person should fess up as to their actual knowledge of the thing under discussion (as I did with O'Neill), and everyone should at all times hold their opinions on sufferance, subject to revision after further reflection, closer inspection, or increased data, but interim opinions -- like my impression of the value of O'Neill's work, not gained by direct observation but informed by a more general understanding of American letters and dramatic tradition -- are entirely valid.

Boo yah as well.

I haven't read The Da Vinci Code nor listened to Motley Crue (more than I could help), but I have no problem holding a low opinion of both. It would be rude for me to force my low opinion of them on someone who finds value in either, but I find that prejudices like that are an invaluable innoculation against the tedium of actually investigating them when my tastes don't run that way.

Nothing but agreement here.

(Yes, most of the above is tongue-in-cheek. I like to play the pompous devil's advocate, and a slight defensiveness in some of the above posts nettled me.)

No worries. Didn't mean to come across as a jerk in my post if it seemed that way. I guess the thing about O'Neill just reminded me of an old roommate who kept going on about how great certain writers and philosophers were without reading their work. He simply passed off other people's opinions on those people's work as his own opinion and woulddn't fess up to it when me andd some other people called him on it. Drove us all batty, which may explain the tone of that post.