(04-08-2011 10:59 AM)the other Greg Childers Wrote:  Or just about anything by Kurt Vonnegut. He's one hell of an author.

Talk about your simplistic authors. Vonnegut was big for HS readers, but most grow up.

You didn't understand Rand, so out of fear you rail against it. That's very typical of a leftist.

(04-08-2011 11:19 AM)XTigerCheerleader Wrote:  Well, I guess it's just different strokes for different folks, then because I detested The Sound and the Fury and pretty much anything else written by Faulkner. I've never read any Vonnegut.

What's your take on Khalil Gibran's (sp) The Prophet?

I've never read Siddhartha either but it's on my current need to read list. Have you read it?

I didn't say I liked "Sound and the Fury." I said it was cerebral.

I've never read "The Prophet" and only vaguely heard about it. I haven't read Siddhartha either but a few people I know that have liked it.

(04-08-2011 11:32 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-08-2011 10:59 AM)the other Greg Childers Wrote:  Or just about anything by Kurt Vonnegut. He's one hell of an author.

Talk about your simplistic authors. Vonnegut was big for HS readers, but most grow up.

You didn't understand Rand, so out of fear you rail against it. That's very typical of a leftist.

You're still reading Caspar comics, so all of them are beyond your intellect.

(04-08-2011 11:54 AM)the other Greg Childers Wrote:  

(04-08-2011 11:32 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-08-2011 10:59 AM)the other Greg Childers Wrote:  Or just about anything by Kurt Vonnegut. He's one hell of an author.

Talk about your simplistic authors. Vonnegut was big for HS readers, but most grow up.

You didn't understand Rand, so out of fear you rail against it. That's very typical of a leftist.

You're still reading Caspar comics, so all of them are beyond your intellect.

I love seeing your retorts. You obviously got beaten up a lot as a kid.

(04-08-2011 12:03 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-08-2011 11:54 AM)the other Greg Childers Wrote:  

(04-08-2011 11:32 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-08-2011 10:59 AM)the other Greg Childers Wrote:  Or just about anything by Kurt Vonnegut. He's one hell of an author.

Talk about your simplistic authors. Vonnegut was big for HS readers, but most grow up.

You didn't understand Rand, so out of fear you rail against it. That's very typical of a leftist.

You're still reading Caspar comics, so all of them are beyond your intellect.

I love seeing your retorts. You obviously got beaten up a lot as a kid.

Never. I'll bet kids used to take your lunch money everyday.

(04-08-2011 10:49 AM)the other Greg Childers Wrote:  It is not a cerebral read. It is written on a junior high level. It is a pedestrian read at best. Plus, it's too damn long and boring to make a very simple (and false) point.

Boring? I will concede that it would bore lots of readers....the rest is simply an opinion. Millions of readers would disagree with that assessment.

(04-08-2011 02:02 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-08-2011 10:49 AM)the other Greg Childers Wrote:  It is not a cerebral read. It is written on a junior high level. It is a pedestrian read at best. Plus, it's too damn long and boring to make a very simple (and false) point.

Boring? I will concede that it would bore lots of readers....the rest is simply an opinion. Millions of readers would disagree with that assessment.

Millions of reader buy Dan Brown books, but they're pure $hit.

(04-08-2011 11:53 AM)the other Greg Childers Wrote:  

(04-08-2011 11:19 AM)XTigerCheerleader Wrote:  Well, I guess it's just different strokes for different folks, then because I detested The Sound and the Fury and pretty much anything else written by Faulkner. I've never read any Vonnegut.

What's your take on Khalil Gibran's (sp) The Prophet?

I've never read Siddhartha either but it's on my current need to read list. Have you read it?

I didn't say I liked "Sound and the Fury." I said it was cerebral.

I've never read "The Prophet" and only vaguely heard about it. I haven't read Siddhartha either but a few people I know that have liked it.

You're correct. My mistake. I didnt find "The Sound and the Fury" to be cerebral at all, but rather a failed attempt by a writer to write a book that resembled more of a screenplay than a book. That was just my take.

I'd highly suggest "The Prophet" to anyone. It's a very well put together yet uncomplicated story. Let me know what you think if you decide to check it out.

(04-08-2011 02:04 PM)the other Greg Childers Wrote:  

(04-08-2011 02:02 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-08-2011 10:49 AM)the other Greg Childers Wrote:  It is not a cerebral read. It is written on a junior high level. It is a pedestrian read at best. Plus, it's too damn long and boring to make a very simple (and false) point.

Boring? I will concede that it would bore lots of readers....the rest is simply an opinion. Millions of readers would disagree with that assessment.

Millions of reader buy Dan Brown books, but they're pure $hit.

After questioning the wisdom of a recently built and exceedingly ugly piece of art located in downtown Nashville, I was told by the Director of the Arts Commission that art is not meant to necessarily be beautiful, but rather that the definition of art is something that inspires conversation.

Here we are talking about all of these books. Some receive positive acclaim by some while others dont by others. Yet, they're all still completing the objective in that we're discussing them.

Like I said before, different strokes for different folks. I can still appreciate the effort put into something, I guess. Even if I dont like the actual product. For example, I cant read James Patterson or Dean Koontz. They rarely break the mold out of the niche they've found. I dont like it when art is created solely for profit, yet I wont deny they both possess ability to someone or else they wouldnt be successful.

(04-08-2011 02:04 PM)XTigerCheerleader Wrote:  

(04-08-2011 11:53 AM)the other Greg Childers Wrote:  

(04-08-2011 11:19 AM)XTigerCheerleader Wrote:  Well, I guess it's just different strokes for different folks, then because I detested The Sound and the Fury and pretty much anything else written by Faulkner. I've never read any Vonnegut.

What's your take on Khalil Gibran's (sp) The Prophet?

I've never read Siddhartha either but it's on my current need to read list. Have you read it?

I didn't say I liked "Sound and the Fury." I said it was cerebral.

I've never read "The Prophet" and only vaguely heard about it. I haven't read Siddhartha either but a few people I know that have liked it.

You're correct. My mistake. I didnt find "The Sound and the Fury" to be cerebral at all, but rather a failed attempt by a writer to write a book that resembled more of a screenplay than a book. That was just my take.

I'd highly suggest "The Prophet" to anyone. It's a very well put together yet uncomplicated story. Let me know what you think if you decide to check it out.

I remember reading it in HS...Honestly, it did not make an impression on me. Maybe I was too young at that time to appreciate it. My mother thought it was wonderful.

(04-08-2011 02:12 PM)XTigerCheerleader Wrote:  

(04-08-2011 02:04 PM)the other Greg Childers Wrote:  

(04-08-2011 02:02 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-08-2011 10:49 AM)the other Greg Childers Wrote:  It is not a cerebral read. It is written on a junior high level. It is a pedestrian read at best. Plus, it's too damn long and boring to make a very simple (and false) point.

Boring? I will concede that it would bore lots of readers....the rest is simply an opinion. Millions of readers would disagree with that assessment.

Millions of reader buy Dan Brown books, but they're pure $hit.

After questioning the wisdom of a recently built and exceedingly ugly piece of art located in downtown Nashville, I was told by the Director of the Arts Commission that art is not meant to necessarily be beautiful, but rather that the definition of art is something that inspires conversation.

Here we are talking about all of these books. Some receive positive acclaim by some while others dont by others. Yet, they're all still completing the objective in that we're discussing them.

Like I said before, different strokes for different folks. I can still appreciate the effort put into something, I guess. Even if I dont like the actual product. For example, I cant read James Patterson or Dean Koontz. They rarely break the mold out of the niche they've found. I dont like it when art is created solely for profit, yet I wont deny they both possess ability to someone or else they wouldnt be successful.

Man... I was obsessed with everything that Robert Ludlum wrote years ago even though every damn book was similar. It did not matter. I read everything I could get my hands on.

(04-08-2011 02:12 PM)XTigerCheerleader Wrote:  After questioning the wisdom of a recently built and exceedingly ugly piece of art located in downtown Nashville, I was told by the Director of the Arts Commission that art is not meant to necessarily be beautiful, but rather that the definition of art is something that inspires conversation.

Here we are talking about all of these books. Some receive positive acclaim by some while others dont by others. Yet, they're all still completing the objective in that we're discussing them.

I hate definitions like that. It's for intellectual cowards. Sniveling wannabe academics who don't want to rock the boat such that they lose their precious position.

Go check out ArtRenewal.org sometime. Great essays on (visual) art.

But you don't even need to go there. Go check out HGTV sometime. They have shows on design for a reason...there is beauty and there is that such that it's not beautiful. My favorite shows are when they get some wannabe artist who is self-defined as "eclectic" and they can't figure out why their house won't sell.

Ask the Director of the Art commission, ask him if he'd like his house covered in graffiti, inside and out. Would that get him a good price for a piece of art? Sure would start conversation...

(04-08-2011 03:18 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-08-2011 02:12 PM)XTigerCheerleader Wrote:  After questioning the wisdom of a recently built and exceedingly ugly piece of art located in downtown Nashville, I was told by the Director of the Arts Commission that art is not meant to necessarily be beautiful, but rather that the definition of art is something that inspires conversation.

Here we are talking about all of these books. Some receive positive acclaim by some while others dont by others. Yet, they're all still completing the objective in that we're discussing them.

I hate definitions like that. It's for intellectual cowards. Sniveling wannabe academics who don't want to rock the boat such that they lose their precious position.

Go check out ArtRenewal.org sometime. Great essays on (visual) art.

But you don't even need to go there. Go check out HGTV sometime. They have shows on design for a reason...there is beauty and there is that such that it's not beautiful. My favorite shows are when they get some wannabe artist who is self-defined as "eclectic" and they can't figure out why their house won't sell.

Ask the Director of the Art commission, ask him if he'd like his house covered in graffiti, inside and out. Would that get him a good price for a piece of art? Sure would start conversation...

I have to admit...I like things that are pleasing to my eye...to my ear and to my mind. If it is ugly...I avoid it. If it makes me cringe when I hear it....I leave. If it taxes my brain more than 100 pages...I put it in the trash. Accuse of me not having taste...not being up with the current tunes.... or being lazy....so be it. I only have to please...ME.

According to almost every single film critic out there, this one is a royal turd.

Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 9% and Metacritic gives it a 27 out of 100.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/atlas_shrugged_part_i/

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/atlas-shrugged-part-i

It cost $10M to make and made $1.6M (making its debut in 14th place) this week.

The only way they make a sequel for this one is if a few conservatives bankroll it as a vanity project.

Not surprising it tanked, considering the crappy source material.

I thought it would do badly because I couldn't see it transferring well from a book to film. Would be hard to make such a long book entertaining for a movie.

(04-17-2011 05:49 PM)TOGC Wrote:  According to almost every single film critic out there, this one is a royal turd.

Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 9% and Metacritic gives it a 27 out of 100.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/atlas_shrugged_part_i/

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/atlas-shrugged-part-i

It cost $10M to make and made $1.6M (making its debut in 14th place) this week.

The only way they make a sequel for this one is if a few conservatives bankroll it as a vanity project.

Not surprising it tanked, considering the crappy source material.

Guess your just going to ignore the audience reviews on both of those sites.

Tomatoes: 9% for the critics, 85% for the audience.
Meta: 27 vs 63.

(04-17-2011 06:50 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-17-2011 05:49 PM)TOGC Wrote:  According to almost every single film critic out there, this one is a royal turd.

Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 9% and Metacritic gives it a 27 out of 100.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/atlas_shrugged_part_i/

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/atlas-shrugged-part-i

It cost $10M to make and made $1.6M (making its debut in 14th place) this week.

The only way they make a sequel for this one is if a few conservatives bankroll it as a vanity project.

Not surprising it tanked, considering the crappy source material.

Guess your just going to ignore the audience reviews on both of those sites.

Tomatoes: 9% for the critics, 85% for the audience.
Meta: 27 vs 63.

Which review was yours and which one was DrTorch?

(04-17-2011 06:52 PM)TOGC Wrote:  

(04-17-2011 06:50 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-17-2011 05:49 PM)TOGC Wrote:  According to almost every single film critic out there, this one is a royal turd.

Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 9% and Metacritic gives it a 27 out of 100.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/atlas_shrugged_part_i/

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/atlas-shrugged-part-i

It cost $10M to make and made $1.6M (making its debut in 14th place) this week.

The only way they make a sequel for this one is if a few conservatives bankroll it as a vanity project.

Not surprising it tanked, considering the crappy source material.

Guess your just going to ignore the audience reviews on both of those sites.

Tomatoes: 9% for the critics, 85% for the audience.
Meta: 27 vs 63.

Which review was yours and which one was DrTorch?

Haven't seen it. So none.

(04-17-2011 06:57 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Haven't seen it. So none.

Hmmm......they can't even get conservatives to go see it.

I haven't been to a movie in over 20 years so, can't read anything into that.