What are you reading right now?

[How often do you read for pleasure?]

How often do you read for pleasure?

Only when I am not overloaded with school reading...which is pretty much never.

 65 (28.8%)

All the time! I make time!

 139 (61.5%)

I don't really like to read.

 22 (9.7%)

Total Members Voted: 191

[12(e)]

No offense, Ruskie, and this is not directed at you specifically, but that particular term annoys the crap out of me.

"Utilize", "use", "employ", you name it.  Those terms are inaccurate and overcooked.  Good writers don't "employ" techniques - they make certain aspects part of their stories.  She didn't write the book thinking, "Hey, some magical realism over here would really get my point across."  No, she wrote a novel that fit her interests and aspirations.  It just so happens that magical realism is prevalent within this work.

I know that hermeneutic analysis requires us to understand what techniques the author "uses", and this is probably what you were getting at.  However, I hope, for one, that the terminology, specifically the verbs people use, will change.  Authors don't "employ" techniques.  They don't harangue them from somewhere out in the cosmos and force them into their syntax.  There is an organic process at work, even if the technique was overtly intentional. 

Saying "magical realism is prevalent" is much different from saying "she employs magical realism".  That's the differentiation I'm working towards.  Especially for a "technique" that is, in many ways, a genre in itself. 

Or maybe I just really love Marquez.

you know, that's always bothered me too.  Especially when english teachers insist that every author "employs symbolism."  My ass. 

[magnumalv]

And I've yet to ever read a book for school. 
 

Is that possible?

And if so, what was the point of going to school, then? To socialize? God forbid you should actually read.

[FossilJ]

No offense, Ruskie, and this is not directed at you specifically, but that particular term annoys the crap out of me.

"Utilize", "use", "employ", you name it.  Those terms are inaccurate and overcooked.  Good writers don't "employ" techniques - they make certain aspects part of their stories.  She didn't write the book thinking, "Hey, some magical realism over here would really get my point across."  No, she wrote a novel that fit her interests and aspirations.  It just so happens that magical realism is prevalent within this work.

I know that hermeneutic analysis requires us to understand what techniques the author "uses", and this is probably what you were getting at.  However, I hope, for one, that the terminology, specifically the verbs people use, will change.  Authors don't "employ" techniques.  They don't harangue them from somewhere out in the cosmos and force them into their syntax.  There is an organic process at work, even if the technique was overtly intentional. 

Saying "magical realism is prevalent" is much different from saying "she employs magical realism".  That's the differentiation I'm working towards.  Especially for a "technique" that is, in many ways, a genre in itself. 

Or maybe I just really love Marquez.

you know, that's always bothered me too.  Especially when english teachers insist that every author "employs symbolism."  My ass. 

Beautiful.  That's my favorite redundancy of the lot. 

[FossilJ]

I find that, when there are other things to do, I have to force myself not to read.  I get very carried away with fiction, and I'll drop my entire life just to read.  Unfortunately, I also have a business to run and school to attend right now. 

But I miss my fiction.  I hope I get some good books for my classes so I don't feel guilty about reading.  hahahaha

[magnumalv]

Yes, it is possible, obviously.

I've never needed to read the actual textbooks assigned to the course.  On occasion I have flipped through them to look up a term or something, but that's it. 

I read tons, I've been reading since I was three, I just read what I want to, not crap I'm not particularly interested in. 

If you go to class and pay attention and participate, you shouldn't need the book.  Unless you're stupid. 

I misunderstood. I don't really consider textbooks as books. I thought you meant the additional texts (e.g., novels for papers, etc.).

[Groundhog]

My classes don't work anywhere near like that, obviously.

Anyway, I finished One L the other day, and am going to pick up the standard Brush With The Law, Law School Confidential, etc. package sometime today.

[redemption]

Disagree.  Earlier Coetzee, perhaps, but over the last decade, he's been outstanding. 

If you didn't like Disgrace, that's understandable: the themes are very specific to the South African situation, even if they do generalize well to humanity as a whole. 

Haven't read any Galgut.  Anything you can recommend?

[/quote]

Great thing about taste in books is that we can dsagree and both be right. Coetzee is affected: Disgrace is trite. (Yes, I understand that it is supposed to be specific to the RSA experience, whatever THAT is). Galgut treads the same territory, but more sure-footedly. Try "The Quarry"; it'll blow your socks off.

[redemption]

No offense, Ruskie, and this is not directed at you specifically, but that particular term annoys the crap out of me.

"Utilize", "use", "employ", you name it.  Those terms are inaccurate and overcooked.  Good writers don't "employ" techniques - they make certain aspects part of their stories.  She didn't write the book thinking, "Hey, some magical realism over here would really get my point across."  No, she wrote a novel that fit her interests and aspirations.  It just so happens that magical realism is prevalent within this work.

I know that hermeneutic analysis requires us to understand what techniques the author "uses", and this is probably what you were getting at.  However, I hope, for one, that the terminology, specifically the verbs people use, will change.  Authors don't "employ" techniques.  They don't harangue them from somewhere out in the cosmos and force them into their syntax.  There is an organic process at work, even if the technique was overtly intentional. 

Saying "magical realism is prevalent" is much different from saying "she employs magical realism".  That's the differentiation I'm working towards.  Especially for a "technique" that is, in many ways, a genre in itself. 

Or maybe I just really love Marquez.

you know, that's always bothered me too.  Especially when english teachers insist that every author "employs symbolism."  My ass. 

What's that? Authors like Marquez don't employ/use symbolism? It is just "prevalent" in their work? You mean like by accident?  

[FossilJ]

Disagree.  Earlier Coetzee, perhaps, but over the last decade, he's been outstanding. 

If you didn't like Disgrace, that's understandable: the themes are very specific to the South African situation, even if they do generalize well to humanity as a whole. 

Haven't read any Galgut.  Anything you can recommend?

Great thing about taste in books is that we can dsagree and both be right. Coetzee is affected: Disgrace is trite. (Yes, I understand that it is supposed to be specific to the RSA experience, whatever THAT is). Galgut treads the same territory, but more sure-footedly. Try "The Quarry"; it'll blow your socks off.
[/quote]

You can't call something trite if you don't understand it.

[redemption]

"The South African Experience" is a multifaceted thing - it is many things, not one. That's what I meant. I understand it/them well enough.