Him? I'm indifferent towards the author. This particular book is just tedious and poorly written. It's rapidly becoming a chore to finish it for the book club.
Him? I'm indifferent towards the author.This particularbook is just tedious and poorly written. It's rapidly becoming a chore to finish it for the book club.
Fair enough. When that episode comes around, you're not gonna just bash him the whole time are you?
Top Three things I am fucking sick of: 3) People on TV talking about economics like they know what they mean. Seriously, who here (apart from me) knows what cap and trade is? Make me proud guys! 2) People being sick of Micheal Cera (Seriously guys, he's made 1 bad movie and that's it. A lot of people have done a lot worse). 1) Zombies.
P.S. Just to make this post relevant, I am reading Hunter S. Thompson's The Rum Diary in part because I couldn't find a copy of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
3) People on TV talking about economics like they know what they mean. Seriously, who here (apart from me) knows what cap and trade is? Make me proud guys!
I had to look it up, but I don't think knowing what cap and trade is is the best way to determine who knows their economics. Unless, you're making a point towards a bunch of people talking shit about cap and trade recently.
Reading through 1984 by George Orwell for the first time. Kinda know what to expect by now since there's always been jib-jab surrounding this book, but its an interesting read nonetheless.
As I do with all books, I will review it honestly.
I really think you two are not going to have enjoyed that book largely because you expected not to enjoy it and resented feeling obliged to read it. I'm as tired of the zombie fad as anyone, but that's a pretty well-constructed book.
But I guess we'll just have to wait for the episode and see.
Down and Out in the Magic Kingdomwas a really quick read.
Random interesting note - in nearly of Doctorow's stories, The main character or characters are betrayed by a woman.
I really think you two are not going to have enjoyed that book largely because youexpectednot to enjoy it and resented feeling obliged to read it. I'm as tired of the zombie fad as anyone, but that's a pretty well-constructed book.
But I guess we'll just have to wait for the episode and see.
As much as I will give them slack right up until they've put their comments on the record and we can examine what they have to say, I will say that Scrym have a very severe habit of "I don't personally like this, therefore it is objectively bad". I'm not saying that most other people don't do this, but I suppose I just expect them to hold themselves to a higher standard.
Now Reading In the Context of No Context by George Trow. Just an essay collected in a small book with a more recent essay commenting on In the Context of No Context. It's a good predictor of media trends and talks about the way things are, what's mainstream, what isn't, how things become mainstream. This was all written before 2000, so it's a little old-world, but I've been learning a lot about people like Roman Polanski and etc. Not sure If I'd recommend it though...
Second, I'm reading Solaris. I do like the way it's psychological. It reminds me of Satoshi Kon's Magnetic Rose. I'm wondering if there was influence there...
I will say that Scrym have a very severe habit of "I don't personally like this, therefore it is objectively bad".
There are plenty of things in all nine possible combinations of like/don't like/neutral + good/bad/neutral and every gray area in-between. The problem is that there is just a confirmation bias towards noticing when someone doesn't like something and says it is bad.
Think about it. Let's say you don't like something. You probably aren't even going to talk about it. Thus, you won't see us talking about it either. Now let's say you like it and we also like it. Then we just say very few words and nobody notices. Or maybe we say something is awesome, and you don't like it. Well, that has happened, like when someone didn't understand Burning Wheel. But the vast majority of the time when any actual discussion will happen is when someone likes something and we say it sucks. Unless there is a disagreement, there probably isn't going to be a conversation in the first place.
The other factor is that we have learned in many years to look beneath the surface. This is something the vast majority of people, even nerds, can not do. When we look at say, a video game, we look at the core mechanic, ignoring all the fluff above it. Take for example something like a Lucas Arts adventure game. They are beloved by nerds around the world, but we will say they kinda suck. Most nerds will lose their shit and say OMG they are so funny and amazing! I will say that the game is really nothing but mindless and tedious trial and error, and you could/should get all the humor in less hours watching it on YouTube. There are many items of entertainment of the geek persuasion which have a very shiny polish on a very shaky or nonexistent foundation. Thus, we will frequently disagree with other geeks and nerds because we always look at the man behind the curtain.
TF2 has no clothes. Amazing characters and theme on a low skill lame game. StarCraft 2, micro is king, strategy is at the back of the bus. Our method of evaluating things, especially games, results in these disagreements frequently because nobody else evaluates things in the same fashion. I think that is one of the things that makes GeekNights unique, and I that's the way I like it.
You missed the part where he says you make statements as if your subjective tastes are objective.
You miss the part where I separate which statements are discussing objective things and which are discussing matters of taste. Mostly it's when we talk about games, because they have objective components, and usually that is the aspect we care about most. But even something like a Gundam model can be objectively judged. If the instruction manual has an error in it, that's not really a matter of taste.
You missed the part where he says you make statements as if your subjective tastes are objective.
You miss the part where I separate which statements are discussing objective things and which are discussing matters of taste. Mostly it's when we talk about games, because they have objective components, and usually that is the aspect we care about most. But even something like a Gundam model can be objectively judged. If the instruction manual has an error in it, that's not really a matter of taste.
I understand the part where you break a game down to its components. You're still rating these components subjectively according to your own tastes. How far can you objectively judge a game such as for example quake 3?
I really think you two are not going to have enjoyed that book largely because youexpectednot to enjoy it and resented feeling obliged to read it.
I enjoyed it for several stories. Then, I noticed that the style never changed. All of the characters had about the same diction and cadence. There were too many oh so clever nods to modern politics or pop culture. The idiosyncratic words and phrases the author created to flesh out his world were so forced it was physically painful.
I actually wanted to enjoy this book. Its flaws were just very apparent once I'd read more than a few dozen pages.
Scrym have a very severe habit of "I don't personally like this, therefore it is objectively bad".
Such as? Scott is guilty of this much moreso than I am, though usually just because he sometimes fails to define his terms before debate (or people in the forum ignore his definition of terms/don't read all the words). ;^) In the case of World War Z, it's objectively poorly written in my estimation. A better author could have told the exact same story much better.
The Lies of Locke Lamora was decently written and carried itself on story. Kavalier and Clay was excellently written and also told an excellent story. World War Z tells an average story in a mediocre manner. Stylistically, it's simplistic and ham-fisted. Narratively, it's forced. The subject matter isn't the problem: the writing is.
Anyone who honestly claims that World War Z was well-written has either not read many well-written books or, in my estimation, has bad stylistic taste. For you, I would suggest studying The Lively Art of Writing.
I understand the part where you break a game down to its components. You're still rating these components subjectively according to your own tastes. How far can you objectively judge a game such as for example quake 3?
What are the terms for judgement?
The difference between subjective and objective judgement is a simple as knowing whether or not you have defined the terms of the discussion.
"Is Quake 3 more or less individual-player-skill driven than other FPSs?" can be fairly objectively evaluated.
"Is Quake 3 better than some other FPS?" can also be fairly objectively evaluated, provided you've defined what "better" specifically means. For example, you could say that better in this case signifies a purer test of particular skills, or a particular kind of emergent narrative. "Is Quake 3 better than X?" is a subjective argument if no terms are defined.
"Is Quake 3 more fun than some other game" is subjective in most cases, but study and inquiry, such as player observation and evaluation by neutral third parties, can push even this into the realm of objectivity. Measure how often players smile playing game X versus game Y over time, and you can pursue certain objective statements in a far manner.
Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five. I just did a review of it where I break it down to its components, and explain that if you still don't get it, you are an idiot.
Meanwhile, I've not got past the first section of World War Z. I think a taste is all I needed. The book really isn't for me.
I really can't recommend the Audiobook of World War Z enough. I think the actors they brought it livened the book up (I have never read the book) but I found the audio to be great.
I really can't recommend the Audiobook of World War Z enough. I think the actors they brought it livened the book up (I have never read the book) but I found the audio to be great.
That just means it wasn't a good book, but that the story itself was solid enough to be made reasonably entertaining with good voice acting.
If an audiobook is ever better then the actual book, either liberties were taken by the readers, or the writing was poorly evocative.
Having not read the book. I don't know but I know the quality of actors they got was extremely high for an audio book SO I'm sure they took LOTS of liberties.
Some of the actors include Henry Rollins and Alan Alda so you can see the quality.
"Is Quake 3 more or less individual-player-skill driven than other FPSs?" can be fairly objectively evaluated.
This is an evaluation of its components, it's not hard to do an objective evaluation of this according to what you determined should be judged.
"Is Quake 3 better than some other FPS?" can also be fairly objectively evaluated, provided you've defined what "better" specifically means. For example, you could say that better in this case signifies a purer test of particular skills, or a particular kind of emergent narrative. "Is Quake 3 better than X?" is a subjective argument if no terms are defined.
The whole point is that defining what better means differs. You can force a definition to attempt to create an objective discussion of a game of an inherently subjective nature. You can compare and contrast and analyze and evaluate components of a game, a book, a film, anything you want, but that final bit where you stamp your seal of awesome to everything you analyzed is inherently subjective. I know a friend who understands the nature of WoW and of its repetitive grinding, and thinks it's a good game because because of this elements. I think he's an idiot but that's because my taste is different to his. We've argued a long time about this and it has always ended up with "I like this" and "well I don't". I can say that from now own, grinding is defined as bad and I can use this definition to create an objective case but this only works for how much I personally agree with this definition and how much he agree with me, and we don't always agree. There are other people that find the definition of good that you put up to be suitable for their own tastes, but this is simply not the case all the time. So when Scott says:
"I don't personally like this, therefore it is objectively bad"
Defining what good and bad means is still a subjective no matter how you shoehorn a definition.
Comments
3) People on TV talking about economics like they know what they mean. Seriously, who here (apart from me) knows what cap and trade is? Make me proud guys!
2) People being sick of Micheal Cera (Seriously guys, he's made 1 bad movie and that's it. A lot of people have done a lot worse).
1) Zombies.
P.S. Just to make this post relevant, I am reading Hunter S. Thompson's The Rum Diary in part because I couldn't find a copy of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
But I guess we'll just have to wait for the episode and see.
Second, I'm reading Solaris. I do like the way it's psychological. It reminds me of Satoshi Kon's Magnetic Rose. I'm wondering if there was influence there...
Think about it. Let's say you don't like something. You probably aren't even going to talk about it. Thus, you won't see us talking about it either. Now let's say you like it and we also like it. Then we just say very few words and nobody notices. Or maybe we say something is awesome, and you don't like it. Well, that has happened, like when someone didn't understand Burning Wheel. But the vast majority of the time when any actual discussion will happen is when someone likes something and we say it sucks. Unless there is a disagreement, there probably isn't going to be a conversation in the first place.
The other factor is that we have learned in many years to look beneath the surface. This is something the vast majority of people, even nerds, can not do. When we look at say, a video game, we look at the core mechanic, ignoring all the fluff above it. Take for example something like a Lucas Arts adventure game. They are beloved by nerds around the world, but we will say they kinda suck. Most nerds will lose their shit and say OMG they are so funny and amazing! I will say that the game is really nothing but mindless and tedious trial and error, and you could/should get all the humor in less hours watching it on YouTube. There are many items of entertainment of the geek persuasion which have a very shiny polish on a very shaky or nonexistent foundation. Thus, we will frequently disagree with other geeks and nerds because we always look at the man behind the curtain.
TF2 has no clothes. Amazing characters and theme on a low skill lame game. StarCraft 2, micro is king, strategy is at the back of the bus. Our method of evaluating things, especially games, results in these disagreements frequently because nobody else evaluates things in the same fashion. I think that is one of the things that makes GeekNights unique, and I that's the way I like it.
I actually wanted to enjoy this book. Its flaws were just very apparent once I'd read more than a few dozen pages. Such as? Scott is guilty of this much moreso than I am, though usually just because he sometimes fails to define his terms before debate (or people in the forum ignore his definition of terms/don't read all the words). ;^) In the case of World War Z, it's objectively poorly written in my estimation. A better author could have told the exact same story much better.
The Lies of Locke Lamora was decently written and carried itself on story. Kavalier and Clay was excellently written and also told an excellent story. World War Z tells an average story in a mediocre manner. Stylistically, it's simplistic and ham-fisted. Narratively, it's forced. The subject matter isn't the problem: the writing is.
Anyone who honestly claims that World War Z was well-written has either not read many well-written books or, in my estimation, has bad stylistic taste. For you, I would suggest studying The Lively Art of Writing.
The difference between subjective and objective judgement is a simple as knowing whether or not you have defined the terms of the discussion.
"Is Quake 3 more or less individual-player-skill driven than other FPSs?" can be fairly objectively evaluated.
"Is Quake 3 better than some other FPS?" can also be fairly objectively evaluated, provided you've defined what "better" specifically means. For example, you could say that better in this case signifies a purer test of particular skills, or a particular kind of emergent narrative. "Is Quake 3 better than X?" is a subjective argument if no terms are defined.
"Is Quake 3 more fun than some other game" is subjective in most cases, but study and inquiry, such as player observation and evaluation by neutral third parties, can push even this into the realm of objectivity. Measure how often players smile playing game X versus game Y over time, and you can pursue certain objective statements in a far manner.
Meanwhile, I've not got past the first section of World War Z. I think a taste is all I needed. The book really isn't for me.
If an audiobook is ever better then the actual book, either liberties were taken by the readers, or the writing was poorly evocative.
Some of the actors include Henry Rollins and Alan Alda so you can see the quality.