I'm reading Samurai Widow by Judy Belushi Pisano now. So far it's been a great read.

You can wisk through them because they require very little thought.

It's pointless to start on a literary evaluation here because films are not books and books are not films. QED.

I have no real problem with films based on books but it is pretty rare that a book becomes a great film. In fact Philip K Dick's books have been bastardised continually in order that Hollywood producers can earn their dough:

Blade Runner - based on Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep by Philip K Dick. Now apparently that was only the basis. The film was more properly based on a book by Alan E Nourse called 'The Blade Runner'. Why wasn't that hyped? Possibly because Nourse's name wasn't as sellable as PK Dick's.

'Total Recall': Have you read the story this was based on? It's called 'We can Remember It for you Wholesale'. Yes, some idea in there got into the film but it's totally different.

'Minority Report' Come on! The film has no real bearing on the story. A vehicle for fast stunts and product placement. Absolute boolocks.

But to get back to the whole 'I have read a book' scenario the majority of you have picked books that are as hyped as films.

Why don't you read some real books. Books that require you to think. Books that may need a little more than a quick scan. Books that mean you go to bed worrying about what you've just read. Here is a list:

Great Expectations by Charles Dickens

Piano Player by Kurt Vonnegut

Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut

The Man In The High Castle by P K Dick

A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess

Walking On Glass by Iain Banks

Nineteen Eighty Four by George Orwell

For Whom The Bell Tolls by Earnest Hemingway

Breakfast Of Champions by Kurt Vonnegut

Sirens Of Titan by Kurt Vonnegut

Filth by Irvine Welsh

I could go on. Apart from the travesty that was 1984 not one of these has been attempted (Sorry I remember that David Lean did a well respected and spooky version of Great Expectations - big deal). And too right. If you want to make a film of a book, fair play. But trying to pretend it's in some way a literary, intelligent exercise is crap.

Oh, yeah, Kubrick did a great attempt at Clockwork Orange and I'm sure someone's tried For Whom The Bell Tolls, but the point is that these books do not translate well. Most books don't.

I just get annoyed when all people say is that they've read The da Vinci Code or the entire Harry Potter series. Please, there are some great novels around. And we all have, I hope, an hour before we fall asleep. Read a good book.

You can get annoyed all you want, but fact is that Harry Potter succeeds very well in what it wants to do.
Those books are very underrated by literature lovers.

I SHOOR DO WISH I KOOD REED AS GOOD AS U!!1

Dang, bro., you're a deep one! Seriously, man, you make me ashamed to admit I'm reading King's Dark Tower series! But all kidding aside, I think you're absolutely right. It all boils down to what's "marketable" these days, not what touches the soul or prompts a positive reaction. Thanks for drivin' that point home.

Your entitled to your opinion, but you are wrong. Just because a book becomes a film doesn't mean it's crap. You are correct on the fact that maybe people do buy books because their watching of the films maybe made them want to read the book. I do agree that people should start reading books that aren't hyped by films, but it does NOT mean they are crap by any means. And it also does not mean it cannot be thought provoking. The Lord of The Flies anyone?

The Harry Potter books are pretty good, but overrated.

It looked intresting in teh libary so I thought id bringit home.

Just wraping up, Truman Capote's masterpiece, "In Cold Blood". An absobing, tense tale of the murder of a small, rural Kansas family and the subsiquent investigation and excecution of the murderes. Told from both sidesl the perpetraitors and the investigators.

Gripping and one of the greatest American books writen in the 20th Century.

I knew this would lead to a bit of misrepresentation but I stick with what I said.

If people want to read JK Rowling and Dan Brown... well fair enough. My problem is if that is all they read. People see that as being all it requires to be a reader. I am saying that if people actually were as adventurous in their reading habits as they maybe are in their film watching habits they might actually read something that meant more to them than what happens to Harry in the next volume. Do you see my point? I am saying read about something that has not been hyped. Be different. Find out what happens to Pip in Great Expectations. Be concerned about Winston Smith in Nineteen Eighty Four. Wonder how the human race can survive when you read The Kraken Wakes by John Wyndham.

Also, I love Stephen King. He is a proper writer. So don't presume that I think his stuff is crap. I don't.

No.

You don't just come waltzing in here belittling other people's reading choices just because you think you're OH-SO-MUCH-MORE-intellectual than them.

Puh-leeze.

Reading a book isn't what is required to be a reader? How's that work?

If you enjoy this book, I highly recomend oall of Steinbeck's other works. The most prominent are perhaps, "East of Eden" and "The Grapes of Wrath". "Eat of Eden" is an intimate and absorbing epic in the stricktest sesne of the word. The same description can be apllied for, "The Grapes of Wrath" except that I feel more humanity in "...Wrath". You understand and care and come to love these poor folks and Steinbeck doesn't hessitate to give you the truth about the ways of the world. Mind blowing stuff. Peraps the greatest writter of his time. Fuck Hemmingway or Faulkner or Fitzgerald. Steinbeck is easily the greater of the whole lot.

Well, I wasn't sure. I think SOME of his stuff is crap. Anyway, as I said, I think you're absolutely right, particularly when it comes to expanding the ol' cranium. I think each subsequent generation gets a little dumber and a little dumber. Most young'uns today couldn't even tell you who Dickens is, or Poe, or Melville, etc., etc., etc.

But you sure unintentionally opened a can of worms, dude!

mhm

Not that rare.

And just because someone on here listed that they read Harry Potter, or The Da Vinci Code.. doesn't mean that's the ONLY book they read... it just means that they DID read it.

Reading a book isn't what is required to be a reader? How's that work? [/QB][/quote]I think I understand where he is coming from. Some readers never look beyond the story. They just read a book and run along contentley, never thinking of the symbolisim or the statement the author is trying to make in his work.

Of course, we like tho think that this is a new development. Fact is that some people don't appeciate art for what it is or can be... A source of enlightement. That's the purpose of criticisim and analysis. To discover such things.

That said, it hurts to over-analyze. Then the work looses it's steem, and that whole sense of telling a story. SOmetimes, works don't need to be anylized. They are just cahreceter studies or just really good stories.

All variables shouldbe taken into consideration. Sorry for the rant.

Reminds me of the "disclaimer" Twain put in Huck Finn...or was it A CT. Yankee in King Arthur's Court??

No.

You don't just come waltzing in here belittling other people's reading choices just because you think you're OH-SO-MUCH-MORE-intellectual than them.

Puh-leeze.

Reading a book isn't what is required to be a reader? How's that work? [/b][/quote]So, what was the last book you read then? Are you the kind of person who thinks reading is attaching one word to the next? Thereby getting a sentence.

Now THAT I agree with. Maybe he just worded it wrong?

Although I still disagree about the part where he said that its rare that books make great films. I mean, just glancing at the list on the link I put:

2001: A Space Odyssey, Arsenic and Old Lace, Ben-Hur, Bridge on the River Kwai, Caine Mutiny, The Exorcist, Forrest Gump, Frankenstein, Gettysburg, THE GODFATHER, The Great Escape... All of which are EXCELLENT films (in my opinion anyway.. and obviously someone elses if they listed them on that site) And I'm only at the G's.

No. Definatley "Huck Finn". Great work, by the way. Read it earlier this year in Language Arts and it is one of the ddefinative American works. Twain's humour is evident and yet there is such a statement and a heart to this work that it really enders it and let's it's message last even today. Althoughin the backdrop of 1840's Southern U.S.A. , the fact is that it's more than just a tale about a boy and his slave. It's a boy, confronted with the worlds faults who comes of age and learns the most important things about friendship and life and being a man.

These are not news matters. These are matters that matter.

Although I still disagree about the part where he said that its rare that books make great films. I mean, just glancing at the list on the link I put:

2001: A Space Odyssey, Arsenic and Old Lace, Ben-Hur, Bridge on the River Kwai, Caine Mutiny, The Exorcist, Forrest Gump, Frankenstein, Gettysburg, THE GODFATHER, The Great Escape... All of which are EXCELLENT films (in my opinion anyway.. and obviously someone elses if they listed them on that site) And I'm only at the G's. [/QB][/QUOTE]

This bit above is a quote from the post. My editing has made it seem like it's my own writing. This line of asterisks divides my own from the quote... okay.

******************************************************

I really can't see anything here. None of these are original novels. Are they? Okay: Frankenstein. But seriously corrupted. I bet you still think that the monster was called Frankenstein. Space Odyssey? Okay, a novel. But extremely adapted to allow Kubrick to make the film. And do you really think that Forrest Gump was a novel? Let alone thinking it was a great film? Is there anyone else in the room? Is there anybody here who thinks that The Great Escape (a great film) was also once a novel?

Do you see the bit at the top of the page where it says "movies based on books"???

Actually the doctor's name was Frankenstein. The Monster wasn't given a name. I've read the book, and its sitting in my closet.

Did I stutter in my post where I said they were all excellent movies in my opinion?

You do know, that its BASED ON A TRUE STORY, don't you? Paul Brickhill took part in it, documented it, wrote a book on it, and it was made into a GREAT movie.
(Actually as a bit of a side note, my granddad was at the same POW Camp that it took place in )


I think I see what the problem is here. You think (very wrongly) that you and your opinion are better than everyone else.

The last book I read was Brave New World. And before that, Animal Farm, and before that I read the complete works of Edgar Allen Poe. I could go on, but I'll stop.

And stop sounding so fucking pompous.

You simply can't except that you are wrong here. Always a little bullshit tid-bit or little stupid excuse. Christ.

Do you see the bit at the top of the page where it says "movies [b]based on books"???

Actually the doctor's name was Frankenstein. The Monster wasn't given a name. I've read the book, and its sitting in my closet.

Did I stutter in my post where I said they were all excellent movies in my opinion?

You do know, that its BASED ON A TRUE STORY, don't you? Paul Brickhill took part in it, documented it, wrote a book on it, and it was made into a GREAT movie.
(Actually as a bit of a side note, my granddad was at the same POW Camp that it took place in )


I think I see what the problem is here. You think (very wrongly) that you and your opinion are better than everyone else.

The last book I read was Brave New World. And before that, Animal Farm, and before that I read the complete works of Edgar Allen Poe. I could go on, but I'll stop.

And stop sounding so fucking pompous. [/b][/quote]Quite simply the greatest post ever.

I think you're the one that should quit the "presuming."

I've read all of the Harry Potter books, and yet you "presume" that people who read the Harry Potter books, or any other book that has caught public interest, you think that's all we read.

I think we should change the word "presume" to "assume". And we all know what happens when we assume. Just read a post by kevon45uk.

Well, if you want to break reading down to it's most basic terms, that's exactly what reading is.

Webster's Dictionary says reading is "to learn from what one has seen or found in writing or printing."

Here's some advice, kevon. Lose the condescending, prissy "holier than thou" attitude that you've displayed throughout this thread. You aren't better than anybody, so don't you dare talk down to anybody on these boards.

Good day, sir.

YOU MAKE AN "ASS" OUT OF "U" AND "ME"!!!!!

Okay, so you know all that. But you are the kind of person who without thinking destroys the idea that a person should learn.

You think it's okay to attack a person for learning.

I want people to read things because it's important that they do so.

I am happy that you are au fait with Poe, Shelley, Byron et al.

You think I am pompous. I don't think that I am. I just want people (and I definitely mean kids) to read things other than Harry Potter stories. I was brought up to read all kinds of things. I read CS Lewis and Tolkien as a kid and I didn't need a big Hollywood movie to tell me about it.

Reading things like that gave me an introduction to grown up books. Lets face it, Tolkien didn't really write for nippers.

All I'm saying is that there is an infantilism about culture at the moment and if a few of us stood up for literature and bought a few books that were difficult but in the end rewarding maybe we could arrest that slide and we would be able to look at one another on the underground and think to ourselves: "Well he/she is reading 'Keep The Aspidistra Flying' by George Orwell or reading 'Cosmos' by Carl Sagan" and we would feel in ourselves that things aren't so bad.

No offence like.

Excuse me?

No, I know you are.

And I think you're scrapping for excuses because you just got PWN3D 293845 different times.

Winston Groom wrote the novel 1986.

Winston Groom wrote the novel 1986. [/QB][/quote]Ouch!

If I was at a place with you and you responded in that way I would think to myself:

This person is slightly unhinged

This needs to go no further

This person cannot have a real discussion with me

Best get a cab

Very sad

Aimed at Bogey

Whoever he is.

Last couple of posts are fine. I have no problem there