tl;dr

#dumberthandumb

i hate articles that say "if so and so were alive today they would have to use (insert whatever contraption here)" or what would they think about this or that. I would hope that great authors like Dickens wouldn't give it the time of day.
as far as kids not holding attention long enough to read a book, I beg to differ at least with my kids. All four love to read. They aren't bookworms they do balance out the reading with other activities. and they aren't reading stuff like comic books either. I have one kid who is in the 9th grade reading on a college junior level. he saved his money up and bought the collector's edition of the Harry Potter books finished those off jumped into the Eragon series and just for shiats and giggles I guess picked up some college textbook regarding the history of war from ancient times until now.
I remember one year a teacher gave me a four book collection of Dickens works at the end of the school year. When school started in the fall, I was able to tell her what happened in all four of them. Oliver Twist stands out in my mind as one of the best books I have ever read.

/and I loved Great Expectations even though old lady Haversham should have gotten rid of that cake.

In my opinion, there should have only been one city.

Amazingly relevant? WTF? Dickens sucks. He always sucked and will suck forever. Wordy, unnecessary nonsense, bad characters, worse plots. Assuming that he was ever relevant, that time has passed.

jimmyjackfunk: they aren't reading stuff like comic books either.

I kinda hate this sentiment. What, precisely, is wrong with comic books? They can have just as much literary quality as a good novel. For instance, From Hell, Watchmen, Transmetropolitan are just as good as any book you want to name, and each explores themes just as deeply as do novels.

For that matter, there are any number of novels that are simply wastes of the paper they're on. Any Harlequin romance novel, Twilight, the post-Frank Herbert Dune novels.

Format does not mean quality.

Reding iz fon....

136: "Mind-numbing descriptions of the food and wardrobes of too many characters serve as a backdrop to a pedantic, melodramatic plot. Boring!"

Dickens ... huh, huh, huh, huh....

PizzaJedi81
jimmyjackfunk: they aren't reading stuff like comic books either.

I kinda hate this sentiment. What, precisely, is wrong with comic books? They can have just as much literary quality as a good novel. For instance, From Hell, Watchmen, Transmetropolitan are just as good as any book you want to name, and each explores themes just as deeply as do novels.

For that matter, there are any number of novels that are simply wastes of the paper they're on. Any Harlequin romance novel, Twilight, the post-Frank Herbert Dune novels.

Format does not mean quality.

Well there's your problem. You're describing Graphic Novels. Graphic Novels mainly differ from regular novels in as they don't leave nearly as much, if anything, to your imagination as even the visuals you're being forced to see the author's viewpoint. Although sometimes this is beneficial in as you can see the actual visual cues for a scene or character rather than having to pause and read lengthy descriptions that are necessary to set said scenes up. In any case you are indeed correct that many Graphic Novels are equally worthy as many of the text-only versions.

But Graphic Novels are far different from Comic Books, and your citations do more than enough to prove this. GNs have story lines that are written with intelligence when it comes to the themes, subjects, and dialogue. Most importantly they have finite endings. Unlike comic books that are less social commentary and more childish fantasy, and are constantly being rewritten in order rehash old ideas, dumbed-down with their reboots, and geared towards marketing that all results in constant conflicts with their story lines in ways that would make even George Lucas cringe at their re-editing. And then when they get called out on their bullshiat, they write some sort of retarded "Infinite Crisis" storyline that allows them to cop-out on their poor writing and lack of research.

When people biatch and moan about reading "comic books", realize that it's not actually GNs that they're really talking about. Unless they just don't know the difference.

PizzaJedi81: I kinda hate this sentiment. What, precisely, is wrong with comic books?

don't take it the wrong way, they read comics too but in place of stacks of comics they have stacks of books. I just simply meant they weren't restricting themselves to reading nothing but comic books. and as far as I am concerned there is really nothing wrong with them, just try to sprinkle a little variety in there.

ChubbyTiger: Amazingly relevant? WTF? Dickens sucks. He always sucked and will suck forever. Wordy, unnecessary nonsense, bad characters, worse plots. Assuming that he was ever relevant, that time has passed.

I've only had the displeasure of reading a few of his works, but based on what I have read I agree. Never have a met a group of such unlikable characters and boring dialogue as Great Expectations.

ChubbyTiger: Amazingly relevant? WTF? Dickens sucks. He always sucked and will suck forever. Wordy, unnecessary nonsense, bad characters, worse plots. Assuming that he was ever relevant, that time has passed.

THIS

the quote is ""Please, sir, I want some more."..

so, subby of the epic fail it would look like ;

#PleasesirIwantsomemore

so..you fail

/this thread is full o' win already

Genju: ChubbyTiger: Amazingly relevant? WTF? Dickens sucks. He always sucked and will suck forever. Wordy, unnecessary nonsense, bad characters, worse plots. Assuming that he was ever relevant, that time has passed.

I've only had the displeasure of reading a few of his works, but based on what I have read I agree. Never have a met a group of such unlikable characters and boring dialogue as Great Expectations.

Well, when you're paid by the word...

Seriously, that's how he made his money on these stories. Most of them were published serially in newspapers, and had a set amount of words/chapters needed.

jimmyjackfunk: PizzaJedi81: I kinda hate this sentiment. What, precisely, is wrong with comic books?

don't take it the wrong way, they read comics too but in place of stacks of comics they have stacks of books. I just simply meant they weren't restricting themselves to reading nothing but comic books. and as far as I am concerned there is really nothing wrong with them, just try to sprinkle a little variety in there.

Fair enough. From the initial wording, and I apologize for obviously misreading it, but it seemed like you were denegrating comics, and that is something up with which I will not put!

Claude Ballse:

First off, thank you for actually discussing this, and not ripping into my statement. It's a rare commodity on Fark to begin with, and it seems to be disappearing quickly.

Second, for afficianados, yes, there is a difference between comics and graphic novels. But for the majority of people, there is little, if any, practical difference. I can find Watchmen side along with the latest Superman or Daredevil collection in any brick & mortar store, under the Comics section. I was trying to use the broadest terminology, in order to get my point across better. I'm sure you understand.

Third, I would compare comics (Your definition of them, anyway.) to, say...a Star Wars novel. It's no different in that the primary thrust (Heh.) of the story is setting up an adventure, and having as many action set pieces as possible. The point I was trying to make is that there is just as much dreck in literature as there is in comics, if not more.

Ugh...brain fizzled...PizzaJedi needs coffee badly.

Funny, I thought most Dickens books came in at just under 140 characters.

Simpsons did it...

No wait, Rinkworks did it... like eons ago, and much better if you didn't want to bother to read some stupid assigned book and were smart enough to write a coherent paper off of nothing.

http://www.rinkworks.com/bookaminute/classics.shtml
Link (new window)

...by someone who didn't actually read the novels and learn the actual plot.

Long story short, this article is mildly amusing for English Lit majors.

Short story long? Anything by Charles Dickens.

/obscure?

DBacich: ...by someone who didn't actually read the novels and learn the actual plot.

In my defense (don't know why I bother really), let me give you an example...

When I was in the *4th* grade, I read As I Lay Dying. In the 4th grade, this was an interesting read.

When I was assigned the same thing years later in high school, I had forgotten most of the plot, and tried to read it again. -I fell asleep either other paragraph until I finally decided to just look up a plot synopsis and write the stupid paper I was assigned. I got an A, in fact, the *only* A in my gifted class on that paper. The future English Lit. majors were pissed.

My point being, just because you find Faulkner or Dicken's work interesting, doesn't mean other people have to or that by not finding the classics interesting, there's something wrong with me. I find almost *all* classics to be boring and predictable, the same way I'm sure you find the Transformers movies to be.

Should the classics be required reading for the general populace? Definitely. It would be *nice* if I could go to the movies and see something not written for the common denominator. But to paint a broad stroke of your brush and assume that anyone not interested in reading the classics hasn't read *most* of them already and still finds them to be dreck, is just ridiculous.

das224: Funny, I thought most Dickens books came in at just under 140 characters.

THIS

Been on somewhat of a Dickens kick lately. Just re-read Nicholas Nickleby, Bleak House, and David Copperfield. Then picked up Great Expectations, Pickwick Papers, and A Tale of Two Cities, which I had not read before.

For "classics" Dickens' books are easy reads and a lot of fun. Yes, by now a lot of plot twists and characterizations are formulaic, but they weren't back then. I also like the descriptions of the food and manners of that era. It makes history more interesting. Anyway, Dickens has been and will continue to be one of my favorite authors, even though I think he treated his wife pretty shabbily.

/agree Great Expectations wasn't one of my favorites
//Pip was an ass

silvervial: Been on somewhat of a Dickens kick lately. Just re-read Nicholas Nickleby, Bleak House, and David Copperfield. Then picked up Great Expectations, Pickwick Papers, and A Tale of Two Cities, which I had not read before.

For "classics" Dickens' books are easy reads and a lot of fun. Yes, by now a lot of plot twists and characterizations are formulaic, but they weren't back then. I also like the descriptions of the food and manners of that era. It makes history more interesting. Anyway, Dickens has been and will continue to be one of my favorite authors, even though I think he treated his wife pretty shabbily.

/agree Great Expectations wasn't one of my favorites
//Pip was an ass

Estella was an annoying whiny entitled biatch. Reading her dialogue was nails on the chalkboard to me.

/He calls the knaves, Jacks, this boy!
//*backhand*

jimmyjackfunk: /and I loved Great Expectations even though old lady Haversham should have gotten rid of that cake.

Yeah, but her snooty niece or whatever she was, I wanted to bang that like pots and pans.