Whatcha reading?
-
Silent Majority
- Singer-Songwriter Nancy
- Posts: 18702
- Joined: 10 Nov 2008, 8:28pm
- Location: South Londoner in the Midlands.
Re: Whatcha reading?
77) Ramones - 33/3rd - Nicholas Rombes. Audiobook. 2005. A rock critic's book on meaning of punk through the prism of the Ramones' first album, intellectualisng the art and aware that the themes of the album don't invite that approach immediately. The writer also knows that music fans can also react badly to thinking hard about punk rock, but I found this a fun read which had nothing new for me, but only because I've read a frankly stupid amount on the band and era.
Re: Whatcha reading?
This also fell by the wayside. I'm onto listening to The Lost World, which I am enjoying even more than JP. I still find Crichton's way of turning characters into talking Wikipedia articles endearing.Wolter wrote: ↑16 Oct 2020, 3:23pmYeah. I never dug deeper into his work when I realized how much better the movie was.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑16 Oct 2020, 3:04pmOh my, the book isn't very good. The movie is absurdly better. The only Blatty novel that I can recommend (highly) is Legion, his sequel to The Exorcist and the basis for The Exorcist III.
- Flex
- Mechano-Man of the Future
- Posts: 35802
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:50pm
- Location: The Information Superhighway!
Re: Whatcha reading?
anyone have any good recommendations for audiobook readings of Frankenstein, Dracula or Poe's works? Have some long driving to do in the next couple weeks and thought it could be a fun listen.
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a bowl of soup
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a rolling hoop
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a ton of lead
Wiggle - you can raise the dead
Pex Lives!
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a rolling hoop
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a ton of lead
Wiggle - you can raise the dead
Pex Lives!
-
Silent Majority
- Singer-Songwriter Nancy
- Posts: 18702
- Joined: 10 Nov 2008, 8:28pm
- Location: South Londoner in the Midlands.
Re: Whatcha reading?
There are some fantastic Poe readings out there by Vincent Price, Basil Rathbone and Christopher Lee. Lee also has a collection of spooky old stories like the Monkeys Paw which he did for radio late in life which are great.
The Tim Curry Dracula book for audible is my favourite rendition of the book, with lots of other cool stars involved.
Not sure which version of Frankenstein I heard but I see Dan Stevens has recorded one, and I've had a good time with his interpretation of the Bond books.
-
Silent Majority
- Singer-Songwriter Nancy
- Posts: 18702
- Joined: 10 Nov 2008, 8:28pm
- Location: South Londoner in the Midlands.
Re: Whatcha reading?
78) Creativity: A Short and Cheerful Guide - John Cleese. Kindle. 2020. Really short book, more of a magazine article than anything else. Helpful and wise, very much to the point. You could call this a bit of a cash in for the Christmas market, but Cleese wrote it in lockdown and I think the attempt came from a good place, worth investing the hour it took to read. I liked his four questions for a critical reader and there's other practical stuff too. Loses points for not seeing the easiest way of getting creative: walking around alone for a long time while listening to Fugazi instrumentals.
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 115994
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Whatcha reading?
What are the four questions?Silent Majority wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 8:11am78) Creativity: A Short and Cheerful Guide - John Cleese. Kindle. 2020. Really short book, more of a magazine article than anything else. Helpful and wise, very much to the point. You could call this a bit of a cash in for the Christmas market, but Cleese wrote it in lockdown and I think the attempt came from a good place, worth investing the hour it took to read. I liked his four questions for a critical reader and there's other practical stuff too. Loses points for not seeing the easiest way of getting creative: walking around alone for a long time while listening to Fugazi instrumentals.
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
-
Silent Majority
- Singer-Songwriter Nancy
- Posts: 18702
- Joined: 10 Nov 2008, 8:28pm
- Location: South Londoner in the Midlands.
Re: Whatcha reading?
Where were you bored?Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 8:53amWhat are the four questions?Silent Majority wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 8:11am78) Creativity: A Short and Cheerful Guide - John Cleese. Kindle. 2020. Really short book, more of a magazine article than anything else. Helpful and wise, very much to the point. You could call this a bit of a cash in for the Christmas market, but Cleese wrote it in lockdown and I think the attempt came from a good place, worth investing the hour it took to read. I liked his four questions for a critical reader and there's other practical stuff too. Loses points for not seeing the easiest way of getting creative: walking around alone for a long time while listening to Fugazi instrumentals.
Where could you not understand what was going on?
Where did you not find things credible?
Was there anything you found emotionally confusing?
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 115994
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Whatcha reading?
All of those seem driven by a desire for clarity and strict entertainment (or, more broadly, hedonism). The thing I'd argue against in that is it lends itself to dumbing down. Or, perhaps what I mean, it doesn't aim towards challenging or inspiring the reader. Which is why it's curious that a Python would write this advice as opposed to the guy who dreamed up The Big Bang Theory. Cleese & co were pathbreaking for intentional confusion in the sense of fucking with convention—what the rules say should happen next—and for inviting confusion in the service of challenging comedy. Perhaps I'm reading against what he means here, having not read the piece.Silent Majority wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 9:58amWhere were you bored?Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 8:53amWhat are the four questions?Silent Majority wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 8:11am78) Creativity: A Short and Cheerful Guide - John Cleese. Kindle. 2020. Really short book, more of a magazine article than anything else. Helpful and wise, very much to the point. You could call this a bit of a cash in for the Christmas market, but Cleese wrote it in lockdown and I think the attempt came from a good place, worth investing the hour it took to read. I liked his four questions for a critical reader and there's other practical stuff too. Loses points for not seeing the easiest way of getting creative: walking around alone for a long time while listening to Fugazi instrumentals.
Where could you not understand what was going on?
Where did you not find things credible?
Was there anything you found emotionally confusing?
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
-
Silent Majority
- Singer-Songwriter Nancy
- Posts: 18702
- Joined: 10 Nov 2008, 8:28pm
- Location: South Londoner in the Midlands.
Re: Whatcha reading?
No, I think your read is fair. Perhaps if the guide had been longer (or less cheerful?) he could have clarified for work which aims for challenging or idiosyncratic, but the questions could be used for a focus group's smoothing out of a piece.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 10:31amAll of those seem driven by a desire for clarity and strict entertainment (or, more broadly, hedonism). The thing I'd argue against in that is it lends itself to dumbing down. Or, perhaps what I mean, it doesn't aim towards challenging or inspiring the reader. Which is why it's curious that a Python would write this advice as opposed to the guy who dreamed up The Big Bang Theory. Cleese & co were pathbreaking for intentional confusion in the sense of fucking with convention—what the rules say should happen next—and for inviting confusion in the service of challenging comedy. Perhaps I'm reading against what he means here, having not read the piece.Silent Majority wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 9:58amWhere were you bored?Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 8:53amWhat are the four questions?Silent Majority wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 8:11am78) Creativity: A Short and Cheerful Guide - John Cleese. Kindle. 2020. Really short book, more of a magazine article than anything else. Helpful and wise, very much to the point. You could call this a bit of a cash in for the Christmas market, but Cleese wrote it in lockdown and I think the attempt came from a good place, worth investing the hour it took to read. I liked his four questions for a critical reader and there's other practical stuff too. Loses points for not seeing the easiest way of getting creative: walking around alone for a long time while listening to Fugazi instrumentals.
Where could you not understand what was going on?
Where did you not find things credible?
Was there anything you found emotionally confusing?
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 115994
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Whatcha reading?
Right, right. And not everything has to seek to be vanguardist. Formula work or stuff aimed at a mass and diverse audience isn't a bad thing.Silent Majority wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 11:28amNo, I think your read is fair. Perhaps if the guide had been longer (or less cheerful?) he could have clarified for work which aims for challenging or idiosyncratic, but the questions could be used for a focus group's smoothing out of a piece.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 10:31amAll of those seem driven by a desire for clarity and strict entertainment (or, more broadly, hedonism). The thing I'd argue against in that is it lends itself to dumbing down. Or, perhaps what I mean, it doesn't aim towards challenging or inspiring the reader. Which is why it's curious that a Python would write this advice as opposed to the guy who dreamed up The Big Bang Theory. Cleese & co were pathbreaking for intentional confusion in the sense of fucking with convention—what the rules say should happen next—and for inviting confusion in the service of challenging comedy. Perhaps I'm reading against what he means here, having not read the piece.Silent Majority wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 9:58amWhere were you bored?Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 8:53amWhat are the four questions?Silent Majority wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 8:11am78) Creativity: A Short and Cheerful Guide - John Cleese. Kindle. 2020. Really short book, more of a magazine article than anything else. Helpful and wise, very much to the point. You could call this a bit of a cash in for the Christmas market, but Cleese wrote it in lockdown and I think the attempt came from a good place, worth investing the hour it took to read. I liked his four questions for a critical reader and there's other practical stuff too. Loses points for not seeing the easiest way of getting creative: walking around alone for a long time while listening to Fugazi instrumentals.
Where could you not understand what was going on?
Where did you not find things credible?
Was there anything you found emotionally confusing?
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
- Flex
- Mechano-Man of the Future
- Posts: 35802
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:50pm
- Location: The Information Superhighway!
Re: Whatcha reading?
Thanks man! That gives me plenty to fill some time with some spookiness.Silent Majority wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 8:09amThere are some fantastic Poe readings out there by Vincent Price, Basil Rathbone and Christopher Lee. Lee also has a collection of spooky old stories like the Monkeys Paw which he did for radio late in life which are great.
The Tim Curry Dracula book for audible is my favourite rendition of the book, with lots of other cool stars involved.
Not sure which version of Frankenstein I heard but I see Dan Stevens has recorded one, and I've had a good time with his interpretation of the Bond books.
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a bowl of soup
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a rolling hoop
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a ton of lead
Wiggle - you can raise the dead
Pex Lives!
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a rolling hoop
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a ton of lead
Wiggle - you can raise the dead
Pex Lives!
Re: Whatcha reading?
Also, everything he did after Python was fairly conventional, comparatively.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 11:52amRight, right. And not everything has to seek to be vanguardist. Formula work or stuff aimed at a mass and diverse audience isn't a bad thing.Silent Majority wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 11:28amNo, I think your read is fair. Perhaps if the guide had been longer (or less cheerful?) he could have clarified for work which aims for challenging or idiosyncratic, but the questions could be used for a focus group's smoothing out of a piece.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 10:31amAll of those seem driven by a desire for clarity and strict entertainment (or, more broadly, hedonism). The thing I'd argue against in that is it lends itself to dumbing down. Or, perhaps what I mean, it doesn't aim towards challenging or inspiring the reader. Which is why it's curious that a Python would write this advice as opposed to the guy who dreamed up The Big Bang Theory. Cleese & co were pathbreaking for intentional confusion in the sense of fucking with convention—what the rules say should happen next—and for inviting confusion in the service of challenging comedy. Perhaps I'm reading against what he means here, having not read the piece.Silent Majority wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 9:58amWhere were you bored?
Where could you not understand what was going on?
Where did you not find things credible?
Was there anything you found emotionally confusing?
"Suck our Earth dick, Martians!" —Doc
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 115994
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Whatcha reading?
That's true. Like an ex-Beatle, no longer spurred by the times and bandmates.Kory wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 1:53pmAlso, everything he did after Python was fairly conventional, comparatively.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 11:52amRight, right. And not everything has to seek to be vanguardist. Formula work or stuff aimed at a mass and diverse audience isn't a bad thing.Silent Majority wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 11:28amNo, I think your read is fair. Perhaps if the guide had been longer (or less cheerful?) he could have clarified for work which aims for challenging or idiosyncratic, but the questions could be used for a focus group's smoothing out of a piece.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 10:31amAll of those seem driven by a desire for clarity and strict entertainment (or, more broadly, hedonism). The thing I'd argue against in that is it lends itself to dumbing down. Or, perhaps what I mean, it doesn't aim towards challenging or inspiring the reader. Which is why it's curious that a Python would write this advice as opposed to the guy who dreamed up The Big Bang Theory. Cleese & co were pathbreaking for intentional confusion in the sense of fucking with convention—what the rules say should happen next—and for inviting confusion in the service of challenging comedy. Perhaps I'm reading against what he means here, having not read the piece.Silent Majority wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 9:58am
Where were you bored?
Where could you not understand what was going on?
Where did you not find things credible?
Was there anything you found emotionally confusing?
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Re: Whatcha reading?
I get the sense from interviews and stuff that it was more the Oxford Pair and the American that were in the engine room for making things wacky and deconstructed with Python.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 2:29pmThat's true. Like an ex-Beatle, no longer spurred by the times and bandmates.Kory wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 1:53pmAlso, everything he did after Python was fairly conventional, comparatively.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 11:52amRight, right. And not everything has to seek to be vanguardist. Formula work or stuff aimed at a mass and diverse audience isn't a bad thing.Silent Majority wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 11:28amNo, I think your read is fair. Perhaps if the guide had been longer (or less cheerful?) he could have clarified for work which aims for challenging or idiosyncratic, but the questions could be used for a focus group's smoothing out of a piece.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 10:31am
All of those seem driven by a desire for clarity and strict entertainment (or, more broadly, hedonism). The thing I'd argue against in that is it lends itself to dumbing down. Or, perhaps what I mean, it doesn't aim towards challenging or inspiring the reader. Which is why it's curious that a Python would write this advice as opposed to the guy who dreamed up The Big Bang Theory. Cleese & co were pathbreaking for intentional confusion in the sense of fucking with convention—what the rules say should happen next—and for inviting confusion in the service of challenging comedy. Perhaps I'm reading against what he means here, having not read the piece.
"Suck our Earth dick, Martians!" —Doc
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 115994
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Whatcha reading?
All quite relative from within, of course. Some individuals might have been more conventional than others in inclination, but clearly it was a group mindset at work.Kory wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 4:14pmI get the sense from interviews and stuff that it was more the Oxford Pair and the American that were in the engine room for making things wacky and deconstructed with Python.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 2:29pmThat's true. Like an ex-Beatle, no longer spurred by the times and bandmates.Kory wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 1:53pmAlso, everything he did after Python was fairly conventional, comparatively.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 11:52amRight, right. And not everything has to seek to be vanguardist. Formula work or stuff aimed at a mass and diverse audience isn't a bad thing.Silent Majority wrote: ↑21 Oct 2020, 11:28am
No, I think your read is fair. Perhaps if the guide had been longer (or less cheerful?) he could have clarified for work which aims for challenging or idiosyncratic, but the questions could be used for a focus group's smoothing out of a piece.
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft