«

[Lonely Vazdru]

I voted Dick because he is my favorite in this selection. But all of them are worth being used in any university. Except Pratchett maybe. But then so many people like him... So why not. And just to add my two cents worth you should add Jack Vance. And to add a recent and young author who will crush everything on his path : RICHARD MORGAN.

[omg]

Originally posted by BeefontheBone@Jul 24 2005, 11:02 AM
What makes you think Shakespeare isn't relevant today? He wrote about love, passion, murder, guilt, death, general human suffering and so on - plenty of that still about.

you are right. but those themes can be found in every good writers work. i actually like shakespear. but i find dick has more relevence due to the fact that the society he describes is more like our own. then again he had the advantage of being born in a time closer to our own.

[Doubler]

My money's on JRR Tolkien, some schools already have him as a mandatory author.

I'd read 'Mister Bliss' :angel:

[Sebatianos]

Originally posted by A. J. Raffles@Jul 24 2005, 01:10 PM
(Just for the record, I didn't actually vote until now, so I'm not the one who thinks you all smell. )

But isn't that the general opinion you women have of men (especially during the summer :bleh: ).

Anyway - OMG, you're right when you say that you find thos elements (talking about Shakespare) with almost every writer, but you must know they copied from him (even if Shakespeare himself - or was it themselves - copied Plutarh and such classical authors).

Another thing I'm missing on this list are literary masters of our time. You mostly just posted famous, well liked, best-seller authors.
What about people like Saramagio and Choello? They aren't half as popular, but are excelent writers (they don't write about same kiddy stuff either - they are real social critics, like Camus, Prouste, Sartre...)

[omg]

i didnt really think of dick as a kiddy author but yes i went for popular authors (some of whom i dont read)
my reosoning being that both h.g wells and aldous huxley were bestsellers of there time. just becuse something is a best seller doest mean that it doesnt make a comment on society.
for the record the ones i dont read are rowling, pratchett, king, tolkien.

[lethe]

Originally posted by Sebatianos@Jul 24 2005, 11:40 AM
What about people like Saramagio and Choello? They aren't half as popular, but are excelent writers (they don't write about same kiddy stuff either - they are real social critics, like Camus, Prouste, Sartre...)

k:

If I was responsible for those choices, I'd introduce Sartre, Kafka, Camus, Kierkegaard and so on... Basically giving a depressive insight of life to the average student and making suicide rates go over the roof :Brain:

No, not really. Some people aren't prepared to embrace philosophy or become existencialists.

[Sebatianos]

Originally posted by lethe@Jul 24 2005, 03:30 PM
No, not really. Some people aren't prepared to embrace philosophy or become existencialists.

But why is it that some people aren't capable of embracing intelectual values, yet they still insist on having all the benefits of being intelectually equal to real thinkers???

[omg]

to me evry persons values are the same. i come from a rural area. at school one of my freinds was a farmers son who knew that his life was going to be on the farm. he wasnt into books very much but still had powerfull observations about life. why should i have not allowed him to discuss things with me? becuse he hadnt read any books by fancy forighn authors? what are you saying that in order to discuss a subject you need to have an iq test and fill in a university reading list first?
i havnt read any of the books you mentioned seb. i dont think that makes me a lesser person though. i have read the books on the dharma, the book of the dead, the bible, the koran, the ghita, the devine comedy and many books based on the aforementioned books. does this mean in a discussion about religion with me i should dissalow people to speak untill they have first read all these books?
for me the most powefull philosiphies are those of the buddha and his followers. (o and i got some stuff on hegel) that does it for me. i dont need any *modern existentilism* or whatever you studenty types are learning new words from at the moment.
popular works of today are the litriture of the future. just as dickens, wells, and huxley were bestsellers of there time and are now litriture so will current bestsellers become litrture in the future.

[Sebatianos]

I guess you misunderstood me OMG. I wasn't talking about you personally and I perfectly agree that everybody's values are equaly respectable.

It's just that I get really agnry at people that have no idea what they are talking about and are looking down on something. The simplest example would be:
An average highschool kid who never even heard of (let's say) Banghladesh, suddenly hears that there some artist performing Banghladesh folklore at a lokal festival. He goes to make fun of them and arguments his views with the fact that those guys could never make it to MTV.

It's like that in almost every field. Many people feel they have enough knowledge and understand enough of the world to pass judgements.
I've nothing agains people who don't read at all, or read books that are extremely popular (but may not have any literary, philosophical, social critical dimention - simply because they were writen to be read for fun). But when those people start discusing real literature - thinking they are experts on the subject because they read more then three books in their lives - well...

People take too much things for granted - just being able to read is a privilage many people don't have. But those who can read neglect this fine skill and rather watch mass produced TV shows. Those who write then start writing things such people would read - and all of the sudden there aren't enough quality books left, because a great work of literary art is waiting for years to be printed, simply because it wouldn't sell. (it's the same in the movie industry, in the music industry,...)

[omg]

but its the way it has always been seb. if shakespear wasnt a popularist do you think we would have even heard of him? his works were performed to the common crowd back in the days. if they hadnt had popular appeal we never would have heard of him.
likewise huxley and wells (who i love!) im sure there were probably more powerfull works of litrture during there days but those two caught the popular imagination thus we still here of them today while other more abstract things have fallen by the wayside.
it is the way of it with all art, and this isnt a modern phenomenen.
litriture is determined by the masses.
and i think dick fully deserves to be litriture. gibson as well. dick catches my imagination as much as huxley. huxley is litriture, dick is not, there is something wrong with this in my mind as both follow the path of trying to predict future dystopia from what they saw around themselfs in there own lifes.
if in 50 years time tho people are teaching j.k rowling then damnit there is something wrong with the world. all she writes is kids storys. if dick isnt being taught in schools in 50 - 100 years time then i will eat my hats (if i still live)
altho the way things are going with the whole dumbing down thing it most likley will be rowling who wins. put me in the human reservation now! or an island!

maybe i should have said *out from all these popular authors which is gonna be taught*