Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Hater
- Thread starter iGary
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I absolutely love to hear this comment, because it has so little relevance to me or most of my Mac-using friends. I've never had the desire to waste HD space on games on my Mac and have always preferred to play games on dedicated game machines. I spend enough time and energy ripping through Photoshop and Illustrator putting my computer through its paces that when it's time to play games, I'd much rather take a recess and jump to my gaming device and my large screen TV. My Mac is for work and my game machines are for playing games.
But if you're like most PC weenies, the most you do is work in MS Office, write emails and surf the internetso of course you're eager to push the limits of your computer the only way you know how...by playing loading it up with processor-burning, RAM-hogging video games.
Very funny though to hear an argument about the aesthetics of product design from the side of the fence where 99.9% of users think "feature" stickers are part of a product's design and get pissed if you try to peel them off.
rt_brained said:
That has to be the funniest thing thing I have read in a very long time.
Thank you.
rt_brained said:
How true!
I've never understood why there are so many stickers or why no-one peels them off (unless they leave some sticky residue on the plastic that might look uglier?)
IJ Reilly said:
As you stated, the definition of "literature" appears based on one's personal opinion. While I won't argue with your point, I will say that while you can call something art, and something else non-art, you can't decide for anyone else what constitutes a work of art or literature, and you can't generalize and say that any book classified as Sci-Fi automatically cannot be "literature", as you have not read all works of Sci-Fi. It appears some of us here are arguing opinions, which is fruitless, but I think to say that Sci-Fi can't be literature is a little close-minded. Reminds me of somehting Bush would say.
Incidentally, my wife wrote her thesis on this very subject, which is why it piques my interest. I believe the title of her thesis was, "The Canonization of Science Fiction, Magical Realism, and Horror as Literary Genres" or something like that. She worked on it and researched for a year and came to the obvious conclusion: Literature, like Art is defined by ones tastes. The exclusion of a piece of fictional writing from the classification of being a piece of Literature, simply because it falls into one of those three genres, is closed minded. It's an interesting topic nonetheless.
You must also remember that we are basing this discussion on Literary Genres. Just like music, genres change, shift, and evolve. Let's not get into their definitions, but simply remember when we say something like "Hardly any Science Fiction is worth being thought of as Literature" (not your exact quote of course) that you are basing that statement on your own definition of Science fiction, as well as your own definition of Literature.
I happen to hold the belief that there are some works of fiction in the Science Fiction genre (as I define it) that are at a level of Art or Literature (as I define it).
To get back to the subject of the thread: This author is a jackass.
Peyote said:
Nope, never said that. Literature is the body of work which stands the test of time and is widely considered to be "great." Also I clearly never said that science fiction automatically can't be literature, only that to my knowledge no science fiction author or work had made that cut yet.
Anyway, I do agree -- the author of this piece is the southern part of a northbound horse.
What about "Brave New World"?
That is pretty dedicated sci-fi and had entered the public consciousness. I think many people would regard it as a work of literature.
Enders game IS good too.
(Not sure about "children of the mind" though!)
All this is so off topic anyway!
OS Card does have some zealotic points of view! If he'd bought a Mac, hated it and gone back to the wonderful world of PC he'd have more of a leg to stand on. Right now he just sounds like a jealous bitter person who made wrong choices he's not prepared to admit to!
That is pretty dedicated sci-fi and had entered the public consciousness. I think many people would regard it as a work of literature.
Enders game IS good too.
(Not sure about "children of the mind" though!)
All this is so off topic anyway!
OS Card does have some zealotic points of view! If he'd bought a Mac, hated it and gone back to the wonderful world of PC he'd have more of a leg to stand on. Right now he just sounds like a jealous bitter person who made wrong choices he's not prepared to admit to!
IJ Reilly said:
Forgive me, I thought you had said that the definition of literature is based on opinion. Regardless of whether you did or didn't, the statement is true.
You can't go by a simple dictionary definition. IMHO, Literature is to books as art is to paintings. In the art world, a painting doesn't have to "stand the test of time" to be considered Art. Nor does it have to be widely considered to be great. Those are definitions written by people with opinions, and how is it that their definition of literature is more valid than anyone else's? Simple because you agree with it? Hardly.
You are right, clearly you didn't say that Sci-Fi writing automatically cannot be literature, but you certainly eluded to it, or something similar anyway. If I'm wrong that's fine...then you must be saying that some Science Fiction can be called Literature. But let's not kid ourselves, you obviously believe that simply because something is Science Fiction, that it more than likely is not a work of Literature as you define it...based on your words:
I'm not contending anything other than your statement was based on your opinion. I'm not saying you are wrong about anything other than the definition of Literature being set in stone and uniform for all fictional writing. I think it varies by person.
Anyway, enough with this tangent!
On the literature topic... I'd argue there's certainly some that's considered literature. Many people consider Tolkein to be literature. Ray Bradbury is considered one of the masters in the field, and his stuff is often classified that way, too. You could also consider Frankenstein and Dracula to be fantasy... or really, speculative fiction. Were it published today, they would be in either the SF or Horror sections of the bookstore. There's always been an element of the fantastic in much literature, it just hasn't solidified as a genre yet.
I'm working through a book of Locus Award winners, and believe me... some of these short stories are amazing, and certainly not what I would consider what most people think of when they mention science fiction or fantasy.
I minored in fiction when I was in college, and fantasy is one of the genres I gravitate towards. The bias against it is strong -- enough so that once, when I tweaked a story to be less fantasy, one of the critiques I got was that it 'sounded too much like a fantasy novel.' I'm not sure why it's not commonly accepted, but there is much to say for the concept. It's as if you aren't writing something Real and True, and really -- writing is all about writing what is real and true to you. That's what makes a good book. 95% of what people read isn't going to be literature. Because often, literature isn't fun.
My personal definition of literature is something that has resonance and exposes truths; it's all in the themes. This is why so much stuff lasts, because it has something that people can identify with. the best science fiction and fantasy do this too. No, I don't know many that I would consider to be literature right now. However, I would classify some authors as likely to make the step to being considered so in the future. Neil Gaiman, for one. Yes, even the Sandman comics , which have done wonders towards making the comic book accepted as good reading material. Sean Stewart is, IMO, good enough but he's not well-known enough. Someone upthread named several authors whose work is considered a classic. George R R Martin is going to be a solid classic once his series is done, but I don't know I'll classify it as literature... but definitely as a case study in how to handle politics in writing!
I'm working through a book of Locus Award winners, and believe me... some of these short stories are amazing, and certainly not what I would consider what most people think of when they mention science fiction or fantasy.
I minored in fiction when I was in college, and fantasy is one of the genres I gravitate towards. The bias against it is strong -- enough so that once, when I tweaked a story to be less fantasy, one of the critiques I got was that it 'sounded too much like a fantasy novel.' I'm not sure why it's not commonly accepted, but there is much to say for the concept. It's as if you aren't writing something Real and True, and really -- writing is all about writing what is real and true to you. That's what makes a good book. 95% of what people read isn't going to be literature. Because often, literature isn't fun.
My personal definition of literature is something that has resonance and exposes truths; it's all in the themes. This is why so much stuff lasts, because it has something that people can identify with. the best science fiction and fantasy do this too. No, I don't know many that I would consider to be literature right now. However, I would classify some authors as likely to make the step to being considered so in the future. Neil Gaiman, for one. Yes, even the Sandman comics , which have done wonders towards making the comic book accepted as good reading material. Sean Stewart is, IMO, good enough but he's not well-known enough. Someone upthread named several authors whose work is considered a classic. George R R Martin is going to be a solid classic once his series is done, but I don't know I'll classify it as literature... but definitely as a case study in how to handle politics in writing!
Xiabelle said:
We are talking about fictional writing here....so isn't it true that if the book is a work of fiction it automatically is not (for the most part anyway) Real and True? I mean, if the events in a fictional book had actually happened, then it wouldn't be a fictional story. So by that logic, isn't it also true then that there is no distinct line between Fiction in general and Fantasy as a Genre? I mean...who's to say that something that someone writes in a "fantasy" novel couldn't actually happen? You can't prove a negative. So then does the distinction between the definition (as some would have it) of fantasy and non-fantasy as a novel about events that CAN occur and events that CANNOT occur lose its meaning?
If we were relating this subject to films for example...I would consider "Star Wars: Return of the Jedi" to be a Sci-Fi fantasy movie...does that mean that it is less valid as a great film than "The English Patient"...simply because Star Wars is Fantasy and not "real"?
Another example...the movie "Chocolat". While I haven't seen it, I know that it is based on a book that is generally classified as Magical Realism...and the events that take place cannot occur. Does that mean that it is any less valid as a great movie than any other movie, regardless of that movie's genre?
Which brings me back to my main point...there are all these preconceived notions surrounding what can be called "literature". You hear it from professors and scholars. They state the definition of literature and classify works as such as if it were fact...when all of this really is opinion. As others have stated, each person MUST have his/her own definition of "literature," simply because it is highly improbable that if you asked two people that agree on the technical definition of Literature what novels they would consider to be Literature, you'd get different answers. Math and science are the ONLY fields where laws are unbreakable, because they're not based on human ideas, but universal constants. Regardless of what Oxford or Webster tend to think of the definition of Literature...it is NOT a constant.
Interesting stuff.
James Philp said:
I've never seen this book classified as science fiction, a genre that barely existed when it was written, but the category is broad enough that many things are fit into it. When Vonnegut started publishing in the '50s he was classified as a science fiction writer, though I doubt many would call him that today.
Peyote said:
It's not my opinion, it's the consensus of opinion among people who know and care about this stuff. I'm also not talking about "art" but "literature." A book can be fine art without having achieved the rank of literature.
If you want to know what qualifies as literature, and prefer not to subscribe to the dictionary definition, you might start by looking at a syllabus for a university-level English Literature class. The best part of the reading list will be books over 100 years old.
IJ Reilly said:
That's precisely my point...the syllabus for a university level English Lit class will include works classified as "literature" according to someone's opinion, or, as you mentioned, a consensus of opinions. However opinions will always be opinions, regardless of who has them, and what scholarly title they have acheived. I'm not saying I know more than those you mention whom have decided on the definition of Literature, I'm saying I decide for myself what I consider to be literature.
I think this thread is deserving of the "Most Off Topic" award of the year.
Card may be a science fiction writer, but the fiction in this arcticle kicked all the science to the curb. If you have an imagination like this guy, it would be pretty easy to make the Rio seem like a cool device- he probably just pretends it's a tri-corder that he uses to scan for sexy life forms when he goes out in his Ford 500.
Card may be a science fiction writer, but the fiction in this arcticle kicked all the science to the curb. If you have an imagination like this guy, it would be pretty easy to make the Rio seem like a cool device- he probably just pretends it's a tri-corder that he uses to scan for sexy life forms when he goes out in his Ford 500.
haha this guy just made me laugh
not all mac-fans are windows haters. i use windows, but i prefer my mac
not all mac-fans are windows haters. i use windows, but i prefer my mac
I think the phrase "Each to his own" covers this, personally I find Cards work (even the Ender series) derivative and poorly written, but I recognise that a lot of folks enjoyed them. Fair enough.
His comments, like his writings, are ill-conceived, inflammatory and pander to the worst opinions of the lowest anti-mac, PC fan-boy...
Oh sorry, did I say that out loud...?
As I said, each to his own, Mr. Card is obviously happy with his Rio Riot, and his PC, I'm not, I'll stick with my slow, useless 17" PowerBook and my ugly 60gig iPod Photo.
His comments, like his writings, are ill-conceived, inflammatory and pander to the worst opinions of the lowest anti-mac, PC fan-boy...
Oh sorry, did I say that out loud...?
As I said, each to his own, Mr. Card is obviously happy with his Rio Riot, and his PC, I'm not, I'll stick with my slow, useless 17" PowerBook and my ugly 60gig iPod Photo.
WinterMute said:His comments, like his writings, are ill-conceived, inflammatory and pander to the worst opinions of the lowest anti-mac, PC fan-boy...
Oh sorry, did I say that out loud...?
Can a Mod Modereate himself?
Actualy I'm glad you came out and said this, as I totaly agree with you. Well said.
psycho
Didn't read the whole thing, but when people say stuff to this effect, it makes me question their mental health. This guy is either nuts or just such a huge nerd that he doesn't really understand how other people act and think.
Is this guy eavesdropping on a Macintosh Users Group, or is he just imagining this scenario?? Yes, there exists a "Cult of Mac", but its obviously not literal. We don't sacrifice dog cows and brand each other or perform any other pagan rituals. There's no secret handshake.
And most of all, I've never been one to stand around and talk about what kinds of computer everybody else uses. And I have to believe that most everybody else is the same way I am, and even a large percentage of people here where you'd expect the hardcore nerds to hang out. I'm a nerd, sure, but I'm interested in new technology and how we will be able to use it. I don't stand around the water cooling telling zingers about the windows blue screen and snickering.
Ten years ago, maybe this article would have made some sense but the platform wars are over now. Nobody cares anymore. Even the nerds among nerds have dropped this issue and are interested in other things. And in the outside world -- you know the one with sun, trees, ocean, dirt, sand, beer, women, etc. -- there are a lot of other things to be interested in.
Didn't read the whole thing, but when people say stuff to this effect, it makes me question their mental health. This guy is either nuts or just such a huge nerd that he doesn't really understand how other people act and think.
Is this guy eavesdropping on a Macintosh Users Group, or is he just imagining this scenario?? Yes, there exists a "Cult of Mac", but its obviously not literal. We don't sacrifice dog cows and brand each other or perform any other pagan rituals. There's no secret handshake.
And most of all, I've never been one to stand around and talk about what kinds of computer everybody else uses. And I have to believe that most everybody else is the same way I am, and even a large percentage of people here where you'd expect the hardcore nerds to hang out. I'm a nerd, sure, but I'm interested in new technology and how we will be able to use it. I don't stand around the water cooling telling zingers about the windows blue screen and snickering.
Ten years ago, maybe this article would have made some sense but the platform wars are over now. Nobody cares anymore. Even the nerds among nerds have dropped this issue and are interested in other things. And in the outside world -- you know the one with sun, trees, ocean, dirt, sand, beer, women, etc. -- there are a lot of other things to be interested in.
Peyote said:
Having an opinion on a subject isn't the same as having an expertise in that subject or even knowing much about it. That's Mr. Card's problem, right? With that, I hope I've managed to drag this thread kicking and screaming back on topic...
JamesPhilip said:
IJ Reilly said:
What about 'Back to Methuselah' by Shaw?
Would anyone argue that this isn't 'literature'? (i don't think so)
Science Fiction is a strong theme here as far as i remember.
(great thread though, good work by the key protagonists)
its true there are many MP3 players out there that are better than the IPODs. the only thing the IPods got is the design, they are really crappy though. i went though 3 ipods in one month. all three messed up the day i got them. i was thinking "so it has 30Gs and it only stores 150 songs why is it saying there isnt any room left when i still got 25Gs? oh well it looks cool i guess ill keep it." luckly i didnt i wised up and got a 20G iriver. ipods controls are better but iriver is more reliable and easier to sync.
about PCs both my mac and PC crash, but my 1.6P4 seems faster than my 1.5 G4.. WTF?
about PCs both my mac and PC crash, but my 1.6P4 seems faster than my 1.5 G4.. WTF?