|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Aug 20, 2011 21:36:14 GMT -5
Welcome to the MST3K Discussion Board's all new, all awesome Book Club. The idea: each month, we pick a book and discuss it throughout the next few weeks. No real rules here, apart from being polite about spoiler tags or, especially towards the end, at least giving a warning if you're going to talk about the end. (Personally, I find the little spoiler icon a bit cumbersome to use.) You can comment or talk at any time, whether you've finished the book or not. And it can be about the book itself or the issues it raises. Total freedom. We just thought this would be fun since we have a smart group of people here. We'll start with Good Omens by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett. This is something I'm sure a bunch of people have read, but it's definitely fun and worth a re-read. And as a bonus, if you'd like to participate but can't afford to buy the book, I've got an e-copy I'm willing to share. Just send me a PM. And, as I mentioned in another thread, Neil Gaiman is actually in favor of people "borrowing" his books from the internet because he's seen increases in sales every time he sees increases in piracy of his books. So don't have any ethical qualms. Just send me a PM if you want the file. Otherwise, happy reading!
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Aug 23, 2011 17:06:54 GMT -5
I'm gonna try and get started tonight. Thanks for the copy, mumms!
|
|
|
Post by siamesesin on Aug 23, 2011 18:06:49 GMT -5
Grabbed mine from the library today and will start after work.
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Aug 24, 2011 1:47:22 GMT -5
Read through the opening bits. So far the tone is reminding me of Kevin Smith's Dogma (with a dash of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, maybe). In fact, as the book reached its amusing cast listing, I became convinced that Smith at least read the book before writing his script.
I'm enjoying it thusfar. Let's hope its quirkiness keeps afloat.
Incidentally, my girlfriend told me she read it before and hated it. Let's see how it goes.
|
|
|
Post by Crowfan on Aug 24, 2011 15:44:07 GMT -5
Got my copy from the Library
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Aug 31, 2011 11:32:50 GMT -5
My computer is busted, and my copy of the book went down with it, so I'm gonna bow out for now. Sorry guys.
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Sept 1, 2011 22:01:16 GMT -5
My computer is busted, and my copy of the book went down with it, so I'm gonna bow out for now. Sorry guys. You just decided you didn't like it and don't want to admit it. Coward. Your mother was a hamster, etc. Besides, IF YOUR COMPUTER IS BUSTED, HOW CAN YOU POST THIS!? HUH?! HUH!?!?!?!? HUH!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? ;D
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Sept 2, 2011 11:51:48 GMT -5
I actually was really digging it and I'm really bummed.
Damn computer. I've needed a new one for about a decade.
And I'm posting from my cell phone. It's how I do all my quick net surfing nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Sept 4, 2011 13:33:51 GMT -5
So my copy has a dedication page "To G.K. Chesterton, who knew what was going on." Has anyone read any Chesterton? I give away copies of his _Orthodoxy_ for Christmas gifts.
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Sept 6, 2011 7:52:28 GMT -5
A ton, fiction and non fiction. I love his biographies of Aquinas and St. Francis. But The Man Who Was Thursday is probably my favorite.
Neil Gaiman loves him, and he shows up in The Sandman as Gilbert and some name like Verdant Green. Gene Wolfe, my favorite sf/fantasy writer, lives by him.
The thing I've always admired about him was that, while he was a thoroughly rational guy, capable of dismissing an opponents ideas with a simple clarification, he knew that his own beliefs were based on a sincere love for the irrational. He didn't try to replace over-rationality with more rationality. He just said that, sometimes, the irrational (whether faith or magic or enchantment) just makes more sense. That's something I can get behind.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Sept 6, 2011 11:31:49 GMT -5
Two of my favorite authors, C.S. Lewis and Philip Yancey, both talk about Chesterton all the time. So I finally got into some of his stuff. I love the way he and Shaw went after each other.
Back to the book.
I love the conversation at the beginning between Crowley and Aziraphale at the gates of Eden. Giving Adam & Eve the flaming sword out of pity is a great touch.
I really like that skeptics like Gaiman and Pratchett decided to stick to the traditional Bible story as the backdrop, including all of the nuances of the spiritual world and (to use Crowley's least favorite word) "ineffablility". I know they satirize the heck out of it, but I enjoy that they left the basics intact.
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Sept 6, 2011 17:10:20 GMT -5
[cynic] It's MUCH easier to satirize if they stick to the original. [/cynic]
I like how a lot of the moral discussions between the two are supposed to be tongue-in-cheek send ups of traditional moral/philosophical problems...but they're really just repetitions of the arguments.
Take their drunken argument over free will and predestination around p. 50-ish (hardback). They're wondering about whether their own intervention is itself part of "the plan," and it's presented as if it's a loophole to get them involved. But it's really just a very straightforward presentation about the basic problems of predestination. Fun.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Sept 6, 2011 18:10:51 GMT -5
[cynic] It's MUCH easier to satirize if they stick to the original. [/cynic] Of course. But they don't completely crap on it, like one might assume. Even in the satire, there's a sense of fair play. I laughed out loud at the introduction of Anathema Device, especially about how she got her name. And how she likes to read about herself.
|
|
|
Post by Afgncaap5 on Sept 6, 2011 19:23:41 GMT -5
I read this book two summers ago, and enjoyed it a great deal. I'm not sure I'll be able to get into the reading this month (hard to get to the library), but I'm a fan.
One thing I like about their satire vs. other people's satire is how well researched it is. Aziraphale's collection of typo Bibles, for instance. Historical notes like that always make it easier to get involved in a book for me.
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Sept 6, 2011 22:42:51 GMT -5
[cynic] It's MUCH easier to satirize if they stick to the original. [/cynic] Of course. But they don't completely crap on it, like one might assume. Even in the satire, there's a sense of fair play. No, I totally agree. It's the same with the "philosophical" problems I mentioned above. They tread this nice line between skepticism and sincerity in their satire that sometimes makes you wonder who's really being satirized: the subject matter or the satirist. That's good satire.
|
|