Upload
Login or register

sorrowofdaedalus

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:6/15/2011
Last Login:9/09/2013
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 88 total,  144 ,  56
Comment Thumbs: 8585 total,  12497 ,  3912
Content Level Progress: 60% (3/5)
Level 7 Content: New Here → Level 8 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 80% (80/100)
Level 285 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor → Level 286 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor
Subscribers:1
Content Views:5879
Times Content Favorited:7 times
Total Comments Made:4151
FJ Points:9103

latest user's comments

#66 - Alright, perhaps I should put it this way. I di…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/30/2013 on Catcher In The Rye 0
User avatar
#67 - violentpixi (04/30/2013) [-]
But that outlines your argument far better, I understand it better now.
I never said necessity, however. To truly characterise narrative, first person should reflect the thought processes, idioms and colloquialisms of the speaker. If I want poetry, I'll go to Browning
#21 - Focus on the fact that it's a damn cop, and that doesn't chang…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/29/2013 on Pretending to be a bird +5
#33 - nevrit (04/29/2013) [-]
Na man, if one is riding a unicycle that is some serious shit. Balance and leg power, I wouldn't fuck with him.
#131 - It has the best story and the environments are the most creati… 04/29/2013 on He Must Be Having A Bad Day +1
#64 - Once again, that's why I disliked the book. I understand that …  [+] (3 new replies) 04/29/2013 on Catcher In The Rye 0
User avatar
#65 - violentpixi (04/29/2013) [-]
You've changed your argument from 'If you're an author, write like a fucking professional, not like your whiny character. It just made me dislike the book, and the character, more for subjecting me to it.'
to
'i didn't agree with the motivations of the main character'
which is confusing me as you have still failed to convince me there is much logic behind your reasoning of 'If you're an author, write like a fucking professional, not like your whiny character' and still makes me think you don't understand first person very well. Sorry.
User avatar
#66 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/30/2013) [-]
Alright, perhaps I should put it this way.


I disliked the book because of his horrible, ridiculous lack of decision making abilities.

I disliked the writing because of the horrible grammar and spelling, and I'm fairly certain that -you- don't understand how first person narrative works, because it by no means requires that you need to write like a three year old just because your character does. That isn't a necessary part of writing in first person, yet for some reason you seem to think that it is.
User avatar
#67 - violentpixi (04/30/2013) [-]
But that outlines your argument far better, I understand it better now.
I never said necessity, however. To truly characterise narrative, first person should reflect the thought processes, idioms and colloquialisms of the speaker. If I want poetry, I'll go to Browning
#62 - I find omniscient writing enjoyable for telling nearly any sor…  [+] (5 new replies) 04/28/2013 on Catcher In The Rye 0
User avatar
#63 - violentpixi (04/28/2013) [-]
" He made foolish decisions without even forming sound logic behind those bad decisions"

That is the point of the book, he's a self absorbed teenager and that's what teenagers do. People who relate to the character initially are forced to check themselves later on. Make bad decisions, don't think, just do what they like because they can. It seems you still don't understand the point of the book. It's not a bad thing, just don't criticise an aspect of something without exploring the deeper connotations further. It's a popular book for a number of reasons.
User avatar
#64 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/29/2013) [-]
Once again, that's why I disliked the book. I understand that that was the point of it, but that's also why I disliked it. It didn't feel like something I could relate to, because no, I can never honestly say I did something during my teenage years without some level of sound reasoning behind it.


I'm not saying I never did anything stupid or incorrectly, I just always had a reason that made sense as for why I think what I'm doing is right, or at the very least, I knew my motivations.

I don't see why my disliking the book because of it's main plot point is so hard for you to understand. One Direction and Niki Minaj are popular musicians for a lot of reasons, but that doesn't mean I enjoy their work any more.
User avatar
#65 - violentpixi (04/29/2013) [-]
You've changed your argument from 'If you're an author, write like a fucking professional, not like your whiny character. It just made me dislike the book, and the character, more for subjecting me to it.'
to
'i didn't agree with the motivations of the main character'
which is confusing me as you have still failed to convince me there is much logic behind your reasoning of 'If you're an author, write like a fucking professional, not like your whiny character' and still makes me think you don't understand first person very well. Sorry.
User avatar
#66 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/30/2013) [-]
Alright, perhaps I should put it this way.


I disliked the book because of his horrible, ridiculous lack of decision making abilities.

I disliked the writing because of the horrible grammar and spelling, and I'm fairly certain that -you- don't understand how first person narrative works, because it by no means requires that you need to write like a three year old just because your character does. That isn't a necessary part of writing in first person, yet for some reason you seem to think that it is.
User avatar
#67 - violentpixi (04/30/2013) [-]
But that outlines your argument far better, I understand it better now.
I never said necessity, however. To truly characterise narrative, first person should reflect the thought processes, idioms and colloquialisms of the speaker. If I want poetry, I'll go to Browning
#3 - Oh yeah, a Sarcasm font, not like we already have one of those.  [+] (1 new reply) 04/26/2013 on Mature humans +1
User avatar
#4 - nandaaz (04/26/2013) [-]
So that's why we had to learn cursive writing!
#160 - Hell no. Sell it to science for trillions of dollars so they c… 04/26/2013 on What would you do? +1
#59 - Actually yes, it is. To properly convey the emotions of the ma…  [+] (7 new replies) 04/26/2013 on Catcher In The Rye +1
User avatar
#61 - violentpixi (04/27/2013) [-]
I find omniscient writing only enjoyable with large action fantasy spectacular type books because I read them to just experience a journey and story.

However an omniscient author will find it extremely difficult to follow a thread of thought especially if the entire point of the novel is to witness it from a personal perspective. Holden's perspective is egotistical, melodramatic and completely naive to the real world. That's what Catcher is, a perspective novel (similar include Catch 22, Perks of being a Wallflower, Virgin Suicides, Lolita...all incredible books) They may be difficult but if a reader fully involves themselves, it forces them to think.
You can never judge the quality of a novel by the qualities of the POV character. (Lolita being an example, a gorgeous book but the lead character is a disgusting peadophile. It makes you think and challenges you to disconnect.)

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion but yours seemed to miss the point of the book. You don't have to like Catcher, just say you're not into that kind of narrative.
User avatar
#62 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/28/2013) [-]
I find omniscient writing enjoyable for telling nearly any sort of story, because it allows the reader to see multiple aspects and never forces you to place a character somewhere they really shouldn't be just for the sake of the novel's plot. Not that coming up with a reason for a character to be somewhere is necessarily bad, but I find in general it makes for better writing if that doesn't happen often.


I'm not judging the book by the point of view, I'm judging the book by my opinion of it. I understood the point of the book, but when you don't bother to spellcheck a book because it's "how the character would've written it", you're already making the assumption that I'll forgive it because of how much I enjoyed the character. That's the problem; I have to enjoy the character for me to enjoy the book, because the character is what it was about. Note that this doesn't mean I have to support the character's actions or ideals, it simply means the character must be enjoyable to read about. The pedophile in Lolita still manages to create a sound, personable character, and the whole reason it's enjoyable is because it manages to create a perfectly normal man with a large crack in his mindset. the problem with Catcher isn't that I think the character himself was bad in terms of who he was, I thought he was bad in terms of how he was written. In a boring, predictable manner.

Holden was an uninteresting character for me. He made foolish decisions without even forming sound logic behind those bad decisions, and it was nothing but a dull experience for me to read about this guy whining about himself, then making an obviously horrible choice, and then to top it all off ** his being surprised at the outcome.**

That's why I disliked the book.
User avatar
#63 - violentpixi (04/28/2013) [-]
" He made foolish decisions without even forming sound logic behind those bad decisions"

That is the point of the book, he's a self absorbed teenager and that's what teenagers do. People who relate to the character initially are forced to check themselves later on. Make bad decisions, don't think, just do what they like because they can. It seems you still don't understand the point of the book. It's not a bad thing, just don't criticise an aspect of something without exploring the deeper connotations further. It's a popular book for a number of reasons.
User avatar
#64 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/29/2013) [-]
Once again, that's why I disliked the book. I understand that that was the point of it, but that's also why I disliked it. It didn't feel like something I could relate to, because no, I can never honestly say I did something during my teenage years without some level of sound reasoning behind it.


I'm not saying I never did anything stupid or incorrectly, I just always had a reason that made sense as for why I think what I'm doing is right, or at the very least, I knew my motivations.

I don't see why my disliking the book because of it's main plot point is so hard for you to understand. One Direction and Niki Minaj are popular musicians for a lot of reasons, but that doesn't mean I enjoy their work any more.
User avatar
#65 - violentpixi (04/29/2013) [-]
You've changed your argument from 'If you're an author, write like a fucking professional, not like your whiny character. It just made me dislike the book, and the character, more for subjecting me to it.'
to
'i didn't agree with the motivations of the main character'
which is confusing me as you have still failed to convince me there is much logic behind your reasoning of 'If you're an author, write like a fucking professional, not like your whiny character' and still makes me think you don't understand first person very well. Sorry.
User avatar
#66 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/30/2013) [-]
Alright, perhaps I should put it this way.


I disliked the book because of his horrible, ridiculous lack of decision making abilities.

I disliked the writing because of the horrible grammar and spelling, and I'm fairly certain that -you- don't understand how first person narrative works, because it by no means requires that you need to write like a three year old just because your character does. That isn't a necessary part of writing in first person, yet for some reason you seem to think that it is.
User avatar
#67 - violentpixi (04/30/2013) [-]
But that outlines your argument far better, I understand it better now.
I never said necessity, however. To truly characterise narrative, first person should reflect the thought processes, idioms and colloquialisms of the speaker. If I want poetry, I'll go to Browning
#57 - I understand first person perfectly well, but it wasn't enjoya…  [+] (9 new replies) 04/25/2013 on Catcher In The Rye +1
User avatar
#58 - violentpixi (04/25/2013) [-]
No it's not. Visually, third person is ideal but an emotional account is impossible from third person. First person is to indicate emotion and direct characterization. Catcher, as a day in the life novel, is solely an emotional and character novel.
User avatar
#59 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/26/2013) [-]
Actually yes, it is. To properly convey the emotions of the main character in a manner that appeals to a wide audience without losing any since of individuality in the individual that you are writing for is incredibly hard, and the usual output is that most first person novels end up in two camps:

Generic Blob Man goes through some tough shit where he does only what the majority of people would do in a situation and without any real self reflection beyond what can be fished out of the first two feet of what is an otherwise deep swimming pool.

And Maincharacter McPersonpants who is so clearly they're own character that despite being IN their head you can't figure out why the hell they are doing anything that they do other than that they seem to desire to be some kind of a person, and as wonderful as it is that they are well rounded and not just a faceless portal in to the realm of the story, they are also such opinionated asswipes that you really don't feel like you're able to relate to them, unless you're that one specific guy that's just like them.


The best kind of First Person Writing is directly in the middle, and Catcher in the Rye leans more towards the second than the first, in that the main character is purposefully dumb and unlikeable, reducing the audience of people that relate to him as those who consider or considers their past selves as dumb and unlikeable.

Also, third person is all fine and good, but I prefer Omniscient the best. You get the same emotional account, without any of the aggravation of first person.
User avatar
#61 - violentpixi (04/27/2013) [-]
I find omniscient writing only enjoyable with large action fantasy spectacular type books because I read them to just experience a journey and story.

However an omniscient author will find it extremely difficult to follow a thread of thought especially if the entire point of the novel is to witness it from a personal perspective. Holden's perspective is egotistical, melodramatic and completely naive to the real world. That's what Catcher is, a perspective novel (similar include Catch 22, Perks of being a Wallflower, Virgin Suicides, Lolita...all incredible books) They may be difficult but if a reader fully involves themselves, it forces them to think.
You can never judge the quality of a novel by the qualities of the POV character. (Lolita being an example, a gorgeous book but the lead character is a disgusting peadophile. It makes you think and challenges you to disconnect.)

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion but yours seemed to miss the point of the book. You don't have to like Catcher, just say you're not into that kind of narrative.
User avatar
#62 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/28/2013) [-]
I find omniscient writing enjoyable for telling nearly any sort of story, because it allows the reader to see multiple aspects and never forces you to place a character somewhere they really shouldn't be just for the sake of the novel's plot. Not that coming up with a reason for a character to be somewhere is necessarily bad, but I find in general it makes for better writing if that doesn't happen often.


I'm not judging the book by the point of view, I'm judging the book by my opinion of it. I understood the point of the book, but when you don't bother to spellcheck a book because it's "how the character would've written it", you're already making the assumption that I'll forgive it because of how much I enjoyed the character. That's the problem; I have to enjoy the character for me to enjoy the book, because the character is what it was about. Note that this doesn't mean I have to support the character's actions or ideals, it simply means the character must be enjoyable to read about. The pedophile in Lolita still manages to create a sound, personable character, and the whole reason it's enjoyable is because it manages to create a perfectly normal man with a large crack in his mindset. the problem with Catcher isn't that I think the character himself was bad in terms of who he was, I thought he was bad in terms of how he was written. In a boring, predictable manner.

Holden was an uninteresting character for me. He made foolish decisions without even forming sound logic behind those bad decisions, and it was nothing but a dull experience for me to read about this guy whining about himself, then making an obviously horrible choice, and then to top it all off ** his being surprised at the outcome.**

That's why I disliked the book.
User avatar
#63 - violentpixi (04/28/2013) [-]
" He made foolish decisions without even forming sound logic behind those bad decisions"

That is the point of the book, he's a self absorbed teenager and that's what teenagers do. People who relate to the character initially are forced to check themselves later on. Make bad decisions, don't think, just do what they like because they can. It seems you still don't understand the point of the book. It's not a bad thing, just don't criticise an aspect of something without exploring the deeper connotations further. It's a popular book for a number of reasons.
User avatar
#64 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/29/2013) [-]
Once again, that's why I disliked the book. I understand that that was the point of it, but that's also why I disliked it. It didn't feel like something I could relate to, because no, I can never honestly say I did something during my teenage years without some level of sound reasoning behind it.


I'm not saying I never did anything stupid or incorrectly, I just always had a reason that made sense as for why I think what I'm doing is right, or at the very least, I knew my motivations.

I don't see why my disliking the book because of it's main plot point is so hard for you to understand. One Direction and Niki Minaj are popular musicians for a lot of reasons, but that doesn't mean I enjoy their work any more.
User avatar
#65 - violentpixi (04/29/2013) [-]
You've changed your argument from 'If you're an author, write like a fucking professional, not like your whiny character. It just made me dislike the book, and the character, more for subjecting me to it.'
to
'i didn't agree with the motivations of the main character'
which is confusing me as you have still failed to convince me there is much logic behind your reasoning of 'If you're an author, write like a fucking professional, not like your whiny character' and still makes me think you don't understand first person very well. Sorry.
User avatar
#66 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/30/2013) [-]
Alright, perhaps I should put it this way.


I disliked the book because of his horrible, ridiculous lack of decision making abilities.

I disliked the writing because of the horrible grammar and spelling, and I'm fairly certain that -you- don't understand how first person narrative works, because it by no means requires that you need to write like a three year old just because your character does. That isn't a necessary part of writing in first person, yet for some reason you seem to think that it is.
User avatar
#67 - violentpixi (04/30/2013) [-]
But that outlines your argument far better, I understand it better now.
I never said necessity, however. To truly characterise narrative, first person should reflect the thought processes, idioms and colloquialisms of the speaker. If I want poetry, I'll go to Browning
#123 - Girlfriends come pre-neutered.  [+] (1 new reply) 04/25/2013 on Bo Burnham everybody. 0
User avatar
#127 - IAmManbearpig (04/25/2013) [-]
yeah but you don't get the satisfaction of instilling fear of castration with a hot knife.
either way, lesbian or no, I hope to raise my daughter in a way where she won't let herself end up with a shitty boy/girlfriend. i'm sure that's easier said than done, however.