Page 1 of 2
Brian's other works
Posted: 27 Aug 2009 09:36
by Slugger
Has anyone ever read any of Brian's other works, the one's he's published by himself or the final one with Frank? How do they compare to his collaborations with TheHack? Better/worse? Childish writing style?
Re: Brian's other works
Posted: 27 Aug 2009 11:01
by Nekhrun
I mentioned yesterday that I tried to read Race for God. I actually tried to read it three times before I tossed it. It was just so damn boring I couldn't take it. Everything was just so obvious and child-like. I don't know about any of his other work though. Byron wets his panties over Sudanna, Sudanna but that's got to be just as shitty.
Re: Brian's other works
Posted: 27 Aug 2009 11:26
by TheDukester
Brian Herbert is proof of two things:
1. Writing talent is not necessarily a genetic trait;
2. Anyone can be published if they have the correct name.
Re: Brian's other works
Posted: 27 Aug 2009 11:33
by SandChigger
I've read
Sidney's Comet and skimmed parts of his first
Timeweb.
The writing of the first (
Comet) seemed really much better than the McDune shit and the Timeweb thing, but the exaggerated silliness passing for "humor" and "irony" soon became really tiring and it was a chore to finish.
The first Timeweb book (it's another trilogy) is just awful. So much so that I can't even begin to
imagine actually reading it from cover to cover. But Mr Teg borrowed my copy and actually did so. Ask him for the nasty details.
BoBo should probably go back to selling insurance.
If he hasn't made enough from raping his dad's legacy yet to retire on.
Re: Brian's other works
Posted: 27 Aug 2009 11:35
by Freakzilla
SandChigger wrote:If he hasn't made enough from raping his dad's legacy yet to retire on.
Official OH holiday #2, unless KJA retires first, but I'm affraid he'll go kicking and screaming.
Re: Brian's other works
Posted: 27 Aug 2009 12:02
by A Thing of Eternity
I read the one he wrote with FH when I was a kid, I don't remember it being either good or bad, I had no taste then, I only wanted to be entertained.
Re: Brian's other works
Posted: 27 Aug 2009 12:04
by TheDukester
What's funny is that you described the average preek.
Re: Brian's other works
Posted: 27 Aug 2009 12:12
by A Thing of Eternity
Which is fine. I mean that - we all spend a lot of time insulting and harrassing people who don't take writing seriously as a fine art, and as such are ok with enjoying the new Dune. I hate what KJABH did to one of the finest peices of lit ever written, but I have no issue with people who read it just for entertainment.
I would bet that every person in this forum has one art form or another that they do not enjoy as fine art, only as low art or pop art or entertainment. In the music thread I hear people talking about all kinds of bands that are just barely (if at all) art to me, because the majority of people just look at music as entertainment. Most people who look at visual art only want to be entertained, either by pleasing colours or imagery, or by the sheer technical skill of the artist (I'm often guilty of this myself, visual art is not my thing).
Sorry for the out of nowhere rant, but I think we get a little high and mighty sometimes because we see people taking lightly something that we take seriously - but we all probably go do the same thing with what someone else takes seriously.
I DO take issue with preeks when they try to argue that KJABH is good art though - that's a different issue altogether than just enjoying their works.
Re: Brian's other works
Posted: 27 Aug 2009 12:26
by Freakzilla
I may not know art, but I know what I like!
Re: Brian's other works
Posted: 27 Aug 2009 14:00
by Apjak
Freakzilla wrote:I may not know art, but I know what I like!
Are they too Jewish then? I tried to make Judas the most Jewish.
Re: Brian's other works
Posted: 27 Aug 2009 16:58
by Hunchback Jack
Frankly, there are books I read now just to be entertained. I enjoy challenging, complex, rich books, but sometimes I need a break and want a laugh or a cheap thrill.
Having said that, though, I don't think "light and entertaining" is the same as "badly written". I loathe the KJA/BH monstrosities not just because they're Dune-lite, but because they're simply appalling novels.
HBJ
Re: Brian's other works
Posted: 27 Aug 2009 17:37
by A Thing of Eternity
Hunchback Jack wrote:Frankly, there are books I read now just to be entertained. I enjoy challenging, complex, rich books, but sometimes I need a break and want a laugh or a cheap thrill.
Having said that, though, I don't think "light and entertaining" is the same as "badly written". I loathe the KJA/BH monstrosities not just because they're Dune-lite, but because they're simply appalling novels.
HBJ
That's about how I am too.
Re: Brian's other works
Posted: 27 Aug 2009 17:44
by SadisticCynic
A Thing of Eternity wrote:Which is fine. I mean that - we all spend a lot of time insulting and harrassing people who don't take writing seriously as a fine art, and as such are ok with enjoying the new Dune. I hate what KJABH did to one of the finest peices of lit ever written, but I have no issue with people who read it just for entertainment.
I would bet that every person in this forum has one art form or another that they do not enjoy as fine art, only as low art or pop art or entertainment. In the music thread I hear people talking about all kinds of bands that are just barely (if at all) art to me, because the majority of people just look at music as entertainment. Most people who look at visual art only want to be entertained, either by pleasing colours or imagery, or by the sheer technical skill of the artist (I'm often guilty of this myself, visual art is not my thing).
Sorry for the out of nowhere rant, but I think we get a little high and mighty sometimes because we see people taking lightly something that we take seriously - but we all probably go do the same thing with what someone else takes seriously.
I DO take issue with preeks when they try to argue that KJABH is good art though - that's a different issue altogether than just enjoying their works.
Out of curiosity, what is it you look for in music that makes it 'art'? To me, there are two main aspects of music (to one who is not a music theorist that is) and they are 1, the sound; that is, the music is pleasing to the ear and 2, technical skill; that is, the music is 'complex'. The combination of the two is an 'art' i.e. musicality. When reading comments on some of the music I listen to, I find people often fall into one of the two camps. For example, alot of people who like metal seem to be quite proud of technical prowess. Especially death metal, to the point where there is a subgenre 'technical death metal'. This often leads to the music sounding mathematical and flat. On the other hand much pop music is simple in structure and almost cringeworthy in it's catchiness.
Re: Brian's other works
Posted: 27 Aug 2009 17:50
by chanilover
Slugger wrote:Has anyone ever read any of Brian's other works, the one's he's published by himself or the final one with Frank?
HELL NO!
Re: Brian's other works
Posted: 27 Aug 2009 17:59
by A Thing of Eternity
SadisticCynic wrote:A Thing of Eternity wrote:Which is fine. I mean that - we all spend a lot of time insulting and harrassing people who don't take writing seriously as a fine art, and as such are ok with enjoying the new Dune. I hate what KJABH did to one of the finest peices of lit ever written, but I have no issue with people who read it just for entertainment.
I would bet that every person in this forum has one art form or another that they do not enjoy as fine art, only as low art or pop art or entertainment. In the music thread I hear people talking about all kinds of bands that are just barely (if at all) art to me, because the majority of people just look at music as entertainment. Most people who look at visual art only want to be entertained, either by pleasing colours or imagery, or by the sheer technical skill of the artist (I'm often guilty of this myself, visual art is not my thing).
Sorry for the out of nowhere rant, but I think we get a little high and mighty sometimes because we see people taking lightly something that we take seriously - but we all probably go do the same thing with what someone else takes seriously.
I DO take issue with preeks when they try to argue that KJABH is good art though - that's a different issue altogether than just enjoying their works.
Out of curiosity, what is it you look for in music that makes it 'art'? To me, there are two main aspects of music (to one who is not a music theorist that is) and they are 1, the sound; that is, the music is pleasing to the ear and 2, technical skill; that is, the music is 'complex'. The combination of the two is an 'art' i.e. musicality. When reading comments on some of the music I listen to, I find people often fall into one of the two camps. For example, alot of people who like metal seem to be quite proud of technical prowess. Especially death metal, to the point where there is a subgenre 'technical death metal'. This often leads to the music sounding mathematical and flat. On the other hand much pop music is simple in structure and almost cringeworthy in it's catchiness.
Oh gods, very tough question. No one other than the artist ever knows how much art truly went into a work, and I would never say that something is completely devoid of art. Art isn't a black and white thing, there are shades. You are totally correct that too much technicality can leave something flat and lifeless - the most complex and difficult music on earth might be very low art (and I'm a total tech-prog-metalhead so I don't say that lightly), technical skill in NO way contributes to whether something is artistic, and NEITHER does whether or not it sounds good. "An art" is very different from "art" - and nailing down a definition for art is impossible (not "close" to impossible, it is impossible).
How much the listener enjoys the music has nothing to do with its artistic merits, that falls under entertainment (which is not an insult, all art contains some amount of entertainment - the two are inseperable but different sides of the same coin). Also, how impressed the listener is with the skill of the musicians has nothing to do with how artistic something is. A truly deeply artistic song might require very little technicality, but be terrible to listen to, or it might be highly complex and great to listen to.
A simple song can be extremely artistic, or not. Same goes for complex music. And at the end of the day, no one but the artist knows how much "art" (loosely defined here as "expression" or "deep meaning/intent") went into something.
However, the observer can make a good guess. For example, KJA's work is very low art. Very low - if you press someone to explain exactly why his work is technically poor we can come up with lots, but when it comes to explaining exactly how we know that it is poor art, well - that's more of a total sense that we get from reading his work, a sense that he simply had "nothing to say", and put little or no heart and soul into the work.
That's a simplistic explanation, we could talk our whole lives about this and barely scratch the surface though.
Re: Brian's other works
Posted: 27 Aug 2009 18:30
by SadisticCynic
That's a simplistic explanation, we could talk our whole lives about this and barely scratch the surface though.
Still a good answer though. For me, the distinction between something being art and entertainment is that art manages to evoke a feeling of beauty, it stimulates the aesthetic sense. It's difficult to describe but its definitely there.
But then, of course, we get to 'What is beauty?', which, probably, is essentially the same question as before...
Oh, and by the way, on the thread topic, I haven't read any other books by Brian... and probably never will at this point.
Re: Brian's other works
Posted: 27 Aug 2009 19:08
by A Thing of Eternity
SadisticCynic wrote:A Thing of Eternity wrote:That's a simplistic explanation, we could talk our whole lives about this and barely scratch the surface though.
Still a good answer though. For me, the distinction between something being art and entertainment is that art manages to evoke a feeling of beauty, it stimulates the aesthetic sense. It's difficult to describe but its definitely there.
But then, of course, we get to 'What is beauty?', which, probably, is essentially the same question as before...
Would you agree that art can be ugly though? Not just ugly to you type thing, but ugly period?
Re: Brian's other works
Posted: 27 Aug 2009 19:25
by SadisticCynic
Hmmm... I'm not quite sure what you mean, but perhaps some art is designed to shock, to knock people off-balance maybe by challenging a pre-conceived notion of what is attractive, desirable, even moral. Am I on the right wavelength?
Re: Brian's other works
Posted: 27 Aug 2009 19:38
by A Thing of Eternity
SadisticCynic wrote:Hmmm... I'm not quite sure what you mean, but perhaps some art is designed to shock, to knock people off-balance maybe by challenging a pre-conceived notion of what is attractive, desirable, even moral. Am I on the right wavelength?
Yes and no, what you say here could certainly be included in what I'm talking about but doesn't encompass what I'm saying. A peice of art can be ugly, and have no intention of expanding someone's notion of beauty (or other concepts you listed), or to shock the veiwer. Art can convey meaning, and that meaning doesn't have to be in any way shape or form be positive (unless one considers any creation of art positive, in which case that might be the sole positive feature of a work). A work could simply educate, or deconstruct, or just plain bring something into the light.
I live with a visual artist who does very good art (though I'm not a visual art person other than tattoos, and those are usually lower art IMO, not to say that the medium can't have true art, but it is rare), and it is almost all ugly, if something happens to be beautiful it is just that, it "happens to be". And the purpose of much of it is not to make someone change their thinking persay, it is just an expression of a negative feeling (much of the work is about clinical depression and taking medication). Her paintings and multimedia peices are often very uncomfortable to look at (though I enjoy most of them more than most paintings I see, because I see art, not entertainment when I see her work), but I don't think the intent of the peices is necessarily to make the veiwer uncomfortable, or any reaction in particular. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure the veiwer is considered much at all in her work, most of it seems to be
just for her.
Re: Brian's other works
Posted: 27 Aug 2009 20:14
by SadisticCynic
Perhaps it can be ugly in that it creates something similar to cognitive dissonance which, apparently, is
the feeling of uncomfortable tension which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time.
And by that I mean you find yourself with the thought, this is repulsive, for whatever reason, yet on another level it is enjoyable or thought-provoking, or any number of other positive qualities (which may or may not actually feel positive).
I had a friend at school who would draw pictures that I suppose could be a little uncomfortable to look at, in that they expressed negative emotion (like you mention). He would obtain his inspiration from song lyrics. But at the same time they were definitely art.
Another example is the idea of the protagonist losing, which you mention elsewhere. In general the protagonist is the good guy and we expect that good will triumph over evil (that sounded so cliché) but when this doesn't happen we can still see it as art and it has meaning e.g. Dune Messiah.
If ugly art is art that portrays something negative, then I would say art definitely can be ugly. (And in fact I often enjoy it to be so).
Re: Brian's other works
Posted: 27 Aug 2009 20:28
by Slugger
"Art" (generally) is any man-made creation that the artist presents (intends) as such.
A sunset isn't a piece of art, but a photograph or painting of the sunset is.
Re: Brian's other works
Posted: 28 Aug 2009 08:27
by Freakzilla
Slugger wrote:"Art" (generally) is any man-made creation that the artist presents (intends) as such.
A sunset isn't a piece of art, but a photograph or painting of the sunset is.
Bah, good photography requires and artistic sense but is essentially the result of proper training on a piece of machinery.
Re: Brian's other works
Posted: 28 Aug 2009 09:45
by Slugger
Freakzilla wrote:Slugger wrote:"Art" (generally) is any man-made creation that the artist presents (intends) as such.
A sunset isn't a piece of art, but a photograph or painting of the sunset is.
Bah, good photography requires and artistic sense but is essentially the result of proper training on a piece of machinery.
If it is intended as art.
But I don't think those millions of blurry, out-of-focused, revealing pictures that girls post on Facebook count.
Re: Brian's other works
Posted: 28 Aug 2009 11:23
by A Thing of Eternity
Slugger wrote:"Art" (generally) is any man-made creation that the artist presents (intends) as such.
Yup, that's about it.
Re: Brian's other works
Posted: 28 Aug 2009 18:46
by SadisticCynic
Just one more point before I become completely incoherent. There is a book called: The divine proportion: a study in mathematical beauty By H. E. Huntley. I didn't get to read all of it, but in the first chapter he essentially lays out what he considers beauty to be. The part I found interesting was that beauty is the appreciation of an act of creation.