http://www.theonion.com/content/news/bunch_of_phonies_mourn_j_d

 

i did laugh..

I cried.

who?

Finally someone else who thinks this.

I don't know how it got on trend topics too.

Twitter is controlled by people who can get "sex songs" on trending.

 

He wrote a brilliant book and he had his fans.

And for the days after his death he was the greatest writer to some people.

I love him to bits

 

But this means more books will be on the way <3

Aw man,

but maybe there is a sequel to Catcher in the Rye?

I did a 50 page project on that book o__O

And now in about 50 years people will be fighting over who will make the movie.

lol'd at the article, though sad that he died. Catcher's one of those books that people either love or hate, and I honestly never liked it.

I think it's the only time The Onion's made me laugh.

Sucks he died, but gotta be honest here, Catcher in the Rye was one of the worst books I ever read.

People rave about its character development, which happens to be nonexistent. Holden was a whiny, stupid little...I'll stop myself there.

lCatcher's one of those books that people either love or hate, and I honestly never liked it.

Same here.

I liked Catcher in the Rye. It was one of the few books I read in school that I really enjoyed... or took the time to read fully :P

I liked Cathcer in the Rye rather much. Yes, Holden was whiny and lazy, but at least he was brutally honest.

 

At any rate, it's not the worst book ever. That honor goes to Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. That was the worst 76 pages I've ever read. :angry:

I liked Cathcer in the Rye rather much. Yes, Holden was whiny and lazy, but at least he was brutally honest.

 

At any rate, it's not the worst book ever. That honor goes to Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. That was the worst 76 pages I've ever read. :angry:

Making a good case for yourself: you're doing it wrong.

Whaaa? :confused:

At any rate, it's not the worst book ever. That honor goes to Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. That was the worst 76 pages I've ever read. :angry:

my god you must be stupid. I'm not just saying that to be a dick either, I mean you must be really stupid, cuz if you understood that book you'd appreciate it.

 

Making a good case for yourself: you're doing it wrong.

this

I liked Cathcer in the Rye rather much. Yes, Holden was whiny and lazy, but at least he was brutally honest.

 

At any rate, it's not the worst book ever. That honor goes to Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. That was the worst 76 pages I've ever read. :angry:

 

Him being brutally honest isn't a very good point, sorry. There are characters in plenty of books that are brutally honest without being as annoying and idiotic as Holden.

 

But I must agree, Heart of Darkness was painful. I didn't get past page 25, as least not consecutively. Read a few other pages here and there, just to know what was going on because I had a quiz on it. But that book actually has a point.

^^ Oh, I understand it completely. I had to write a paper over it in high school and got an A on it. I just hate it that much. I really and honestly do. I'm sorry that my vehement dislike of a book makes me stupid in the eyes of some people.

 

Speaking of which, that was certainly not necessary. There are ways to tell people you disagree without questioning their intelligence. Oh, and you may have said you weren't trying to be a dick, but it sure as hell sounded like you were meaning to be.

^^ Oh, I understand it completely. I had to write a paper over it in high school and got an A on it. I just hate it that much. I really and honestly do. I'm sorry that my vehement dislike of a book makes me stupid in the eyes of some people.

 

Speaking of which, that was certainly not necessary. There are ways to tell people you disagree without questioning their intelligence. Oh, and you may have said you weren't trying to be a dick, but it sure as hell sounded like you were meaning to be.

I kind of was trying to be a dick. It's like saying 'no pun intended', you really did intend it.

 

But I must agree, Heart of Darkness was painful. I didn't get past page 25, as least not consecutively. Read a few other pages here and there, just to know what was going on because I had a quiz on it. But that book actually has a point.

It bothers me that people can't enjoy this book. Conrad is the best writer hands down I have ever read. As a story-teller I'd say Faulkner but just talking about the ability to suck you into a story so deep until you become the characters you are reading about, no one tops Conrad.

Yeah, gee, thanks. :blank:

It bothers me that people can't enjoy this book. Conrad is the best writer hands down I have ever read. As a story-teller I'd say Faulkner but just talking about the ability to suck you into a story so deep until you become the characters you are reading about, no one tops Conrad.

 

Look, this may sound shallow or whatever, but I really couldn't give a damn how deep a book's meaning is if it's not very readable. That book was so hard to get through. Took me 10 minutes or so for just a few pages. And when a book is like that I find myself having to go back and reread things over and over, and mind wandering.

Want a book with great meaning, thought, development, and storytelling? East of Eden. One of the best books ever.

Look, this may sound shallow or whatever, but I really couldn't give a damn how deep a book's meaning is if it's not very readable. That book was so hard to get through. Took me 10 minutes or so for just a few pages. And when a book is like that I find myself having to go back and reread things over and over, and mind wandering.

If you read more books in that style it wouldn't be hard at all to read through and focus. And yes it's a bit hard to get into the first few pages, but a good book usually is. Stick with it and be rewarded.

Eh, it wasn't my first experience with books like that. We read stuff like that a lot in school. I'm just not really one for 16th/17th century (or earlier even) lit. I can understand it for the most part, but it takes too long in my opinion. I should be able to read through it fluidly and not have to stop and figure out what they're talking about. It doesn't make it a bad book of course, but it usually won't be one of my favorites if it's like that.

Heart of Darkness isn't exactly baroque, it was published 1899.

Nonetheless it was hard to get through. Conrad didn't make it any easier by having a narrator within a narrator.

lol'd at the article, though sad that he died. Catcher's one of those books that people either love or hate, and I honestly never liked it.

this.