Creekster and pelagius argue about Jane Austen again

[creekster]

Ah, I see the distinction you are trying to make. You very well could be right. With an event as large as the Grammys, it would make sense. However, if the TV broadcast had its own board, then you are also right that they should be fired. Seriously, if I were U2, I would be very annoyed. Wasn't a great way to open the show...the song was lame to begin with. The sound quality made it worse.

Also, didn't the Macca/Foo Fighters "I Saw Her Standing There" sound messy, as well? I felt like his bass was purposely turned up and I think there was one part where the mics were turned up too high....they tried to harmonize and it sounded too loud.

For some reason, I felt like many of the songs were tainted by the poor sound quality.

While not a huge fan of the coldplay/Jay Z collaboration, I thought Chris Martin's piano solo sounded pretty nice. Also, the JT/TI duet sounded nice.

In defense of somethign like the grammies, it can be really hard ot get the levels right if you are constantly switching set upsd and artists. This is especially true if the artists won't show up and do a thorough soundcheck, and I am guessing they don't get alot of that for the grammies (although I have no idea).

I actually didn't see it at all. In a tribute to pelagius and to keep my wife happy, all I saw last night was the second episode of the masterpiece classic prodcution of Sense and Senisbility where, once again,a bunch of English people in old-fahsioned clothes refused to tell each other how they really feel until, when all hope is seemingly lost, some remarkable tunr of events leads to happiness for the heroine and despair for the unruly cads that had mistreated her (or her family) in the beginning.

[pelagius]

Creekster and pelagius argue about Jane Austen again

I actually didn't see it at all. In a tribute to pelagius and to keep my wife happy, all I saw last night was the second episode of the masterpiece classic prodcution of Sense and Senisbility where, once again,a bunch of English people in old-fahsioned clothes refused to tell each other how they really feel until, when all hope is seemingly lost, some remarkable tunr of events leads to happiness for the heroine and despair for the unruly cads that had mistreated her (or her family) in the beginning.

Don't you understand ... They had to live in a cottage with only a couple of servants. I am just not sure you really feel on visceral level (or any other level for that matter) the injustice that they suffered. If you did you would not be so cavalier and dismissive in your description of the movie.

But thanks for the tribute ... even if it is insincere.

[Babs]

If you did you would not be so cavalier and dismissive in your description of the movie.

But thanks for the tribute ... even if it is insincere.

Throw not your pearls before swine.

[creekster]

Don't you understand ... They had to live in a cottage with only a couple of servants. I am just not sure you really feel on visceral level (or any other level for that matter) the injustice that they suffered. If you did you would not be so cavalier and dismissive in your description of the movie.

But thanks for the tribute ... even if it is insincere.

Once again you prove Austen is all about the benjamins and not sense, sensibility or even lust. At least Eleanor was open about the need for cash. And the whole thing works out becaseu edward's mother just happens to find out that the silly boy has promised himslef in secret to some gold-digging (as it turns out) shrew thus leading to his disinheritance and subseuqent freedom to marry the dripping-with-sense love of his life. Whatever.

[creekster]

Throw not your pearls before swine.

Oink.

[pelagius]

Once again you prove Austen is all about the benjamins and not sense, sensibility or even lust. At least Eleanor was open about the need for cash. And the whole thing works out becaseu edward's mother just happens to find out that the silly boy has promised himslef in secret to some gold-digging (as it turns out) shrew thus leading to his disinheritance and subseuqent freedom to marry the dripping-with-sense love of his life. Whatever.

I've actually never read sense and sensibility so I will reserve my judgment about it until get a chance to read it. For the record, here are the Austen novels I have read:

1. Pride and Prejudice: First read it as a teenager (note, long before the Austen ressurgence of the past decade). I liked it so much I didn't want to read any other Austen because I figured it could not live up to P&P.

2. Northanger Abbey: certainly not as good as P&P but I found the book quite charming in its own way. I love the main character: Catherine Morland. She is a delight and so different than the "typical" Austen heroine that the book is worth reading for that reason alone.

3. Persuasion. The true Austenites have a thing for Persuasion. I like it. Its good but I still prefer P&P over it. Also it had the misfortune of inspiriing the Lake House but we can hardly blame Austen for that.

So if you want in depth discussion of a particular book you are going to have to confine it to those three until I get a chance to read more. I have Mansfield Park penciled in next but it will probably be a while until I get around to it (they are airplane books for me).

[creekster]

I've actually never read sense and sensibility so I will reserve my judgment about it until get a chance to read it. For the record, here are the Austen novels I have read:

1. Pride and Prejudice: First read it as a teenager (note, long before the Austen ressurgence of the past decade). I liked it so much I didn't want to read any other Austen because I figured it could not live up to P&P.

2. Northanger Abbey: certainly not as good as P&P but I found the book quite charming in its own way. I love the main character: Catherine Morland. She is a delight and so different than the "typical" Austen heroine that the book is worth reading for that reason alone.

3. Persuasion. The true Austenites have a thing for Persuasion. I like it. Its good but I still prefer P&P over it. Also it had the misfortune of inspiriing the Lake House but we can hardly blame Austen for that.

So if you want in depth discussion of a particular book you are going to have to confine it to those three until I get a chance to read more. I have Mansfield Park penciled in next but it will probably be a while until I get around to it (they are airplane books for me).

Let's see, you have just admitted you read Austen as a teenager, really liked it, and are proud of the fact that you were did so when it was not popular to do so. No wonder you had to bulk up and be preapred to protect yourself.

[pelagius]

Let's see, you have just admitted you read Austen as a teenager, really liked it, and are proud of the fact that you were did so when it was not popular to do so. No wonder you had to bulk up and be preapred to protect yourself.

Well it hardly was a problem ... If you told someone in my High School (aptly named Basic High School) that you enjoyed reading a Jane Austen novel the surprise did not come from the fact that your author of choice was Jane Austen.

[pelagius]

Let's see, you have just admitted you read Austen as a teenager, really liked it, and are proud of the fact that you were did so when it was not popular to do so. No wonder you had to bulk up and be preapred to protect yourself.

Also Creekster here is a nice little quote from Mark Twain about Austen. I suggest you quote it at some timely moment to your wife:

I haven’t any right to criticize books, and I don’t do it except when I hate them. I often want to criticize Jane Austen, but her books madden me so that I can’t conceal my frenzy from the reader; and therefore I have to stop every time I begin. Every time I read ‘Pride and Prejudice’ I want to dig her up and beat her over the skull with her own shin-bone.”

Letter to Joseph Twichell, 9/13/1898

Of course, one does wonder why if he hates P&P so much does he refer to multiple readings?

[TripletDaddy]

Did anyone catch radiohead last night on the grammys? awesome!

[creekster]

Did you put this in a separate thread? Man, talk about a thread killer. The only way anyone besiude you a\ nd I was goign to read this is if it is in some toher thread.

I assure that when people read "Pelagius and Creekster argue about Austen" They don't think "Lewis and Martin" or "Tom and Jerry" or even Neumann and Seinfeld.

[RobinFinderson]

I assure that when people read "Pelagius and Creekster argue about Austen" They don't think "Lewis and Martin" or "Tom and Jerry" or even Neumann and Seinfeld.

I think of the Old Man and the Marlin.

[pelagius]

Both DDD and Finderson clearly at least glanced at the thread. And finderson at least read your last post becase his reply was coherent. You're getting smoked here my lithe lycra wearing friend.

[creekster]

Both DDD and Finderson clearly at least glanced at the thread. And finderson at least read your last post becase his reply was coherent. You're getting smoked here my lithe lycra wearing friend.

Triplet posts abtou EVERYTHING and Robin, well, he justs like to make fun of me being old. And I am not getting smoked ont he subject of the thread, where you ahve conceded that I am right and have even begun to proffer simialr criticisms from esteemed literary figures.

[RobinFinderson]

Triplet posts abtou EVERYTHING and Robin, well, he justs like to make fun of me being old. And I am not getting smoked ont he subject of the thread, where you ahve conceded that I am right and have even begun to proffer simialr criticisms from esteemed literary figures.

Actually you were the Marlin... and I am one of the sharks picking at your bones.