|
Comments / Notes
wow that is great....I have been wanting to get this book...Holden Caulfield needs some partners in crime...
Corey <[email protected]>
- Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 03:51:46 (PDT) | #1
Ugh! I fear that the Moz fans have been fooled! First of all, let's be careful about suggesting any work by Salinger is comparable to that of a first time novelist such as, Chbosky. Granted, the book gives me this "Bridget Jones" (the whole journal entry thing) feeling all over again, a lovely feeling at that, but that is about as far as it goes. Secondly, you have been fooled because MTV co-published the book and you bet that they "threw" in those Morrissey references to give 'Charlie' a more sensitive realism. However, Charlie does not exactly typify the Morrissey/ Smiths fans that I grew up with or the new ones I meet. I actually am still smiling...
Star-Child
- Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 06:00:05 (PDT) | #2
You're smiling, Starchild, but you're also a cynic. I thought the book was vividly written and actually quite touching. The fact that Charlie loved the song "Asleep" fits perfectly with his character. It doesn't seem thrown in to me at all. I'd bet most mozfans would appreciate the story.
morrisseygirl <[email protected]>
Boston - Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 06:41:28 (PDT) | #3
I like to think of myself as 'free-thinking', I am not a cynic. And your perspective is appreciated, as you should be able to appreciate other's thoughts/ and or ideas. Thus, I still am smiling.
Star-Child
- Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 07:18:47 (PDT) | #4
i read the book "the perks of being a wallflower"
too, and i think it is magnificent. there are references to several kick ass bands in there and i was excited to see someone truly appreciate The Smiths and their music...strawberry kiss
strawberry kiss <[email protected]>
- Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 08:03:45 (PDT) | #5
Well, I'd like to get it...it seems great. Now that the Smiths were mentioned it is a must have. Just because MTV copublished it doesn't mean it's evil...the people who play the music are not the same guys getting these book deals you know.
Corey <[email protected]>
- Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 17:12:33 (PDT) | #6
Bah humbug. Holden would have been sickened by such rubbish as MTV. Who publishes the book and who programs the music is hardly relevant. MTV itself is an evil entity that promotes all the empty values and "phoniness" that Holden loathed. This book is an example of how corporate vampires like MTV are trying to capitalize off the misfit youth culture (i.e. Daria) because being an outsider has been so chic ever since Andrew McCarthy wound up with Molly Ringwald in "Pretty in Pink". I couldn't care less how people feel about this book, just leave Holden out of MTV and its literary spawn.
Unloveable
- Sat, Sep 04, 1999 at 20:33:23 (PDT) | #7
nobody ever said anything about holden and mtv as one*l* All this article says is that it is catcher in the rye-esque...I think that is fair enough don't you? Especially since it is an opinion.
Corey <[email protected]>
- Sun, Sep 05, 1999 at 08:00:20 (PDT) | #8
> Bah humbug. Holden would have been sickened by
> such rubbish as MTV. Who publishes the book and
> who programs the music is hardly relevant.What on Earth are you going on about? MTV itself is an evil entity that promotes all
> the empty values and "phoniness" that Holden
> loathed. This book is an example of how
> corporate vampires like MTV are trying to
> capitalize off the misfit youth culture (i.e.
> Daria) But you just said that who publishes the book and who programs the music are hardly relevant! because being an outsider has been so chic ever
> since Andrew McCarthy wound up with Molly
> Ringwald in "Pretty in Pink". Dear Lord, you must be 12! Are you suggesting that Andrew McCarthy originated rebel-chic?! I must have missed something. I couldn't care less how people feel about this
> book, just leave Holden out of MTV and its
> literary spawn. How in the world...? Where did you get the idea that anyone was associating Holden Caufield with MTV? Just because they were mentioned together under one post doesn't mean that they were being lumped en masse! Whew! Thank you Unloveable. I haven't felt this smug in a long time. I know that I'm being peevish. I'm sorry. My boyfriend won't take me on holiday and I'm so pathetic, I'm taking it out on my computer. Oh, I almost forgot. I will absolutely read The Perks of Being a Wallflower. A couple of these messages have certainly sparked my interest in it. So Tami, you deserve a small commission because you've sold at least one more copy! ;) If you contact Mr. Chbosky I'm sure you two could work out something! Let's see... 2% of $12... That's 24 cents!
Cili Barnes <[email protected]>
Los Angeles - Sun, Sep 05, 1999 at 22:41:57 (PDT) | #9
DO NOT BECOME TO ENAMORED OLD CHAPS, OR YOU WILL FIND YOURSELF STANDING OUTSIDE THE DAKOTA BUILDING WITH AN ITCHY TRIGGER FINGER......
FLESH RAMPAGE
n.j. - Mon, Sep 06, 1999 at 05:37:11 (PDT) | #10
Hey guys!!! I am confused about the book... I have not read it yet but it sounds pretty dumb. Why is everyone arguing about this crap? Smiths Rule!!! O-U-T!!!
p.s. - I have been grounded off my computer for the past week because I got busted for downloading porn. SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET...
Warren
Chespaw - Mon, Sep 06, 1999 at 15:39:07 (PDT) | #11
wow this discussion was really interesting, i was actually quite enthralled....and wondered why it stopped so suddenly....then i read #11.oh warren (i hate to be unkind but..) ....go read a book.... ciao julie
julie <[email protected]>
oz - Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 06:25:37 (PDT) | #12
I'm in a cyber cafe right now and they just stared playing "The last of the famous international playboys" I swear to god.
Viva Wallflowers(not the band ofcourse)
Girl Racer <[email protected]>
chicago - Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 10:19:39 (PDT) | #13
oh cmon, julie.. its not like you've never been busted for porn before like warren
panic
san francisco - Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 11:29:45 (PDT) | #14
Unloveable is right-on! Corey, you could use some courses on proper critique skills - never take another person's interpretation literally or personally. Interpretations will vary from one mind to the next - which is what allows for the interpretation. The true literary discussion is focused on the slur that the book is being toted as comparable to an all time classic, such as 'Catcher in the Rye'. The MTV reference was made simply to validate the spuriousness of the lead character, Charlie. It is as if he was developed from three hands and only one of the hands was the author. So incomparable to the expertise of Salinger, stay true to your character - always.
Star-Child
- Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 14:52:31 (PDT) | #15
Oh God... That attitude is so idiotic. I'm very sorry Star-Child but you are an idiot. I think it's very sad when people find it necessary to take COURSES on how to formulate their opinions (not that any real opinions were even made in the two messages in question (Tami's and Corey's)). You do realize that Tami was just attempting to find the closest comparison to "The Perks of..." and "The Catcher in the Rye" was what she came up with right? This is not a classroom and she was not being reviewed. It probably took her all of 20 seconds to type up her little e-mail so comparing "Perks" to "Catcher" shouldn't be taken so seriously. This is just an inherent problem with trying to make comparisons anyway but I'm sure you know all about that right? You've taken a course. I hope it was comprehensive.Star-Child, what bothers me more than anything else is how narrow-minded you are. Just because you type that you are still smiling doesn't mean that we are all fooled into believing that you are very casual and relaxed. The stick in your behind is very obvious; we can see it. Put as many smiles over it as you want but we can still see it. Oh, and seriously, I'd bet my life that Corey spent no time cogitating about whether or not the comparison between "Perks" and "Catcher" was a valid one before typing up his message. It's very obvious to me that his post was just a reactive one and therefore should be exempt, under these circumstances, from such (idiotic) scrutiny. I don't think it's sensible to be so sensitive about such an inane thing. It was just a quick superficial comparison.
Cili Barnes <[email protected]>
Los Angeles - Wed, Sep 08, 1999 at 09:42:39 (PDT) | #16
Cili -
Pot....Kettle...Black?!
You probably want to try visiting the Corey-solo.com site, it may be more up your alley for such a devoted Corey fan.Smiles galore (even better with the stick up my bum!)
Star-Child
- Wed, Sep 08, 1999 at 11:20:42 (PDT) | #17
Cili,
I'm soryy but Star child has you there.
Keep us updated on Coreys happenings....
Cindy
Tallahassee - Wed, Sep 08, 1999 at 12:23:33 (PDT) | #18
Guys~You're pitiful! I happen to know that Moz looks in here from time to time, and you're arguing about semantics, approaches to arguments, etc over some peeza sheet book? You suck! Moz, if you're reading, trust me- NOT ALL SMITHS/MORRISSEY FANS ARE THIS DIM-WITTED AND PETTY! I've been following you since 1985, I was at the first Smiths concert in America, August 6th, 1986 (not to mention numerous solo gigs- I CHALLENGE anyone to a lyric contest), at the George Washington University Smith Center. Ignore these petty freaks, we real fans are tres happy with your work. John
781-407-4172
Johnny Cameron <[email protected]>
New England, Yew Ess of Ay. - Sat, Sep 11, 1999 at 05:44:01 (PDT) | #19
a single tear rolls down my cheek for johnny.
puff paint yer own mozzer
- Sat, Sep 11, 1999 at 22:47:04 (PDT) | #20
|