There's one problem I have with this book

I don't think you understand what words mean.

I can understand what i'm saying, but as for your post, yes, this may be true,.What you're saying is confusing me. Please explain what you mean, as clearly as you can, please. Thanks. More than one sentence appreciated, ta.

J. Parker is the new N. Parker.

Okay, here we go...

Nextly, Yes, I see you're quoting somebody else post. It's your reply to that particular post that doesn't make sense in the context of the post you quoted. You're reply sounds like you were arguing with some other poster and than you may have just hit the wrong button to get the quote.

"New and Pioneering" is the phrase you used to describe Chuck's style. I highlighted it in your comment so you can see where it is. Minimalism, the style Chuck uses, predates Chuck by quite a few years and authors. So it is definitely not "new" or "pioneering." In my reply I say how He(chubbz) is for the new and pioneering stuff. Why would he (or me for that matter) even think it was about your comment? It just seems a pretty obvious notion that everyone can see that the "new and pioneering stuff" is in reference to Chuck's work and yet you either don't recognize that or are supposing that we can't recognize that.

Then you ask why you call the book new and pioneering. Say it's self explanatory. And then go into a long explanation that doesn't explain anything about why the book would be new or pioneering! If he's learning this stuff at college why wouldn't it be new to him? College is where you go to learn new ideas! And why in the world would it be the widely accepted norm? Not every school is so quick to accept differing literary viewpoints. "New and pioneering" and "Accepted, widespread norm" are two completely opposing ideas. If it's accepted and the widespread norm than it is not new and pioneering!

Chubbz isn't having apoplexies on his teacher's behalf. He's saying how much he's enjoying this style he's found while his teacher would be the one that didn't care for it. Not him. Which leads to believe that you, again, completely didn't understand his post. Your arguements are all over the place and fall on both sides of the issue and you don't seem to realize you're doing it. That is why I question if you understand what words mean or not.

The only conclusion I can come to is either English is not your first language or you are an imbecile. Which is it?

Hi Nate, thanks for the reply, and a very intelligent and thought provoking post (even though later I will malign your intelligence with the de rigeuer slurs, sorry). The barbs stung as intended, and you should feel proud, old man, still got some piss and vinegar left in you!

Firstly, yes, I am English. English is my mother tongue. Unfortunately, American isn’t, so please forgive any incongruities. (F.Y.I by the way, Joseph Conrad, a Polish native as i’m sure an erudite personage such as your self is aware, is widely considered to be one of the greatest proponents of the English Language, which isn’t even his first language!)  All contrition aside, as for being an ‘imbecile’, well I shall treat it with contempt, much as you created it with facetiousness.

I think the problem here stems from my comment on Chubbz’s post. You believe I have attacked him for views I’ve misunderstood, correct?  Let us delve into this matter more, and I will enlighten’ you with your own methods of pedantry (or, more accurately perhaps, sophistry!)

Chubbz, through my limited reading, posted that he liked the book. This is true. But he does not come across as a complete convert. He still has reservations, mainly about the grade of the prose. “Kinda bad-ass”, - not really a very meritorious description, is it? Very understated, wouldn’t you agree?  “I honestly didn’t know you could do that”, another sentence replete with reservations. He’s been educated, by what he considers competent folks, people he has respect for. He chooses to parenthetise the ‘competent’ to show that other people (such as myself), are casting doubts on the teachers competency, but not he himself. By parenthetising, he is distancing himself from the comments. One could even argue that he is disbelieving, and in fact agrees with the teachers point of view. (That was an important point, please re-read so you can understand what I am saying, even if you do not agree, at least.)

“The teachers would have a field (sic) day correcting and editing this novel…” This sentence just smacks of the teachers pet, chastising in a whiny voice, that their beloved teacher would be overjoyed at this little exercise in authoritarianism. We have here the self-serving smugness of the swot, gaining validation via an authority figure inflicting punishment at their behest. Complete schoolyard tattle-tale condescension. Firmly ensconced behind the rigid, normative skeptisism of the text book.

If I do hope you’re not plebian enough to competely ignore the above evidence of how I took Chubbz to be gravitating towards his teachers orthodoxies. Perhaps I have given you doubt as to how “clearly” his position was stated, at least, under a correct reading. If, as you stated, Chubbz was a proponent of ‘new and pioneering’, do you not think he would have been more pro-active in his assent? Could he not have disdained, gladly, the constrictive ‘classical education’ system he has now been liberated from? “Kinda” isn’t really saying how much he enjoys the new style now, is it? Has this made my responses a little clearer yet? we can at least establish that, then we are moving on!. Even if Chubbz is ‘on-side’, then the comments by myself can just be aimed directly at others who are against the book. Happy now?

You do have a valid argument, that there was another alternative reading of this comment, but even a clever chap as yourself should be able to see that I have at least warranted another P.O.V., not purely through my inability to read! Hopefully. If anything, perhaps you could have some vitriol scorned upon Chubbz’s use of the English Language, to even things up?

Let us now take my response to your post. Remember, it is viewing Chubbz’s post as a detraction, which you yourself could see, so it should have made sense, even if the reason for seeing it being an attack was clouded (which is what I have discussed above, ok?)

I suggested, harshley, that if ‘he’ (arguing as though he was on teachers side) Had a problem with Chucks’ style being one not “properly defined”, then he should go read Jane Austen, more to his taste. Jane Austen was on my own English Syllabus, and yes it bored me. Sue me. However, Austen is a good teaching aid to “properly defined MLA format rules”. Austen would be an apex of established normative methods. My usage of her was sarcastic, again, aimed at a person horrified by the angst of deviating from the stylistic norm.

Next, I invoke Joyce. Ulysses, a complex work that many claim to be amongst the classics of literature, I use as a shock tactic. This should be clear to anybody with even a remote understanding of literature, as his style is quite famous, even if largely unread. I hoped you would get the connection her. Allow me to spell it out plainly, sir. If the teachers would have a “field day” (an implicit derisory tone there, you must agree), then Ulysses (a book breaking virtually every established procedure for writing), should induce an even greater response. I stand by my usage of the term ‘apoplexies’, as an example of a greater reaction.

Next, my usage of the term ‘new and pioneering’, is a phrase to cover, not just Chuck’s minimalism, but any style that is newer, or even, ignored, by the Educational system. As you rightly surmise, once these are taught, then they cease to be ‘new and pioneering’. The real world, is the one outside of the artificial atmosphere of the Educational System. Chubbz was not “honestly”aware, as he himself states, that ‘minimalism’ was possible. He “didn’t know you could do that”.  Why not? Because it wasn’t taught to him. ‘New and pioneering’ it may not be for you, but to Chubbz it is, which is our bone of contention after all.

As I posted “If Chubbz was learning about these techniques at college they wouldn’t be new…” You notice the signifier ‘If’? You do understand what it means, right? Chubbz is not taught this stuff at school, which qualifies it, to Chubbz, as ‘new and pioneering’, right? That’s what I meant by self-explanatory. Obviously I was over-taxing your ability to parse a sentence. Re-read my post correctly, and it makes a nonsense of your comment. The “long explanation” I made does explain it quite clearly (if you remember the signifier of ‘If’ as a hypothesis), and your points about

‘new and pioneering’, and “the widespread norm” being two “opposing ideas”, is exactly what I was saying. “Self-evident” is a bit of a misnomer to some people, so it seems.

To tie things up, its clear that you can see that I am commenting about a POV that is in dispute.  And yet, you really could not make that small leap of intelligence, to grasp the concept that everything might have become clearer, if only you could’ve imagined that my comments were based upon the fact that Chubbz was actually not too keen on Fight Club’s prose?

Which you yourself had actually surmised with disbelief! Unbelievably poor, sir, from one so apparently clever as your posts imply. Shame on you.

Which leads us to your tastiest rejoinder, about how my arguments are all over the place, and I don’t seem to realise what i’m doing, and some appalling insult about not understanding your paltry opinions. Re-read that line, sir, as I cast it verbatim back at you. J’accuse you of the same impropriety. Discuss hoisting upon your own petard!

As for implying whether you thought my own post was ‘new and pioneering’, that is more difficult to explain. You see, here in England, we have a technique that I unwittingly used, a rather facile trick called SARCASM!

It appears that you do not understand this as a ‘witty repartee’, confirming yet another hoary old stereotype of Americans being unsophisticated enough to appreciate the finer points of refined discourse. Pity, as I believe the task is beyond this poor poster to adequately school you in. You shall just have to take my word on the subject.

Or ask somebody who’s first language is actually English, and not American.

Or somebody who is not an imbecile.

            I await your intelligent reply. Or at least, a valient attempt, sir

yep, all that answers my last question alright.

That made me read the succeeding posts as nate just talking to himself. It made J's post at least mildly bearable, looking at it as some sort of nate-y performance piece.

Lol, have I inadvertently stumbled amongst something here? What's Nates' reputation then? Clever chap from his posts, as far as I can make out.

We love the grumpy old bugger.

ha, yes, he's alright!

And when I grow up, I fully intend on being a grumpy bugger too!

If there's anything I love more than a post . . . it's a post about a guy's posted answer to a post about a guys post about the original guy's post. I love how all I'm going to remember about what I just read is that the one guy is English. You complete me.