That it's fairly reminescent of American Gods was all you needed to say. Now I'll certainly look for it. As for organized religions, I think the vast amount deserve to be parodied or poked at once in a while.

I can't decide what's worse: stereotypes in reality or stereotypes in fiction.

Well stereotypes in reality have the pesky habit of affecting your actual life, while stereotypes in fiction have this freaking anoying tendancy to copy eachother so perfectly, that you will sometimes confuse books together that you've read in times past. While some similarities are bound to pop-up from time to time, it really does dumb down fiction as a whole.

I agree. I'm just not a big fan of seeing or reading the same thing over and over. True, I don't object to a few "happily ever afters" now and then. I even like reading well-known conventions, like a cross-dressing woman who had to fight a war or a prince/warrior who has to seize his destiny -- as long as it's done well, of course.

Sometimes fiction is more real than real life, so some stereotypes in TV and books, especially for race, culture, or sexuality, might have an affect on real people.

I find it amazing when artists won't take moral responsibility for their work. Even when they don't pull the perverbial trigger, their work has a profound effect on many many people.

Pah! These Hogwarts brats are pikers. Tremble before the might of Stephen King's enormous Wang!

quote:

Originally posted by Big Ass Panda:
I find it amazing when artists won't take moral responsibility for their work. Even when they don't pull the perverbial trigger, their work has a profound effect on many many people.

"A book is neither moral nor immoral. It is well-written or badly written. That is all." - Oscar Wilde

In other words, 'Catcher in the Rye' lead to the death of John Lennon but I can still enjoy the book

If anything, it's the views and intentions of the author that are moral or immoral.
Books are just tools to get stuff across.

Books are incredibly powerful tools, more powerful than guns. Therefor more responsibility is needed.

What do you mean by responsibility?

I think he means that certain books should not be allowed into the hands of idiots....

sound right Panda?

quote:

Books are incredibly powerful tools, more powerful than guns. Therefor more responsibility is needed.

That, taken with this from above in the thread:

quote:

I find it amazing when artists won't take moral responsibility for their work. Even when they don't pull the perverbial trigger, their work has a profound effect on many many people.

Makes it seem that Panda believes that an author is directly responsible for the actions of their readers.

I'm interested to know what Panda thinks an authors responsibility is. What actual actions they should or should not take. And above all why they are to be held morally responsible.

Or if it is to keep books out of the hands of idiots, how it is decided what an idiot is. How are they to be kept out of the hands of idiots. How is the bookstore to identify them? What a dangerous book is. One that describes the manufacture of explosives? Or one the contains ideas that could be considered 'dangerous'.

If I read Mein Kampf (and I will someday) I'm not afraid that it'll turn me into a bigot.

I might advise some people not to read certain books, but I would not forbid anyone from reading anything.

Panda, please tell me you're not talking about censorship. Please? Because that's what it sounds like to me. Authors should censor themselves. Idiots piss everyone off, but I don't think censoring them is going to make the idiots vanish.

ETA: HA! How the hell did the Harry Potter typo thread end up like this?

Panda is correct. Fiction is powerful. Sometimes, it's even more powerful than reality. It can change your mind about ideas and have you do a number of things, but only if you make the choice to follow it.

I've read Fight Club and enjoyed it, but so far, I've resisted the urge to spit in restaurant food and lay the smackdown on co-workers. Some people may not have as much self-control, but unless they have a serious problem or history, it's ultimately their choice.

Flight Club has the specific honor of being the only book/movie where I actually liked the movie better. But that's just because the movie was done so incredibly well, in my own opinion at least.

PS, I love going off topic from the topic that was origionally off topic from the first topic!

quote:

Originally posted by Big Ass Panda:

I love going off topic from the topic that was origionally off topic from the first topic!

I know! Isn't it fun? And yeah, though I like the book, the film was done excellently.

quote:

Originally posted by Babylon the Bride:
If anything, it's the views and intentions of the author that are moral or immoral.
Books are just tools to get stuff across.

Er
No
They're asethetic objects. Pablo Neruda might have become a commited Facist in his later days but that dosen't mean you can't still enjoy his poems. Orson Scott Card has rephrensible political views but I rather enjoy his novels.

If the views annoy you in whatever you're reading then throw it across the room-- but don't ban it!