the book corner

stepsandnumbers wrote:

steph wrote:

IrishNameAndAnInjury wrote:

To go along with Jimmy's Stephen King suggestion, I recommend 11/22/63. It's one of the best books I have ever read. I can't stop thinking about it!

is it scary? i haven't read any Stephen King before, not sure how/why, but i haven't. i used to LOVE reading scary books when i was a kid- i love the Fear Street series by R.L. Stine. i'm looking for something good and scary like that, but for big girls! cause i'm a big girl now.

Hahha, I totally read the Fear Street series too, Steph.

they were so good! although it was funny that no matter what sort of evil force or psycho classmate was terrorizing them, the kids never asked their parents for help. haha. R.L. Stine actually wrote 2 or 3 adult novels, i read them a few years back, from what i remember, i liked them.

Camus wrote:

JimmyB wrote:

steph wrote:

JimmyB wrote:

Already read Catcher...I really didn't care for it.

yeah, wtf jimmy? that was the first book i ever had to read in school that i actually really enjoyed. might have to go read it again, now that i think of it!

Like I said earlier...the fact I was forced to read it, and forced to write a paper about every 5 chapters kind of made me hate it. Oh, and the fact everyone called me Holden for about 4 weeks.

Why did they call you Holden?

Because apparently everyone thought I needed Psychoanalized to figure out why I was miserable.

JimmyB wrote:

steph wrote:

IrishNameAndAnInjury wrote:

To go along with Jimmy's Stephen King suggestion, I recommend 11/22/63. It's one of the best books I have ever read. I can't stop thinking about it!

is it scary? i haven't read any Stephen King before, not sure how/why, but i haven't. i used to LOVE reading scary books when i was a kid- i love the Fear Street series by R.L. Stine. i'm looking for something good and scary like that, but for big girls! cause i'm a big girl now.

11/22/63 is not blood and guts scary, But it is a book that will eat at your mind. thinking about how one thing you do can change the future...,. Stephen King is not scary as in obviously scary....But his books leave you thinking about it, and with such description, you can see the stuff happening....that scares me.

i know...i am sorry you can't go back in time and save dale earnhardt jr. i might read 11/22/63 sometime, but i'm looking for something more scary/horror-ish right now.

JimmyB wrote:

Camus wrote:

JimmyB wrote:

steph wrote:

JimmyB wrote:

Already read Catcher...I really didn't care for it.

yeah, wtf jimmy? that was the first book i ever had to read in school that i actually really enjoyed. might have to go read it again, now that i think of it!

Like I said earlier...the fact I was forced to read it, and forced to write a paper about every 5 chapters kind of made me hate it. Oh, and the fact everyone called me Holden for about 4 weeks.

Why did they call you Holden?

Because apparently everyone thought I needed Psychoanalized to figure out why I was miserable.

A bit of Freud won't do you any harm.
I'm gonna read The Interpretation of Dreams when I get a chance.

steph wrote:

JimmyB wrote:

steph wrote:

IrishNameAndAnInjury wrote:

To go along with Jimmy's Stephen King suggestion, I recommend 11/22/63. It's one of the best books I have ever read. I can't stop thinking about it!

is it scary? i haven't read any Stephen King before, not sure how/why, but i haven't. i used to LOVE reading scary books when i was a kid- i love the Fear Street series by R.L. Stine. i'm looking for something good and scary like that, but for big girls! cause i'm a big girl now.

11/22/63 is not blood and guts scary, But it is a book that will eat at your mind. thinking about how one thing you do can change the future...,. Stephen King is not scary as in obviously scary....But his books leave you thinking about it, and with such description, you can see the stuff happening....that scares me.

i know...i am sorry you can't go back in time and save dale earnhardt jr. i might read 11/22/63 sometime, but i'm looking for something more scary/horror-ish right now.

I wish I could suggest something but I'm not a huge fan of horror.

You mean Sr. But back on topic. Go with Salems Lot...One of the Good Vampire novels. No Romantic Vampires...just the good old fashioned Bram Stroker type of Vampire book

JimmyB wrote:

You mean Sr. But back on topic. Go with Salems Lot...One of the Good Vampire novels. No Romantic Vampires...just the good old fashioned Bram Stroker type of Vampire book

So who was stroking Bram...?

JimmyB wrote:

You mean Sr. But back on topic. Go with Salems Lot...One of the Good Vampire novels. No Romantic Vampires...just the good old fashioned Bram Stroker type of Vampire book

i would consider reading a vampire book...as long as it's not "Twilight" ugh. if i'm going to read about vampires, it's not going to be some Mormon suburban housewife's poorly written version.

Salem's lot is great. Pet Sematary is so creepy...i read it once, never reading it again. It involves a Pet Cemetary that brings it's occupants back to life....only evil. So you can guess where this is going huh?

JimmyB wrote:

Salem's lot is great. Pet Sematary is so creepy...i read it once, never reading it again. It involves a Pet Cemetary that brings it's occupants back to life....only evil. So you can guess where this is going huh?

i've seen the movie, actually. i don't think it scared me much. things like psycho killers like Michael Myers, Jason, etc., scares the crap out of me cause it's real. stuff like zombies, things coming back to life...not nearly as scary, cause i can't get past the fact that it's not possible.

I like the supernatural stuff myself...Since I know It can never happen. Although with the Stand...take away all the biblical and religious mentions...and that could possibly happen at any time.

JimmyB wrote:

I like the supernatural stuff myself...Since I know It can never happen. Although with the Stand...take away all the biblical and religious mentions...and that could possibly happen at any time.

meh...too much religious mentions would completely turn me off. i'll skip that one.

[quote="steph"]

JimmyB wrote:

I like the supernatural stuff myself...Since I know It can never happen. Although with the Stand...take away all the biblical and religious mentions...and that could possibly happen at any time.

meh...too much religious mentions would completely turn me off. i'll skip that one. [/quote I mean it is not like the whole book is religious. There are characters that are religious, anre there ones who are atheist, It just follows the whole Good vs evil at the end of the world genre.

Andrew, was that really necessary? As I said in spam, the purpose of this thread was different to the 2 threads from OVER 3 YEARS AGO. There really wasn't any need to merge them.

Camus wrote:

Andrew, was that really necessary? As I said in spam, the purpose of this thread was different to the 2 threads from OVER 3 YEARS AGO. There really wasn't any need to merge them.

It was a joint decision man, I'm sorry for any inconvenience. We are told to keep repeat threads to a minimum.

Debonair wrote:

Camus wrote:

Andrew, was that really necessary? As I said in spam, the purpose of this thread was different to the 2 threads from OVER 3 YEARS AGO. There really wasn't any need to merge them.

It was a joint decision man, I'm sorry for any inconvenience. We are told to keep repeat threads to a minimum.

You have changed, since being a mod.

Debonair wrote:

Camus wrote:

Andrew, was that really necessary? As I said in spam, the purpose of this thread was different to the 2 threads from OVER 3 YEARS AGO. There really wasn't any need to merge them.

It was a joint decision man, I'm sorry for any inconvenience. We are told to keep repeat threads to a minimum.

I back up Andrew on this...just because the old thread was 3 years ago doesn't mean you can't still post in it.

Debonair wrote:

Camus wrote:

Andrew, was that really necessary? As I said in spam, the purpose of this thread was different to the 2 threads from OVER 3 YEARS AGO. There really wasn't any need to merge them.

It was a joint decision man, I'm sorry for any inconvenience. We are told to keep repeat threads to a minimum.

I realise elements of it were repeated, but the main reason for me creating that thread was because I wanted some sort of book club - so it wasn't a repeated thread. And now all that is lost in the midst of old content that no-one really cares about.

I thought we were not supposed to post in old threads without a good reason.

JimmyB wrote:

I thought we were not supposed to post in old threads without a good reason.

there is no rule that says you are not allowed to post in old threads...

oldgospelchoir wrote:

JimmyB wrote:

I thought we were not supposed to post in old threads without a good reason.

there is no rule that says you are not allowed to post in old threads...

It's common sense not to. It's been long-forgotten because people don't want to post in those threads.
So, I'm not allowed to start any new threads on books even if the topic isn't "What are you reading?" That wasn't the point of my thread.

Camus wrote:

oldgospelchoir wrote:

JimmyB wrote:

I thought we were not supposed to post in old threads without a good reason.

there is no rule that says you are not allowed to post in old threads...

It's common sense not to. It's been long-forgotten because people don't want to post in those threads.
So, I'm not allowed to start any new threads on books even if the topic isn't "What are you reading?" That wasn't the point of my thread.

you are allowed to start new threads but if there is an existing thread that is similar, we would prefer you use the existing one.

example...if there is a Pearl Jam thread, then there is no reason to start a Eddie Vedder thread.

Mike I added yours and steady nows post to the initial post, so you don't feel like you were forgotten about.

As for other threads on books, if you want to create thread about individual books themselves I don't see the problem with that. But general discussions of books ( recommendations etc.) should be done here.

oldgospelchoir wrote:

Camus wrote:

oldgospelchoir wrote:

JimmyB wrote:

I thought we were not supposed to post in old threads without a good reason.

there is no rule that says you are not allowed to post in old threads...

It's common sense not to. It's been long-forgotten because people don't want to post in those threads.
So, I'm not allowed to start any new threads on books even if the topic isn't "What are you reading?" That wasn't the point of my thread.

you are allowed to start new threads but if there is an existing thread that is similar, we would prefer you use the existing one.

example...if there is a Pearl Jam thread, then there is no reason to start a Eddie Vedder thread.

You don't seem to understand what I'm getting at. I wanted a thread for a book club. That's different to just a thread on what you're currently reading. No-one else seemed to care that there was a somewhat similar topic 3 years back because mine had a different aim. It seems like the admin power is being used for the sake of using admin power. That's not what it's meant for man.

Debonair wrote:

Mike I added yours and steady nows post to the initial post, so you don't feel like you were forgotten about.

As for other threads on books, if you want to create thread about individual books themselves I don't see the problem with that. But general discussions of books ( recommendations etc.) should be done here.

Cheers Andrew, that's much more useful.