girasol
Addicted to handstands!
Interesting. I read it when I was about 23, which probably helped. So what year were you born, if you don't mind me asking?
1971
Interesting. I read it when I was about 23, which probably helped. So what year were you born, if you don't mind me asking?
That's just, like, your opinion, man.
Mine too! I'm surprised you liked it, really, cos I thought you were hip. The first half starts out with just incredibly trite prose and it's really rubbish. Admittedly, once it all kicks off a bit then it is a lot more readable but it's still written in valley speak, which I find incredibly irritating.
Well you're certainly the perfect generation for it, so either you didn't like it because you were already 31 or you didn't like it because you just didn't like it. Most likely the latter, really -- there's nothing written that will appeal to everyone, after all.1971
I... disagree. I think Coupland has the ability to say more in one sentence than most authors manage in an entire page.Mine too! I'm surprised you liked it, really, cos I thought you were hip. The first half starts out with just incredibly trite prose and it's really rubbish. Admittedly, once it all kicks off a bit then it is a lot more readable but it's still written in valley speak, which I find incredibly irritating.
Well you're certainly the perfect generation for it, so either you didn't like it because you were already 31 or you didn't like it because you just didn't like it. Most likely the latter, really -- there's nothing written that will appeal to everyone, after all.
How about his seminal "I photocopied an idiot's view of the zeitgeist, threw in some spurious insights I nicked from far more interesting people and passed it all off as my own work". Oh no wait, that was his autobiography wasn't it?

Well you're certainly the perfect generation for it, so either you didn't like it because you were already 31 or you didn't like it because you just didn't like it. Most likely the latter, really -- there's nothing written that will appeal to everyone, after all.
I... disagree. I think Coupland has the ability to say more in one sentence than most authors manage in an entire page.
Whereas I think his prose is about as good as I've read.I just remember thinking he was about as good at writing prose as Dan Brown. The ideas were really good but the execution was really trite. I thought, anyway.
The Godfather
It might, possibly, be What's Bred In The Bone.
Well......what do we do about it then?
seriously? I always thought Puzo was a shit author
I'd urge you to read filth. It's proper laugh/vom/wince reading (even if Irvine did insist on having a totally superfluous and irritating tapeworm as a stylistic trick)
You wot? The tapeworm is Bruce's *conscience,* its vital to the book's meaning. And it is indeed a great book--a "Ulysees" for the postmodern age.
Still and all though, anyone who answers anything other than "The Brothers Karamazov" either hasn't read it or is a wanker.
Well... I did read it when I was 14, it were great then.