Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

From the Big Short to Normal People: Books That Defined the Decade

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–45 of 45 posts

Re: From the Big Short to Normal People: Books That Defined the Decade

#41

Post by shantly »

ralfd wrote: post #21
EliRivers wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After that novel's success, there was a noticeable upsurge in novels that shared a number of features and styles and themes. I suspect that it was something of a Pulp Fiction effect; reading it again now makes it seem almost derivative, much as Pulp Fiction now looks like a homage to itself. Granted, this is of importance to the publishing industry and the novel reading public rather than, say, the economy or politic…

Whatever the influence of “Gone Girl” on the decade is, it certainly can’t be bigger than “50 shades of Grey” from 2011/2012.

There were like 100 major-publisher books that clearly modeled their title, if nothing else, on Gone Girl in the years after it came out. Didn't see that with 50 Shades. Both got a movie. Gone Girl seemed to have wider and more lasting cultural impact outside its immediate readership, as more than a joke or rapidly-fading reference.

For the record I haven't read either nor seen their movies, but I see the influence of Gone Girl around way more than I see 50 Shades.

Re: From the Big Short to Normal People: Books That Defined the Decade

#42

Post by mellosouls »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #40
mellosouls wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comments suggesting The Guardian is free of bias is why reminders are needed here that it is profoundly so.

This is hilarious. Does no one understand the difference between a position, a worldview and bias any more? Bias is an unfair or dishonest prejudice, or attempt to distort one way or another. That someone happens not to be agreeing with me, or you, is not bias. Out of interest, among the UK sources, who do you consider unbiased? The FT has a financial worldview whilst aiming to be free of bias. The Guardian has a lef…

Saying they are free of bias (or "free from the usual bias", like that's a big difference) is absurd, and attempting to backpedal by qualifying that claim and redefining the meaning of the word is no more useful.

Re: From the Big Short to Normal People: Books That Defined the Decade

#43

Post by NeedMoreTea »

mellosouls wrote: post #42
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is hilarious. Does no one understand the difference between a position, a worldview and bias any more? Bias is an unfair or dishonest prejudice, or attempt to distort one way or another. That someone happens not to be agreeing with me, or you, is not bias. Out of interest, among the UK sources, who do you consider unbiased? The FT has a financial worldview whilst aiming to be free of bias. The Guardian has a lef…

Saying they are free of bias (or "free from the usual bias", like that's a big difference) is absurd, and attempting to backpedal by qualifying that claim and redefining the meaning of the word is no more useful.

Check Oxford Dictionary or Websters. No redefinition.

I'm done here.

Re: From the Big Short to Normal People: Books That Defined the Decade

#44

Post by mashby »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #43
mellosouls wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying they are free of bias (or "free from the usual bias", like that's a big difference) is absurd, and attempting to backpedal by qualifying that claim and redefining the meaning of the word is no more useful.

Check Oxford Dictionary or Websters. No redefinition. I'm done here.

Bias: a strong feeling in favour of or against one group of people, or one side in an argument, often not based on fair judgement.

Take your own advice.

Re: From the Big Short to Normal People: Books That Defined the Decade

#45

Post by returnofthemash »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #43
mellosouls wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying they are free of bias (or "free from the usual bias", like that's a big difference) is absurd, and attempting to backpedal by qualifying that claim and redefining the meaning of the word is no more useful.

Check Oxford Dictionary or Websters. No redefinition. I'm done here.

Bias: the action of supporting or opposing a particular person or thing in an unfair way, because of allowing personal opinions to influence your judgment.

The above definition describes what happened in the compiling of the list.

Post reply on HN