Bomb, Book and Compass:

This book is about Joseph Needham, a legendary biochemist who fell in love with China, learned the language and was sent there on a mission during WW2. He devoted his life to the country and while he was there, wrote Science and Civilisation in China, an exhaustive history of Chinese science and technology by which he was captivated. Part of his motivation was to dispel the Western ignorance of Chinese development and give it the reputation it deserved... indeed as the title suggests, the bomb (gunpowder), the book (printing) and the compass amongst many other advances, were Chinese inventions.

I'm quite enjoying this book so far and it's interesting to consider just how starkly different China is to almost anywhere else.

http://www.penguin.com.au/covers-jpg/9780670913794.jpg

Execution in terms of directness and a subtle descriptive nuances, like Macdonald or Howard.

Good writing is about is a combination of light and sound, too much of just one and it's a flat essay.

Orwell had ideas, but no life to put in them. Good writing is transcending just letters on paper.

I apologise for my "derogatory" comments, insulting somebody after their death just gets at me. He didn't know however so it doesn't matter.

1984 WAS boring though. At least Bradbury holds my attention for 6 pages.

How is 1984 boring? Examples (other than repeating it's dry over and over?)

"From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared. If the machine were used deliberately for that end, hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy and disease could be eliminated within a few generations. ... But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the destruction - indeed, in some sense was the destruction - of a hierarchical society. ... the most obvious and perhaps the most important form of inequality would already have disappeared. If it once became general, wealth would confer no distinction. ... But in practice such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realise that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance. ... Ignorance is Strength"
-From 1984


“There was a silly damn bird called a phoenix back before Christ, every few hundred years he built a pyre and burnt himself up….But every time he burnt himself up he sprang out of the ashes, he got himself born all over again. And it looks like we’re doing the same thing, over and over, but we’ve got one damn thing the phoenix never had. We know the damn silly thing we just did. We know all the damn silly things we’ve done for a thousand years and as long as we know that and always have it around where we can see it, someday we’ll stop making the goddamn funeral pyres and jumping in the middle of them.” (163)

-From Fahrenheit 451

One is more like reading a textbook, the other reads like actual fiction.

How is that a bad passage? I'd consider it very well-written and far from textbook quality writing.

I'm not saying it's a bad passage, but in terms of original thought and style of prose Bradbury is better.
I liked Animal Farm more anyway.

But, in reality I was just pissed off by Adidasss's ignorant comment, I actually enjoyed 1984 for it's scope and brooding truthfulness.

Bradbury's prose isn't any better it's just more poetic which is exactly what I've been talking about. Imagery and flowery writing doesn't equate to brilliant writing. As for the Bradbury excerpt having more original thought I sincerely hope you're joking. Though it's nice to know in a bit over a day though you went from 1984 boring the **** out of you to enjoying it.

Boring the **** outta me was an exaggeration, I admit that.
I enjoyed 1984 like I enjoyed LOTR, both well thought out but unfortunately flat when it came to the human aspect of their characters.

Yes more original thought, Orwell's concept was probably one the conservatives have been hyperventilating over for a while.

If you found the characters flat it's because you didn't understand what the book was about and you could hardly blame Orwell for that.

It wasn't. Anything to back those claims up though?