Search? Click Here
Join the BUGS Team! Post on the internet along with us to fight White Genocide!

Literary Criticism – 30 Years of Bob

Posted by BoardAd on May 22nd, 2009 under General

As a college student, for the sake of your grade, you often submit to do many assignments that you would rather not partake in. One such assignment was the literary deconstruction of a 20th century poem.

In the renaissance, when the classical works were rediscovered, you only had the works to interpret from. You judged form and substance to gain what the author was trying to convey, and you wrote an essay on your findings. Most 20th century authors are still alive or have written later works to clarify just exactly what they wanted to say. However you occasionally come across authors, such as Bob, with works that say exactly what they mean. Yet this relic of the renaissance tortures students to this very day.

A few weeks back when the majority of the articles were Bob’s, I performed a readability test on the blog and I found that the ease of reading was on par with popular novels. This astounded me, since the same index said my writing was as easy to read as an academic paper. I started searching his books and articles for ideas and maybe find a way to help make my writing easier to read.

Bob says that it takes practice. I believe him but I wonder just how much Mephistophilis had to do with it.

Right now, I’m in the process of reading “A Plague on Both Your Houses” and two things have jumped out at me. The first is that Bob has been saying roughly the same thing for thirty some odd years. The second is the form and evolution of his style of writing.

Plauge, as far as formating goes, it is the antithesis to WOL. The paragraphs are long and there are no line breaks, which help to keep the eye from wandering. However, I found the tone of the book to be a bit more forceful. direct. energetic. Bob before he was tired.

WOL has a house style that is unique. For a decade the house style has been the same; short sentances, short paragraphs, lots of line breaks. Bob did this because he found that unorthodox writing styles help capture the attention of the reader better.

  1. #1 by Dave on 05/22/2009 - 9:21 pm

    Aldous Huxley used to say, “People are so different from one another, it is astonishing they breathe the same air.”

    That certainly is true of the ability to communicate well.

    For example, Horus did a great job orally in Follow the White Rabbit. An enormous content was communicated under the rule, “Give me the skinny!”

    The one or two sentence paragraphs of BUGS enforce a valuable discipline: “Give me the skinny!”

    At least in following that discipline, you have a shot at communicating well, one of the hardest things to do.

  2. #2 by shari on 05/23/2009 - 10:05 am

    That’s the difference between true genius and a puffed up phony genius. True genius can take complexity and make it simple enough for most to understand. The phony obfusticates.

  3. #3 by shari on 05/23/2009 - 10:15 am

    Keep your heart with all diligance; for out of it are the issues of life. Prov.4:23

  4. #4 by Simmons on 05/23/2009 - 11:25 am

    Tautology the science of the jews, even Fleming figured this out, suprised they are still in business with his sharp comments over that realization.

    Responses have to be short, but content rich, point A to point B, intro, body, conclusion, basics.

  5. #5 by shari on 05/23/2009 - 6:13 pm

    I think for me, this means,say it, and quit. If I think of more later, or try to add, don’t. I’ve decided that if I say the right thing at the wrong time,which I certainly do, it’s alright, because at least I’ve taken a stand. The chance to say the right thing at the right time can come up later. As somebody said, don’t take converting on. Hope those who are more computer competent are sailing way ahead.

  6. #6 by AFKANNow on 05/23/2009 - 11:02 pm

    in reply to shari:

    You made an excellent point:

    As somebody said, don’t take converting on.

    in reply:

    This is where I have wasted a tremendous amount of the time, and energy, of my life.

    That is one of my strongest regrets; in fact, all of the people I tried to convert pretty much ended up disliking me – especially Family members.

    The irony – my attempts at “conversion” were really attempts at explanations of what I believed, and why, when THEY asked the questions.

    The irony, of course, is that the best of THEIR Posterity – and now, mine – are residing with me, and take to The Truth About Race like fish to water.

  7. #7 by backbaygrouch4 on 05/24/2009 - 5:40 am

    If you want a practice exercise, try the following. Read something in the NYT/WaPo/WSJ and then in the NYPost or a London tabloid. Do this a couple of times. Then read the NYT or WaPo or WSJ on an event and rewrite it for a tab. If you studied Latin seriously you learned to think in such a way as to include darn near everything in a single sentence by means of clauses. You want to get back to Anglo-Saxon and tabloid writing is great for this. Avoid the bastardization of the language, as popularized by word coiners like Winchell and imitators. Try doing on one story a day for a couple of weeks and you might be pleasantly surprised how clear and economical your writing will become. Also, it helps to frame an article’s structure on a syllogistic basis.

  8. #8 by shari on 05/28/2009 - 9:49 am

    I thought I would read A Plague on Both Your Houses. It could have been written yesterday,but it was thirty three years ago. Thirty three years is a big chunk of a human life span, which makes me so mad, but how close to collapse this anti-white racism must be? Very close I think.

  9. #9 by Simmons on 05/28/2009 - 10:13 am

    Shari how do you define “racism?”

  10. #10 by shari on 05/28/2009 - 12:44 pm

    I define racism as anti-white. It always was,but it was coded as niceness,fairness,social justice,equality,liberation, ad nausium. By the way somebody said when you put the word “social” in front of anything you negate the second word. Social justice is NOT justice, social workers are NOT workers, etc.

  11. #11 by Simmons on 05/28/2009 - 5:14 pm

    Your definition was about as bunk as any libs, but if it makes you feel useful by all mean use it. If they are anti-white say it, no need for semi-Freudian hoohaa and other jew words.

  12. #12 by shari on 05/28/2009 - 6:17 pm

    Oh God! I have no idea what you mean.

  13. #13 by Simmons on 05/28/2009 - 6:31 pm

    How do you define “racism?” Do you have a clue as to what you are saying or writing or are you repeating what you have heard without reflecting upon it? Webster’s definition; N, The practice of racial discrimination and segregation. That is one academic definition. So you want to intergrate and assimilate or do wish to practice “racism” as Webster defines it? Maybe we should all just quit and miscegenatate if all we can do is shout “stop racism.”

  14. #14 by shari on 05/28/2009 - 7:07 pm

    I do NOT want to assimilate or integrate. I have thought about it a LOT, but I don’t get EVERYTHING out of my own head. Although I’ve thought a lot for years. So who the hell are YOU?

  15. #15 by BoardAd on 05/28/2009 - 7:44 pm


    Save the furry for the enemy.

    for Shari’s sake, I think it would be best if you stated your point and start your explination over in clear consice sentances.

  16. #16 by shari on 05/28/2009 - 10:21 pm

    I’m sorry Simmons. I’m thinking that you are as frustrated as we all are. I define “racism” as used, to be anti-white, not websters definition. I was blown away by that being called lib bunk,semi-Freudian hoohaa. I think that we can discriminate and segregate ALL we want.

  17. #17 by Simmons on 05/29/2009 - 1:52 pm

    “Racism” as a word has its uses in a tactical sense, “Sonia Sotamayor is a racist.”, I was just worried that you sipped the koolaid.

  18. #18 by shari on 05/29/2009 - 3:07 pm

    I think a big difference between white racists {as defined by webster} and non-white racists is that white racists have concerns for other whites. Non-white racists show no such real concern for those they represent. They act very proud and vain. They cannot rule,as Horus pointed out.

  19. #19 by Schutz on 06/25/2009 - 8:03 pm

    House was, as were his other books prior to johnny, heavily influenced and edited by Bob’s lovely and devoted wife. Her native tongue, German. To hear Bob break into fluent German with people at a gathering, quite to their delighted surprise, would make you give anything to have stayed to your German.

  20. #20 by Shane on 06/28/2009 - 9:23 pm

    I read both dedications and as beautiful as they were, I never would have made the connections from the text alone.

    Thank you, Schutz.

You must be logged in to post a comment.