Orson Scott Card was totally wrong in his review about the 4th and 5th Harry Potter books and the movies. The movie version of GoF was watered down. The plot of the 4th book isn't bloated or self-indulgent in my opinion. It's good! Yes, it's long, but it's really a quick read. The story was a lot richer with Winky and Bertha Jorkins and all of that. With that cut out they had a plot hole that was bigger than Texas and made Crouch Jr. seem like a run of the mill madman and not the more interesting character he was in the book. And I don't agree with him about the Lord of the Ring movies either.
This has been driving me up a tree for a better part of the month.
[ August 20, 2009, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
He is completely right about the LOTR though. Dead on.
Most of what Jackson added was completely unnecessary, and a lot of it created problems that didn't exist in the original story.
I loved the movies, and they are great, but they missed the heart and soul of LOTR sometimes.
If you don't have enough time to film necessary scenes, don;t add a bunch of crap just because it looks cool. Don't emasculate one of the best characters, and don't make your bad guys more powerful for no reason....yet still scared of horns, so scared that they don't even finish off the main good guy (power wise).
//end rant
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
The heart and soul of LOTR being long and boring speeches and asides about stuff that seemingly has no relationship to the story, causing me to fall asleep about 8 minutes into every attempt I ever made at reading those awful books? A friend told me, after I'd read 200 pages of LOTR, that it was too bad, because I hadn't really gotten to the good stuff yet... That made me angry enough to never open the book again.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Nope. Not at all.
You want an action flick, so see GI Joe. Stop messing with one of the best selling, most popular books of all time, one that launched an entire genre of writing.
It's like filming Enders Game without the Battle Room.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
(and make Glamdring glow, dammit!)
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I haven't read his review but actually, despite the fact that it was a quick read and it was a huge turning point for the plot, the 4th book was very bloated and self-indulgent. The entire tri=wizard tournament was useless, since in the end the bad guy uses a port key to transport Harry to the graveyard. A port key, as they clearly say at the beginning of the book, can be anything. So all he needed to do was hand him a port quill or book on the first day of school and the book would have been over. The stuff in the middle was filler. I'm not sure if bloated is the right word but I can definitely see his point.
Posted by daventor (Member # 11981) on :
Yeah, the absurdly complicated, way-too-risky-when-compared-to-much-simpler-means-of-getting-Harry-Potter-touch-a-port-key conspiracy kind of falls apart when you think back on it. I do love the Harry Potter series, but there's several illogical things like that:
Chamber of Secrets- The adults miss the piece of paper petrified Hermione is holding. Boy, do wizard CSI teams suck!
Prisoner of Azkaban- Time-travel would indeed be a very dangerous power to hold and it is a wise choice to keep such magic prohibited. But you're gonna put in the hands of a teenage girl just so she can overload her school schedule!? I don't care how well-behaved or smart she is, that seems kind of rediculous. And if a teenage girl can get it, then why the heck wouldn't Voldermort be able to get it and do some major havoc-wreaking. Of course, there is way to avoid such thorny logical issues, which JK Rowling wisely takes: just never bring up the time-travel magic or its implications ever again in the series [I don't know; maybe she does address the issue later in the series, but I don't remember it; feel free to correct me if I'm wrong].
Anyhow, it's been a good while since I read HP 4 and 5 so I don't have feelings one way or other about how "bloated" they might have been, but I do agree with OSC on his Lord of the Rings analysis (well, except for saying LOTR was spare and didn't really have any fluff [Tom Bombadill, Barrow-wights]). I love the LOTR movies, and am glad Peter Jackson did them, as most filmmakers would have probably REALLY screwed them up, but a lot of the "let's mess with character personalities and motivations to up the suspense" changes marred the experience for me a little, especially in Return of the King.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't, perhaps it's because I haven't finished the Lord of the Rings series books like I have HP, But I really liked the movies, except maybe that scene where that fellow practically kidnaps Frodo and Sam... That wasn't really necessary. But I could see why he left out stuff like the Scouring of the Shire. Still, the extended versions of those movies are so good, so visual and just cool. Where as with the HP movies you get visuals, but they also tend to replace JKR's good dialogue with the same dippy sort of hollywood dialogue only with an English accent. I don't think the 4th book was bloated at all. If he had just handed Harry a quill or something it would have created a lot of suspicion which he and Voldermort was trying to avoid, so that's why you get the whole Tri-wizard tournament and all of that. Plus I have to admit I enjoyed reading all of that book. I like all of that stuff like tickling pictures of pears and the like. The movies just seem too much like skim milk after reading that book because it was good the way it was and not self-indulgent. (he's one to talk with all the lecturing and nagging in EiE, man, that book was crushingly disappointing to me. It was so disappointing, I think it's ruined the original series for me totally.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If he had just handed Harry a quill or something it would have created a lot of suspicion which he and Voldermort was trying to avoid, so that's why you get the whole Tri-wizard tournament and all of that.
Because, of course, kidnapping the first person who touches a magical goblet that represents the final goal (and symbolic prize) of a multi-day, multi-event contest watched by millions is a less conspicuous way to do it...?
There's no defense of that plot hole, I'm afraid. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I can't see how that's a plot hole. You got to admit Harry getting off the train or something and being handed a quill would be kind of boring compared to a tournament.
Also fakeMoody was kind of too late to do that too.... hmmm. I don't know. I enjoyed it the way it was...
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Nope. Not at all.
You want an action flick, so see GI Joe. Stop messing with one of the best selling, most popular books of all time, one that launched an entire genre of writing.
To be fair, I find the entire genre to be mind numbingly, painfully boring.
But you can't exactly argue with results, and Peter Jackson, I think you can agree, certainly managed to sell a whole lot of tickets to his movies. If people want to also buy copies of the books, more power, but were I a film executive, I would rather claw my eyes out than face the prospect of filming a movie that was actually faithful to that long-winded and meandering pile of nonsense.
But that's just one man's opinion, after all. The books are popular, so who knows.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I agree with you about the Ring books, Orincoro. I try to be open-minded, but I've never been able to figure out what keeps people reading them.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I don't, and I thin it could have been done better....but I never said that they had to be completely faithful to the books. Just reasonably so.
I understand why a lot of stuff was cut, but then things were also changed for no reason that made sense, and additional stuff was added that wasn't even in the same SPIRIT of the books.
Still, I enjoyed the movies, and still watch them regularly.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It's one of the most perplexing pieces of popular culture I've every seen. Usually I can at least see how something can be enjoyable to others, if not to me. But with LOTR, it's so interminably pointless and scatter shod, I have little idea what about it remains appealing. Even the films, had they been removed from their visuals and action scenes, would have left me deeply confused as to the point of it all.
I know a lot of people say that the fun of fantasy is figuring out and learning the rules of the world in which the characters live, but with LOTR, there were so many nested allusions to people and places and time frames, that I had absolutely no concept of the world being described, much less did I ever care about any of the people in it. The movies are not much better in that respect.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I do remember that Tolkien vehemently denied any use of allegory/allusion in his Middle Earth stories. I read them when I was in middle school, so I wouldn't have been able to "read in" to any of the things that confused you. They were also the first fantasy novels I'd read. Before the movies came out, there was a sort of "culture" (at least in my high school), of people who had read the books and could make jokes about it. I had a little "Frodo Lives" button that one my parents wore back in the 70's.
Also, Hobbits are a fun people to be around.
--Just some things that might help you see how it can be enjoyable to others.
Posted by daventor (Member # 11981) on :
I don't know, Orincoro. Some people are big into fantasy; some aren't. I love Lord of the Rings because the world feels so immersive and larger than even the story it takes place in.
The allusions to things that are never fully explained add to that effect. I read several essays by writers influenced by Tolkien and that was a common theme: they loved the fully-realized setting Tolkien created. I think Terry Pratchett wrote something to the effect that he remembered Middleearth more clearly as a place than places he'd actually been.
And, in the end, probably the reason I most love LOTR is that I'm just a sucker for mythical archetypes, the tragic hero, the epic good vs. evil conflict. But plenty of people aren't into that. Some people love Catcher in the Rye and Madame Bovary. I don't. Just goes to show how subjective art criticism is.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
Tolkien was a master of creating a universe, and cultures and languages to fit that universe. He was not, in my opinion, a master author of a story. You're not alone Orincoro. I do love Middle-earth, the books and the movies, but I do not think they are great books. It's quite a weird situation. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:He was not, in my opinion, a master author of a story.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that completely. There's a reason why The Lord of the Rings is so much better than almost any other book in the genre I've read - and it's not because the universes in those other books are any less compelling.
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If he had just handed Harry a quill or something it would have created a lot of suspicion which he and Voldermort was trying to avoid, so that's why you get the whole Tri-wizard tournament and all of that.
Because, of course, kidnapping the first person who touches a magical goblet that represents the final goal (and symbolic prize) of a multi-day, multi-event contest watched by millions is a less conspicuous way to do it...?
There's no defense of that plot hole, I'm afraid.
There are a lot of things in the Harry Potter books that make a lot more sense when you assume that Drama Queen was a bigger part of Voldemort's personality than Mass Murderer. Sure, he wanted to get Harry to the graveyard, but if he could do it and let Harry worry and stew over it for months before hand and then deliver his dead body in triumph to the entire wizarding world which has conveniently gathered in one place? Totally worth it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amilia: There are a lot of things in the Harry Potter books that make a lot more sense when you assume that Drama Queen was a bigger part of Voldemort's personality than Mass Murderer.
QFT
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I agree that the HP4 movie was overly watered down. The two times I've seen the movie, I sit and think "gosh this book is brilliant" and then I go reread the scene most illustrative of this fact: the scene after Harry's name gets called and the profs argue about it.
And the book is very very good, but it's quite imperfect. For me the second task is the worst example of the books' issues: sure, let's take 800 kids, make them sit outside for an hour in the middle of snowy February and have them just sit while four people do magic underwater that NO ONE in the audience can see at all. Sheesh.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: I do remember that Tolkien vehemently denied any use of allegory/allusion in his Middle Earth stories. I read them when I was in middle school, so I wouldn't have been able to "read in" to any of the things that confused you.
I'm referring to in-universe allusions to various events and time frames of middle earth. The scope was so dizzying and ill-defined that it frustrated me immediately and turned me off completely.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I'm referring to in-universe allusions to various events and time frames of middle earth. The scope was so dizzying and ill-defined that it frustrated me immediately and turned me off completely.
In what way ill-defined?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yeah, that's very Voldermort.
I just thought of that being out in the cold thing watching the second task. Maybe they had some sort of, I don't know, camera obscura screen so folks could see what was going on.
quote:Originally posted by Amilia:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If he had just handed Harry a quill or something it would have created a lot of suspicion which he and Voldermort was trying to avoid, so that's why you get the whole Tri-wizard tournament and all of that.
Because, of course, kidnapping the first person who touches a magical goblet that represents the final goal (and symbolic prize) of a multi-day, multi-event contest watched by millions is a less conspicuous way to do it...?
There's no defense of that plot hole, I'm afraid.
There are a lot of things in the Harry Potter books that make a lot more sense when you assume that Drama Queen was a bigger part of Voldemort's personality than Mass Murderer. Sure, he wanted to get Harry to the graveyard, but if he could do it and let Harry worry and stew over it for months before hand and then deliver his dead body in triumph to the entire wizarding world which has conveniently gathered in one place? Totally worth it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Leaving the reader with no concept of the scope of time the books encompass, or the history behind the various peoples of the books.
Look, I only started reading it once so I have no interest in the specifics now. The point is, I saw about 50 references to "the time before the legion of the blahblahblah in the distant memory of the blauhah, which is discussed in the Red Book," and said, thanks but no thanks. I just like hard fiction- there's nothing that bothers me more than fantasy, to be honest.
That LOTR has these defensive fanboy legions behind it just kind of makes things worse, because I've heard all the same things said about the books by these people, and it hasn't changed my actual experience of sitting down, reading through a painful beginning of a boring story about people I didn't give two bags of crap about, and looking up and saying, "What the **** is the big deal about this??"
Perhaps part of what rubs me entirely the wrong way about it is the fantasy tropes that have been borrowed from it to populate thousands of other stories and video games and books and movies. All of it has the stink of fanboy in-references and elite geekism that is kind of the opposite of lastingly good fiction. Now, I realize that Tolkein predates most of that marketing and pop culture stuff, but he was the one that wrote the books that spawned all that crap. There's something off in all of it that in no way appeals to me.
A subculture that irks me quite similarly is Heavy Metal, or various permutations thereof. I love music, but if you take away all the extraneous marketing and makeup and showmanship, heavy metal music is predominately very trashy, very poorly made and tasteless crap. People can feel free to geek out on the cult surrounding the subculture, or whatever the hell it is that attracts people to it, but I'll never get it.
But that isn't saying I don't understand the whole geek-out thing- these are just subcultures I feel absolutely no kinship with. I quite appreciate the culture of modern music performance, and my taste is developed enough to easily suss the difference between a concert aimed at tourists, and a concert aimed at self-styled aficionados. I turn my nose up at Boston Pops and Philip Glass concerts because I know better, just as I'm sure fantasy denizens turn their noses up at Twilight, or whatever latest entry into the genre that is seen to undermine an otherwise revered tradition.
[ August 21, 2009, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I have a completely different perception of the exposition in the books (which I quite like), but it certainly doesn't upset me if the trilogy isn't to your taste. If nothing bothers you more than fantasy, I'm hardly surprised that you didn't care for The Lord of the Rings. Kind of cool, given your tastes, that you were willing to give Fellowship of the Ring any kind of chance at all.
When you say that you like hard fiction, what do you mean exactly? I'm interested in hearing both how you define that and some examples of it, if you feel like sharing.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, scanning my audible book list, I have quite a lot of classics filed away: Churchill histories, Moby Dick, Faulkner, London, Arthur C. Clarke, Orwell, Hemingway, Dostoevsky but also popular stuff: Sue Grafton, Asimov, Bill Bryson, Thomas Harris, Grisham, Clancy, Douglas Adams, David Webber.
Then I have a lot of modern economics, history and musicological texts, some of which are pleasure reading, and some of which aren't so much.
I suppose not all my favorites are hard fiction- I do love Douglas Adams, but most of the things I like to read these days are solidly plotted, character driven novels. You won't find any fantasy titles in my library other than Hart's Hope (which I got about 50 pages into) and LOTR, which lasted 200 pages or so. I generally get sick of books that are overly stylized, unless that style is done very well, so I never got into Nick Hornby, but I do like Raymond Carver, while I hate Don DeLillo with a passion, even though every posh wannabe English professor slobbers over him, including my older sister.
In terms of "hard fiction," I really only mean the divide between Sci-fi and fantasy. If I read sci-fi, I want it to be about characters, technology, society, history, etc. That's just what speaks to me. I go for the occasional magical realism twist if it's done well, but not if its harped upon like Toni Morrison- the magic part of it has to serve a function, not encompass the entire story and pervade every aspect of it.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Interesting. I wondered if that was what you meant by hard fiction, or if you were talking in particular about hard science fiction.
I'm more inclined toward the science fiction end of speculative fiction too, although it's much less of a hard and fast thing for me than it is for you--books like Martin's Ice and Fire series, or Gaiman's American Gods are particular favorites of mine, and they're indisputably fantasy.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Being effectively the first author in his genre, Tolkien has quite a bit of founder effect going for him; he's famous as much for being famous as for being actually good. For a long time, if you wanted to read fantasy you could read Tolkien, or else you could read the Brothers Grimm; there literally was no other fantasy on the market. That kind of thing tends to distort reputations a bit.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: For a long time, if you wanted to read fantasy you could read Tolkien, or else you could read the Brothers Grimm; there literally was no other fantasy on the market.
L. Frank Baum Lewis Carroll Mark Twain (ok, bit of a stretch) J.M. Barrie
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
C. S. Lewis George McDonald
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Fritz Leiber!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Interesting. I wondered if that was what you meant by hard fiction, or if you were talking in particular about hard science fiction.
I also am a fan of hard sci-fi, thus David Webber, Asimov, and (sometimes) Clarke.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
decrying the vast majority of honest Tolkien fans as "fanboys" simply because we choose to defend a book we enjoy seems arrogant and elitist to me.
Since you've alledgedly only read 200 pages which in all due seriousness is NOTHING you cannot be serious about complaining about it, you can "I tried reading it but just didn't jivvy with me so I stopped." and leave it that would be fine but if you actually try to criticize the book on its literary merits and your just asking to be smacked.
I should however say though that i only read the books after the first movie told me about it and from there actually skipped the first book as I "wanted to know what happens next" and then went to the first book.
Leaving me with a hilarious situation where I was like "Who the !#%$ is Tom Bombadil!? and why are they spending a whole chapter on a guy they never showed in the movie!"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:For a long time, if you wanted to read fantasy you could read Tolkien, or else you could read the Brothers Grimm; there literally was no other fantasy on the market.
Literally you say.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: decrying the vast majority of honest Tolkien fans as "fanboys" simply because we choose to defend a book we enjoy seems arrogant and elitist to me.
A shock. No one ever called me an arrogant elitist before. Choose to read into my statement however you desire. I said there were legions of fanboys quick to defend Tolkein, and there are. You wanna take offense at that? Go ahead. You can easily be a fan without being a fanboy, but if you need me to be extra sensitive so as not to make you feel somehow inadequate about your own hobbies, you'll be disappointed. But you know that, and you just want to pick a fight with me because you *are* a fanboy, and nothing pleases you more than geeking out about Tolkein to a non-believer. Thus the proceeding geek-session about how my 200 page effort was meaningless, without considering the part where I didn't enjoy the damned book, and am therefore fully entitled to badmouth it for being boring. Not everybody in the world is required to have your tastes Blayne, so before you run off at the mouth about arrogance and elitism, perhaps you should consider that, and not call the kettle black. It has a particularly odd ring to call someone an elitist for criticizing a subculture of elitism. What am I- the anti-elite elitist? Might as well be the fascistic anti-socialist, or the outspoken opponent of free speech.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm with Orincoro, I read through the LOTR books when I was a teenager and found them very difficult to slog through. I watched the movies, and thought, "Oh see all this makes so much more sense now!" I figured now that I was an adult I could reread the books and discover that I liked them alot. Though my literacy has increased much since my teenage years, the second time through was nevertheless just as frustrating and painful.
It's hard to read a book where you think, "These ideas are fantastic, but they feel so inadequately presented."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
My impression of LOTR in writing is very similar to, say, opening a random page of a long-running fluff thread and attempting to understand what the hell the discussion is about. Quotes out of left field, the continuations of discussions about discussions you haven't read, and all of it very uneven and unfulfilling.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't know. Those books to me seem to be like swimming through some sort of thick chocolate concoction that is so thick you can barely move, but you're in chocolate. And it's just going to make you want milk.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
What's up with OSC and Rowling anyway? He just suddenly really doesn't like her? His tone towards her is pretty simpering now. I don't remember this being the case before.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: What's up with OSC and Rowling anyway? He just suddenly really doesn't like her? His tone towards her is pretty simpering now. I don't remember this being the case before.
He's taken a set against her because of some things she has said related to the books. Specifically, talking about characters being homosexual, when that wasn't clearly represented in the books. He portrayed his own characterizations of homosexual characters as superior to hers, and accused her of making such claims for political or publicity reasons. I suspect most of his objections to her writing following this have been grudge-related. If you go back to before the Dumbledore controversy, he had little but praise for her, although I don't think he ever considered her brand of writing to be greatness itself. He did at times use her as an example of a good writer who didn't succumb to "academic" or "elitist" or "literary" tropes, or whatever grievance he was airing at the time.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yeah, that is sadly probably the case. It doesn't help that a certain character being gay HAD NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE STORY! And when he does gay characters they either have to be celibate or get married, so I don't think I'd want to be gay in one of his books.
That aside, I think he's being a bit harsh. I really enjoyed that series and I have happy memories of acquiring these books and devouring them repeatedly and joyfully... I think he's only making me like her more and causing her to pwn him with sheer enjoyability because I did not enjoy EiE at all and perhaps I am holding a grudge. It's also affecting how I view the earlier books, which is really quite sad.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: What's up with OSC and Rowling anyway? He just suddenly really doesn't like her? His tone towards her is pretty simpering now. I don't remember this being the case before.
He's taken a set against her because of some things she has said related to the books. Specifically, talking about characters being homosexual, when that wasn't clearly represented in the books. He portrayed his own characterizations of homosexual characters as superior to hers, and accused her of making such claims for political or publicity reasons. I suspect most of his objections to her writing following this have been grudge-related. If you go back to before the Dumbledore controversy, he had little but praise for her, although I don't think he ever considered her brand of writing to be greatness itself. He did at times use her as an example of a good writer who didn't succumb to "academic" or "elitist" or "literary" tropes, or whatever grievance he was airing at the time.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I thought of an underwater wizard camera, but if they had that, Dumbledore wouldn't have had chat with the mermaid in mermish to find out that Harry was down so long because he was trying to get the other hostages. Everyone just would have known.
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Yeah, that's very Voldermort.
I just thought of that being out in the cold thing watching the second task. Maybe they had some sort of, I don't know, camera obscura screen so folks could see what was going on.
quote:Originally posted by Amilia:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If he had just handed Harry a quill or something it would have created a lot of suspicion which he and Voldermort was trying to avoid, so that's why you get the whole Tri-wizard tournament and all of that.
Because, of course, kidnapping the first person who touches a magical goblet that represents the final goal (and symbolic prize) of a multi-day, multi-event contest watched by millions is a less conspicuous way to do it...?
There's no defense of that plot hole, I'm afraid.
There are a lot of things in the Harry Potter books that make a lot more sense when you assume that Drama Queen was a bigger part of Voldemort's personality than Mass Murderer. Sure, he wanted to get Harry to the graveyard, but if he could do it and let Harry worry and stew over it for months before hand and then deliver his dead body in triumph to the entire wizarding world which has conveniently gathered in one place? Totally worth it.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Yeah, that is sadly probably the case. It doesn't help that a certain character being gay HAD NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE STORY! And when he does gay characters they either have to be celibate or get married, so I don't think I'd want to be gay in one of his books.
That aside, I think he's being a bit harsh. I really enjoyed that series and I have happy memories of acquiring these books and devouring them repeatedly and joyfully... I think he's only making me like her more and causing her to pwn him with sheer enjoyability because I did not enjoy EiE at all and perhaps I am holding a grudge. It's also affecting how I view the earlier books, which is really quite sad.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: What's up with OSC and Rowling anyway? He just suddenly really doesn't like her? His tone towards her is pretty simpering now. I don't remember this being the case before.
He's taken a set against her because of some things she has said related to the books. Specifically, talking about characters being homosexual, when that wasn't clearly represented in the books. He portrayed his own characterizations of homosexual characters as superior to hers, and accused her of making such claims for political or publicity reasons. I suspect most of his objections to her writing following this have been grudge-related. If you go back to before the Dumbledore controversy, he had little but praise for her, although I don't think he ever considered her brand of writing to be greatness itself. He did at times use her as an example of a good writer who didn't succumb to "academic" or "elitist" or "literary" tropes, or whatever grievance he was airing at the time.
I think the thing that most people didn't get the context of the quote (including OSC), and missed several things as their homophobia blindsided them into realizing what actually happened. 1. JKR, like Tolkein and many other people who write books series that are universes have plotted out events and characters and backstories that are not in the novel. 2. Everyone knows JKR does this. She has showed sheets of paper with rosters of Hogwarts students and their blood and interest in dark magic to interview shows at her house. 3. She's been very willing to give extra info that wasn't a spoiler for future books. People have been asking such questions for at least 8 years prior to the release seventh book. The answers have always been fascinating. 4. She promised that after book seven came out, she would be able to answer any question about the universe since the books were over. 5. Some kid asked if Dumbledore had ever been married. The answer was no. 6. The unspoken thing: despite being over-intelligent and awkward, there's really no way that Dumbledore would have remained single had he been attracted to women at all. Hence: he's gay.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I was there at that event and she did say that she always thought of Dumbledore as gay....
Though I hoped he had found some love. It would be sad not to... Some nice guy. Shame Nick Flamel had a wife.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Count me into the "likes the LOTR movies" camp. They may not have been entirely faithful adaptations, but at least they were good (great?) movies. Many adaptations are not good movies.
I like the LOTR books, but I do a Princess Bride on them-- that is I mentally edit them to be what I regard as better.
The LOTR movies were insanely popular when they first came out, and I suspect a lot of that was the after glow, but I still can't get out of my head certain aspects of the movies that I still can't stop thinking of as briliant.
1. First of all, and perhaps unimportantly, they looked fabulous. Colour, detail, sets, casting, everything looked absolutely fabulous.
2. Smoothness of telling a complex story, even if incorrectly. If a film tells a good story, even if it's not the same story as the book, I'll often forget what the original was like. If that happens, I'll forgive an adaptation for screwing with even the good bits. LOTR managed a hugely long, detailed story following several characters, and managed it well.
3. Character. Even if they messed with the characters, the characters still were great characters. You forget the old Boromir when you've got a complete new Boromir who is even still sympathetic (until you go back to the books again).
4. Dialogue. Yep, they really muddled some of the dialogue but let's face it-- it sounded convincing. This was partially good acting, but they seemlessly blended lines from the book with new lines, borrowing where they had to, and very few words were out of place. That's hard to do.
5. Music.
As for the whole point of this thread, I disliked both the 4th and 5th movies of Harry Potter and found them completely unimaginative versions of the books, a criticism I cannot level at the LOTR movies, so the comparison falls flat for me.
As for OSC, I'm not sure why he really cares why or if Harry Potter books are so popular. Any kid who grew up reading HP is more likely to read Ender's Game later on down the line.
HP is a heck of a lot more logical than certain other fantasy/science fiction films that I could mention so I'm really not going to berate a couple of plot-building assumptions if the characters make some kind of sense.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: 2. Smoothness of telling a complex story, even if incorrectly. If a film tells a good story, even if it's not the same story as the book, I'll often forget what the original was like. If that happens, I'll forgive an adaptation for screwing with even the good bits. LOTR managed a hugely long, detailed story following several characters, and managed it well.
Bingo. I don't care if you're an LOTR fan, fanboy, hater or what, there is simply no way those books could be made into a reasonably digestible movie without alteration. People talk about how movies like No Country For Old Men was virtually a reading of the novel, but that's relatively easy to do when you have Cormac McCarthy as your author. And it isn't exactly as if they totally altered the entire direction of the story, as they did with H2G2, so whatever alterations were made at least came to the same end. Armchair quarterbacking is especially unconvincing when the end product is difficult to dismiss because it's very well done.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I was there at that event and she did say that she always thought of Dumbledore as gay....
She said Dumbledore was gay at a reading at Carnegie hall on or about Oct 27, 2007. I know this because it was the seed of the Random Thread on Galacticcactus. It was also revealed to the film production team for Harry Potter 6 when they were fishing for some backstory on Dumbledore.
OSC's beef with her had as much to do with her attack on the HP-lexicon as it did with her declaration that Dumbledore was gay. It was a reaction to her hubris, her presumption over the author/reader relationship.
You (Syn) overlook that he's still very engaged in and supportive of the Potter universe in general. If he were the hater you suppose, he could have given a review very in line with many others I've seen that found the film however they found it for reasons that had nothing to do with homophobia. I really enjoyed film 6. If you haven't seen it, I would highly recommend you do so. I know you said you gave up on the movies after 4.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: OSC's beef with her had as much to do with her attack on the HP-lexicon as it did with her declaration that Dumbledore was gay. It was a reaction to her hubris, her presumption over the author/reader relationship.
Either way you're talking about the same beef, right? There's the added layer of homophobia, or whatever you want to call Card's anti-gay rhetoric, but you also have the base of anti-intellectual, anti-PC haterism that OSC displays in spades, on a regular basis. The two complaints, at least about JKR, are not that far off from each other- they both have to do with JKR's attitude towards her work.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm still not going to see the 6th movie. Mainly because I have no money : o(. Like very little. But I don't know why so many folks are making a big deal out of her saying a character that she created and knows more about than anyone else including what kind of drawers he wore is gay. It doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Same with the lexicon. I bet if he wasn't just a copy pasting of the site without the comments and stuff, with the writer's own work in it instead of mostly hers she wouldn't care. Unauthorized books about HP come out all the time. His fussing rudely about her only put me more on her side in the first place. He simply wasn't being very nice. Neil Gaiman disagreed with her suing, but he managed to state this in a way that wasn't rude.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
That comparison is not fair to OSC.
Gaiman is just so damn nice he could stab in the face and you would forgive him. And then read the book and or comic he wrote about the experience.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: But I don't know why so many folks are making a big deal out of her saying a character that she created and knows more about than anyone else including what kind of drawers he wore is gay. It doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
Oh I completely agree with him saying it's lazy and unfair to the readership to opt out of dealing with this facet of the character in print. I just think he's way out of line for being such a major pill about another author's literary decisions. But then, OSC has been the victim/recipient of similarly predatory analysis, so one wonders why he isn't more accustomed and or sensitive to other authors who find themselves in similar situations. If OSC can dictate the meanings of his books and scoffs at revisionist analysis of his work (by revisionist, I mean seeking alternate motivations and meanings), then it's curious he would condemn another for taking a similar liberty, even if she does so a tad more liberally than he does.
But since OSC in fact has and routinely does make ex officio proclamations about the fates of characters, and actually takes the liberty of rewriting his books to suit his present needs, scolding JKR about asserting herself in her own literary kingdom is just plain hypocrisy. He's still right, but he can't be right about this without also being wrong about a number of things he's done that cross the same line.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't think he's right. Dumbledore being gay didn't have anything to do with the story that was about Harry kicking Voldermort's butt. That's why it didn't come up. No one knows if McGonagal has a husband or if Flinch is with the librarian because it's not really part of the story. Now Snape on the other hand, that was a cool part of the story. So again, why is it a big deal for her to answer the question of a fan at an event where fans ask questions? I don't think it was self-serving one bit. She also mentioned that it didn't work out with Hagrid and Madame Maxine because a fan asked about that. The fan was rather disappointed by that answer. Besides, at least she's not rewriting the story in such a way to ruin the original story. ><. How much like Star Wars.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It's purely an academic question whether you believe she should be saying such things or not, as an author. Practically speaking, it's her prerogative, and again practically speaking, OSC is not one in a great position to lodge moral or philosophical protests against that kind of behavior.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Actually, it seems to me that it does have something to do with the story.
[SPOILER ALERT]
To wit, was his youthful relationship with Voldemort romantic (and/or sexual) or not? If it was, that makes his turning away all the more powerful. Friendship just doesn't have the same impact.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Actually, it seems to me that it does have something to do with the story.
[SPOILER ALERT]
To wit, was his youthful relationship with Voldemort romantic (and/or sexual) or not? If it was, that makes his turning away all the more powerful. Friendship just doesn't have the same impact.
Voldermort? Do you mean Grindelwald?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I would disagree about the importance of the fact that Dumbledore was gay. In the last story, part of Dumbledore's story was that he was tempted by power. Adding in that he was really in love with the character that tempted him weakens that aspect of the story. Also, one of the recurrent themes is the power of love for good. Now we have Dumbledore in love and it nearly destroying him (though I guess gay love just isn't good- good thing Dumbledore as far as we know stayed single- who knows what else would have happened). So, adding this detail weakens motivations and themes. And honestly, I don't see why liberal gay lovers would want Dumbledore to be gay when the only example given was how it almost drove him to be one of the great evils of the century. It is totally Rowlings right to do it though. It's her story, she wants to make it weaker, that is her right as the author.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The friendship wasn't with Voldemort, it was with that other guy who's name I think begins with G. Rowling said that Dumbledore DID have an unreciprocated attraction to... G-guy, which might be kind of significant, but I'm not sure how to have realistically dealt with that in-story, other than for Dumbledore to say "By the way, I had an unreciprocated attraction to G-guy."
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Rowling can believe that Dumbledore is gay all she likes, but since it was not in the books in either an explicit or implicit way, it is up to each reader to determine if it is part of their own mental image of the story. It is not part of mine. So basically, in my mind Dumbledore is not gay.
It's not that I have a problem with him being gay or not being gay. It's just that it wasn't dealt with that way. In fact, it bothered me that it wasn't dealt with at all.
I was always very curious about the teachers' personal lives. They all seemed single and childless, which struck me as odd. In fact, there seemed to be an awful lot of only children among the main cast of students and a lot of childless adults among the main cast of adults/teachers. In a few cases it made sense -- Lupin was a wer-wolf and he did eventually have a kid. Serius was in prison. Peter was hiding as a rat. But what about McGOnical? Flitwick?
I could forgive Rowling for not explaining them all. I mean, these teachers' backgrounds were never given in any detail so perhaps, that was irrelevant.
But why not Dumbledore? Rowling spent a lot of time on his character and back story in the books. He was important. His lust for power, his ambition, his reason for deciding to become a teacher, etc. But among other things, Dumbledore was an advocate for love. He talked about it constantly, so where was the love in his life? He was aloof from the students, even from Harry who he was supposed to have been closest to. Almost no one knew him. His brother disliked him, even hated him. Who did Dumbledore love?
The answer eludes me to this day. Rowling says he was gay but my response to that is: So? That still doesn't explain why he didn't love, the way he told others to love. If he was gay, she needed to deal with that. Was he ashamed of it? Afraid of the disrespect he would receive? Would parents have demanding his resignation?
But it wasn't there. It wasn't dealt with and so the answer remains: Why didn't Dumbledore love?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Most kids don't know much about their teachers and principals. Some of them probably think they sleep at the school.
But, he probably loved- Harry His sister his brother, even though he hated him his mom and dad his friends Grindelwald until he killed his sister. Dude probably didn't trust himself with falling in love anymore than he trusted himself with power. Hence why he decided to devote himself to fighting evil, teaching kids, ect.
So... there could be the possibility JKR didn't get that far into the story too. She'll probably answer those sort of questions in the Encyclopedia Potteratica.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Grindelwald, yes. The point remains.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
It probably says alot about me that I read Synesthesias phrase as, "Encyclopedia Potterotica."
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It probably says alot about me that I read Synesthesias phrase as, "Encyclopedia Potterotica."
Well, fans probably already have of one those. Filled with salacious fanfiction. *shudder*
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
You shudder, but I do a happy dance. But I've been having one of those weeks where I read such good fanfiction that I was thinking about all the published sequels to "Pride and Prejudice" or "Gone With the Wind" and start to wonder if I'll live to see published "Harry Potter" fanfiction on bookstore shelves.
Anyway, I know there was a good part of the fandom that suspected Dumbledore was gay before Rowling made the public statement. I was shocked when I heard since I thought it was a possibility she'd never touch with a ten-foot pole, but I accepted it almost immediately after. With all the subtext and clues in the final book, it was revelation that felt very true to his character. I have no doubt that romance, like many aspects of Dumbledore's life, is a complicated and mysterious issue.
And after the sickeningly sweet epilogue which seemed way too easy in light of the depth and complexity of the books, I am happy to grab onto any answers that may not appear in the books but ring true to the story and its characters. Dumbledore's romantic and sexual history is included on that list. Makes tons more sense than the canonical Harry and Ginny romance and what I can only imagine is a disturbing adult relationship (their kids are only named after people important in HIS life?!)
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: And after the sickeningly sweet epilogue which seemed way too easy in light of the depth and complexity of the books, I am happy to grab onto any answers that may not appear in the books but ring true to the story and its characters. Dumbledore's romantic and sexual history is included on that list.
I hated the epilogue. Worst part of any of the books. Did kind of a "happily ever after" hand waving without any depth or real closure. So I, too, was interested in answers. But I found that as she listed random facts about who marries who and the jobs that the students get later in life that I preferred my own take on it. It all seemed to neat and clean. The aftermath of such a disruptive event is never that way. I mean, all these kids missed their last year of school. Did that matter? Besides, I really thought Harry would become a teacher. I know he'd been dreaming of becoming an auror but that was too simple, especially after he'd gone and taken a wand whose power he wanted to break. Besides, it seemed to me that after he grew up he might find he wanted things to become a little quieter. It's not like he ever went looking for trouble.
So after all that, I changed my mind about the epilogue. It was fine and allowed me to imagine for myself what became of each of the characters. Don't get me wrong, I would have preferred some closure, but an epilogue that would have done that would have been much, much longer. I think I didn't want to see a glimpse 20 years later. I would have preferred just a short year, to see the direction things were heading. But there's almost a new story there.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: What's up with OSC and Rowling anyway? He just suddenly really doesn't like her? His tone towards her is pretty simpering now. I don't remember this being the case before.
Orson Scott Card on Rowling, prior to rowling responding to a reader's question by clarifying that dumbledore was gay.
quote: These past few months, I have read the books aloud to my seven-year-old daughter, except for the portion of the fourth book we listened to on tape during a recent car trip to Florida. Zina was enthralled, of course; but so was I, and so was my wife, who only entered the series with the fourth book.
These aren't children's books, really. They are morally subtle, deftly humorous, with a depth that rewards repeated reading and a satirical edge that only adults can fully appreciate. J.K. Rowling is not just talented, she's also smart and wise and just the tiniest bit viperous as she takes on the world around her and shows it for what it really is. These are, in fact, serious books by a first-rate literary mind.
quote:J.K. Rowling wrote a morally complex, illuminating, intelligent, wise, loving, and Good story; by being faithful to her vision, to her tale, these filmmakers were able to create something finer than mere talent alone can create.
quote:Rowling is too good -- she has learned too much -- it would be a waste if she let some longing to be acceptable to the boneheads at the New York Times and the various university English departments keep her from writing more novels that use all that she has learned from writing this massive work.
But whatever she does, there is this:
3. She has already written one of the enduring works of English literature. If that's all she writes in her life, except for little bits of this and that, it will be enough.
And every few years, I will pull out the first book -- perhaps in the edition that finally admits Americans are not idiots and restores "Philosopher's Stone" to the title -- and start it all over again. The way I do with Lord of the Rings, Foundation, Pride and Prejudice, and precious few other books.
Then after the announcement that dumbledore was gay:
quote:You know what I think is going on?
Rowling has nowhere to go and nothing to do now that the Harry Potter series is over. After all her literary borrowing, she shot her wad and she's flailing about trying to come up with something to do that means anything.
Moreover, she is desperate for literary respectability. Even though she made more money than the Queen or Oprah Winfrey in some years, she had to see her books pushed off the bestseller lists and consigned to a special "children's book" list. Litterateurs sneer at her work as a kind of subliterature, not really worth discussing.
It makes her insane. The money wasn't enough. She wants to be treated with respect.
quote:Talent does not excuse Rowling's ingratitude, her vanity, her greed, her bullying of the little guy, and her pathetic claims of emotional distress.
quote:It's like her stupid, self-serving claim that Dumbledore was gay. She wants credit for being very up-to-date and politically correct -- but she didn't have the guts to put that supposed "fact" into the actual novels, knowing that it might hurt sales.
What a pretentious, puffed-up coward. When I have a gay character in my fiction, I say so right in the book. I don't wait until after it has had all its initial sales to mention it.
Rowling has now shown herself to lack a brain, a heart and courage. Clearly, she needs to visit Oz.
quote:Their treatment of their one gay character is as appallingly hypocritical as J.K. Rowling's announcement that Dumbledore is gay. Instead of making us know and understand the character as a gay man, we are slapped with it at the end, as if being gay were just an afterthought.
Because I oppose the legalization of "gay marriage," I am often attacked as a homophobe. But as a writer, I would never show such disrespect toward a homosexual character as to treat him or her the way Mamma Mia! (and Rowling) treated theirs. Having a gay character, for them, is merely an attempt to show how politically correct they are. In my fiction, having a gay character requires a commitment to treat him or her as fairly and deeply as I treat my straight characters.
Don't these writers actually know any gay people? I mean know them, as friends, as family members, as colleagues? I can't believe they do. Because if they did, they could never treat their gay characters with such contempt.
quote:Rowling's hypocrisy is so thick I can hardly breathe
After that point he has constantly attributed negative motivations and hubris to pretty much all of rowling's actions, chided her constantly, and gone on errant tirades about her behavior.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
oh cool and I just read this
quote:But sneering at what the middle class and lower class do is what liberal intellectuals thrive on. Then they vote for Democrats and pretend they love the "common man." They just despise everything the common man buys and eats and wears and reads and listens to on the radio.
(And don't deny it -- I've been to your little soirees where you sip your wine and cheese and smoke your weed and mock the hideous monstrous people who shop at WalMart and eat at McDonald's. If you push me, I'll name names.)
bonus points to the first person to come up with a quote from osc chiding this very sort of behavior.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Oh wow, Samprimary, that's revealing.
EDIT: On second thoughts, it's not necessarily revealing of anything specific, but it's pretty dramatic. The work goes from standing for itself if she never writes anything else, to being almost worthless.
[ August 24, 2009, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'm personally of the opinion that whatever OSC's privately held beliefs, or more appropriately his feelings about the books themselves, he spoke glowingly and extensively about them when it suited his political and ideological purposes to do so. He likewise denigrated them when he felt that would further his public message. Before, when he was fighting the good fight against the heathen English Departments and their dastardly wine and cheese parties, JKR was a goddess, noble and true. Now that he perceives her willingness to mingle with or be influenced by that community (and more importantly expressed some feeble wish to be gay-friendly) -which is her prerogative, along with all her publicity, whether he likes it or not- she is a wretched and exhausted hag of literary borrowing; a pimped out old authoress with nothing left to offer the world but her sad pandering to the evil Literary Elite and their mind snatching skulduggery.
OSC is not so inconsistent if you maintain a constant focus on his goals, rather than on his stated opinions of the moment. I can honestly never tell, as I suspect is true of many of his readers, whether an article about a particular person or book or movie, no matter the content or style or genre of the work, or the politics of the person, whether OSC is going about to compose an epic love song of undying devotion to a wisely radical or subtly beautiful and powerful person/book/movie, or if he's going to write a screed of ugly vitriol, in which he accuses the person/book/movie of being part of the disgusting machinations of the Elite Conspiracy to such the public's brains out of our ears for caviar.
Hyperbole aside, I find it nearly impossible to predict what his reactions to various things will be, but I always know -mark: always- that if there is a point to be had, it will be one at the cost of the shadowy and evil Other, at once ever-present, but never firmly associated with actual people or even actual institutions, to which said book/movie/person has either unwisely pandered, or has wisely and justly flouted. It doesn't seem to matter which.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Wow... That's not very nice at all. Seriously. It's not as if she tackled him. Or scratched up his car. Or ate his dog! He's so harsh against her. I can see not agreeing with her about the suing and all, but he's just being too mean so it puts me on her side. As she seems like a nice person, and it's not like he personally knows her. Plus I was so moved by that show she was in and how she was crying because she was back in her old apartment and the person there had HP books. She seems nice.
Also, for the most part I don't think I'm fond of the so-called common man because it's their fault there's so many stupid shows on television and stupid movies. Also boring music. And I hate Walmart for their bad business practices and overwhelming stores (though they did have batman boxers which I didn't get to buy.) Plus they censor CDs! That's so annoying. And McDonald's food is not that good, though the nuggets are not so bad, I'd rather have sushi. So I shall run off, drink some tea with my pinky up and moscato wine when I get money for some and LOOK DOWN ON THE COMMON MAN and their BAD TASTE when it comes to all kinds of stuff! hahaha!
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: oh cool and I just read this
quote:But sneering at what the middle class and lower class do is what liberal intellectuals thrive on. Then they vote for Democrats and pretend they love the "common man." They just despise everything the common man buys and eats and wears and reads and listens to on the radio.
(And don't deny it -- I've been to your little soirees where you sip your wine and cheese and smoke your weed and mock the hideous monstrous people who shop at WalMart and eat at McDonald's. If you push me, I'll name names.)
bonus points to the first person to come up with a quote from osc chiding this very sort of behavior.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Samprimary: I actually find Card's opinions on Rowling to be fluid and consistent. He likes her books but he has problems with her. His initial reviews, the ones you said were before her announcement that Dumbledore was gay, were of her stories. The things he said later had to do with her politics, her ridiculous lawsuit (and I agree 110% with him on that one; that really got to me), and her handling of backstory revelations that were not in the books.
I agree with him that if Dumbledore was gay, if this was important enough that she knew it in her notes and was able to say so to people after the fact, then she was a coward not to mention it when it would have been relevant. As much as I disagree with Card on almost everything homosexual, it is at least true that he has openly gay characters in his books and handles them in a manner that is consistent with his views. This view is not consistent with my own but it is eye-opening.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
That's a matter of opinion, of course. I think he has gay characters in his books to prop them up as dummies for his ideas about society, and how terrible homosexuality is, and I don't find that to be especially honest or fair of him. Well, at least turning around and claiming he's doing it for the good of his work may be dishonest, but for all I know that's what he really believes.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
What a fantastic idea, lets all demonstrate how much we dislike JK Rowling being railed upon by castigating Orson Scott Card.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't think it was cowardly, again, the story wasn't Dumbledore and His Affinity for Men it's Harry Potter trying to get Voldermort. It doesn't have anything to do with the story at all, and she was answering a fan's question. So it's not self-serving or politically correct or any of that stuff he says.
Also he annoys me with his gay characters because he does not respect them as gay people and uses them as a political lecture tool. He's doing what he accuses JKR of doing when she's not really doing that at all because it's not like she announced it to a news source or something. Sheesh.
I was on the fence about the lawsuit, but him railing at her and calling her a witch put me on her side 100%. Because that just wasn't very nice at all. I could see if she grabbed him and mooshed his face into a cowpie. Then I'd be on his side going, that wasn't very nice. But she didn't DO anything to him personally so there was no reason for him to insult her. Dude could have been like, I don't agree with this law suit without being impolite about it.
Though I do hope I'm not being rude to him by disagreeing with him in a rude way. As I hate being rude and I'd be hypocritical, but dude's been building up annoyance in me for a while.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: What a fantastic idea, lets all demonstrate how much we dislike JK Rowling being railed upon by castigating Orson Scott Card.
I don't mean to be rude, but he's been annoying me for years like this. I'm quite slow to anger, but I've got to keep it real and point out that being rude like that is irritating.
But I wonder if there's a way to do that without being rude. It's not like I want to hurt someone's feelings. Also I love JK Rowling. She's an inspiration. Making money doing what she wanted to do. Writing stories that have made me happy and entertained. She's awesome.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: What a fantastic idea, lets all demonstrate how much we dislike JK Rowling being railed upon by castigating Orson Scott Card.
You're right. We should never speak of these things. We should always remain silent, as is our duty.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ... it will be one at the cost of the shadowy and evil Other, at once ever-present, but never firmly associated with actual people or even actual institutions ...
But almost always associated with religious concepts and terminology Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
That's my point, funny or not. It's basically OSC slapping the faces of liberals and shouting: "BE GONE EVIL SPIRITS! BE GUAOUN!"
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I don't really have a problem with JKR not including Dumbledore's sexual orientation in the book. You could write lots of stories where the sexuality of an elderly man doesn't matter in the narrative. In fact, you could write lots of stories where the sexuality of everyone doesn't matter terribly much.
I can see why she might leave it out. If it only comes up at the very climax of the book, it could be highly distracting from what we actually want to think about while we're reading the last book n the series. If the plot hinged on a sexual love rather than platonic love, it could be a little challenging to children who haven't really got the hang of the difference between Mummy and Daddy's love and the way the parents love their children. I can see that these two reasons might make it easier to leave the exact type of love out completely.
We know that Dumbledore feels love, platonic or not, very fiercely. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Well, to go back to an earlier point in the discussion, why if people dislike some book or music or story that millions of people have loved for decades, do people so often assume the lack is in the story and not in themselves?
I mean, I do it too. For a long time I was sure nobody truly liked Mozart, they were all just pretending because they thought it was cool to like Mozart, but I mean of course nobody could actually LIKE him because he totally sucks, you know?
But surely the fact that so many people love Tolkien so much means something. I've read the LotR books probably 15 times. I think they're amazing. They're among my favorite stories ever. And I've read a lot of books, and I have good taste.
So if someone hates Tolkien, I think the fault is in them and not in Tolkien, who was absolutely awesome. You obviously just do not get it, you know? I felt I had to say that to the Tolkien h8rz.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
OSC was much more complimentary of this movie than any other published critic I've seen, and in this review he is only guilty of suggesting that Tolkien is a better writer than Rowling. And he didn't even bring up the knitting magazine. I think it's a good thing OSC is able to revise his opinion of people as time goes on, for good and for bad.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I don't think it is necessarily a fault in someone to not look Tolkein or Mozart or anything else. It is just a matter of personal preference. Kind of like how my daughter only likes clothes that feature sweets on them, while her friend likes princess clothes and another friends sports themed.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Mozart doesn't suck. He wrote the Great Mass in C Minor, which is spectacular. I adore me some Mozart.
But, perhaps it's a matter of chemistry and liking what you like. Not everyone likes the same thing, lest life be boring and dull. Not everyone can understand the beauty and appeal of heavy metal or classical. I don't understand why you'd want to listen to nothing for 4 minutes and 33 seconds. THAT'S NOT MUSIC, but some folks think that's brilliant. There are people who do not like chocolate. it's scandalous, but what can you do?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I think it's a good thing OSC is able to revise his opinion of people as time goes on, for good and for bad.
Changing opinions: good
Reducing oneself over time to uncalled-for, venomous and tired vitriol: bad
quote:His initial reviews, the ones you said were before her announcement that Dumbledore was gay, were of her stories. The things he said later had to do with her politics, her ridiculous lawsuit (and I agree 110% with him on that one; that really got to me)
No, OSC gushed praise about her person as well. Called her wise, once exclaimed giddily that she should get the nobel peace prize or something. Oops, that all got reversed. Now she's an evil witch.
But let's talk about the lawsuit.
OSC was wrong about the lawsuit.
Let's talk about that.
Here's OSC:
quote:I fully expect that the outcome of this lawsuit will be:
1. Publication of Lexicon will go on without any problem or prejudice, because it clearly falls within the copyright law's provision for scholarly work, commentary, and review.
2. Rowling will be forced to pay Steven Vander Ark's legal fees, since her suit was utterly without merit from the start.
3. People who hear about this suit will have a sour taste in their mouth about Rowling from now on. Her Cinderella story once charmed us. Her greedy evil-witch behavior now disgusts us. And her next book will be perceived as the work of that evil witch.
Yes, calling her an evil witch.
Super classy, I'm sure.
Okay, so he fully expected that this frivolous stupid suit would be thrown out.
Unfortunately, to reference the facts of the case presented even here on this forum:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Cara: There is zero justification for the theft of someone else's work.
By not providing appropriate citation, by not providing quotations to show work, and by not adding anything of analytic value, he was indeed claiming her work as his own.
From the RDR website:
Does the Lexicon appear to have Ms. Rowling's blessing? No, the Lexicon makes it perfectly clear that this unique reference resource is in no way endorsed by Ms. Rowling or Warner Bros. In fact, this is clearly spelled out to the reader. It is an original book with a vast array of independently written scholarly reference materials.
From the letter that RDR set to Mr. Meyers on October 11, 2007---pre-litigation:
...like all material on the 1,000-plus-page Harry Potter Lexicon, is the original work of Mr. Vander Ark and his elite team of academic scholars, literary critics, and reference librarians.
Now, here's OSC's OWN WORDS on the subject.
quote:It's true that we writers borrow words from each other -- but we're supposed to admit it and not pretend we're original when we're not.
And Vander Ark was just copying whole parts of her book wholesale and claiming it explicitly as an original work. OSC's own words show what he's missing about this situation, and why he was wrong.
Thus, the result of the court case.
quote:On the 8th of September 2008, Rowling won her copyright case against RDR Books.[11]
Lexicon publisher RDR Books said:
"We are encouraged by the fact the court recognised that as a general matter authors do not have the right to stop the publication of reference guides and companion books about literary works."
Judge Patterson said that reference materials were generally useful to the public but that in this case, Vander Ark went too far. Of the book's 2437 entries, 2034 simply lift information, and even text, straight from the series.
"While the Lexicon, in its current state, is not a fair use of the Harry Potter works, reference works that share the Lexicon's purpose of aiding readers of literature generally should be encouraged rather than stifled," he said.
He said he ruled in Ms Rowling's favour because the "Lexicon appropriates too much of Rowling's creative work for its purposes as a reference guide".
and, in a premonition of this event's reception by some,
quote:Novelist Joanna Trollope commented in The Times that, "This is not a matter of that age-old - and impossible - difficulty of the plagiarism of ideas. It is something much easier to define, and a danger to all writers. It is - let's not mince our words - the theft of someone's writing, someone's own words stolen in exactly the form in which their brain produced them. And it's a theft to which all writers are vulnerable. Jo Rowling didn't have to do this. I should think that her time in New York was horrible, exacerbated by a lack of support caused, no doubt, by deeply unattractive sourness over her wealth. Well, I applaud her, and I bet I'm not alone. I am thrilled for her, and very grateful to her, for taking the stand she did - and winning."[33]
aaanyway.
/edit oh and apparently it's his birthday today well, i guess I have a strange way of celebrating that, woo hoo.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But she did not. I could see why she sued that fellow. If it's most of her work without him contributing a lot to it, I could see why she was annoyed.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I think it's a good thing OSC is able to revise his opinion of people as time goes on, for good and for bad.
Yes, I think it's very convenient for him to do so.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I don't think it is necessarily a fault in someone to not look Tolkein or Mozart or anything else. It is just a matter of personal preference. Kind of like how my daughter only likes clothes that feature sweets on them, while her friend likes princess clothes and another friends sports themed.
No, those other kids are part of the Intellectual Elite. Hide your cheese and wine.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: What a fantastic idea, lets all demonstrate how much we dislike JK Rowling being railed upon by castigating Orson Scott Card.
I don't mean to be rude, but he's been annoying me for years like this. I'm quite slow to anger, but I've got to keep it real and point out that being rude like that is irritating.
But I wonder if there's a way to do that without being rude. It's not like I want to hurt someone's feelings. Also I love JK Rowling. She's an inspiration. Making money doing what she wanted to do. Writing stories that have made me happy and entertained. She's awesome.
I get that, I too feel he was a bit overly harsh in some of his comments, but I don't disagree entirely with some of his points. I didn't really like that JK Rowling did that whole post-book reveal thing. But no matter how mad I get at something, I try to talk about what I object to rather than expressing mere objection.
----
Orincoro: I know you that you know I was not suggesting that course of action.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" I didn't really like that JK Rowling did that whole post-book reveal thing."
See, I don't get this at all. In response to a question, she said "I always thought of Dumbledore as gay." It seems to me that if you are writing a central character to a book who is prominent in the world you envision, you have some sort of backstory to him. That probably means he has a past history of loves, and lovers. ESPECIALLY if one of the points that character hammers on in the story is how powerful love is. Without having that backstory, either as notes or conceptualized in your head, will the character be as real as if you do? Probably not. If someone asks you about the backstory that you have, there are two responses: Be truthful, or say "I don't want to answer that question."
What purpose is served by "I don't want to answer that question?"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: I didn't really like that JK Rowling did that whole post-book reveal thing.
Right, but an event such as the post-book reveal thing, or even a controversial event such as a lawsuit or outing a character as gay, won't devolve you to calling her a greedy evil brainless cowardly vain witch etc etc etc. Tone (in this case, the 'simpering' tone noted) and the vituperative conceit and contempt pouring out of that tone, is worth criticizing, and it's what I note.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That's what I was trying to say...
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: " I didn't really like that JK Rowling did that whole post-book reveal thing."
See, I don't get this at all. In response to a question, she said "I always thought of Dumbledore as gay." It seems to me that if you are writing a central character to a book who is prominent in the world you envision, you have some sort of backstory to him. That probably means he has a past history of loves, and lovers. ESPECIALLY if one of the points that character hammers on in the story is how powerful love is. Without having that backstory, either as notes or conceptualized in your head, will the character be as real as if you do? Probably not. If someone asks you about the backstory that you have, there are two responses: Be truthful, or say "I don't want to answer that question."
What purpose is served by "I don't want to answer that question?"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
syn you are bottom-quoting, you gotta put the quote above your response :>
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But I like top quoting better.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: syn you are bottom-quoting, you gotta put the quote above your response :>
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Syn top quotes from the bottom. Kids these days, with their bottom quoting and their tight jeans and their reefers.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Syn, the point I was trying to make was that even though I loathe Mozart and always will, I should have assumed I just didn't get him, rather than assuming that Mozart sucks, since so many people seem genuinely to like him a whole lot. The same is true for Tolkien, and also for Dickens, who is another one whose books really annoy me.
That's why I was objecting to people dissing Tolkien in this thread, I mean. Because they should realize that Tolkien was an absolute genius and if they don't like him, it's not because he's bad but just that they personally don't get him.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Well, he was brilliant, but it;s hard for me to get into stuff after the Hobbit because it is heavy English writing.
BUT MOZART IS SO AWESOME! Have you even heard the Requiem? The Great Mass in C Minor? I AM SCANDALIZED! Have you seen Amadeus at least?! *scandalized*
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Syn, the point I was trying to make was that even though I loathe Mozart and always will, I should have assumed I just didn't get him, rather than assuming that Mozart sucks, since so many people seem genuinely to like him a whole lot. The same is true for Tolkien, and also for Dickens, who is another one whose books really annoy me.
That's why I was objecting to people dissing Tolkien in this thread, I mean. Because they should realize that Tolkien was an absolute genius and if they don't like him, it's not because he's bad but just that they personally don't get him.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No, Tatiana, I'm with you part of the way, but only part. The proof of a work's greatness elusive, but one thing we are aware of and can measure is popularity. You (I think mistakenly) attest Tolkein's popularity as a merit that is necessarily a proof of genius (specifically artistic rather than marketing or psychological), and furthermore that it is necessarily proof of greatness.
However, we can see that at least this particular metric does not stand up across the board. For instance, the Model T Ford at the time of its production was the most popular car ever sold, and for a pretty long while. It was a work of marketing and engineering genius, but in comparison with the cars of today, it doesn't stand up. It's not a great car anymore- not next to the new cars, in measurements of what cars are supposed to do.
How does that relate to art you ask? Well, only kind of. But Mozart, as another example, attained huge popularity during his lifetime, and achieved sustained and lasting popularity that has in fact continued to increase virtually continuously for the last two centuries. He is in fact more popular in the present day than at any time in the past. His case is complicated by the fact that the medium of his greatest success, recordings, was not the medium for which he originally wrote, but nevertheless his music, by virtue of being music, arrives to the modern listener in relatively complete form, often very much as it would have been two centuries ago.
Tolkein, on the other hand, is too new to be compared to Mozart. What happens when Tolkein's English becomes too dated to be read easily by casual readers in the original? There's a reason people largely stopped reading Robinson Crusoe, though it was formerly the most popular novel in the English language. Did it get less great? The ability for the work to transcend translation and time are important factors. Tolkein just hasn't had the time to prove he can do that, and considering how much of his work was seen as unfilmable, even as his original does remain popular, makes me wonder how long it will be before Tolkein's work is so anachronistic as to be inaccessible.
There's nothing wrong with that, btw. That would just mean that, like 99.9999999 percent of all works of art, Tolkein's will likely not transcend the centuries into the distant future. Probably, neither will Mozart, but Mozart has a leg up already. And even when works do fade, their effects on new works remain, and set the paths for the next great works to appear. That's why one generation favored Salieri, while the next doted on Beethoven, rediscovered Bach, and finally came around to deifying Mozart years after his death, and lifting him to the pinnacle of artistic creation- he endured, while the others, even though their influence was felt even more greatly, subsided, or took secondary roles.
But no one doubted Mozart's music on the merits where Tolkein's work does lose points. I'm not convinced that Tolkein will ever overcome what OSC might call the "elitism" of whatever you want to envision as the "literary establishment." Fact is, Tolkein doesn't offer a lot to learn in the way of style to a broad range of authors. He offers inspiration to *some* but I don't think to many. Maybe that's wrong, and he does, but I don't think so. I think his work is popular now because of the whole package- his personality, the languages he worked out, the breadth of the work, and the new stories in them,. He's a model-T Ford- everything in working order and ready to be delivered. But I think all of that will fade very quickly, and be out of date before too long, and I don't think a lot will be left of Tolkein in a few generations.
[ August 24, 2009, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Tolkein, on the other hand, is too new to be compared to Mozart. What happens when Tolkein's English becomes too dated to be read easily by casual readers in the original? There's a reason people largely stopped reading Robinson Crusoe, though it was formerly the most popular novel in the English language. Did it get less great? The ability for the work to transcend translation and time are important factors.
Yeah, it's because Robinson Crusoe is an awful book. The language is frustrating, the story is boring and the narrator's a snob to boot. In my opinion, the reason it was the most popular novel in the English language was because it was the first.
Interestingly enough, I was assigned that book the same summer I read the first two Harry Potters
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
But she did not. I could see why she sued that fellow. If it's most of her work without him contributing a lot to it, I could see why she was annoyed.
AH HOLY SHIT GET IT AWAY DO NOT WANT HOLY CRAP! Garghk! Is that an adults hand!?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Tolkien also has the advantage that hes practically the father of ALL modern High Fantasy it isn't a hard deduction to from say reading the Homeland Trilogy from Forogtten Realms and figure out that Tolkien inspired Salvatore and by extension all modern fantasy authors so then the person then discovers tolkien and repopularizes it.
I read the books after seeing the new movie, and then the hobbit, and then the Silmilerion.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yeah, that is on an adults hand. If anyone brought one of those near me, I could justify calling them rude names.
But she did not. I could see why she sued that fellow. If it's most of her work without him contributing a lot to it, I could see why she was annoyed.
AH HOLY SHIT GET IT AWAY DO NOT WANT HOLY CRAP! Garghk! Is that an adults hand!?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The Homeland Trilogy? This is what you cite as Tolkien-inspired? Um, no. Except in the general sense that Tolkien formed the basis of modern fantasy. What similarities do you see that would lead someone not already familiar with the genre to see Homeland as being strongly influenced by Tolkien?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: The Homeland Trilogy? This is what you cite as Tolkien-inspired? Um, no. Except in the general sense that Tolkien formed the basis of modern fantasy. What similarities do you see that would lead someone not already familiar with the genre to see Homeland as being strongly influenced by Tolkien?
If you read the author biography summaries at the opening of the book usually the writer says who/what inspired him, almost all of the books written around 2nd edition all say they've read "Lord of the Rings" and were inspired by it etc.
I just said the Homeland trilogy as an example.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Tolkein, on the other hand, is too new to be compared to Mozart. What happens when Tolkein's English becomes too dated to be read easily by casual readers in the original? There's a reason people largely stopped reading Robinson Crusoe, though it was formerly the most popular novel in the English language. Did it get less great? The ability for the work to transcend translation and time are important factors.
Yeah, it's because Robinson Crusoe is an awful book. The language is frustrating, the story is boring and the narrator's a snob to boot. In my opinion, the reason it was the most popular novel in the English language was because it was the first.
I don't happen to disagree, but it remained wildly popular for like 200 years.
Worst part of the book is that it has no paragraphs, and a frustrating lack of punctuation.
quote: Tolkien also has the advantage that hes practically the father of ALL modern High Fantasy it isn't a hard deduction to from say reading the Homeland Trilogy from Forogtten Realms and figure out that Tolkien inspired Salvatore and by extension all modern fantasy authors so then the person then discovers tolkien and repopularizes it.
Defoe was the father of the novel. Just cause he did it first doesn't mean he did it best.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Actually a chick in Japan is the mother of the Novel.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Blayne, I'd like to see you argue that any Japanese author is more relevant to this discussion, about Tolkein, than Daniel Defoe.
I realize you have to stroke your Asiaphile reputation by one-upping me with that, but in terms of the current discussion, Daniel Defoe is more the father of the novel than any Japanese writer. Even if the novel was extant in Japan before Defoe, Defoe did not get the idea from reading Japanese literature, so your point is moot. Remember KoM warning you about these little games? It's annoying.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Dude, that wasn't Blayne, that was me. I read somewhere that Tale of Genji is considered the first novel. But, there's the first WESTERN novel to consider.
Sheesh...
See? http://www.taleofgenji.org/ One of these days I'll have to read that novel in English and in Japanese. Plus Blayne is fixated on China and me more on Japan....
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Blayne, I'd like to see you argue that any Japanese author is more relevant to this discussion, about Tolkein, than Daniel Defoe.
I realize you have to stroke your Asiaphile reputation by one-upping me with that, but in terms of the current discussion, Daniel Defoe is more the father of the novel than any Japanese writer. Even if the novel was extant in Japan before Defoe, Defoe did not get the idea from reading Japanese literature, so your point is moot. Remember KoM warning you about these little games? It's annoying.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
She was responding to a factual assertion that wasn't true, not continuing the rest of the discussion. You might have noticed that a discussion is not always focused on a single topic.
Of course, she wasn't correct, either, but her understanding is a common myth.
As for your response, I suspect most people in Europe might be more familiar with important authors of novels such as Cervantes, who predates Defoe by quite a bit. Defoe isn't in the least the father of the novel. He was at best one of the first authors of an English novel . . . at a time when people in England were well acquainted with numerous novels in other languages. Calling him "the father of the novel" is inaccurate even if we exclude areas out of contact with England where the novel developed.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Dude, that wasn't Blayne
Wow. My world is reeling. Sorry.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: As for your response, I suspect most people in Europe might be more familiar with important authors of novels such as Cervantes, who predates Defoe by quite a bit. Defoe isn't in the least the father of the novel. He was at best one of the first authors of an English novel . . . at a time when people in England were well acquainted with numerous novels in other languages. Calling him "the father of the novel" is inaccurate even if we exclude areas out of contact with England where the novel developed.
Again, points outside the relevance of the discussion. Defoe is considered the father of the novel when talking about English language literature. Whether that is a correct historical assumption or not, it is a common assertion, and works on the grounds of Defoe's popularity and influence. Robert Frost was not the first American Poet by two centuries, but is considered "the grandfather of American Poetry." Bach was not the first person to write for equal temperament, but the system is often attributed to his name in light of his influence. Picasso was not the first cubist, and Peter was not in his time considered a Pope, nor was Galileo the first Copernican astronomer, nor Copernicus, for that matter. That 'people' were familiar with other novels is not in question. That Defoe was iconic as an Early English novelist is indisputable, and that's why he gets the honorary "father of." I wasn't aware that you were familiar with the exacting qualifications needed to attain that very official title- I'm not even aware of what sanctioning body awards it. So for every assertion of "so and so" was the father/mother of "whatever," apply your own personal grain of salt, and save your quibbling unless you think the assertion is just totally false. It's not very important, and it's certainly nothing to do with why I brought up Defoe in the first place.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Orinoco, I just want to point out that this
"I realize you have to stroke your Asiaphile reputation by one-upping me"
is a fairly jerky thing to say to someone who is conversing with you. Why assume bad motives? Why assume people are picking a fight with you? It's so much better to converse freely and assume good faith from all sides. Interesting conversation is the aim, not oneupmanship.
Thanks for listening. I hope this is taken in the spirit in which it is meant, as a constructive suggestion or comment on posting style.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I must say I agree with that... Especially since i don't like to argue.
Also I said Tale of Genji is CONSIDERED by some as the first novel, but that doesn't mean it was...
But they do say it was the first psychological novel. I got to read that.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'm sorry if my annoyance at this particularly hatrack foible shows too strongly. I know I contribute to it myself as often as not- but in this case I'm still right. I don't see why I should have to field objections to a fairly benign assertion that the objections didn't even really address meaningfully. It just felt like a bit more of a "nuh uh, nuh uh, because so-and-so was really first lolz. You suck haxxor!" Perhaps I was just on a hair trigger at that particular moment.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: And after the sickeningly sweet epilogue which seemed way too easy in light of the depth and complexity of the books, I am happy to grab onto any answers that may not appear in the books but ring true to the story and its characters. Dumbledore's romantic and sexual history is included on that list.
I hated the epilogue. Worst part of any of the books. Did kind of a "happily ever after" hand waving without any depth or real closure. So I, too, was interested in answers. But I found that as she listed random facts about who marries who and the jobs that the students get later in life that I preferred my own take on it. It all seemed to neat and clean. The aftermath of such a disruptive event is never that way. I mean, all these kids missed their last year of school. Did that matter? Besides, I really thought Harry would become a teacher. I know he'd been dreaming of becoming an auror but that was too simple, especially after he'd gone and taken a wand whose power he wanted to break. Besides, it seemed to me that after he grew up he might find he wanted things to become a little quieter. It's not like he ever went looking for trouble.
So after all that, I changed my mind about the epilogue. It was fine and allowed me to imagine for myself what became of each of the characters. Don't get me wrong, I would have preferred some closure, but an epilogue that would have done that would have been much, much longer. I think I didn't want to see a glimpse 20 years later. I would have preferred just a short year, to see the direction things were heading. But there's almost a new story there.
I wanted to know all those answers too, but I realized that by painting broad strokes she was basically saying this:
School doesn't matter when you are an adult: remember Harry's speech first year about Voldemort not going to attack when you win the house cup. The aftermath and cleanup was probably involved, long, and both dull and interesting, but not relevant. What really matters is this:
Harry wasn't like Ender. His teenage heroism did not isolate him from society nor his closer friends. He is reasonably anonymous, which is great for day to day life.
There were no bad long term effects to Hogwarts and there is some sort of stable Magical government, and Harry is even involved with it. Normalcy, stability, family and love were the rewards that were reached. Unlike the Star Wars universe which has basically undone the epic accomplishments of the Rebel Alliance in Return of the Jedi in the name of plots for the book tie-ins, the Potterverse stayed "saved".
Harry has remained close friends with his old close friends as he is grown. Ron and Hermione did indeed marry, and while they have grown up, they have not changed.
You can assume that most other relationships haven't changed either, or are not notable. Instead, Rowling tells you about the biggies: Neville has changed from the awkward boy to a capable man, Percy is as beloved by the Weasleys as he was before he split with them, and Draco and Harry are neither friends nor enemies.
Honestly, you can read between the lines enough on the rest, why not leave the details to fan imagination?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I liked the epilogue. I thought it was good for a story to end with Harry having a loving family, being a kind good father. Plus it makes my eyes wet and it's better than him dying or ending up in some sort of heaven surrounded by elf babes or something. Since the elves in that series are not babes.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Perhaps I was just on a hair trigger at that particular moment.
As someone who spends a lot of time reading this forum (not much posting, admittedly), I have to say... the above statement could pretty much apply to any of your posts for the last long while.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'd have to second that.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Tolkien also has the advantage that hes practically the father of ALL modern High Fantasy it isn't a hard deduction to from say reading the Homeland Trilogy from Forogtten Realms and figure out that Tolkien inspired Salvatore and by extension all modern fantasy authors so then the person then discovers tolkien and repopularizes it.
The only series by Salvatore I'd say that has any influence from LotR is Icewind Dale, due to the crystal shard and all that. That, and the first Demon Wars book are the only real Epics he's written, afaik.
Homeland is almost the exact opposite of an epic - it's all about one person, his choices, and what kind of person he ends up becoming. He certainly interacts with other people, but none of his actions have world shaking consequences, and he doesn't save the day for anyone - other than himself, that is.
Also, it's setting is a malevolent matriarchal city deep in the bowels of the Earth, whose inhabitants ride giant lizards and worship the evil spider god Lolth. That doesn't really resemble anything out of Tolkien.
The impact Tolkien really had (disregarding all the hundreds of copycat authors), was he made high fantasy books written for adults commercially viable. All those people with crazy ideas about strange, fantastic worlds could now write them and reasonably expect to get published.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Tolkien also has the advantage that hes practically the father of ALL modern High Fantasy it isn't a hard deduction to from say reading the Homeland Trilogy from Forogtten Realms and figure out that Tolkien inspired Salvatore and by extension all modern fantasy authors so then the person then discovers tolkien and repopularizes it.
The only series by Salvatore I'd say that has any influence from LotR is Icewind Dale, due to the crystal shard and all that. That, and the first Demon Wars book are the only real Epics he's written, afaik.
Homeland is almost the exact opposite of an epic - it's all about one person, his choices, and what kind of person he ends up becoming. He certainly interacts with other people, but none of his actions have world shaking consequences, and he doesn't save the day for anyone - other than himself, that is.
Also, it's setting is a malevolent matriarchal city deep in the bowels of the Earth, whose inhabitants ride giant lizards and worship the evil spider god Lolth. That doesn't really resemble anything out of Tolkien.
The impact Tolkien really had (disregarding all the hundreds of copycat authors), was he made high fantasy books written for adults commercially viable. All those people with crazy ideas about strange, fantastic worlds could now write them and reasonably expect to get published.
Wasn't what I was saying.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Dan Frank- your criticism is neither asked for nor welcome.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Dan Frank- your criticism is neither asked for nor welcome.
Your getting your reality in my interwebs! Do not want!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Dude, that wasn't Blayne
Wow. My world is reeling. Sorry.
Oh and Muahahahahhahaharha!!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Dan Frank- your criticism is neither asked for nor welcome.
No less true though. But that's fine, I didn't really expect you to suddenly change your behavior based on a one-line comment from a random stranger. I don't have any desire to upset you any more than you already are, so I'll leave it alone now.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Wasn't what I was saying.
You said reading Homeland, not reading some little blurb on the dustcover or on his website. It was exactly what you were saying. If it wasn't what you were meaning, don't blame me for not being a mind reader. (you're too far away for my telepathy to work effectively)
Salvatore apparently became interested in fantasy after reading Tolkien in college, and ultimately decided to major in English. He also writes science fiction, and, most likely, almost all modern day sci-fi authors have read Tolkien. Does that mean all their works are derivative of Tolkien, and someone reading a sci-fi book 200 years from now will, after some of that "deduction", repopularize Tolkien?
How about all those people who thank random friends in their blurbs?
You *could* have picked one of the cheap Tolkien rip-off books and used that as an example, but instead you picked a trilogy of books that have almost nothing to do with Tolkien other than that their author has read his books and found them inspiring - as have most Americans of his generation.
Maybe Tolkien will be remembered for the immense power and beauty of his own creation instead of the unrelated writings of people who read him at one point? I mean, Kurt Vonnegut read Shakespeare at some time in his life, and even quoted him in a few of his books (something Salvatore has never done for Tolkien), in fact he made Shakespear a minor character in one of his books. But do people remember Shakespeare because Vonnegut read him?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: You *could* have picked one of the cheap Tolkien rip-off books and used that as an example, but instead you picked a trilogy of books that have almost nothing to do with Tolkien other than that their author has read his books and found them inspiring - as have most Americans of his generation.
Are they the ones with Drizzt's backstory? With the Drow society practically a character? Cause that one did feel somewhat Tolkien-esque to me. Much more so than the one with lame magic-crystal-wants-to-take-over-the-world plot.
Granted, the only similarity I can articulate is the story world acting as a character aspect, but I do remember feeling one there.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I don't have any desire to upset you any more than you already are, so I'll leave it alone now.
Please do. I don't welcome thoughts on my state of mind from armchair quarterbacking lurkers. So stop offering them and playing Mr. Niceguy, please. Feel free to post your thoughts, but I'm not going to respond kindly to someone who clearly has the advantage of getting to know me anonymously.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Woah. Personal attacks. People, this is a thread about the Harry Potter movies and books.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Also, Don Quixote was the first western novel.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*cough already mentioned cervantes cough*
Whether it was truly the first is at least a bit arguable, but it was certainly considered a revolutionary work and a novel in its time.
And if anyone wants to know the winner for first novel in the entire world, the answer is, "some novel we've since lost to history that preceded the Golden Ass"
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Sorry fugu, I didn't catch your comment, and I should have also added 'that we know of'. Though the fact that Cervantes achieved some fame both when it was written and presently shows that he revolutionized the form at least a little bit. Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Are they the ones with Drizzt's backstory? With the Drow society practically a character? Cause that one did feel somewhat Tolkien-esque to me. Much more so than the one with lame magic-crystal-wants-to-take-over-the-world plot.
Granted, the only similarity I can articulate is the story world acting as a character aspect, but I do remember feeling one there.
The first book is very heavily steeped in Drow culture. I don't see anything Tolkien-esque about it. Actually, come to think of it, it may be a parody of Tolkien's elven cultures - everyone is ruthless, clamoring for power, matriarchal (a nod to Galadriel?), violent, bloodthirsty, demonic... everything Tolkien's quiet peaceful elves aren't.
They don't seem inspired by any part of Tolkien (other than as a parody) though. They don't even resemble Orcish society, with it's strong hierarchy and military ethos - each Drow is far too independent and intelligent (something you'd never attribute to an Orc) to match up at all.
That being said, maybe I'm missing something? What part of it seems to be based on Tolkien to you?
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)