posted
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.
posted
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).
posted
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 132 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 132 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 364 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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!"
IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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.
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.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
