Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Solatar on June 25, 2003, 04:36:53 pm
-
I was reading that new Harry Potter book (I was really bored...) and after I finished I read the back (even more bored). I discovered that it was printed in Kingsport, Tennessee., which is where I live.
If they were publishing it downtown, why did I have to wait.:D
'course they woulda got sued if they gave us it anytime early...Damn copyright laws....
rant over....you guys can flame me now.:cool:
-
.....
How old are you? :wtf:
-
Originally posted by Thorn
.....
How old are you? :wtf:
Gah, i pointed out it was a Childrens book and got attacked by fanatics.
-
I saw some of them on tv... a lot were older than I am...
-
The whole childrens' book thing really shouldn't be an issue. Dr. Seuss is still God.
And no, I have no intention of reading the rest of the Harry Potter books. I decided to pretend, for once, that I was openminded and read the first few, they were pretty decent writing, but when I got to that horrible Goblet one or whatever it was one of the dullest things I'd ever seen and I swore 'em off, raging fanboys be damned. It sucked.
-
*opens "the Gunslinger" by stephen king*
i prefer slighty more mature reading myself...
I.E anything by tolkien
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
*opens "the Gunslinger" by stephen king*
i prefer slighty more mature reading myself...
I.E anything by tolkien
According to our local fanatic, all of tolkiens books were kids books too.
-
Tom Clancy is OK. I read Rainbow Six in like, 4th or 5th grade, and it was OK. Too long-winded ( a chronic disease of Clancy's, and those who try to emulate him)
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
According to our local fanatic, all of tolkiens books were kids books too.
interesting, but i acutally do prefer books by Stephen King or the odd one or two by Dean Koontz..
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
interesting, but i acutally do prefer books by Stephen King or the odd one or two by Dean Koontz..
Its not interesting, its nonsense. Kids don't read books on the scale of the LOTR trilogy.
-
indeed... reading's a tad too heavy for littlun's
-
Alright. For the record, Tolkien's book are not kids books. Unless they are inteded to be that way, as is the Hobbit. Have you read the Silmarillion? I dare anyone to tell me thats a kids book. The linguical aspect of the names alone is :eek:.
And I consider Tom Clancy and Stephen King to fall into the category of "why are you wasting paper". Any person who can whine on endlessly about the same subject does not deserve to be published. What do they each have, like 20 books so far. It would take greater men then them to produce 20 original, inspired novels. Clancy is just playing off of American fear and/or pride, and Stephen King makes fear formulaic and boring..
-
I find this whole distinction between "kids books" and "grown-up books" quite silly. Anyone can read anything at any age. How about "A Course of Modern Analysis: reallylongsubtitle?" (my favorite one at the moment) That one could qualify in either category. :yes:
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I find this whole distinction between "kids books" and "grown-up books" quite silly. Anyone can read anything at any age. How about "A Course of Modern Analysis: reallylongsubtitle?" (my favorite one at the moment) That one could qualify in either category. :yes:
It's not the fact that it can't be read, but that it can't be comprehended. A child could read any 'adult book', sure, but would he have any idea what he'd just read? Sure, there are exceptions, but in most cases, no.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
And I consider Tom Clancy and Stephen King to fall into the category of "why are you wasting paper". Any person who can whine on endlessly about the same subject does not deserve to be published. What do they each have, like 20 books so far. It would take greater men then them to produce 20 original, inspired novels. Clancy is just playing off of American fear and/or pride, and Stephen King makes fear formulaic and boring..
have you read the dark tower series written by king?:doubt:
those aren't classed as horror novels IMHO .it's an epic pure and simple...
same with "the stand" "The talisman" and "black house"
the prob is that king has been stereotyped by his previous works (Misery, IT, tommyknockers, etc) that everyone sees him as a horror novelest... clancy might be doing the same.. i dunno i've never read any of his books..
-
It's not the fact that it can't be read, but that it can't be comprehended. A child could read any 'adult book', sure, but would he have any idea what he'd just read? Sure, there are exceptions, but in most cases, no.
Even then, most of these so-called "adult books" can probably be comprehended by children if they have the interest, including that one I gave. And then you can also go the other way; why cannot adults read children's books? Also, what about those of us who are somewhere in between (such as myself) in terms of age, older than "kids" but younger than "adults?" Maybe we are allowed to read both? :D
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
The whole childrens' book thing really shouldn't be an issue. Dr. Seuss is still God.
oooh yeah!
They're coming out with a "Cat in the Hat" movie! with Mike Myers :doubt:
-
Speaking from personal experience, some books simply cant be fully apreciated by kids. I read the Silmarillion the first time when I was around 13, and then again when I was 17 (now), and its quite a different experience.
As for Stephen King, yeah I suppose he's got some good stuff (Green Mile), but Clancy is deffinatley (sp?) same old same old. I remember in American History X, theres a scene where the dad (Edward Norton's character's dad) says "What, I read!" and the mom goes "Tom Clancy doesnt count"
-
Bull****. All that matters is how much you've read, not your age- at least, once you get into the double digits. I was reading great 400-page bricks at age 12, and appreciating them almost as well as I do now- fact, it was probably more advanced stuff than I generally read now. Most little kids are too busy making mud pies, playing little league baseball (talk about a waste of time), or staring at the TV for hours on end to actually read- me, I went the way of myopia, and I can't even say I did so as much as many kids could or should.
Never read a Tom Clancy book, never will. I allot myself enough intellectual snobbishness for that. King's books... don't you think they're a bit, say, gimmicky? I mean, you've got an evil clown that turns into some freaky thing into a giant spider! Ooh! Ahh! Aliens from outer space that make people evil! Booga booga! He's a halfway decent writer (a rare thing on the bestseller rack), but most of his stuff is kinda kiddie and didn't scare me in the least.
Try Kingsolver. Or Vonnegut. Or Sartre. All light reads (pretty much), all fantastic writers.
-
my english teacher says stephan king couldn't write to save his life.... i don't belive him
-
Eh, he's got all the technical stuff down, he's just a little deficient in the imagination department. Which is rather important to being a writer, so to some extent your teacher's right.
-
"looks at King's bio"
"looks at King's cash"
alright, he sure seems to get his life from writing, or else my brains are ****ed up. He would be laughing out loud, if he could see that thread :doubt:
-
So? Just because, say, Britney's sucked enough dicks to get onto every radio station on the ****ing planet doesn't mean she can sing any better than a donkey being flogged with a pair of cats being strangled.
King is "marketable", he is not a "writer". By your definition, the guy who writes technical manuals for MS Excel is on the same level as Shakespeare. It's a purely modern perspective to consider the worth of something solely by how much money it makes, and an unfortunate one. If people like you had your way, there would be no art, no literature, no nothing. People would only write to fill out accounting forms.
If I didn't have a boycott against that idiotic eye-rolling smiley, it would be here right now.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
So? Just because, say, Britney's sucked enough dicks to get onto every radio station on the ****ing planet doesn't mean she can sing any better than a donkey being flogged with a pair of cats being strangled.
King is "marketable", he is not a "writer". By your definition, the guy who writes technical manuals for MS Excel is on the same level as Shakespeare.
Oh? Coz you know my tastes? How cool! My definition of cool books would be illustrated by books from JRR Tolkien, Dan Simons, Franck Herbert, Irvine Welsh, Tom Clancy, Philip Jose Farmer, H.P. Lovecraft. You can stuf your sarcasms up your ass for all I care, coz I hate people who thinks they "know" just coz they've read a sentence.
I'm not a fan of King or anything, I'm just replying to the fact that the sentence "stephan king couldn't write to save his life" is ubber stupidity, since writing brings him more money that most of the peole here will never get. You can dispise what he writes, well, i'm sure he'd think the same from your opinion.
You're entitled to your opinion, he's entitled to write whatever **** he wants and earn millions from people who don't share your point of view.
-
Personal taste has nothing to do with this, twit. I, personally, can't stand Hemingway, and find Faulkner pretty dull at times, too. Yet I don't go around saying they're bad writers. I hate hate HATE most of what Heinlein has to say, can't stand his jerk writing style and pontificating "dialogue", and yet I never say he can't write. THAT'S personal taste. Saying that the likes of Danielle Steel and Stephen King isn't, and if you honestly can't tell the difference between personal taste and common sense, that speaks volumes about you.
-
He is right stryke. The Idea of reading Kujo or Pet Cemetary does make me want to go to pluck my eyes out with a cell phone, but he aparently makes a ****load of money, so it's lame insult to compare him to a tech manual writer.
C'mon, I know you can do better than that. :p
Oh, Old Man and the Sea 0wns j00 :D
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Personal taste has nothing to do with this, twit. I, personally, can't stand Hemingway, and find Faulkner pretty dull at times, too. Yet I don't go around saying they're bad writers. I get sick of a lot of Vonnegut's endless asides in some of his earlier stuff, and yet I never say he can't write. THAT'S personal taste. Saying that the likes of Danielle Steel and Stephen King isn't, and if you honestly can't tell the difference between personal taste and common sense, that speaks volumes about you.
How could I doubt! Since you're obviously the entity that, on Earth, decides what's wrong and what's right! How could I dear question your opipion? oups, sorry, Your opinion???
Alelujah!!!
the twits spits on your shoes, big mouth.
-
KT:
Originally posted by Stryke 9
It's a purely modern perspective to consider the worth of something solely by how much money it makes, and an unfortunate one.
You know... some of the best authors and artists in history died paupers. In fact, most of the greatest geniuses ever did. Not because they had poor marketing skills, but because they wrote stuff that wasn't aimed to sell well so much as tell the truth, to be what it was, and to be done right. Hallmark cards are supposed to sell well, Dylan Thomas told the truth. Hallmark has made billions, Thomas's works probably never garnered more than a million. Who's a better poet, the guy writing Hallmark cards or Dylan Thomas?
And if you say the former, I will seriously find a way to hurt you.
Venom: Black is white. And anything else you say on the matter is purely your miseducated, malformed opinion, and I don't want to hear it, because if you disagree you're obviously a fool.
For that matter, rocks can fly, I am Superman, and you are German.
-
well, king's retiring when he finishes his last works..:nod:
(while he's still got loads of money i might add)
-
Are we argueing over how to best make money or if harry potter was a good book? I don't feel like backpedaling right now really...
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
KT:
Who's a better poet, the guy writing Hallmark cards or Dylan Thomas?
And if you say the former, I will seriously find a way to hurt you.
as I don't know either, I guess you can save a few brainstorming as how to reach me :p
Venom: Black is white. And anything else you say on the matter is purely your miseducated, malformed opinion, and I don't want to hear it, because if you disagree you're obviously a fool. [/B]
I agree on the opinion ( I think that was clear from the begining, tho you blatlantly ignored that fact ), I disagree on the fact that since you ( or I, for that matter ) think so, it has to be the same for everybody. As an exemple, I can't stand rap, I don't think that's music, I have an almost pathological repulsion towards that thing. I think it's hell turned into sounds. nah, I think it's hell turned into noise. And as it almost physically hurts me ( yeah, I know, I'm weird, go on, have fun ) I think it should be banned from existence. That said, I have friends who listen to that, I'll just step away, I won't think they're retards or anything. Nah, that's not true, I think they're retard when they listen to that, can't help it, BUT I don't think I'm right just because of that.
My miseducation ( oh, that'll pass this time, but I consider this a direct attack against how my parents raised me, and I won't stand it another time, be warned - not that I could do anything agaisnt you, that is :doubt: ) leads me to think that way, thank you.
-
I think this thread stopped having to do with Harry Potter by post 2... Something about the artistic qualities of King's work, and how he's apparently one of the best writers in the history of Mankind because he's netted more bread than most of the classics ever did.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Are we argueing over how to best make money or if harry potter was a good book?
dunno, I want to try it, but I could never get my hands on one.
-
Venom: Read more carefully, willya? Some things are simply not opinion. That was the point of that entire last post. And the one preceding it. People may buy King books because they're entertaining. I can see that. But nobody who has any sense is willing to argue that he's a great writer. Like I said, he's deficient in some rather important areas that are necessary to writing- not as a technical activity, which any fully-functional kindergartener can do, but as an art form, which maybe one person in ten thousand can. In fact, it would be a curable deficiency if only he'd stop obsessing over the bottom line- he wrote a guidebook on creative writing that is, frankly, one of the best pieces of literature made in the past ten years- top 200, maybe, but that's still damn good-but he hasn't done that for any of the rest of his writing, at all. As a person who is attempting to become one of those one in ten thousand, the idea that base income has anything to do with is is ridiculous and offensive.
-
i retract my last statement..
i'll just say this...
i didn't like king's earlier books much personally(tommyknockers especially), they relied on a 'scare factor' to creep you out, it was there, it was just lame..
but a few: The dark tower series of books (5 in all?)
The talisman, and its sequel Black House, the stand..
(oddly enough, if you read the above books, they strangely tie together- there's references from each of the other books in the dark tower and black house)
and a few others i can't remember the names of..
the above books don't really quantify in the "horror" genre(i know i'm repeating myself a little here) they're not there to pose a scare as such, but more or less tell a story, much in the same way tolkien's works do:nod:
besides, "the gunslinger" (the dark tower series) has some of the coolest revolver gunplay imaginable..;)
-
well I'll leave you guys with this: Read Ender's Game. Very Good book imo. But then again, liked Tom Clancy when I was 10.
-
ah well, I'm bored with that subject.
you wanna become a writer?
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Gah, i pointed out it was a Childrens book and got attacked by fanatics.
If you couldn't be bothered to answer me on the original thread don't resurrect the arguement on this one. Especially to call me a fanatic. I've only read the first two books anyway.
Originally posted by Zeronet
According to our local fanatic, all of tolkiens books were kids books too.
Wrong yet again. I said that LOTR started out as a kids book and then evolved into something else. I said that The Hobbit was a kids book. Find me the line where I mentioned anything else by Tolkien on that thread and I'll quite happily eat my words.
Originally posted by Zeronet
Its not interesting, its nonsense. Kids don't read books on the scale of the LOTR trilogy.
I read LOTR when I was 8. I know several other people who had read LOTR before they entered their teens. Just cause you didn't read it when you were a kid don't assume no one else did.
-
me? If you only knew. :drevil:
-
you were probably reading "the anachist's cookbook" when you were 10:p
-
The Anarchist's Cookbook is largely a fraud. You want one of those real bombmaking manuals. I have a list of recommendations, but I've sworn off my hobby of FBI-baiting until Ashcroft is safely caged.
Anyway, yes.
-
or maybe you just have a diferent oppinion, I too don't care for king, but I know many people who he seems to have struck a nerve with, the wealth he has acumulated it not a direct indicator indicator of how good he is, but rather how popular he is wich can be used as an indirect and not entierly accurate measure of ability, saying 'well he has lots of money' is equivelent to saying 'well a lot of other people like his work'
-
And... since when did popularity have anything to do with artistic talent? Temptation Island is popular, Death of a Salesman is, relatively speaking, not. Once again, which is more artistic, has more meaning, is better done?
All the art most people want to see (and, certainly, to pay for) either sports a logo or sticks to a refrigerator. Does that mean that's the only good art? I sure hope not.
Mind, that doesn't mean I'm willing to count chainsawed pigs and **** in sealed canisters as art, either, but if someone can BS up a good explanation of what it means, I might be willing to consider it...
-
Originally posted by karajorma
If you couldn't be bothered to answer me on the original thread don't resurrect the arguement on this one. Especially to call me a fanatic. I've only read the first two books anyway.
Wrong yet again. I said that LOTR started out as a kids book and then evolved into something else. I said that The Hobbit was a kids book. Find me the line where I mentioned anything else by Tolkien on that thread and I'll quite happily eat my words.
I read LOTR when I was 8. I know several other people who had read LOTR before they entered their teens. Just cause you didn't read it when you were a kid don't assume no one else did.
You take everything so seriously, its funny.
-
if anyone sais that HP is a kids book, you should bite your way through parts 1 through 3, and then get reading 4 and 5, now if somebody tells me 5 is a childrens book, i'd like to see their reasoning.
and since i doubt you read it, i don't think you can bash it.
-
okay.. now THIS is definitely NOT a children's book..:p
(http://www.aussiebooks.com.au/images/HookyTheCripple.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
You take everything so seriously, its funny.
Bah. What a pathetic response. Besides the whole thing on the other thread started when you couldn't take a joke.
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
*opens "the Gunslinger" by stephen king*
i prefer slighty more mature reading myself...
I.E anything by tolkien
Amen to that, but I can't help but take notice of this series of books that has suddenly made children take up books again. Even though I'm not a fan of the series per se, I am happy with what it's done for kids - getting into books again. :)
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Bah. What a pathetic response. Besides the whole thing on the other thread started when you couldn't take a joke.
No, it was when you started being a fanatic.
-
This thread has ventured to the point of being locked a number of times. Discussion about books, good. Argument about books, bad. Flaming about books, locked.
-
I seriously can't tell the difference between arguement and discussion. I can understand flaming, but how do you define "arguing" as opposed to "discussing", just so I know for future reference
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
No, it was when you started being a fanatic.
Zeronet you seem to be labouring under the illusion that I've flamed you, repressed you or in some other way told you that you have the wrong opinion.
As far as I was concerned the matter was over and done with on the other thread until you repeatedly called me a fanatic on this one. Personally I can't see anything I've done that was fanatical.
In fact I've said several times that if you hold the opinion that you don't like Harry Potter that you're welcome to that opinion. If you feel that it's a childrens book and therefore beneath you to read it you're entitled to that opinion too.
However I'm just as entitled to tell you that it isn't just a childrens book because large numbers of adults read it.
Thats not fanatacism. That's simply holding a different opinion from you. If I was a fanatic I would have told you that you were wrong for not liking Harry Potter.
If anyone is being a fanatic it's you, cause you're the one telling anyone who does like the book that they are wrong or immature for liking it.
-
I didn't say it was immature to read it, i was just pointing out, its target audience is children.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Wrong yet again. I said that LOTR started out as a kids book and then evolved into something else. I said that The Hobbit was a kids book. Find me the line where I mentioned anything else by Tolkien on that thread and I'll quite happily eat my words.
Hmm - not sure If I fully get your meaning here, but the actual LOTR trilogy was never meant as a set for children - Tolkien said so himself ina letter to his publisher, who was expecting another Hobbit style Kids book. If you were talking about the Hobbit as the beginning of the LOTR series being a childrens book (and the series eventually becoming an Adults one) then I'll gladly accept you as correct.
A few other things to Say on this thread
Venom: - I think Stryke's major problem is nort about opinions or taste or whatever, but that you tried to equate monetary earnings with quality, and that's simply not the way it is, in any art form. How much would RL Stein have made from Goosebumps? How much do contemporary abstract artists make throwing paint against a wall? Ultimately, you have to accept that quality doesn't always sell art (note that doesn't exclude good art from selling well). Whether you like a book or not generally doesn't have much to do with it's level of artistic quality (though it's very important to what you take from it.)
On Kids books and Adult Books - Despite the ability of children to read certain books, you have to really look at what they take from those books to decide whether they were really comprehending it, or just comprehending the words and sentences. There's a big difference. I read 1984 the first time when I was 13, just starting year 8 - I had read a lot, but I'd read almost entirely books aimed at children, rather than more complex ones. 1984 made me think a bit, realize how easy it would be to change the past, how easy it would be for an evil government to take over etc etc. - basically I skimmed the surface of the book. Four years later, after two years of English Lit (advanced English, basically studying novels, poems, plays etc. learning how to really understand and make your own meanings) and I understood an incredible amount more of htis book. I really knew what Orwell was talking about, the value of human life, what existence really means, how he was trying to show how fragile minds and souls could be and an absolute ****load more. The first time around, It was just another book. This time, I think it really changed the way I percieved the world. It's the same for a lot of books - a kid reads Jurassic Park, he sees cool dinosaurs that kill people. An adult reads it, he sees the danger of genetic engineering, and of foolhardy, commercialist science in general. However, you take an adult and a child, and have them read a kids book, they will generally take the same stuff out of it, as there isn't, as a general rule, a lot to take out.
Note, some books can and do fall into the Grey area. If anyone's ever read books like the Tomorrow when the War Began series (especially the later ones), then he'll know the sorts of books I mean.
Kasperl : I haven't read book 5, in fact, I couldn't even stand to finish book one, but chances are, if it's anything like number 1, then it's a kids book throughj and through. My reasoning? Unless Rowlings changed her style dramatically, then there's nothing beneath the immediate plot of the story, nothing you can take away from the book that wasn't spelled out in bright cheery technicolour (Well, with the possible exception of old, rehashed "Growing up" stuff, but honestly, that's been done so many times it's clichéd (Hope I got the accent going the right way this time :nervous: )
Turnsky - Well, quick glance at the Author might've told me that :D
Edited for extreme typoage.
-
Um...
Xenocide by Orson Scott Card is a good book...:ick
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
Kasperl : I haven't read book 5, in fact, I couldn't even stand to finish book one, but chances are, if it's anything like number 1, then it's a kids book throughj and through. My reasoning? Unless Rowlings changed her style dramatically, then there's nothing beneath the immediate plot of the story, nothing you can take away from the book that wasn't spelled out in bright cheery technicolour (Well, with the possible exception of old, rehashed "Growing up" stuff, but honestly, that's been done so many times it's clichéd (Hope I got the accent going the right way this time :nervous:)
Turnsky - Well, quick glance at the Author might've told me that :D
well, books 1 and 2 where indeed rather simple, but starting at book 3, and continuing more promenent in 4 and 5, there's a very large sub-plot, and from book 4 on, good guys die. and in the book, those issues are very well told. i am currently reading book 5, and though no-one as died yet, the entire mood is dark, almost the opposite of book 1. trust me, if you bite trough 1 through 3, about 900 pages in total, you'll enjoy 4 and 5, about 1300 pages in total, a lot.
-
Black Wolf, I think you've said what alot of us were either unable to put forth clearly or just too pissed of to consider...good work:yes: :yes:
-
Originally posted by kasperl
well, books 1 and 2 where indeed rather simple, but starting at book 3, and continuing more promenent in 4 and 5, there's a very large sub-plot, and from book 4 on, good guys die. and in the book, those issues are very well told. i am currently reading book 5, and though no-one as died yet, the entire mood is dark, almost the opposite of book 1. trust me, if you bite trough 1 through 3, about 900 pages in total, you'll enjoy 4 and 5, about 1300 pages in total, a lot.
Frankly, I'm not really too inclined to read them anyway - it's been my experience that authors rarely change that dramatically in what is a relatively short (and media/commercialism saturated) period of time. Also, good guys dying isn't exactly heavy intellectual material (though if this was just an example rather than the thrust of your argument then I apologize). Frankly, based on the experiences I've had with the series and the environment she's been writing in, I'm not exactly bursting at the seams with enthusiasm and such like for the rest of the series, despite what good and bad reports I hear. Not that that's going to mean anything for anyone else reading the books - just me.
I was rather impressed with the way she did the movies though - choosing British kids, sticking, as far as I can tell, to the storyline etc. etc. Too many authors let their works get distorted when they do movies (Ever seen that Dinotopia miniseries? Urgh :ick)
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
Venom: - I think Stryke's major problem is nort about opinions or taste or whatever, but that you tried to equate monetary earnings with quality,
I'm confused... did I EVER do that?
Reading at my posts again, I can't see anything that could make you think that I did that.
Ah well, whatever.
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
Frankly, I'm not really too inclined to read them anyway - it's been my experience that authors rarely change that dramatically in what is a relatively short (and media/commercialism saturated) period of time. Also, good guys dying isn't exactly heavy intellectual material (though if this was just an example rther than the thrust of your argument then I apologize). Frankly, based on the experiences I've had with the series and the environment she's been writing in, I'm not exactly bursting at the seams with enthusiasm and such like for the rest of the series, despite what good and bad reports I hear. Not that that's going to mean anything for anyone else reading the books - just me.
I was rather impressed with the way she did the movies though - choosing British kids, sticking, as far as I can tell, to the storyline etc. etc. Too many authors let their works get distorted when they do movies (Ever seen that Dinotopia miniseries? Urgh :ick:)
as i already stated, there sure is a transition, after book 3, things go darker and more serious every page. the dying was indeed an example, everything is set in a moodyer atmosphere.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
as i already stated, there sure is a transition, after book 3, things go darker and more serious every page. the dying was indeed an example, everything is set in a moodyer atmosphere.
Then it's just a dark childrens book that's enjoyable for adults?. I think people maybe try to read too much into it than is there.
I haven't read any of them but that's because the subject matter doesn't really appeal to me all that much and there are a lot of books I want to read before it.
No shame in enjoying a Stephen King book either, as long as you remember that it's nothing to read too much into. I'd recommend Desperation as something fun to read with it's over the top bodycount.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
According to our local fanatic, all of tolkiens books were kids books too.
Nuts to that. I'm reading the complete history of Middle-earth and Valinor (twelve books in three huge volumes, £150 worth) and it's beginning to melt my brain. Even carrying one to work to read during lunch is hard work.
That said, there's nothing wrong with children's books. I'd like a box set of the Narnia stories, or the complete Asterix works.
As for the Potterer, I have nuff respect for the fact that Rowling got an entire generation of kids reading instead of watching TV (she's done more for literacy than the government ever has). But having been brought up on Pratchett and Tolkien, I don't see how I could ever appreciate a Potter book.
And last but not least, Stryke mate - leave it out with correcting people's opinions, aight? It's hella annoying, and one of the reasons that few people around here like Zylon Bane. Ta.
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
Hmm - not sure If I fully get your meaning here, but the actual LOTR trilogy was never meant as a set for children - Tolkien said so himself ina letter to his publisher, who was expecting another Hobbit style Kids book. If you were talking about the Hobbit as the beginning of the LOTR series being a childrens book (and the series eventually becoming an Adults one) then I'll gladly accept you as correct.
The trilogy wasn't for kids I fully agree. But if you look at the first part of Fellowship the writing style is a lot more like The Hobbit than it is in Return of the King.
A good example of what I mean is Tom Bombadil. There's a character who wouldn't be at all out of place in The Hobbit.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
The trilogy wasn't for kids I fully agree. But if you look at the first part of Fellowship the writing style is a lot more like The Hobbit than it is in Return of the King.
A good example of what I mean is Tom Bombadil. There's a character who wouldn't be at all out of place in The Hobbit.
Or the bit where the fox in the woods is thinking about seeing hobbits in the woods.
-
Originally posted by 01010
Or the bit where the fox in the woods is thinking about seeing hobbits in the woods.
An even better example :yes:
-
yeah, but Bombadil is cool. gotta love his hat :p
-
Originally posted by karajorma
An even better example :yes:
I like it because it's a good point to compare the difference in atmosphere between the start and the end of the book.
I like Bombadil but purely for the fact that he's an enigma and I like to think of theories as to what he might possibly be.
-
Originally posted by Venom
yeah, but Bombadil is cool. gotta love his hat :p
Absolutely no disagreement from me there :)
-
Tom Bombdil is much deeper than he seems. The whole character and concept are one of the deepest in the Middle-Earth series, and considering this includes the Silmarillion, thats saying alot.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Tom Bombdil is much deeper than he seems. The whole character and concept are one of the deepest in the Middle-Earth series, and considering this includes the Silmarillion, thats saying alot.
well, if you've read "the adventures of Tom Bombadil", you wonder even more wtf is that guy :D
btw, I dunno if it's because of the localisation, but the begining of the felloship of the ring, in french, with the whole passage of the ring wraiths in the Shire was REALLY moody, and creepy as hell. I loved it ( I loved it about 12 times actually :p )
-
Forget the ringwraiths; Bombadil was scary. Sorta like an all-powerful proto-Barney!
Err... anyway. I think at this point it's rather hard to imagine what niche the LOTR series would fit into, as since its creation it's developed a rather solid one of its own, which it's hard to extricate it from (admit it, first thing you think of when you hear about elves or mithril is some character like the Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons). Me, I suspect it was made with the intent to appeal to no greater market than the author- he had elves and dragons on the brain, so he wrote about 'em.
-
Couldn't be closer, actually, he never wrote tLotR to sell it. the Hobbit was for his nefew, and the LotR turned for years in his academy ( Oxford, wasn't it? ), where he kindda got a cult toward himself when the studients found about the books. It somehow spread out of the university a few ( quite many, actualy, iirc ) years later, tho.
-
Speaking of books: I was once tasked with clearing out my Primary School library with some other kiddies and a teacher (we wuz like 9 at the time) and I came across this book from like the 30's called "A Negro in a White Man's World" about this fictional guy called Mack Black and it described his careers as a cotton picker, farm hand and general slave. It was like 30 pages long and aimed at little kids. I almost suffocated laughing when I found it.
-
hell, at 9 I would have been giggling uncontrolably at the word negro...