Random Off-Topic

Ms. Rowling writes for the kiddies, T-Man.

Those books would have been a lot better if I'd written them.

Dementor? More like, Rapist ghost.

I dissagree, at least past book 3. I'd say she wrote for everybody, including children.

Ya know, I was just at the book store doing some Christmas shopping tonight, and I noticed that she's just written a new novel, completely unrelated to Harry Potter. I can't remember what it was called, but I'm considering checking it out.

Supposedly it's basically Harry Potter but aimed more towards adults. I haven't actually read it myself though.

I read the inside of the cover, and it sounded a little Harry Potterish. No magic or anything like that, at least I don't think, but it had a very rural British feel to it. If you know what I mean. I bought the entire Game of Thrones. Never read any of them. Been loving the show though. Kinda excited to start reading.

People are going to hate me for this, but I really don't like the books or TV show, for Game of Thrones.

You're entitled to your opinion. Obviously I haven't read any of it yet, but I thoroughly enjoy the show. There are a few characters I just can't get enough of.

To be fair I also don't like LOTR.

Are you not a fan of fantasy in general? Also, I have to ask, have you read LotR? Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I have to assume you have, because if you haven't that statement is just silly. The films pale in comparison.

Tolvo wrote:To be fair I also don't like LOTR.

Boring as crap. I don't want to read 2 paragraphs on the moss growing on a boulder.

Forum Pirate wrote:

Tolvo wrote:To be fair I also don't like LOTR.

Boring as crap. I don't want to read 2 paragraphs on the moss growing on a boulder.

I'd say give them another chance, but the magnitude of that statement compels me to tell you instead to give yourself another chance.

Good description is the core of good literature, and a test of good writing. Tolkien not only paints beautiful pictures with words, but does it with elegant prose.

I've read all of the LOTR books and of course seen the movies.

It's just a bit too generic to me. Now, JRR at his time really put a lot of work into that, and the reason it comes off so generic is because of how many people ripped him off. But still, when I watch the movies or read the books I can only think, "This is dull. Why should I care at all about these characters? They've gone like two books now and only one dude out of their whole fellowship died. Why should I think anyone will die now?"

You're missing the point. It's not about who lives and who dies. I'm not going to elaborate any further than that. You must know though, that Tolkien was pretty much the first, right? He pioneered the genre. He's not generic, everything after him is.

Did you read what I said? Why is it no one reads my posts entirely anymore?

I read your post. I just think you're short changing yourself. You're reasons sound like excuses. There's so much more depth to his writing than that, it's crazy. I know you know how to read between the lines, you should.

I'll give you Game of Thrones, because, while I haven't read it yet, and can't remark on it fully, the show for me is just entertainment junk food. It's fantasy for the sake of fantasy, and I enjoy occasionally allowing my brain to rest, between all the heavy literary analysis I have to do for school on a daily basis; but LotR does not fall under that category. It's literature. I'd place it on the same level as things like Huck Finn and Moby ****. There's a great deal to it. Not liking it simply because you feel the character's life-arcs are predictable is shorting yourself of what I know you're capable of.

I dissagree.

The ability to painstakingly describe something is important, yes, but to do so constantly and with often completely irrelevant things (a feild, some moss) bores me, leads me to believe one is showing off, and (imo) is detrimental to the flow and focus of the story.

I did read the first book and I love fantasy (though I prefer sci-fi) and the story itself may indeed be great, but I cannot get through the writing to appreciate it. (only author I've ever had that problem with btw)

Most fantasy is junk food. Sci fi too, IMO. To be clear, you can like what you want, and I won't fault you for it, but I'll defend the literary merit of Tolkien all day long. I'm pretty well versed in these things. It's essentially my job to be right now.

( I like junk food) I'm not arguing its validity. I'm saying it comes across as boring and pretentious when I try to read it. Its not uncommon for literary snobbery to seep into the feel of the finished product, especially in "classics"

I like Peirs Anthony and rowling and RA salvator and stephen king and many more. I just can't get through his writing.

I would argue that, in the case of Tolkien specifically, the heavy description of small facts, like the moss on a rock, is largely tied into the larger allegorical meaning of the text itself. If I were your teacher, this would be where I'd tell you to try again.

I like junk food too. I just bought GoT, and I'm stoked to read it, but it breaks my heart to hear, who I'd consider to be my peers in a lot of ways, support such perspectives

I'm not really interested in the art aspect of writing. Just as I'm not interested in the subtitles of fine dining or cooking.

For me at least, the amount I like the story is largely dependant on the believability and relate-ability of the characters/world. (ie consistant and properly constructed to do their own thing not forced into decisions they wouldn't make to fit the story)

Forum Pirate wrote:I'm not really interested in the art aspect of writing. Just as I'm not interested in the subtitles of fine dining or cooking.

For me at least, the amount I like the story is largely dependant on the believability and relate-ability of the characters/world. (ie consistant and properly constructed to do their own thing not forced into decisions they wouldn't make to fit the story)

Pretty much every well written fantasy and sci-fi story ever written features a character that does exactly that. A good protagonist is usually a character who lives outside of the norm for the weird and exciting worlds we're taken into through narratives of these genres, and through their learning and experience of these worlds, almost always through being forced into doing things they don't normally do, we, as readers/viewers/players, are integrated into those worlds as they are. I'd cite Luke Skywalker, Harry Potter, Bilbo/Frodo Baggins, The Chosen Undead, the Dragonborn, Ishmael, Huckleberry Fin, Isaac Clark, etc, etc, etc.

No no, not the situation forced a decision, the writer forcing a decision.

Example the situation forcing a character to chose between sacrificeing themselves or someone else for the greater good is fine, the character choosing to sacrifice the other person when realistically they would offer themselves because if the character dies the story is over is not.

Thats an extreme example but I hope it helps.

Another way to think of it is like a site based D&D campaign. Create the world, the main characters and let the story unfold, rather than manufacturing a story and creating characters to fit.

Thats the way I prefer stories to be told.

I don't see how that relates to LotR at all.

It doesn't, other that the subtitles of literature (like allagory) are lost on me and entirely outside what I in any way need to enjoy a book. Going out of ones way to force it isn't endearing to me.

The arguably bad habit of justifying my opinion took over.