| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. | ||
|
Turenne
331 Posts
On March 28 2011 05:02 Megaman703 wrote: Dunno where you're getting the idea that nobody likes The Walking Dead http://www.metacritic.com/tv/the-walking-dead/season-1 Let me try again - 'The Walking Dead' is terrible.Terrible. Regardless of what the critics said. | ||
|
Turenne
331 Posts
On March 28 2011 04:32 Ace wrote: Blows LOTR out of the water. Umm..... | ||
|
Cedstick
Canada3336 Posts
They're two separate things, so it's hard to call, but I'd at least say they're on equal footing to their own. | ||
|
karazax
United States3737 Posts
Also another review here: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/game-thrones-tv-review-174120 First 15 minutes will be previewed on HBO this Sunday night at 8 PM central | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On April 03 2011 13:47 Cedstick wrote: They're two separate things, so it's hard to call, but I'd at least say they're on equal footing to their own. Both are epic fantasy stories so in that regard they can be easily compared. When it comes to the enjoyment i get from reading them there just isn't a comparison, "a song of ice and fire" is just miles and miles ahead of LOTR wich seems almost simplistic when compard. Anyone who has read the Silmarillion understands just how god awefull Tolkien's writing can get at times. | ||
|
Turenne
331 Posts
Moreover, The Silmarillion is brilliant. | ||
|
Lorken
New Zealand804 Posts
On April 04 2011 07:21 Turenne wrote: LOTR is intended to be a black/white good versus evil tale, not something Machiavellian like A Game Of Thrones. They both come from much different traditions, are written with completely different purposes in mind and written in completely different styles. Compaing the two is largely pointless, and attacking ones authenticity as inferior to the others just seems absurd considering the genre. Moreover, The Silmarillion is brilliant. This made me realize something that I probably already knew, in the game of thrones, there are no good or bad guys. Most of them, are doing everything for their own selfish reasons. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
LOTR is intended to be a black/white good versus evil tale, not something Machiavellian like A Game Of Thrones. They both come from much different traditions, are written with completely different purposes in mind and written in completely different styles. Compaing the two is largely pointless, and attacking ones authenticity as inferior to the others just seems absurd considering the genre. Moreover, The Silmarillion is brilliant. Both are epic fantasies, so the genre is the same. Different traditions? Is Donald Duck equall to Shakespeare? Afterall they are both of "different tradtions" whatever that might mean. People judge these kinds of things all the time. I know LOTR is somewhat of the holy grail of fantasy writing but excluding that i see little reason to not compare it to other works of similar genre. The purpose of their writing is the same for both, to entertain. Tolkien might have written it with more literary prizes in mind but their main purpose is to entertain. Their styles are different i will give you that, but every writer has a unique style. That doesn't mean you can't compare it to the work of other writers, there is an entire industry based around that. There are people that make a living doing just that. Authenticity? The word you probably mean is quality. People get twitchy about this sort of stuff, especially if they like both. If one is better then the other, the other is not as a result worthless. And finally, considering the genre? Considering they are the same? As for the Silmarillion, i like LOTR but i would rather play russian roullete...alone...with a bullet in every chamber...then to read that book again. This made me realize something that I probably already knew, in the game of thrones, there are no good or bad guys. Most of them, are doing everything for their own selfish reasons. Jon Snow is as close to a good guy as it gets. | ||
|
Facehugger
Sweden17 Posts
| ||
|
Turenne
331 Posts
On April 04 2011 07:59 zalz wrote: Both are epic fantasies, so the genre is the same. Different traditions? Is Donald Duck equall to Shakespeare? Afterall they are both of "different tradtions" whatever that might mean. People judge these kinds of things all the time. I know LOTR is somewhat of the holy grail of fantasy writing but excluding that i see little reason to not compare it to other works of similar genre. The purpose of their writing is the same for both, to entertain. Tolkien might have written it with more literary prizes in mind but their main purpose is to entertain. Their styles are different i will give you that, but every writer has a unique style. That doesn't mean you can't compare it to the work of other writers, there is an entire industry based around that. There are people that make a living doing just that. Authenticity? The word you probably mean is quality. People get twitchy about this sort of stuff, especially if they like both. If one is better then the other, the other is not as a result worthless. And finally, considering the genre? Considering they are the same? As for the Silmarillion, i like LOTR but i would rather play russian roullete...alone...with a bullet in every chamber...then to read that book again. What exactly is your problem? Is your arrogance and patronising tone really necessary and did you actually just suggest I do not know the difference between 'authenticity' and 'quality'? Do you want a debate or just a flame war? I'll be happy to answer your questions - if you re-edit your post into something other then a condescending 'my penis is bigger then yours' rant brimming full of non-sequiturs, hyperbole and strawmans. | ||
|
Sablar
Sweden880 Posts
But it's a good thing that LOTR and other things managed to make fantasy mainstream so we can get this awesome series for TV. Really looking forward to it. | ||
|
Turenne
331 Posts
Yes they are of the same very broad and very varied genre. This is largely where the similarities of both books ends. Tolkien's style lies in a far more basic view of a black and white world, where the good guys are pure and defined by old fashioned understandings of masculinity - bravery, loyalty, honour etc - taken from his tradition of reading works like Beowulf and his own generation's sensibilities and Christian prejudices. LOTR very simply is yet another very epic and hopeful clash between good versus evil where good barely prevails in the face of seemingly overwhelmingly evil. In complete contrast Martin's work - from what I have read so far - is of a different moral tradition, far more cynical, Machevillian or Realist if you like. People are defined by ambition and lust of power; ideas of good and evil are laughable as everything becomes shades of grey, the 'good guys' capable of immoral acts like anyone else. Martin's world is a Realist's wet dream, where intrigue, murder, disorder and war define the lives of all - it dismissing the idea of morals and ethics defining life, instinct and ambition rather driving human actions. Very simply, Martin lies in the Realist tradition, containing a cynical view of the power of morals in our world and offering a more authentic and multi-dimensional vision of human life. Tolkien lies more in the Christian tradition, his work more fantastical and less authentic, more hopeful and more a portrait of how he and his generation thought they should be and act like. Since you seem to agree that the writing styles are very different I'll leave that aside; their purposes for the writing I do not know and fail to see how this is relevent; however Tolkien's work at the very least reads as much as a moral polemic as a work of entertainment. Arguably I could say Martin's work is similarly a political polemic as much as it is a work of entertainment. Regardless, I see little to no similarities between both books beyond their respective genre, and see little point in comparing to two in any kind of detail. | ||
|
nymeria
United States161 Posts
http://www.makinggameofthrones.com/?cmpid=ABC587 | ||
|
Blackrobe
United States806 Posts
On April 04 2011 10:36 nymeria wrote: the first 15 minutes are out: http://www.makinggameofthrones.com/?cmpid=ABC587 Absolutely amazing. | ||
|
Voros
United States222 Posts
Yes they are of the same very broad and very varied genre. This is largely where the similarities of both books ends. Tolkien's style lies in a far more basic view of a black and white world, where the good guys are pure and defined by old fashioned understandings of masculinity - bravery, loyalty, honour etc - taken from his tradition of reading works like Beowulf and his own generation's sensibilities and Christian prejudices. LOTR very simply is yet another very epic and hopeful clash between good versus evil where good barely prevails in the face of seemingly overwhelmingly evil. In complete contrast Martin's work - from what I have read so far - is of a different moral tradition, far more cynical, Machevillian or Realist if you like. People are defined by ambition and lust of power; ideas of good and evil are laughable as everything becomes shades of grey, the 'good guys' capable of immoral acts like anyone else. Martin's world is a Realist's wet dream, where intrigue, murder, disorder and war define the lives of all - it dismissing the idea of morals and ethics defining life, instinct and ambition rather driving human actions. Very simply, Martin lies in the Realist tradition, containing a cynical view of the power of morals in our world and offering a more authentic and multi-dimensional vision of human life. Tolkien lies more in the Christian tradition, his work more fantastical and less authentic, more hopeful and more a portrait of how he and his generation thought they should be and act like. This is a savvy take. I'd add that Tolkien's devout Christian / pro-Western perspective may be partially personal bias, but it's primarily in service of his goal to create a uniquely English mythology. The Norman Invasion and its disastrous effects on English culture and civilization weighed on his mind, and Tolkien wanted future generations to have the mythologies that other cultures had enjoyed for centuries. That was also a goal for CS Lewis and his Narnia books, though those are more explicitly allegorical than mythological (and far less successful, if you ask me). On the other hand, Martin is a great writer, but his world is purely postmodern and is as cynical as any noir fiction--he's not trying to create mythology that will endure for centuries any more than David Chase was with the Sopranos. Comparing his work to Tolkien's is like pitting High Noon against Unforgiven--same genre, different aims. | ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
On April 04 2011 10:36 nymeria wrote: the first 15 minutes are out: http://www.makinggameofthrones.com/?cmpid=ABC587 that was suprisingly good, some pacing problems but i liked it. | ||
|
Sablar
Sweden880 Posts
I can't decide whether I should watch it or not. Is it worth it? | ||
|
Cedstick
Canada3336 Posts
 | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
| ||
|
Twistacles
Canada1327 Posts
On April 04 2011 07:21 Turenne wrote: LOTR is intended to be a black/white good versus evil tale, not something Machiavellian like A Game Of Thrones. They both come from much different traditions, are written with completely different purposes in mind and written in completely different styles. Compaing the two is largely pointless, and attacking ones authenticity as inferior to the others just seems absurd considering the genre. Moreover, The Silmarillion is brilliant. No it isn't. Tolkein's writing is dreary at best. I think i'd rather kill myself than sit through silmarillion or unfinished tales again. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs Jaedong
WardiTV Weekly
Monday Night Weeklies
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Leta vs Soulkey
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
The PondCast
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
