|
On July 14 2011 02:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 02:05 aphorism wrote:On July 14 2011 00:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Tolkien is not a great writer. Compare him to a really important one, let's say James Joyce, and you realize he brings nothing, absolutely nothing to literature. He is a fine entertainer for teenagers and young adults. That's it. The Lord of the Rings is easily the most important work of fantasy writing in the last century, and it has profoundly influenced the genre, as well as science fiction. I don't think it's fair to dismiss Tolkien as bringing 'absolutely nothing to literature' because other 'important' writers have existed. I don't think we can fairly consider fantasy as anything else but entertainment. Tolkien is certainly influential in that sense that he created a genre, but to the art form that literature is, he doesn't bring much. Tolkien didn't invent anything in terms of how to tell a story, what a novel is about; his writing is not original at all and quite flat, etc etc... Now look at Joyce. Nobody had ever written the way he did. Nobody had used English language that way, nobody had written a novel like Ulysse, which just change the history of literature; and that's what a great writer does, that's what 'bringing something to literature means'. Not inventing 7453786 different creatures and gods and artifact and cities and continents and writing 15 books describing a world made from scratch. That's also great; but that has little to do with literature. tl;dr: The content is very original (he created a world), but that doesn't make him a 'great writer'.
Oh look, it's one of those ivory tower guys who like to talk about authors and books nobody but pseudointellectual wannabe brainiacs read. Keep patting yourself on the back about the ten million ways you can describe dewdrop on a leaf and how incredibly literary it all is.
There's nothing special about wasting a bunch of time rewriting a simple idea but in newfangled retarded and obscure ways which make the work so far removed from the common man that nobody wants to read it except those who want to be able to say they read it. James Joyce in a nutshell. There's your "nobody had used English language in that retarded a way before."
|
On July 14 2011 03:01 Dalguno wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 00:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 13 2011 23:54 Dante08 wrote:On July 13 2011 20:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 13 2011 18:06 minus_human wrote:
Find something better to read. Seriously. I have to agree with that. The first couple of Harry Potter were fine children literature with a lot of imagination, everything else has been plain mediocrity. The movies are all terrible imo. Really really terrible. Same for LOTR. WTF LOTR movies are terrible? Something is wrong with you. Harry Potter maybe, LOTR just no. Yes I think they were very bad movies. I don't like the dialogues which were horrendously cheesy and sounded wrong, the way of filming which is really brutal, in a way vulgar with zooming on the face of everybody who is supposed to feel an emotion; it's all about speed and efficiency, and to be honest I find that brainless. The actors are good but really badly directed, and most of the dramatic stuff really make me laugh out loud. Just think of any Frodo/Sam line, it's so full of good feelings, that's just disgusting. Every time an Elf appears on the screen it looks like some shampoo commercial. White light, stupid high pitched choral music, slow motion. I mean, does Peter Jackson think he will move people with such disgustingly cheap cinema? Apparently yes, and sadly, apparently he is right. The music is heavy and boring. The battles look like some kind of hysterical video game. Compare the nerdy warhammer stuff with the psychological tension in Tolkien's books. Think that during the siege of Minas Tirith, almost nothing happens for like 200 pages. I find that the books have some kind of subtlety, that they manage to really create something. The movies, I found were brainless heroic fantasy, and really really boring as fuck. I found the third one so ridiculous that I never managed to watch it until the end. A friend of mine showed me the last scene with the hobbit jumping in slow motion on their bed. Made me feel sick. Horrible movies, but again, that's just my opinion. The books are really nice. On July 14 2011 00:05 Sm3agol wrote:On July 13 2011 20:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 13 2011 18:06 minus_human wrote:
Find something better to read. Seriously. I have to agree with that. The first couple of Harry Potter were fine children literature with a lot of imagination, everything else has been plain mediocrity. The movies are all terrible imo. Really really terrible. Same for LOTR. Clearly an idiot. Please ignore this guy. There are literally thousands of far more terrible children's books and movies out there. The HP series is certainly not the pinnacle of modern literature, but it is far from terrible, and compared to most of the the other trash that passes for literature these days, I think they are just fine. The movies...basically the same. Not masterpieces of intellect by far, but they tell a compelling coming of age story. And dissing on LoTR, the books or the movies is just stupid. They broke new ground both in literature and in movies. The CGI alone was VERY groundbreaking in the movies, completely disregarding everything else. The books....just lol. If you think they are terrible, then you are just a terrible judge of literature, and need to be ignored. I will make you a favor and ignore the first and the last sentence of your post. You seem to think people who have an other opinion than you are stupid. Well, you know what, then maybe you are. (It's also ironic that you tell someone to ignore me and then spend two paragraphs answering what I said). Tolkien is not a great writer. Compare him to a really important one, let's say James Joyce, and you realize he brings nothing, absolutely nothing to literature. He is a fine entertainer for teenagers and young adults. That's it. Now, don't get me wrong: I like him, I really do. I like LOTR, I loved reading it. But people comparing him to Balzac, Celine or any of these really great artist makes me sad. It's like saying that George Carlin, that I really fucking love, is a great philosopher like Spinoza or Nietzsche. You have people who really believe so. Well, no he is not. That's good pop culture, period. The movies are brainless hysterical blockbusters. If you like it good for you, personally I find that boring and stupid. Same goes with HP movies. I find them really offensive. I don't understand- just because a book is written for entertainment purposes, the author is not a great writer? Who's to say that an author who is not innovative, or a philosopher, or who does not have profound things to say about life makes him have no literary merit? They're different fields of writing. I wouldn't say that innovative writing and great philosophy is inherently of more merit than entertainment. Just my opinion.
Well, it really depends what you value in life. I think entertainment really is less valuable than art and has less to bring to me as an individual, but that's also because I am a musician and have been raised in this idea. I guess also that it's a balance. I wouldn't spend my whole life reading Plato nor would I listen only Beethoven quartets (although I tend to do these days)...
On July 14 2011 02:55 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 02:48 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 14 2011 02:43 Orome wrote:On July 14 2011 00:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 14 2011 00:05 Sm3agol wrote:On July 13 2011 20:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 13 2011 18:06 minus_human wrote:
Find something better to read. Seriously. I have to agree with that. The first couple of Harry Potter were fine children literature with a lot of imagination, everything else has been plain mediocrity. The movies are all terrible imo. Really really terrible. Same for LOTR. Clearly an idiot. Please ignore this guy. There are literally thousands of far more terrible children's books and movies out there. The HP series is certainly not the pinnacle of modern literature, but it is far from terrible, and compared to most of the the other trash that passes for literature these days, I think they are just fine. The movies...basically the same. Not masterpieces of intellect by far, but they tell a compelling coming of age story. And dissing on LoTR, the books or the movies is just stupid. They broke new ground both in literature and in movies. The CGI alone was VERY groundbreaking in the movies, completely disregarding everything else. The books....just lol. If you think they are terrible, then you are just a terrible judge of literature, and need to be ignored. I will make you a favor and ignore the first and the last sentence of your post. You seem to think people who have an other opinion than you are stupid. Well, you know what, then maybe you are. (It's also ironic that you tell someone to ignore me and then spend two paragraphs answering what I said). Tolkien is not a great writer. Compare him to a really important one, let's say James Joyce, and you realize he brings nothing, absolutely nothing to literature. He is a fine entertainer for teenagers and young adults. That's it. Now, don't get me wrong: I like him, I really do. I like LOTR, I loved reading it. But people comparing him to Balzac, Celine or any of these really great artist makes me sad. It's like saying that George Carlin, that I really fucking love, is a great philosopher like Spinoza or Nietzsche. You have people who really believe so. Well, no he is not. That's good pop culture, period. The movies are brainless hysterical blockbusters. If you like it good for you, personally I find that boring and stupid. Same goes with HP movies. I find them really offensive. Why do you feel the need to come into a blog about the end of the HP era and completely shit on it? It doesn't matter if you're right or not, it's not nice. I find K-Pop terrible so I don't post in the K-Pop thread. It's not that hard you know. I like Harry Potter and I said it. I think the first books are really fine and imaginative children books. I don't agree about making Rowling the new Shakespeare. Should everybody who has an objection or a reserve about a topic not post? Man, world would be boring. I don't post in Kpop thread, but if someone says that kpop is the greatest form of music ever, I'll probably answer that I have good reasons to disagree. A discussion without contradiction doesn't really bring much. You and minus_human came into this thread guns blazing when no one ever stated that Harry Potter was the end all be all of literature. Most of us have fond memories of picking up Harry Potter and spending whole days reading the books. We don't need you shitting up a nostalgia thread.
Look, I was having a very fine conversation about art, entertainment and the value of fantasy and you come to tell me I should ignore this thread because I have something which is partially negative to say. Why don't you do the same with my post, and ignore them if you don't like them?
I haven't done any bashing, and I have developed my opinion on every statement I have made. Is that better than turning this thread into a HP praise fest?
|
On July 14 2011 03:04 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 02:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 14 2011 02:05 aphorism wrote:On July 14 2011 00:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Tolkien is not a great writer. Compare him to a really important one, let's say James Joyce, and you realize he brings nothing, absolutely nothing to literature. He is a fine entertainer for teenagers and young adults. That's it. The Lord of the Rings is easily the most important work of fantasy writing in the last century, and it has profoundly influenced the genre, as well as science fiction. I don't think it's fair to dismiss Tolkien as bringing 'absolutely nothing to literature' because other 'important' writers have existed. I don't think we can fairly consider fantasy as anything else but entertainment. Tolkien is certainly influential in that sense that he created a genre, but to the art form that literature is, he doesn't bring much. Tolkien didn't invent anything in terms of how to tell a story, what a novel is about; his writing is not original at all and quite flat, etc etc... Now look at Joyce. Nobody had ever written the way he did. Nobody had used English language that way, nobody had written a novel like Ulysse, which just change the history of literature; and that's what a great writer does, that's what 'bringing something to literature means'. Not inventing 7453786 different creatures and gods and artifact and cities and continents and writing 15 books describing a world made from scratch. That's also great; but that has little to do with literature. tl;dr: The content is very original (he created a world), but that doesn't make him a 'great writer'. Oh look, it's one of those ivory tower guys who like to talk about authors and books nobody but pseudointellectual wannabe brainiacs read. Keep patting yourself on the back about the ten million ways you can describe dewdrop on a leaf and how incredibly literary it all is. There's nothing special about wasting a bunch of time rewriting a simple idea but in newfangled retarded and obscure ways which make the work so far removed from the common man that nobody wants to read it except those who want to be able to say they read it. James Joyce in a nutshell. There's your "nobody had used English language in that retarded a way before."
lol, you know I've been arguing with Biff as well, don't make me go over to his side now. I know you'd like to be an author, but you really don't know what you're talking about here.
|
On July 14 2011 03:08 Orome wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 03:04 StorkHwaiting wrote:On July 14 2011 02:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 14 2011 02:05 aphorism wrote:On July 14 2011 00:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Tolkien is not a great writer. Compare him to a really important one, let's say James Joyce, and you realize he brings nothing, absolutely nothing to literature. He is a fine entertainer for teenagers and young adults. That's it. The Lord of the Rings is easily the most important work of fantasy writing in the last century, and it has profoundly influenced the genre, as well as science fiction. I don't think it's fair to dismiss Tolkien as bringing 'absolutely nothing to literature' because other 'important' writers have existed. I don't think we can fairly consider fantasy as anything else but entertainment. Tolkien is certainly influential in that sense that he created a genre, but to the art form that literature is, he doesn't bring much. Tolkien didn't invent anything in terms of how to tell a story, what a novel is about; his writing is not original at all and quite flat, etc etc... Now look at Joyce. Nobody had ever written the way he did. Nobody had used English language that way, nobody had written a novel like Ulysse, which just change the history of literature; and that's what a great writer does, that's what 'bringing something to literature means'. Not inventing 7453786 different creatures and gods and artifact and cities and continents and writing 15 books describing a world made from scratch. That's also great; but that has little to do with literature. tl;dr: The content is very original (he created a world), but that doesn't make him a 'great writer'. Oh look, it's one of those ivory tower guys who like to talk about authors and books nobody but pseudointellectual wannabe brainiacs read. Keep patting yourself on the back about the ten million ways you can describe dewdrop on a leaf and how incredibly literary it all is. There's nothing special about wasting a bunch of time rewriting a simple idea but in newfangled retarded and obscure ways which make the work so far removed from the common man that nobody wants to read it except those who want to be able to say they read it. James Joyce in a nutshell. There's your "nobody had used English language in that retarded a way before." lol, you know I've been arguing with Biff as well, don't make me go over to his side now.
Would that hurt so much to agree with me?  Even a little bit?
I'm sure we would make a great team.
|
Well, it really depends what you value in life. I think entertainment really is less valuable than art and has less to bring to me as an individual, but that's also because I am a musician and have been raised in this idea. I guess also that it's a balance. I wouldn't spend my whole life reading Plato nor would I listen only Beethoven quartets (although I tend to do these days)...
Ok, I agree with that. Its merit is dependent upon personal preferences, and is relative. I would say to not claim that those authors are superior because of their field, rather reserve that as your opinion. I think that's what everyone's getting riled up about.
|
On July 14 2011 03:16 Dalguno wrote:Show nested quote +Well, it really depends what you value in life. I think entertainment really is less valuable than art and has less to bring to me as an individual, but that's also because I am a musician and have been raised in this idea. I guess also that it's a balance. I wouldn't spend my whole life reading Plato nor would I listen only Beethoven quartets (although I tend to do these days)... Ok, I agree with that. Its merit is dependent upon personal preferences, and is relative. I would say to not claim that those authors are superior because of their field, rather reserve that as your opinion.
Oh, I never claimed that my way of seeing things was the only valuable one. There is no "truth" when we talk about what is important in life. Only point of views. It's just that some are more solid than others.
|
On July 14 2011 03:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 03:16 Dalguno wrote:Well, it really depends what you value in life. I think entertainment really is less valuable than art and has less to bring to me as an individual, but that's also because I am a musician and have been raised in this idea. I guess also that it's a balance. I wouldn't spend my whole life reading Plato nor would I listen only Beethoven quartets (although I tend to do these days)... Ok, I agree with that. Its merit is dependent upon personal preferences, and is relative. I would say to not claim that those authors are superior because of their field, rather reserve that as your opinion. Oh, I never claimed that my way of seeing things was the only valuable one. There is no "truth" when we talk about what is important in life. Only point of views. It's just that some are more solid than others.
Well that's the internet for you. Things you say sound as if they are stated as fact, and people will react with their own opinions accordingly.
|
On July 14 2011 02:05 aphorism wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 00:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Tolkien is not a great writer. Compare him to a really important one, let's say James Joyce, and you realize he brings nothing, absolutely nothing to literature. He is a fine entertainer for teenagers and young adults. That's it. The Lord of the Rings is easily the most important work of fantasy writing in the last century, and it has profoundly influenced the genre, as well as science fiction. I don't think it's fair to dismiss Tolkien as bringing 'absolutely nothing to literature' because other 'important' writers have existed.
But what exactly has he brought to literature? Joyce inspired 20th century modernist literature, he refined the stream of consciousness technique, the external description and forged a new way for the characters and the novel to interact with time, space and the self, etc.
Tolkien, although not a bad writer, writes in a highly canonical borderline-corny-rather-insipid way, there's nothing new literature nor writers have learnt from his work. Sure, the "fantasy" genre fans "have learnt" from him how to submerge in a world 'completely' fabricated out of the mind of the writer (Cervantes has stopped rolling in his grave from all the times he's heard this, he just sulks now), but his use of mythology and ancient rituals pales in comparison to all great writers use of the same tool, Joyce's Ulysses included. So, I agree with the first quoted post, Tolkien brought nothing to literature, nothing one can read in a more refined, pleasant and stimulating way in another author. Helping a genre grow does not mean you bring something new to literature, they are two different things.
As for the H.P series, at least it brought Emma Watson :3
Never read the books so I can't comment on them, but all generations have that book or series of them that mark them for the rest of their life so I don't think it'll be the end for you or any who has read the series, enjoyed it, discussed it, shared it, watched it; the end of a world does not mean the end of the world.
|
On July 14 2011 03:20 Dalguno wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 03:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 14 2011 03:16 Dalguno wrote:Well, it really depends what you value in life. I think entertainment really is less valuable than art and has less to bring to me as an individual, but that's also because I am a musician and have been raised in this idea. I guess also that it's a balance. I wouldn't spend my whole life reading Plato nor would I listen only Beethoven quartets (although I tend to do these days)... Ok, I agree with that. Its merit is dependent upon personal preferences, and is relative. I would say to not claim that those authors are superior because of their field, rather reserve that as your opinion. Oh, I never claimed that my way of seeing things was the only valuable one. There is no "truth" when we talk about what is important in life. Only point of views. It's just that some are more solid than others. Well that's the internet for you. Things you say sound as if they are stated as fact, and people will react with their own opinions accordingly.
Yes. I wonder how people can come to the conclusion that a conception about art or life can be factual though. As long as you don't talk about event, every single thing you say is a point of view.
God the thread was about goddamn Harry Potter. What are we talking about.
|
Why the fuck are you guys talking about art and Joyce in a harry potter thread.
The harry potter books and movies are clearly not works of art. But they got millions of kids into reading (including me) and were meaningful to the OP.
I remember reading the first book over and over again when I was 6. The next two books were also great fun for my 7yr old imagination. Actually being able to read "big" books when I was little gave me the confidence to read other "big" books (lol) at an early age.
Even though I generally dislike the movies and hated the last few books, I'm looking forward to seeing the final movie for nostalgia sake
|
On July 14 2011 03:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 03:08 Orome wrote:On July 14 2011 03:04 StorkHwaiting wrote:On July 14 2011 02:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 14 2011 02:05 aphorism wrote:On July 14 2011 00:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Tolkien is not a great writer. Compare him to a really important one, let's say James Joyce, and you realize he brings nothing, absolutely nothing to literature. He is a fine entertainer for teenagers and young adults. That's it. The Lord of the Rings is easily the most important work of fantasy writing in the last century, and it has profoundly influenced the genre, as well as science fiction. I don't think it's fair to dismiss Tolkien as bringing 'absolutely nothing to literature' because other 'important' writers have existed. I don't think we can fairly consider fantasy as anything else but entertainment. Tolkien is certainly influential in that sense that he created a genre, but to the art form that literature is, he doesn't bring much. Tolkien didn't invent anything in terms of how to tell a story, what a novel is about; his writing is not original at all and quite flat, etc etc... Now look at Joyce. Nobody had ever written the way he did. Nobody had used English language that way, nobody had written a novel like Ulysse, which just change the history of literature; and that's what a great writer does, that's what 'bringing something to literature means'. Not inventing 7453786 different creatures and gods and artifact and cities and continents and writing 15 books describing a world made from scratch. That's also great; but that has little to do with literature. tl;dr: The content is very original (he created a world), but that doesn't make him a 'great writer'. Oh look, it's one of those ivory tower guys who like to talk about authors and books nobody but pseudointellectual wannabe brainiacs read. Keep patting yourself on the back about the ten million ways you can describe dewdrop on a leaf and how incredibly literary it all is. There's nothing special about wasting a bunch of time rewriting a simple idea but in newfangled retarded and obscure ways which make the work so far removed from the common man that nobody wants to read it except those who want to be able to say they read it. James Joyce in a nutshell. There's your "nobody had used English language in that retarded a way before." lol, you know I've been arguing with Biff as well, don't make me go over to his side now. Would that hurt so much to agree with me? Even a little bit? I'm sure we would make a great team.
Hahaha, you know it wouldn't hurt at all, since I largely agree with most of what you've written in this thread. The things I disagreed with were how and where you wrote them.
|
On July 14 2011 03:04 StorkHwaiting wrote:
Oh look, it's one of those ivory tower guys who like to talk about authors and books nobody but pseudointellectual wannabe brainiacs read. Keep patting yourself on the back about the ten million ways you can describe dewdrop on a leaf and how incredibly literary it all is.
There's nothing special about wasting a bunch of time rewriting a simple idea but in newfangled retarded and obscure ways which make the work so far removed from the common man that nobody wants to read it except those who want to be able to say they read it. James Joyce in a nutshell. There's your "nobody had used English language in that retarded a way before."
LOL! Take that, literature grads!
I can't stop laughing, holy shit
|
On July 14 2011 03:39 Orome wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 03:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 14 2011 03:08 Orome wrote:On July 14 2011 03:04 StorkHwaiting wrote:On July 14 2011 02:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 14 2011 02:05 aphorism wrote:On July 14 2011 00:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Tolkien is not a great writer. Compare him to a really important one, let's say James Joyce, and you realize he brings nothing, absolutely nothing to literature. He is a fine entertainer for teenagers and young adults. That's it. The Lord of the Rings is easily the most important work of fantasy writing in the last century, and it has profoundly influenced the genre, as well as science fiction. I don't think it's fair to dismiss Tolkien as bringing 'absolutely nothing to literature' because other 'important' writers have existed. I don't think we can fairly consider fantasy as anything else but entertainment. Tolkien is certainly influential in that sense that he created a genre, but to the art form that literature is, he doesn't bring much. Tolkien didn't invent anything in terms of how to tell a story, what a novel is about; his writing is not original at all and quite flat, etc etc... Now look at Joyce. Nobody had ever written the way he did. Nobody had used English language that way, nobody had written a novel like Ulysse, which just change the history of literature; and that's what a great writer does, that's what 'bringing something to literature means'. Not inventing 7453786 different creatures and gods and artifact and cities and continents and writing 15 books describing a world made from scratch. That's also great; but that has little to do with literature. tl;dr: The content is very original (he created a world), but that doesn't make him a 'great writer'. Oh look, it's one of those ivory tower guys who like to talk about authors and books nobody but pseudointellectual wannabe brainiacs read. Keep patting yourself on the back about the ten million ways you can describe dewdrop on a leaf and how incredibly literary it all is. There's nothing special about wasting a bunch of time rewriting a simple idea but in newfangled retarded and obscure ways which make the work so far removed from the common man that nobody wants to read it except those who want to be able to say they read it. James Joyce in a nutshell. There's your "nobody had used English language in that retarded a way before." lol, you know I've been arguing with Biff as well, don't make me go over to his side now. Would that hurt so much to agree with me? Even a little bit? I'm sure we would make a great team. Hahaha, you know it wouldn't hurt at all, since I largely agree with most of what you've written in this thread. The things I disagreed with were how and where you wrote them.
Fighting people who, in fact, agree with me. History of my life.
Maybe I do something wrong now that I think about it.
On July 14 2011 03:41 bonifaceviii wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 03:04 StorkHwaiting wrote:
Oh look, it's one of those ivory tower guys who like to talk about authors and books nobody but pseudointellectual wannabe brainiacs read. Keep patting yourself on the back about the ten million ways you can describe dewdrop on a leaf and how incredibly literary it all is.
There's nothing special about wasting a bunch of time rewriting a simple idea but in newfangled retarded and obscure ways which make the work so far removed from the common man that nobody wants to read it except those who want to be able to say they read it. James Joyce in a nutshell. There's your "nobody had used English language in that retarded a way before." LOL! Take that, literature grads! I can't stop laughing, holy shit
Yes, very funny. That's called obscurantism.
|
Lol, people with superiority complexes about how something they like is inherently "better" than things that others like really need to grow up.
I've never really been into literature (aside from HP, lol), but I used to think that I was better than others because I liked classical music and detested almost all mainstream music. Then I actually took the time to listen to some more mainstream stuff and talk about it with friends who did like it, and I realized that mainstream music can be pretty damn cool. I realized that some of it just has worth in entertainment value or even just being ridiculous (eg Ke$ha). It's just different and serves a different function; it's not necessarily "worse." It's just stupid to act like you can ever really assign an objective "good" or "bad" definition to arts.
There are still plenty of art forms that don't really tickle my fancy. Rap pops into my mind as an example. But I've opened my mind and realized how arrogant and groundless it is to bash on other people because of what music they like to listen to or what books they like to read or what art they like to look at, and I've realized what an arrogant prick I was for doing so when I was younger. What is it that you hope to accomplish with such things? Answer: Nothing but to feed your superiority complex. Get over yourselves.
|
I watched the final movie. I really liked how they changed the action described in the book to make it all dramatic :p. It is all over now. I will be looking out for any future movies the three main actors will appear in.
|
On July 14 2011 03:43 matjlav wrote:
Lol, people with superiority complexes about how something they like is inherently "better" than things that others like really need to grow up.
I've never really been into literature (aside from HP, lol), but I used to think that I was better than others because I liked classical music and detested almost all mainstream music. Then I actually took the time to listen to some and talk about it with people who did like it, and I realized that mainstream music can be pretty damn cool. I realized that some of it just has worth in entertainment value or even just being ridiculous (eg Ke$ha), but that it's just different, not necessarily "worse." It's just stupid to act like you can ever really assign an objective "good" or "bad" definition to arts.
There are still plenty of art forms that don't really tickle my fancy. Rap pops into my mind as an example. But I've opened my mind and realized how arrogant and groundless it is to bash on other people because of what music they like to listen to or what books they like to read or what art they like to look at, and I've realized what an arrogant prick I was for doing so when I was younger. What is it that you hope to accomplish with such things? Answer: Nothing but to feed your superiority complex. Get over yourselves.
Let me find that post about this precise problem... Here it is:
On 1757 David Hume wrote:
#7. There is a species of philosophy, which cuts off all hopes of success in such an attempt, and represents the impossibility of ever attaining any standard of taste. The difference, it is said, is very wide between judgment and sentiment. All sentiment is right; because sentiment has a reference to nothing beyond itself, and is always real, wherever a man is conscious of it. But all determinations of the understanding are not right; because they have a reference to something beyond themselves, to wit, real matter of fact; and are not always conformable to that standard. Among a thousand different opinions which different men may entertain of the same subject, there is one, and but one, that is just and true; and the only difficulty is to fix and ascertain it. On the contrary, a thousand different sentiments, excited by the same object, are all right: Because no sentiment represents what is really in the object. It only marks a certain conformity or relation between the object and the organs or faculties of the mind; and if that conformity did not really exist, the sentiment could never possibly have being. Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty. One person may even perceive deformity, where another is sensible of beauty; and every individual ought to acquiesce in his own sentiment, without pretending to regulate those of others. To seek in the real beauty, or real deformity, is as fruitless an enquiry, as to pretend to ascertain the real sweet or real bitter. According to the disposition of the organs, the same object may be both sweet and bitter; and the proverb has justly determined it to be fruitless to dispute concerning tastes. It is very natural, and even quite necessary to extend this axiom to mental, as well as bodily taste; and thus common sense, which is so often at variance with philosophy, especially with the skeptical kind, is found, in one instance at least, to agree in pronouncing the same decision.
#8 But though this axiom, by passing into a proverb, seems to have attained the sanction of common sense; there is certainly a species of common sense which opposes it, at least serves to modify and restrain it. Whoever would assert an equality of genius and elegance between OGILBY and MILTON, or BUNYAN and ADDISON, would be thought to defend no less an extravagance, than if he had maintained a mole-hill to be as high as TENERIFFE, or a pond as extensive as the ocean. Though there may be found persons, who give the preference to the former authors; no one pays attention to such a taste; and we pronounce without scruple the sentiment of these pretended critics to be absurd and ridiculous. The principle of the natural equality of tastes is then totally forgot, and while we admit it on some occasions, where the objects seem near an equality, it appears an extravagant paradox, or rather a palpable absurdity, where objects so disproportioned are compared together.
Guess that's just your opinion. Here is the full essay if you are interested:
http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361r15.html
|
On July 14 2011 03:08 Orome wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 03:04 StorkHwaiting wrote:On July 14 2011 02:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 14 2011 02:05 aphorism wrote:On July 14 2011 00:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Tolkien is not a great writer. Compare him to a really important one, let's say James Joyce, and you realize he brings nothing, absolutely nothing to literature. He is a fine entertainer for teenagers and young adults. That's it. The Lord of the Rings is easily the most important work of fantasy writing in the last century, and it has profoundly influenced the genre, as well as science fiction. I don't think it's fair to dismiss Tolkien as bringing 'absolutely nothing to literature' because other 'important' writers have existed. I don't think we can fairly consider fantasy as anything else but entertainment. Tolkien is certainly influential in that sense that he created a genre, but to the art form that literature is, he doesn't bring much. Tolkien didn't invent anything in terms of how to tell a story, what a novel is about; his writing is not original at all and quite flat, etc etc... Now look at Joyce. Nobody had ever written the way he did. Nobody had used English language that way, nobody had written a novel like Ulysse, which just change the history of literature; and that's what a great writer does, that's what 'bringing something to literature means'. Not inventing 7453786 different creatures and gods and artifact and cities and continents and writing 15 books describing a world made from scratch. That's also great; but that has little to do with literature. tl;dr: The content is very original (he created a world), but that doesn't make him a 'great writer'. Oh look, it's one of those ivory tower guys who like to talk about authors and books nobody but pseudointellectual wannabe brainiacs read. Keep patting yourself on the back about the ten million ways you can describe dewdrop on a leaf and how incredibly literary it all is. There's nothing special about wasting a bunch of time rewriting a simple idea but in newfangled retarded and obscure ways which make the work so far removed from the common man that nobody wants to read it except those who want to be able to say they read it. James Joyce in a nutshell. There's your "nobody had used English language in that retarded a way before." lol, you know I've been arguing with Biff as well, don't make me go over to his side now. I know you'd like to be an author, but you really don't know what you're talking about here.
Could care less what side you're on. I know what I'm talking about. And other people know what I'm talking about. Probably a lot more people than would understand wtf James Joyce was ever talking about.
|
On July 14 2011 03:48 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 03:43 matjlav wrote:
Lol, people with superiority complexes about how something they like is inherently "better" than things that others like really need to grow up.
I've never really been into literature (aside from HP, lol), but I used to think that I was better than others because I liked classical music and detested almost all mainstream music. Then I actually took the time to listen to some and talk about it with people who did like it, and I realized that mainstream music can be pretty damn cool. I realized that some of it just has worth in entertainment value or even just being ridiculous (eg Ke$ha), but that it's just different, not necessarily "worse." It's just stupid to act like you can ever really assign an objective "good" or "bad" definition to arts.
There are still plenty of art forms that don't really tickle my fancy. Rap pops into my mind as an example. But I've opened my mind and realized how arrogant and groundless it is to bash on other people because of what music they like to listen to or what books they like to read or what art they like to look at, and I've realized what an arrogant prick I was for doing so when I was younger. What is it that you hope to accomplish with such things? Answer: Nothing but to feed your superiority complex. Get over yourselves. Let me find that post about this precise problem... Here it is: Show nested quote +On 1757 David Hume wrote:
#7. There is a species of philosophy, which cuts off all hopes of success in such an attempt, and represents the impossibility of ever attaining any standard of taste. The difference, it is said, is very wide between judgment and sentiment. All sentiment is right; because sentiment has a reference to nothing beyond itself, and is always real, wherever a man is conscious of it. But all determinations of the understanding are not right; because they have a reference to something beyond themselves, to wit, real matter of fact; and are not always conformable to that standard. Among a thousand different opinions which different men may entertain of the same subject, there is one, and but one, that is just and true; and the only difficulty is to fix and ascertain it. On the contrary, a thousand different sentiments, excited by the same object, are all right: Because no sentiment represents what is really in the object. It only marks a certain conformity or relation between the object and the organs or faculties of the mind; and if that conformity did not really exist, the sentiment could never possibly have being. Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty. One person may even perceive deformity, where another is sensible of beauty; and every individual ought to acquiesce in his own sentiment, without pretending to regulate those of others. To seek in the real beauty, or real deformity, is as fruitless an enquiry, as to pretend to ascertain the real sweet or real bitter. According to the disposition of the organs, the same object may be both sweet and bitter; and the proverb has justly determined it to be fruitless to dispute concerning tastes. It is very natural, and even quite necessary to extend this axiom to mental, as well as bodily taste; and thus common sense, which is so often at variance with philosophy, especially with the skeptical kind, is found, in one instance at least, to agree in pronouncing the same decision.
#8 But though this axiom, by passing into a proverb, seems to have attained the sanction of common sense; there is certainly a species of common sense which opposes it, at least serves to modify and restrain it. Whoever would assert an equality of genius and elegance between OGILBY and MILTON, or BUNYAN and ADDISON, would be thought to defend no less an extravagance, than if he had maintained a mole-hill to be as high as TENERIFFE, or a pond as extensive as the ocean. Though there may be found persons, who give the preference to the former authors; no one pays attention to such a taste; and we pronounce without scruple the sentiment of these pretended critics to be absurd and ridiculous. The principle of the natural equality of tastes is then totally forgot, and while we admit it on some occasions, where the objects seem near an equality, it appears an extravagant paradox, or rather a palpable absurdity, where objects so disproportioned are compared together. Guess that's just your opinion. Here is the full essay if you are interested: http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361r15.html
I will concede that my statement that art is never at all objectively "good" or "bad" is not entirely correct. It can be stated fairly objectively, for instance, that The King's Speech is a better movie than The Last Airbender. (You will have to forgive my inability to think of good literary examples since I don't read much, as previously stated.)
I suppose my issue is more that comparing JK Rowling and James Joyce is really an apples-and-oranges comparison. It's simply silly to say that JK Rowling "has less talent" or "is a worse writer" since they both have astounding accomplishments as far as their influence on the literary world goes. JK Rowling may not be able to write in a way that astounds academics like James Joyce, but she was able to get an entire generation of young adults back into reading. That takes talent no matter how you look at it, although a different kind of talent from what James Joyce had.
Edit: Though I see that you've already addressed this by saying that you think that the more "artistic" forms of art bring more value to your life than the "entertainment" forms of art. I could agree with that. At the same time, it's silly to expect everyone to be able to develop an appreciation for James Joyce. I don't think I ever could, for instance. I've just never been able to experience the joy that some people derive from "fine literature," though I can understand why it takes skill.
Similarly, I just enjoy "fine music" in addition to my ability to understand why it takes skill to write/perform such music. I can't really explain to you why. I just enjoy listening to it, and it gives me a feeling that I simply don't derive from fine art or literature. On the same token, I understand why other people might not enjoy Bach. Some forms of art just speak to certain people, and don't speak to other people. That's why I find it excessively futile to go through the endeavor of trying to convert all HP readers to James Joyce readers.
|
Everything has its own era, like Starwars. It was about time for the Harry Potter series to die. Seriously, for how long has it been around already?
|
On July 14 2011 03:59 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 03:08 Orome wrote:On July 14 2011 03:04 StorkHwaiting wrote:On July 14 2011 02:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 14 2011 02:05 aphorism wrote:On July 14 2011 00:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Tolkien is not a great writer. Compare him to a really important one, let's say James Joyce, and you realize he brings nothing, absolutely nothing to literature. He is a fine entertainer for teenagers and young adults. That's it. The Lord of the Rings is easily the most important work of fantasy writing in the last century, and it has profoundly influenced the genre, as well as science fiction. I don't think it's fair to dismiss Tolkien as bringing 'absolutely nothing to literature' because other 'important' writers have existed. I don't think we can fairly consider fantasy as anything else but entertainment. Tolkien is certainly influential in that sense that he created a genre, but to the art form that literature is, he doesn't bring much. Tolkien didn't invent anything in terms of how to tell a story, what a novel is about; his writing is not original at all and quite flat, etc etc... Now look at Joyce. Nobody had ever written the way he did. Nobody had used English language that way, nobody had written a novel like Ulysse, which just change the history of literature; and that's what a great writer does, that's what 'bringing something to literature means'. Not inventing 7453786 different creatures and gods and artifact and cities and continents and writing 15 books describing a world made from scratch. That's also great; but that has little to do with literature. tl;dr: The content is very original (he created a world), but that doesn't make him a 'great writer'. Oh look, it's one of those ivory tower guys who like to talk about authors and books nobody but pseudointellectual wannabe brainiacs read. Keep patting yourself on the back about the ten million ways you can describe dewdrop on a leaf and how incredibly literary it all is. There's nothing special about wasting a bunch of time rewriting a simple idea but in newfangled retarded and obscure ways which make the work so far removed from the common man that nobody wants to read it except those who want to be able to say they read it. James Joyce in a nutshell. There's your "nobody had used English language in that retarded a way before." lol, you know I've been arguing with Biff as well, don't make me go over to his side now. I know you'd like to be an author, but you really don't know what you're talking about here. Could care less what side you're on. I know what I'm talking about. And other people know what I'm talking about. Probably a lot more people than would understand wtf James Joyce was ever talking about.
I don't want to derail this thread further, it should be about Harry Potter. I would suggest you give Tolstoy's Anna Karenina or War and Peace a try though. If you can tell me with a straight face afterwards that you still think Harry Potter is as good or better, well... I guess we'll just have to disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
