|
On July 14 2011 04:35 Orome wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 03:59 StorkHwaiting 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. 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.
I've read War and Peace, and a dozen other classics... at the end of the day you have to know why you are reading.
Why are you reading a classic? I read War and Peace for entertainment. I was entertained by the political, military, and interpersonal events and transactions that occurred throughout the book. But I don't delude myself into thinking that there is some higher purpose to reading it than for entertainment - whatever form that entertainment takes. Which is why I stopped reading War and Peace at about 85% through when I got bored by a long stretch where the daughters went to some hunting lodge or something. (its been 10 years, I don't quite remember well)
If you are entertained by Harry Potter - great. Go enjoy yourself. If you are reading or watching for some other reason, such as to appreciate creative or artistic use of English, that's fine as well. What I don't understand is taking the reason you enjoy reading - lets say artistic enjoyment - and applying that to literature that people enjoy for different purposes. Why would you join a thread about a book that is meant to be enjoyed for its story, and start shitting on it for not being "art" and how it isn't "good writing" because it didn't meet some fucked up standards you set based on a few classics you read.
When someone says something like, "Harry Potter is shitty literature because it didn't revolutionize English writing", I can only shake my head because you are missing the point. Harry Potter wasn't written to change literature - the woman was on welfare when she wrote the first book for Christs sake, the circumstances seem to suggest she was just trying to get anything she could on the bookshelves. The point was to tell an entertaining story - and it achieved that end 100%. So it was good literature - at least in the conventional, "unrefined" (*cough* snob) use of the word good. So why shit on someone's nostalgia thread when they enjoyed it for the reason it was meant to be enjoyed, just because it wasn't like Joyce?
So lets can all the pretentiousness. I like that Biff has at least somewhat tried to pull back his comments in the last couple pages, re-framing his aggressive comments as his "opinion" and narrowing the scope significantly, but lets not delude ourselves here. He came into this thread to shit on other people and make himself feel superior. Comments like his first few are so over the top, largely non-nonsensical given what Harry Potter is about, and inappropriate for a thread like this. Not only that, but his follow up comments were just plain disingenuous as he tries to shit on the people who appropriately pointed out how absurd he was being. He is being a pure snob, and Stork's comment seems justified in that context - he pretty much described how I was feeling about Biff as well.
|
If you go back a few pages, you'll see that's exactly what I was arguing, so I'm not sure why you're quoting me. The only reason I posted again was to reply to Stork who went to the other extreme of trying to suggest classical literature was only for pretentious snobs.
|
On July 14 2011 05:32 Orome wrote:
If you go back a few pages, you'll see that's exactly what I was arguing, so I'm not sure why you're quoting me. The only reason I posted again was to reply to Stork who went to the other extreme of trying to suggest classical literature was only for pretentious snobs.
I feel that Stork's comment was justified in the context of the previous comments of Biff.
|
On July 14 2011 04:35 Orome wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 03:59 StorkHwaiting 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. 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.
I've read War and Peace. It suffers lots of bloatage, needlessly detailed battle scenes, superfluous characters, rather stereotypical romances, some shallow but loveable main characters (like Natasha), some very prosaic dialogues, as well as rather predictable plot twists. The whole long torturous scenes of Andrei dying while Natasha nurses him was painfully obvious in its conclusion, especially knowing Tolstoy and literature of that period in general.
Yet that being said, War and Peace is an infinitely superior bildungsroman than HP. That's without question.
My question to you is what the hell does Tolstoy have to do with James Joyce or the so-called literary evolution of the language that Biff spoke of? I'm pretty sure Tolstoy wasn't deep into semiotics or invested much time into reinventing grammar. especially considering he wrote in fking Russian not English. Further, he incorporated innumerable tropes from popular fiction of his time and did not set out to polish slipstream or any number of other ridiculous notions of redefining narrative fiction.
In short, Tolstoy has absolutely nothing to do with the debate Biff is trying to have. Just as mentioning Dumas would be asinine in this context. Just because they're respected as classics doesn't make them suddenly part of the same canon as these so called "literary" authors. Dickens is a classic, but his writing was pretty atrocious and he didn't try to reinvent English. In fact his shit was episodic because that's how he made his bread.
I suggest you comprehend what the debate actually is before you start recommending painfully cliche "literary works" and act as though you're dropping a gem on em.
Edit: And yes, my comment was made in direct response to Biff. I'd never say something like that towards "literary work" unprovoked. It was simply meant as satire with a seed of truth to show how ridiculous Biff's position was.
|
Alright I'm going to let this go. Your first paragraph is just, uh, funny and suggesting I don't understand what we're talking about is a little arrogant for someone who came into this thread to teach someone else not to be pretentious, but oh well. It appears I misunderstood your intentions somewhat and your edit's cleared that up (just as Biff was referring to several classical authors with very different styles earlier, I thought your criticism was towards them as a whole), so let's leave this be.
|
As an English major, lover of literature, and aspiring writer, seeing this many people absolutely trash an author and her work is sickening.
I read the first four books, and saw the first three movies. The stories were taking turns I did not enjoy, so I stopped reading. Still, JK is a great story-teller. She is a mediocre writer (in the field of professional publishing), but she can spin the hell out of the story, and there is nothing wrong with that. Obviously, better books have been written, and greater stories have been told. Yet, JK's work can still be enjoyed. It isn't much more complicated than that. She tells a good story.
I've spent over a decade studying literature extensively and plan to do it for the rest of my life. I would not recommend the Harry Potter series to someone looking to delve into complex literary discussion. There is a reason why works like Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus is constantly being taught: it asks complicated questions of the reader, ones that delve into the very core of our existence. I spent over 100 hours researching the work, reading it, analyzing, and researching more, all in order to attend a conference discussion some new critiques of the work, and still felt embarrassed when I got up to give my speech in front of so many people who've devoted huge portions of their lives to studying it. I am involved in such things because they are my passion. If someone were to say "Mary Shelley is a shit writer" when I made a thread about the anniversary of her work (or death, etc.), I'd be angered as well. If I made a thread asking for the opinions of others about the basic questions of her work (for instance, sexuality and Dr. Frankenstein, the mother-child tie, the nightmare scene, the implications of the Creature learning to speak, etc.) and people stated that there is no merit to such discussions and offered up reasons why, I'd be excited, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I WANTED.
Why do people feel the need to say "X book" or "X author is better"? Enjoy the work, or don't. Life is too short to be so full of hate. There is certainly a time and place to offer your critique. This doesn't really seem to be the appropriate place.
I was already an adult before I read the books, so I did not grow up with them like many others. Still, they were fun reads and I was sucked into the world. The writing was simplistic and fit the story. Her skill, as a writer, is definitely debatable, but that wasn't the purpose of this thread. It was about something much more important to the lives of those involved.
|
On July 14 2011 03:37 blankspace wrote: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 
Yep. Harry Potter is probably the longest book I'd read back then and being able to finish it definitely helped me read more. I also see the movies just because of how much I enjoyed the books.
I don't get why there's an argument in this thread. I don't think anyone claimed that Harry Potter is a literary classic or should be compared to the literary classics at all.
Bottomline is: it's an important part for some of our childhoods, so it's sad to see it finally finish.
|
On July 14 2011 05:58 Orome wrote:
Alright I'm going to let this go. Your first paragraph is just, uh, funny and suggesting I don't understand what we're talking about is a little arrogant for someone who came into this thread to teach someone else not to be pretentious, but oh well. It appears I misunderstood your intentions somewhat and your edit's cleared that up (just as Biff was referring to several classical authors with very different styles earlier, I thought your criticism was towards them as a whole), so let's leave this be.
Yes because of course Tolstoy is beyond all reproach LOL.
And Biff made it very clear what his argument was when he said this:
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.
He is making the assertion that great "literature" involves revolutionary writing and innovation of the language. Inventing an entirely new world, history, people, languages, etc has little to do with literature. So what Biff has basically done is call the entire genre of fantasy drivel, while putting Joyce specifically on a pedestal for his use of language and creatively bad grammar.
You then decided to jump in and respond to my comment to him, which then includes you in said context. The onus is on you to understand what the debate is before jumping into it. It was not about a variety of famous classical writers, it was about the very specific criteria Biff seems to have for what constitutes "literature."
|
On July 14 2011 06:04 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 05:58 Orome wrote:
Alright I'm going to let this go. Your first paragraph is just, uh, funny and suggesting I don't understand what we're talking about is a little arrogant for someone who came into this thread to teach someone else not to be pretentious, but oh well. It appears I misunderstood your intentions somewhat and your edit's cleared that up (just as Biff was referring to several classical authors with very different styles earlier, I thought your criticism was towards them as a whole), so let's leave this be. Yes because of course Tolstoy is beyond all reproach LOL. And Biff made it very clear what his argument was when he said this:
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.He is making the assertion that great "literature" involves revolutionary writing and innovation of the language. Inventing an entirely new world, history, people, languages, etc has little to do with literature. So what Biff has basically done is call the entire genre of fantasy drivel, while putting Joyce specifically on a pedestal for his use of language and creatively bad grammar. You then decided to jump in and respond to my comment to him, which then includes you in said context. The onus is on you to understand what the debate is before jumping into it. It was not about a variety of famous classical writers, it was about the very specific criteria Biff seems to have for what constitutes "literature."
Since you talk about me, I'll try to explain you and then I leave this thread because it's becoming annoying.
Let's take some of the greatest composers in history: Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Gluck, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Liszt, Chopin, Berlioz, Fauré, Franck, Debussy, Ravel, Sibelius, Bruckner, Mahler, Wagner, Satie, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Berg, Webern, Ligeti, Xenakis, Stockhausen, Boulez.
That's quite broad, it covers all history of western music for the past 3 centuries, and all genres.
Not a single one of them didn't:
1. Have a completely unique and original language, and by that I mean: wrote a way nobody had ever done before.
2. Transformed a way or another history of music. Broke boundaries; transformed the rules, introduced something absolutely new.
Not ONE of them.
Now, ask yourself a second question: why does nobody write Beethovenian music today? Why didn't we have 20 great Beethovenian composers, not breaking boundaries, not inventing something new, not bringing anything original, just doing good music in Beethoven style? That would be cool, we would have 200 great Beethoven symphonies right? We would still be making Beethoven today.
Well the answer is: these 20 composers existed. Hummel, for example. And they were all horrible. I know personally people who can write in the style of every single composers that I mentioned before. You ask them "write me some Stravinsky", they do. Without a mistake, and it sounds like Stravinsky. That doesn't make them being great composers, and something will always lack when they imitate Stravinsky, no matter how genius they are.
You will tell me: but then is it enough to make something new so that it's good? The answer is no, but the opposite is true: every great work of art does bring something new.
What Rowling is doing is the same than writing Brahms erzatz today.
That's fine, that's pleasing to read, but that's not great art. Joyce, in an other hand doesn't write with "bad grammar". He transforms his material, namely, English language, because he needs too, exactly the same way that Beethoven needed to break classical rules, and had twelve million reactionary critics saying he was writing bad music.
Now, if you answer this, drop your aggressive tone, I am sick of it.
|
On July 14 2011 07:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Since you talk about me, I'll try to explain you and then I leave this thread because it's becoming annoying.
Let's take some of the greatest composers in history: Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Gluck, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Liszt, Chopin, Berlioz, Fauré, Franck, Debussy, Ravel, Sibelius, Bruckner, Mahler, Wagner, Satie, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Berg, Webern, Ligeti, Xenakis, Stockhausen, Boulez.
That's quite broad, it covers all history of western music for the past 3 centuries, and all genres.
Not a single one of them didn't:
1. Have a completely unique and original language, and by that I mean: wrote a way nobody had ever done before.
2. Transformed a way or another history of music. Broke boundaries; transformed the rules, introduced something absolutely new.
Not ONE of them.
Now, ask yourself a second question: why does nobody write Beethovenian music today? Why didn't we have 20 great Beethovenian composers, not breaking boundaries, not inventing something new, not bringing anything original, just doing good music in Beethoven style? That would be cool, we would have 200 great Beethoven symphonies right? We would still be making Beethoven today.
Well the answer is: these 20 composers existed. Hummel, for example. And they were all horrible. I know personally people who can write in the style of every single composers that I mentioned before. You ask them "write me some Stravinsky", they do. Without a mistake, and it sounds like Stravinsky. That doesn't make them being great composers, and something will always lack when they imitate Stravinsky, no matter how genius they are.
You will tell me: but then is it enough to make something new so that it's good? The answer is no, but the opposite is true: every great work of art does bring something new.
What Rowling is doing is the same than writing Brahms erzatz today.
That's fine, that's pleasing to read, but that's not great art. Joyce, in an other hand doesn't write with "bad grammar". He transforms his material, namely, English language, because he needs too, exactly the same way that Beethoven needed to break classical rules, and had twelve million reactionary critics saying he was writing bad music.
Now, if you answer this, drop your aggressive tone, I am sick of it.
I've lost all track of this debate, so I'll just say a few very self-evident things:
- Your definition of great art != another person's definition of great art.
- Your definition of literature != another person's definition of literature.
|
lol Biff, projecting your own personal tastes onto others adds absolutely nothing.
-Some guy says he likes lotr
-You say lotr sucks and make some sweeping statements about literature and art, "Nietzsche > George Carlin" etc, immediately derailing the thread.
You just end up sounding elitist and people are even less likely to read the classics you adore.
|
As a more science-oriented person I've never quite been able to understand literary analysis. What is it aiming at? It's clearly not studying what makes a story entertaining, as we see in this discussion. When you say that an author adds to the tools of telling a story... adds what, exactly?
Almost all academic discussion of literature that I've seen basically swerves into a roundabout discussion of philosophy/sociology/psychology. It's like you take those fields, and you encode them in an invented puzzle language, and then you have fun trying to decode it again. Why couldn't it have been stated cleanly in the first place? If the reason a classic is a classic is that it teaches you about the evils of greed (for example), why couldn't that have been an essay?
It seems to me that a lot of literature is over-extended allegory. It's like you take a satire piece a la A Modest Proposal, and then you extend it and confuse it to novel length. Why? I feel like there are two reasons to tell a story: one is for entertainment, in which case it should be as pleasing as possible; the other is for sending a message, in which case the message should be as clear as possible - yet much of literature is wrapped in several layers of obfuscation.
I don't pretend to be able to say that such a large and historic field is worthless, by the way; I'm just throwing it out there as a question.
|
You can't expect every single person in the world to really listen and not hear music, and really read and not just look. Nor is all art meant to shift paradigms and be a work with academic and creative depth. Sometimes it's simply meant to be entertainment, and one shouldn't lambast another because they enjoy something simply because it is fun (regardless of how shallow and/or trite it may be). You can't really expect everyone to care.
|
On July 14 2011 08:22 Redmark wrote:
As a more science-oriented person I've never quite been able to understand literary analysis. What is it aiming at? It's clearly not studying what makes a story entertaining, as we see in this discussion. When you say that an author adds to the tools of telling a story... adds what, exactly?
Almost all academic discussion of literature that I've seen basically swerves into a roundabout discussion of philosophy/sociology/psychology. It's like you take those fields, and you encode them in an invented puzzle language, and then you have fun trying to decode it again. Why couldn't it have been stated cleanly in the first place? If the reason a classic is a classic is that it teaches you about the evils of greed (for example), why couldn't that have been an essay?
It seems to me that a lot of literature is over-extended allegory. It's like you take a satire piece a la A Modest Proposal, and then you extend it and confuse it to novel length. Why? I feel like there are two reasons to tell a story: one is for entertainment, in which case it should be as pleasing as possible; the other is for sending a message, in which case the message should be as clear as possible - yet much of literature is wrapped in several layers of obfuscation.
I don't pretend to be able to say that such a large and historic field is worthless, by the way; I'm just throwing it out there as a question.
Well I'm definitely no expert but here are my thoughts:
People often say that you can't understand somethings until you experience them. Literature tries to capture the experience of the author and convey it to the reader. It can't be diluted to some bullet points.
In the example of say, classical music, people listen to it because it's pleasing and lifts the senses. Of course, people can break music down and analyze it's structure or details or examine the historical context. However, that's hardly the reason why it is written. Also, Beethoven could either say "I feel angry and distressed" or he could write epic pieces expressing himself through sound. Obviously the latter is more moving.
Moreover, you can't really just split it into "entertainment vs message," things aren't so cut and dried.
|
On July 14 2011 08:57 blankspace wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 08:22 Redmark wrote:
As a more science-oriented person I've never quite been able to understand literary analysis. What is it aiming at? It's clearly not studying what makes a story entertaining, as we see in this discussion. When you say that an author adds to the tools of telling a story... adds what, exactly?
Almost all academic discussion of literature that I've seen basically swerves into a roundabout discussion of philosophy/sociology/psychology. It's like you take those fields, and you encode them in an invented puzzle language, and then you have fun trying to decode it again. Why couldn't it have been stated cleanly in the first place? If the reason a classic is a classic is that it teaches you about the evils of greed (for example), why couldn't that have been an essay?
It seems to me that a lot of literature is over-extended allegory. It's like you take a satire piece a la A Modest Proposal, and then you extend it and confuse it to novel length. Why? I feel like there are two reasons to tell a story: one is for entertainment, in which case it should be as pleasing as possible; the other is for sending a message, in which case the message should be as clear as possible - yet much of literature is wrapped in several layers of obfuscation.
I don't pretend to be able to say that such a large and historic field is worthless, by the way; I'm just throwing it out there as a question. Well I'm definitely no expert but here are my thoughts: People often say that you can't understand somethings until you experience them. Literature tries to capture the experience of the author and convey it to the reader. It can't be diluted to some bullet points. In the example of say, classical music, people listen to it because it's pleasing and lifts the senses. Of course, people can break music down and analyze it's structure or details or examine the historical context. However, that's hardly the reason why it is written. Also, Beethoven could either say "I feel angry and distressed" or he could write epic pieces expressing himself through sound. Obviously the latter is more moving. Moreover, you can't really just split it into "entertainment vs message," things aren't so cut and dried.
In contrast to other music which people listen to because it's displeasing and makes you feel down? It's not like the only innovation in music and literature happened 50+ years ago and yet those are always the only ones that are brought up in these "art" discussions.
I, too, don't really understand why you have to analyze books/movies/music and yet we had to do it a bunch in school.
To me, a book is either good/bad or mediocre and it's purely based off the entertainment value. Sure, you can find some kind of message in books (and this can add immensely to the entertainment value.´) mostly but it so often varies from person to person that it, to me, becomes kind of pointless to have big discussions about it other than getting to know how people think (and not what they think about the book, just how they think).
Usually just seems to be som blibber blabber about how the writer wrote this little sentence which kind of hints at these things and they in combination with these other things hinted at in these other sentences give us this message.
|
United States10774 Posts
It feels weird and...sad that it's coming to an end. A lot of fond memories of sneak-reading Harry Potter during class, studying English with them after moving to the U.S., and being mad that Emma Watson went to Brown. No more waiting for the next one to come out. Thank you Harry Potter for making reading an enjoyable activity as a kid.
|
I liked the HP books, but I don't really feel the same way you do with it ending. I mean, technically, it's my generation as well, but I honestly don't feel its impact as others do. In the end, it was just another series to me along with Boxcar Children, Artemis Fowl, etc.
I was never a reader because of HP. I was a reader because I had to learn English. I was a reader because I forced myself to borrow 14 books every three weeks. I was a reader because I had to cure my boredom without television or computers. HP didn't get me started with classics; Poe and Salinger did that. Maybe that's why I don't feel the impact of HP ending. I'm more excited about Dark Knight Rises than HP7.5. But hey, to each their own.
And StorkHwaiting, I must disagree on Joyce. The way he writes isn't confusing. It's very straightforward and concise. His writing is also so refined. I love his narrative style. God it's great. He has beautiful sentences too. I can also see his influence on other writers like Fitzgerald and Hemingway.
|
On July 14 2011 00:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
Guess mainstream forms of entertainment are not suitable for a profound person like you then.
|
On July 14 2011 13:56 ghrur wrote:
I liked the HP books, but I don't really feel the same way you do with it ending. I mean, technically, it's my generation as well, but I honestly don't feel its impact as others do. In the end, it was just another series to me along with Boxcar Children, Artemis Fowl, etc.
I was never a reader because of HP. I was a reader because I had to learn English. I was a reader because I forced myself to borrow 14 books every three weeks. I was a reader because I had to cure my boredom without television or computers. HP didn't get me started with classics; Poe and Salinger did that. Maybe that's why I don't feel the impact of HP ending. I'm more excited about Dark Knight Rises than HP7.5. But hey, to each their own.
And StorkHwaiting, I must disagree on Joyce. The way he writes isn't confusing. It's very straightforward and concise. His writing is also so refined. I love his narrative style. God it's great. He has beautiful sentences too. I can also see his influence on other writers like Fitzgerald and Hemingway.
You read Finnegan's Wake?
|
On July 14 2011 14:10 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 13:56 ghrur wrote:
I liked the HP books, but I don't really feel the same way you do with it ending. I mean, technically, it's my generation as well, but I honestly don't feel its impact as others do. In the end, it was just another series to me along with Boxcar Children, Artemis Fowl, etc.
I was never a reader because of HP. I was a reader because I had to learn English. I was a reader because I forced myself to borrow 14 books every three weeks. I was a reader because I had to cure my boredom without television or computers. HP didn't get me started with classics; Poe and Salinger did that. Maybe that's why I don't feel the impact of HP ending. I'm more excited about Dark Knight Rises than HP7.5. But hey, to each their own.
And StorkHwaiting, I must disagree on Joyce. The way he writes isn't confusing. It's very straightforward and concise. His writing is also so refined. I love his narrative style. God it's great. He has beautiful sentences too. I can also see his influence on other writers like Fitzgerald and Hemingway. You read Finnegan's Wake?
Not yet no. Do you not suggest it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
