CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › The Folks Who Are Glad Harry Potter is Over
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Folks Who Are Glad Harry Potter is Over - Page 2

post #51 of 74
8/21/07 at 11:32am
I guess I'll admit I fall more into the crowd of just reading it to not be part of the hype at the tail end of it.

I'll also admit that the first 2 books are fairly not as good as the others. Rowling matures as a writer with each installment. She is no JRR Tolken, but the HP books were never really deep reading to begin with.

Don't like the hype and the fanboyism, but the books are still entertaining, and allow the movies to be seen in different ways.
Reply
post #52 of 74
8/21/07 at 11:48am
Tolkien was a HORRIBLE writer. As a writer, Rowling is worlds ahead of where he ended up. Tolkien made up a neat story, but he was an utterly awful, awful writer.
Reply
post #53 of 74
8/21/07 at 12:17pm
I'll admit that Tolkien didn't know how to end a story, but Rings was a deeper story than any of the Harry Potter books (I've read them up to Phoenix). Besides I haven't seen Rowling pull out her linguist skills yet. Rings had extensive backstory and languages from scratch.
Reply
post #54 of 74
8/21/07 at 12:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAIRUS
I'll admit that Tolkien didn't know how to end a story, but Rings was a deeper story than any of the Harry Potter books (I've read them up to Phoenix). Besides I haven't seen Rowling pull out her linguist skills yet. Rings had extensive backstory and languages from scratch.
It also had 7-page long songs that were totally tangential to the plot/characters. I respect the fact that he was building a world, but he could stand to respect that fact that readers don't need to know the genealogy of Torvuus the Gnome.
Reply
post #55 of 74
8/21/07 at 12:21pm
Languages and backstories aren't depth, they're just language and backstory. And they're not even very well written! The basic story of the Lord of the Rings is very good, which is why the movies succeeded so well on those terms. Because they cut out all the utterly unnecessary, pointless bullshit that Tolkien loaded every fucking page down with using his clunky, robotic attempts at flowery prose.
Reply
post #56 of 74
8/21/07 at 12:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt OCallaghan
I am a librarian as well, and have worked in a bunch of libraries the past few years while this Potter thing has been going on. From my experience, purely annecdotale, the books are getting kids curious about reading more but they aren't finding anything they really like as much.
I'm not a children's librarian, but the children's librarians who I've spoken to said that they've had success keeping kids reading once they reel them in with Harry. I think part of the problem is recognizing that Harry isn't really hard fantasy, despite where it's shelved. It's much more of a fantastic mystery series. I wonder if librarians who have been giving Potter fans mysteries to read have had more luck?

Quote:
We used to get zillions of kids requesting books "Like Harry Potter" but everything we would recommend didn't seem to do it for them.
Phillip Pullmans stuff seems to be be what they take to most. Oddly, Lord of the Rings: not so much.
I don't think that's odd. Tolkein is a fucking awful, dull writer. Of course the kids who like Rowling's quick prose and humor aren't going to want to slog through Tolkein.
Reply
post #57 of 74
8/21/07 at 12:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissZooey
I don't think that's odd. Tolkein is a fucking awful, dull writer. Of course the kids who like Rowling's quick prose and humor aren't going to want to slog through Tolkein.
I'm glad to hear this opinion. While those movies were out, it seemed like every person I knew was saying how great the books were. I tore through them and thought they were miserable, with staccato bursts of some very cool scenes. It always made me feel like I must have missed something huge that everyone else was seeing. Instead, I'm thinking it's one of those things that everyone agrees is "great" because it's a "classic". (See also: Brave New World)
Reply
post #58 of 74
8/21/07 at 12:34pm
Okay I'll gladly admit I skipped the poems.

Then the same argument falls on Potter. The movies chopped out lots of stuff, and the movies continued to do well.

I've personally found some people like Tolkien or they just don't. I personally liked his poetic style, but I just read the story to shut people up saying "what you haven't read them?!"
Reply
post #59 of 74
8/21/07 at 12:36pm
Oh yeah, since I'm not a librarian, my opinion just gets ignored.

THANKS FOR BREAKING MY HEART, THE LD.
Reply
post #60 of 74
8/21/07 at 12:39pm
I kiss your ass entirely too often as is. Plus, Zooey is a girl, and I'm flexing my brain muscles to impress her on the webs.
Reply
post #61 of 74
8/21/07 at 12:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAIRUS
Then the same argument falls on Potter. The movies chopped out lots of stuff, and the movies continued to do well.
You will find virtually no one who's read the Potter books who considers the movies on the same level. You will find Tolkien fans who adore and maybe even prefer Jackson's adaptations.
Reply
post #62 of 74
8/21/07 at 12:56pm
Well I can safely say that Columbus is no Peter Jackson and that the only 2 good Potter movies are Azkaban and maybe Goblet. Still they did good because of the hype. I have tons of friends say that the movies are kinda shitty, but how can you ever compare to ones own imagination?
Reply
post #63 of 74
8/21/07 at 1:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAIRUS
Well I can safely say that Columbus is no Peter Jackson and that the only 2 good Potter movies are Azkaban and maybe Goblet. Still they did good because of the hype. I have tons of friends say that the movies are kinda shitty, but how can you ever compare to ones own imagination?
As Brad said, Jackson was able to overcome that obstacle and make movies of Tolkien's books that many deem equal or superior to those books. The same has not been done in Rowling's case, possibly because, unlike Tolkien's books, her backstory isn't just "unnecessary pointless bullshit," but essential, and the prose is anything but flowery, meaning that there's no need for the film to improve on its simplicity.
Reply
post #64 of 74
8/21/07 at 1:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The LD
I kiss your ass entirely too often as is. Plus, Zooey is a girl, and I'm flexing my brain muscles to impress her on the webs.
Ooh, can I feel your occipital lobe?
Reply
post #65 of 74
8/21/07 at 1:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAIRUS
I'll admit that Tolkien didn't know how to shut the fuck up and get on with it already...
...
Reply
post #66 of 74
8/21/07 at 1:37pm
I think what's sad, more than anything else, is that the way Tolkien influenced future writers meant that an entire genre essentially became engulfed by the same sort of florid, but ultimately hollow, writing. As such if you don't like Tolkien's style, and I think there are few people who really do, then the entire genre of fantasy is pretty much a barren wasteland of wretched prose.

In fact off the top of my head I can only really think of four fantasy books I've read, and actually enjoyed (HP, Gormenghast, Weaveworld and the Books of the New Sun) all of which had a far more laconic, tongue in cheek approach to the material (maybe not so much New Sun which went more towards the flowery prose spectrum but made up for it with its peculiar narrative conceit).

I actually can't think of a single fantasy author who would be able to write an interesting book without using armies of darkness, chosen warriors,easily sliceable orcs, and other such boys own distractions as a massive crutch.
Reply
post #67 of 74
8/21/07 at 4:37pm
Hey, what do you book fags think of Guy Gavriel Kay?
Reply
post #68 of 74
8/21/07 at 4:52pm
I like him quite a bit, actually. I think he's very versatile as a writer, and he often changes writing styles throughout a book, depending on which character's viewpoint a particular chapter may be through. As far as modern fantasy authors go, he's definitely in the top tier, and his works are a lot more polished than most of his garbage contemporaries. I also like the fact that his books are almost historical fiction.
Reply
post #69 of 74
8/21/07 at 5:11pm
I feel it's worth bearing in min that Tolkein never intended to write fiction, aside from The Hobbit (which is arguably rather better-written than Lord of the Rings). He intended to write mythology, in which his stilted, over-the-top style is much, much more at home.

As far as well-written fantasy goes, however, people really ought to read the Night Watch trilogy. It's infinitely better than the film.

Hope Mirrlees, Susanna Clarke, Ursula Le Guin, John Crowley and Roger Zelazny are all also considerably more accomplished fantasy authors than most, and all a long way from the Tolkein vein.

I'm also keeping an interested eye on Hal Duncan.
Reply
post #70 of 74
8/21/07 at 5:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xagarath Ankor
I feel it's worth bearing in min that Tolkein never intended to write fiction, aside from The Hobbit (which is arguably rather better-written than Lord of the Rings). He intended to write mythology, in which his stilted, over-the-top style is much, much more at home.
Honestly, I'm not sure what definition of "myth" you're applying here, but this feels a lot like splitting hairs to me. No matter what you're trying to do, there's good storytelling and there's bad storytelling, and the Lord of the Rings books are shoddy storytelling, even if the underlying story is pretty good.
Reply
post #71 of 74
8/21/07 at 5:58pm
THE HOBBIT is the best book that Tolkien wrote, by far.
Reply
post #72 of 74
8/21/07 at 6:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissZooey
I don't think that's odd. Tolkein is a fucking awful, dull writer. Of course the kids who like Rowling's quick prose and humor aren't going to want to slog through Tolkein.
Yeah I'm not a fan but I more or less hate all fantasy so I figure it's just something I'm missing. Good to see I'm not the only one who prefers the films. Thats sort of my problem with recommending the kids other fantasy stuff; I really don't like any of it so I have no idea what is "good". The kids at our school seem to take to Prachett reasonably well but once again I really can't stand his novels.
Hadn't really considered what you mentioned about recommending Mystery novels instead of fantasy. Sounds like an excellent idea.
Reply
post #73 of 74
8/21/07 at 9:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The LD
Honestly, I'm not sure what definition of "myth" you're applying here, but this feels a lot like splitting hairs to me. No matter what you're trying to do, there's good storytelling and there's bad storytelling, and the Lord of the Rings books are shoddy storytelling, even if the underlying story is pretty good.
What I'm saying is that if you've ever read any classical mythology it tends to be in much the same style that Tolkein adopted.
Hence, since all evidence indicates that's what he was trying to do, I can't really fault him for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Werbal_Kint
THE HOBBIT is the best book that Tolkien wrote, by far.
Agreed.
Reply
post #74 of 74
8/21/07 at 9:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt OCallaghan
Hadn't really considered what you mentioned about recommending Mystery novels instead of fantasy. Sounds like an excellent idea.
Honestly, I hadn't thought of it either, until I read Ken Jennings' blog post about Harry Potter. He is, of course, absolutely right.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Franchises
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › The Folks Who Are Glad Harry Potter is Over