Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Poll on the Boy Who Lived
DanSRose Posted: Sat Jun 5 19:37:30 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Well? Have you read any of them? If not, why?

I have them all and read them all. While they aren't always the most well written, they are very well designed with incredible imagination involved.


 
zander83 Posted: Sat Jun 5 20:02:09 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  have them all, read them all... enjoyable books... i see these books as the chocolate of literature, not really nourishing but damned good nonetheless...


 
marsteller Posted: Sat Jun 5 20:38:55 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  entertaining books, read the first 4, good stuff....not a fan of the movie, saw a bit of the first and was turned off to the rest


 
libra Posted: Sat Jun 5 20:56:42 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  marsteller said:
>entertaining books, read the first 4, good stuff....not a fan of the movie, saw a bit of the first and was turned off to the rest


see the third one, i think they did a better job with that one than the first two.


 
Zacq Posted: Sat Jun 5 21:02:41 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I seem to read those books against my own will. People hand me copies that have been read and reread and after I get started I can't put them down, even though later I think back and realize they're not really that good. But then the next book eventually comes my way and soon it's two in the morning and I'm reading again.


 
libra Posted: Sat Jun 5 21:06:39 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  They're the kind of books that you can't put down at first, but then when you finish them, its kind of like *shrug* it was okay...when you think to much about them you realize they aren't all that great...
I like them, but I know they're not great literature.


 
marsteller Posted: Sat Jun 5 21:08:29 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  really can't hold a candle to the lord of the rings or the chronicles of narnia


 
libra Posted: Sat Jun 5 21:14:11 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  marsteller said:
>really can't hold a candle to the lord of the rings or the chronicles of narnia

i love those books!!! and no, Harry potter can't live up to them.


okay, no more posting on this thread for me, three is enough...


 
Mouse Posted: Sat Jun 5 23:32:15 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I've read them, don't own any of them though.
I agree about the chocolate analogy, though I actually hated the last one as I was reading it. I wasn't willing to put it down, I hated it but I had to find out what happened.
Mouse


 
Zacq Posted: Sat Jun 5 23:45:51 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  What's annoying about Lord of the Rings is that there are several other similar fantasy trilogies that I consider better books, mostly because there are better characters and it's not as black and white. One example would be a particular threesome from the Dragonlance series. There are many similarities but it's more complex in many ways.


 
zander83 Posted: Sun Jun 6 00:37:16 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i have trouble with fantasy novels/series... in many respects i prefer harry potter to lotr simply because i can always relate a little bit more... i know lotr is supposed to be a big metaphor for WWII but meh... if i want WWII i read thin red line or catch 22 type novels.. but yeah fantasy ive read a bunch, the dragonlance series, shannara series, icewind dale series etc... they were okay when i was younger but i find them all too predictable and boring... they lack the literary meat i have come to crave


 
marsi Posted: Sun Jun 6 03:40:32 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I read all five books. I liked them. I allways liked fairytales (and I am a great fan of chocolate ;-)...)


 
DanSRose Posted: Sun Jun 6 12:30:12 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  zander83 said:
>i know lotr is supposed to be a big metaphor for WWII but meh...

Actually it's a big metaphor for Christianity and Christ: Aragorn the Father, Frodo the Son, Gandalf the Holy Ghost struggling against darkness and temptation.


 
libra Posted: Sun Jun 6 12:43:45 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>zander83 said:
>>i know lotr is supposed to be a big metaphor for WWII but meh...
>
>Actually it's a big metaphor for Christianity and Christ: Aragorn the Father, Frodo the Son, Gandalf the Holy Ghost struggling against darkness and temptation.

I heard that he wasn't trying to make it a metaphor of anything, and that people just read into it all...but really, he was just writing a book about a different kind of world...


 
addi Posted: Sun Jun 6 13:12:38 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:

>I heard that he wasn't trying to make it a metaphor of anything,

you are correct, Libra, according to a biography I heard on Tolkien and the Rings. Basic good against evil, along some personal experiences from his action in WW I. His good friend C.S. Lewis I think was more into the analogy stuff in the Chronicles of Narnia
He's probably having a good chuckle over all the analogies being made now.


 
Kira Posted: Sun Jun 6 13:30:31 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  "'The Lord of the Rings' was actually begun, as a seperate thing, about 1937, and had reached the inn at Bree, before the shadow of the second war. Personally I do not think that either war (and of course not the atomic bomb) had any influence upon either the plot or the manner of its unfolding."

-Tolkien
From a letter to L.W. Forster, Dec. 1960.

Eh... I needed a good reason to flip through my book of letters again.

Potter's good. Boook 5 ticked me off.


 
libra Posted: Sun Jun 6 13:52:03 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I have old copies of the LOTR books, and there's a quote from CS Lewis on the back of one. I love that its there because they were sort of in competition...it says:

"No imaginary world has been projected which is at once as multifarious and as true to its own inner laws...none so relevent to the actual human situation yet so free from allegory...Here are beauties which pierce like swords or burn like cold iron; here is a book that will break your heart...good beyond hope."

I like how he's saying this even though his own books are allegories and he was Tolkien rival...


 
Aeon Posted: Sun Jun 6 20:20:23 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>zander83 said:
>>i know lotr is supposed to be a big metaphor for WWII but meh...
>
>Actually it's a big metaphor for Christianity and Christ: Aragorn the Father, Frodo the Son, Gandalf the Holy Ghost struggling against darkness and temptation.

Who cares what the big friggin metaphor is supposed to be? I just enjoyed the story.


 
misszero Posted: Sun Jun 6 20:58:50 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i agree with aeon..... i personally think that when someone publishes something, its no longer solely THEIR iontellectual property - other people are free to read it and interpret it any way they want. hell, if i wanted to interpret lotr as a metaphor for teenage girls going shopping (or something equally irrelevant) i could.

and that's my little rant. Thankyou, thankyou, I'll be here all week.


 
Asswipe Posted: Sun Jun 6 21:10:36 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  misszero said:
>i agree with aeon..... i personally think that when someone publishes something, its no longer solely THEIR iontellectual property - other people are free to read it and interpret it any way they want. hell, if i wanted to interpret lotr as a metaphor for teenage girls going shopping (or something equally irrelevant) i could.
>
>and that's my little rant. Thankyou, thankyou, I'll be here all week.

i disagree, an author writes a fiction piece or poem w/ intentions, and while a story may help someone draw parallels to other areas of their lives, the theme/principle conveyed may have never been the authors motives. many, many, many, many *things*, events, issues, etc., all boil down to very similar principles so it can often be easy to draw parallels where they wern't necessarily intended. for instance, the good vs. evil theme in tolkien and the same in WWII. hitler = sauron, mussolini = saruman, gandalf is big winston, frodo = the lonely soldier who's gotta do everything to save the world and make it home to his shire, yeah, whatever.

same goes for poetry. you can read a line of a poem and it can somehow relate to an issue in your life but the line still needs to be studied in context in order to discover the author's motives, not just what the reader wishes them to be.

had a big discussion about this in my creative writing class this previous semester. we were supposed to write poems and this girl handed in a 3 line poem that said something like:

red, gree, blue
blue, green, red
yellow, green blue

which gave birth to the nature of poetry discussion and blah blah, whatever. i ramble, sorry.

took me about 15 posts to figure out what the hell you all were talking about, in this thread, btw.




 
mat_j Posted: Mon Jun 7 05:47:39 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>misszero said:
>>i agree with aeon..... i personally think that when someone publishes something, its no longer solely THEIR iontellectual property - other people are free to read it and interpret it any way they want. hell, if i wanted to interpret lotr as a metaphor for teenage girls going shopping (or something equally irrelevant) i could.

>
>i disagree, an author writes a fiction piece or poem w/ intentions, and while a story may help someone draw parallels to other areas of their lives, the theme/principle conveyed may have never been the authors motives. many, many, many, many *things*, events, issues, etc., all boil down to very similar principles so it can often be easy to draw parallels where they wern't necessarily intended. for instance, the good vs. evil theme in tolkien and the same in WWII. hitler = sauron, mussolini = saruman, gandalf is big winston, frodo = the lonely soldier who's gotta do everything to save the world and make it home to his shire, yeah, whatever.
>
>same goes for poetry. you can read a line of a poem and it can somehow relate to an issue in your life but the line still needs to be studied in context in order to discover the author's motives, not just what the reader wishes them to be.


I have to agree with the wipemeister here, you can relate anything to anything else but everything must have an original context. I am surprised at Aeon going against this being a poet himself.

It also reminds me of one of my pet hates that is slightly off the point, when song writers say that their lyrics mean different things to different people, Well Duh! When people say that they are either trying to avoid revealling the meaning of the song, or their songs are just plain shit and don't mean anything at all.


 
misszero Posted: Mon Jun 7 07:15:55 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i think what I was trying to get at was someone saying 'this is what the author meant' if they can't possibly know that. We spent a shitload of time arguing about what sylvia plath's work was about, and what it comes down to is that different people are going to read it different ways according to their context. of course, we also studied it in the light of biographical evidence, so.... I just don't think that someone can say, definitively "This is the meaning, and its written in stone for all people"


 
DanSRose Posted: Mon Jun 7 14:19:27 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I read and reread the entire LotR seires, including The Hobbit and a bit of the Unfinished Tales, when the Fellowship came out in theaters. I remembered them being better, more imaginitive. The religious connotations are more apparent and outside causations, including the Second World War, took away from the story.
Compared to LotR, I find Harry Potter more imaginitive and creative, with the created world and the human flaws more real. The characters in the Harry Potter are not black and white, and are designed to change. The events in Lord of the Rings are completely plot driven, with the characters meaning less then what is happening. In LotR, anyone could have destroyed the Ring. In HP, it has to be Harry and it has to be Voldemort, and all the events that occur are based on the characters and their actions, not events that occur 2000 years ago.


 
Asswipe Posted: Mon Jun 7 17:15:00 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  misszero said:
>i think what I was trying to get at was someone saying 'this is what the author meant' if they can't possibly know that. We spent a shitload of time arguing about what sylvia plath's work was about, and what it comes down to is that different people are going to read it different ways according to their context. of course, we also studied it in the light of biographical evidence, so.... I just don't think that someone can say, definitively "This is the meaning, and its written in stone for all people"

well, there is another option which is noting "possibilities". The goal is to come up w/ possible meanings and to support them w/ evidance from either the rest of the piece or from the person's biography or whatever. you're right, many times the original intentions of the author can never be discovered due to them being dead, and many possibilities can exist, but to say each reading is just as sound as the next, no matter the evidance that lead a person there, is absurd.


 
Asswipe Posted: Mon Jun 7 17:17:32 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>I read and reread the entire LotR seires, including The Hobbit and a bit of the Unfinished Tales, when the Fellowship came out in theaters. I remembered them being better, more imaginitive. The religious connotations are more apparent and outside causations, including the Second World War, took away from the story.
>Compared to LotR, I find Harry Potter more imaginitive and creative, with the created world and the human flaws more real. The characters in the Harry Potter are not black and white, and are designed to change. The events in Lord of the Rings are completely plot driven, with the characters meaning less then what is happening. In LotR, anyone could have destroyed the Ring. In HP, it has to be Harry and it has to be Voldemort, and all the events that occur are based on the characters and their actions, not events that occur 2000 years ago.

harry potter is more creative than lotr? i'd like to hit you right now. tolkien invented an entire freakin' language when creating his "world", yes, he created an entire freakin' world and its history.


 
DanSRose Posted: Tue Jun 8 02:45:45 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Yes, wizards, dragons, and magic were brand new. Invented in 1948 in Britain.
It was first, but best? Things and events hang, without explanation, like Tom Bombadil and the nature of the Wizards.
That's not even getting me started about the writing, which is 'feh'. The story is not ... there. An entire world driven by the events, not the people in it, and that is a mark of a poor story. I can't feel for the characters, except for Frodo and Gollum some of the times. Rowling did that well, making emotional, realistic characters that readers end up relating to and caring about.


 
Mesh Posted: Tue Jun 8 02:49:41 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Poor poor gollum. I always felt bad for the ugly little fucker.

I woulda been his friend.


 
Asswipe Posted: Tue Jun 8 17:15:20 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>Yes, wizards, dragons, and magic were brand new. Invented in 1948 in Britain.
>It was first, but best? Things and events hang, without explanation, like Tom Bombadil and the nature of the Wizards.

no, it wasn't the first, tolkien took many ideas of his from old irish/british tales that date back, in writing, from at least around 800. many of the stories were verbally transferred over many generations. i actually did a report on bombadil, and found he certainly served some purpose in the world. he was an enigma, but a few things can be known about him; most importantly, he is above the powers of the ring and the triffles of the human world.

>That's not even getting me started about the writing, which is 'feh'. The story is not ... there. An entire world driven by the events, not the people in it, and that is a mark of a poor story. I can't feel for the characters, except for Frodo and Gollum some of the times. Rowling did that well, making emotional, realistic characters that readers end up relating to and caring about.

the writing is "feh"? dude, tolkien describes everything like damn poet god. more matters to a story than just characters, man. the LOTR plot was intricate as hell and requires an imagination, i can't fathom, to brew up.

i can't believe you can describe harry potter as being realistic. those kids are like, "look! A giant anaconda that turns people to stone! CHARGE!!" they have balls bigger than your head. "OMG, WE MISSED A TRAIN, LET'S STEAL THIS FLYING CAR!" harry potter is described as a god damn delinquint, like he couldn't have caught a later train? the dumb little shit. and don't say his character's supposed to be flawed, 'cause you know he's supposed to be perfect potter. all of the characters are one dimensional. example? malfoy, red head kid, potter, the smart little chick? c'mon

but yeah, i've only read the first 2 books, so please, if she drastically changed her story style in the latter two books then maybe you're right, but i'd doubt it. they're written for 12 year olds man.


 
addi Posted: Tue Jun 8 17:50:14 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:

>harry potter is described as a god damn delinquint, like he couldn't have caught a later train? the dumb little shit.

Hehehe


sorry, Dan, but comparing the writing quality of Potter to LOTH to me is like comparing Bush to Einstein.


 
erikagm Posted: Tue Jun 8 18:49:53 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Well, personally I adore the books, but that is because they bring a certain magic into my life that it lacks otherwise... Plus, all my life I've dreamt of being a witch... LOL...

Anyway, the writing on the books may not be great, but I think they're doing something that hadn't been done in a very long time... Hook kids into reading them. There is such a low literacy rate amongst children these days, that anything that encourages them to read is welcome.

(maybe afterwards they can go onto more complicated and well-written stuff, like LOTR!)


 
Puck Posted: Fri Aug 6 06:02:21 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  misszero said:
if i wanted to interpret lotr as a metaphor for teenage girls going shopping i could.
I'm going to do that next time I watch the films.

>harry potter is more creative than lotr? i'd like to hit you right now.
lol

>tolkien invented an entire freakin' language when creating his "world",

I believe he actually created something like 14 languages. I can't remember, even though I have the Tolkenian Dictionary on a shelf.


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]