TRAVESTY!
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2003 7:51 am
I notice that, indeed, there is a movies base. That is good. But why, exactly, isn't there a books base? Just curious.
It's been my experience that bases based on books and novels don't take off, because not many people in a small subset like this board features (??) have read a given book. So it becomes two people talking back and forth -- which is fine, if the people are right -- but it's usually not enough to make an entire subforum out of.Lysander wrote:I notice that, indeed, there is a movies base. That is good. But why, exactly, isn't there a books base? Just curious.
Critics hate it because JK Rowling sucks as a writer and Harry potter is nothing more than a jumble of old English folklore about witches and goblins and precious little original thought (I'll take the time to find and provide a link if you ask). Jesus freaks hate it because they prefer their cult to the hogwarts cult of magic and witches. Kids learn to hate it because it's bloated 800+ pages get tedious and boring.Lysander wrote:. . . Harry Potter series. Just why, exactly, do *so many people* hate it so? Etc.
I would appreciate a link to that, since I'm supposed to be studdying this very topic at this exact moment, yeah. Thanks much.Casual Observer wrote: Critics hate it because JK Rowling sucks as a writer and Harry potter is nothing more than a jumble of old English folklore about witches and goblins and precious little original thought (I'll take the time to find and provide a link if you ask).
To be fair, no one's exactly putting a gun to their head and forcing them to read it. I can't think of a single school that's put Harry Potter on the required reading list--indeed, I think that if they tried putting, say, the fifth book on, kids would rise up in open revolt because its so freakin' *long*. But, anyhoo. If they think its tedious, they have the right to close the book.casual observer wrote:Kids learn to hate it because it's bloated 800+ pages get tedious and boring.
I would appreciate a link to that, since I'm supposed to be studdying this very topic at this exact moment, yeah. Thanks much.Casual Observer wrote: Critics hate it because JK Rowling sucks as a writer and Harry potter is nothing more than a jumble of old English folklore about witches and goblins and precious little original thought (I'll take the time to find and provide a link if you ask).
To be fair, no one's exactly putting a gun to their head and forcing them to read it. I can't think of a single school that's put Harry Potter on the required reading list--indeed, I think that if they tried putting, say, the fifth book on, kids would rise up in open revolt because its so freakin' *long*. But, anyhoo. If they think its tedious, they have the right to close the book.casual observer wrote:Kids learn to hate it because it's bloated 800+ pages get tedious and boring.
Article by Booker Prize-winning author A.S. ByattLysander not loggin' in wrote:. . . I would appreciate a link to that, since I'm supposed to be studdying this very topic at this exact moment, yeah. Thanks much.
I'm sorry that my books were better than yours. I'm sorry your favorite authors when you were 15, and have so many fond memories of, do not go over well when the person you're trying to explain the "magic" to is 30. I'm sorry Davoid Eddings sucks ass to anyone who has ever read a book written before 1900 and knows good characterization when they see it, and I'm sorry that's practically all you owned. I'm terribly sorry you don't step foot in a library unless you need to use the internet, and that you never use said internet to get some actual good book rcommendations from authors whose target audiance isn't still getting their ass kicked by the cool kids in 9th grade. It's not like you liked all my recommendations either, but I'm not such a poncey wuss that I took it as an attack on my personality and couldn't get out of bed the next day.Teufel ZeKK wrote:Don't ask for recomendations though. I gave that up. Sick of reading what everyone else hands me to read but when the shoe's on the other foot, All I get is. "You have absolutly no taste because that book you gave me was so bad arf arf arf.
"Philistines," Philistine.Lysander wrote:Fucking filastines...
True, nobody used a gun - only "$3 million to $4 million Scholastic spent on marketing blitz, up from $1 million for marketing the fourth book in the series"* This to me is similar to the hype and blitz the music industry gives to each passing "work for hire" pop star or madonna song.Lysander not loggin' in wrote:To be fair, no one's exactly putting a gun to their head and forcing them to read it. . . .
"Couldn't?" What's this "couldn't" shit? And for you to put a smiley there afterwards when you mean exactly the opposite ought to be a hanging crime should you ever enter the nation-state of Emoticonia.Vitriola wrote:BTW, Robb couldn't get through Cryptonomicon, either :)
Eddings became my nemesis because back when George Alec Effinger was alive, I would always go to bookstores and follow the sci-fi / fantasy section alphabetically until I came to where GAE would be. He did not write a book for the longest time right up until he died, but fucking Eddings would always be there, churning out his work like his stuff would come out of a sentient butter press with a penchant for overcompensation.Vitriola wrote:I'm sorry Davoid Eddings sucks ass to anyone who has ever read a book written before 1900 and knows good characterization when they see it, and I'm sorry that's practically all you owned.
Fiction-wise, I just got through Stephenson's "Quicksilver", which was ok. Extremely well-written ok, but still just ok, and 900+ pages of ok to boot. Also finished Neal Pollack's "Never Mind the Pollacks" -- also ok. Bad month for highly-anticipated books by authors named Neal.Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:To everyone else: currently reading A Game of Thrones by George R.R. Martin, with the late as in the late Douglas Adams' A Salmon of Doubt to be queued up next.
It's about puzzles.Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:Obviously, its title comes off as a play against the Necronomicon, so I thought it would be a book about the undead and puzzles. This is not what I got!
Yeah, well, uh, Quicksilver doesn't have a shitty ending but that's probably because it's the first third of the story.ICJ wrote: Plus, all of Stephenson's other endings were shitty, I would be surprised if ole Crippy there didn't have one, too.
I'm hooked on the series now. I've read the first three (A Game of Thrones, A Clash of Kings, and A Storm of Swords and I'm ashamed to say that I'm eagerly awaiting A Feast for Crows. The third one is much, much darker than the first two.RobB wrote: To everyone else: currently reading A Game of Thrones by George R.R. Martin, with the late as in the late Douglas Adams' A Salmon of Doubt to be queued up next. AGoT is solid, though I get the impression that sometimes the author strains a little bit to set the perfect medieval scene just as he would like it.