Ghost of Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 Originally posted by GrimReefa Bah to this whole thread. Tolkien's books are so incredibly boring, it's a labor to get through them. I know what I need to put here, a 50 verse song that adds nothing to the story! And he created the language elvish. Boy, that really makes a difference! The Harry Potter series is a remarkable demonstration of character development, its pacing is leagues ahead of anything Tolkien the Verbose ever wrote (a friend of mine put it best - sometimes a leaf is just a leaf), you actually give a crap about the characters, and rather than being a chore to read, is a joy. I actually get upset when I'm finishing a Harry Potter book, especially when it's the first time I've read it, because I know the story is coming to an end. When I got to the end of LOTR, I was relieved. Oh, and the 7th book, which will undoubtedly be the best, hasn't even come out yet. No contest. :laugh: (remember, this post is a response to the "bah to this whole thread" which I take to be an insult) Weren't you the one who hated on Unbreakable too? Maybe you just don't have the attention span or temperament to enjoy certain types of pacing in books/films/stories? And perhaps all the big words, archaic language and a tapestry of heroic and mythic themes were too difficult for you? I'm NOT saying that because you don't like Tolkien. I'm saying that because you don't like Tolkien AND you LOVE Harry Potter. Frankly, I'm surprised you could keep the pages of your Harry Potter book safe from all the drool and slobber that most certainly spills from your open mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 I can't vote because I haven't read a single Harry Potter book. I did see all the movies though, ( I have neices and nephews who love them). I didn't think the movies were all that good, until the last one that came out last year. Would I be completely lost to pick up the new book that came out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin :laugh: (remember, this post is a response to the "bah to this whole thread" which I take to be an insult) Weren't you the one who hated on Unbreakable too? Maybe you just don't have the attention span or temperament to enjoy certain types of pacing in books/films/stories? And perhaps all the big words, archaic language and a tapestry of heroic and mythic themes were too difficult for you? I'm NOT saying that because you don't like Tolkien. I'm saying that because you don't like Tolkien AND you LOVE Harry Potter. Frankly, I'm surprised you could keep the pages of your Harry Potter book safe from all the drool and slobber that most certainly spills from your open mouth. Well they are definitely not boring, but he is right about the character development though. LOTR has ZERO character development. A case could be made for the hobbits, but really everything is so flat and static and not to mention black and white that it can be annoying. I liked the archaic language though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 Originally posted by Gamebreaker I can't vote because I haven't read a single Harry Potter book. I did see all the movies though, ( I have neices and nephews who love them). I didn't think the movies were all that good, until the last one that came out last year. Would I be completely lost to pick up the new book that came out? yes only moves 1-3 are out you ought to read the books that have not been made movies yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 Originally posted by Liberty yes only moves 1-3 are out you ought to read the books that have not been made movies yet. Ok, so I would be too lost if I just picked up book 4 and started reading. Evidently the movies don't give you enough information. I suspect I'll still like Tolkien's LOTR better, but I'll give it a shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 Originally posted by Liberty Well they are definitely not boring, but he is right about the character development though. LOTR has ZERO character development. A case could be made for the hobbits, but really everything is so flat and static and not to mention black and white that it can be annoying. I liked the archaic language though. I've heard it before, I'm not saying LotR has modern character development, though I'd argue that it is not black and white. And Gollum actually does have some development. Just because he reverts back after his betrayal at the Forbidden Pool, doesn't mean he wasn't changing. But it's far from black and white. It's only that on the very surface. I guess you don't remember the orcs talking about what they'd do after the war--even they had dreams..brutal and corrupted, but despite the easy visual contrast between good and evil, the corrupting nature of power and of evil itself, is handled in a way that is NOT 'black and white.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muskrat Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 ...to say that LotR has no character development is an indication that one may not have paid close enough attention. All of the main characters undergo some sort of change. Granted it may not be as dramatic as Harry Potter and Co., but they are chilren and as such are going to grow (both physically and emotionally). When working with adults, the growth is usually much more subtle. I can't say which is better, as I haven't read the Potter books (although I plan to), but Tolkiens' work has long been hailed as a masterpiece of literature and imagination. Harry Potter may reach that status, but IMO it is still too early to tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 Originally posted by Liberty Well they are definitely not boring, but he is right about the character development though. LOTR has ZERO character development. A case could be made for the hobbits, but really everything is so flat and static and not to mention black and white that it can be annoying. I liked the archaic language though. What?!?!? The hobbits all go through tons of character development. They start out as happy go-lucky kids whose only concern is when their next meal is. At the end of the book they are hardened warriors who easily reclaim the shire when they find it trashed on their return. Frodo probably undergoes the most character change; he starts out like the rest of the hobbits, but Tolkien adeptly describes his slow fall into darkness with the ring around his neck, culminating with the betrayal of Sam on the steps up to Shelob's layer. Strider goes from a nomadic, introverted ruffian into a powerful king and leader, for crying out loud!! Sheesh! Originally posted by GrimReefaBah to this whole thread. Tolkien's books are so incredibly boring, it's a labor to get through them. I know what I need to put here, a 50 verse song that adds nothing to the story! And he created the language elvish. Boy, that really makes a difference! The Harry Potter series is a remarkable demonstration of character development, its pacing is leagues ahead of anything Tolkien the Verbose ever wrote (a friend of mine put it best - sometimes a leaf is just a leaf), you actually give a crap about the characters, and rather than being a chore to read, is a joy. I actually get upset when I'm finishing a Harry Potter book, especially when it's the first time I've read it, because I know the story is coming to an end. When I got to the end of LOTR, I was relieved. Oh, and the 7th book, which will undoubtedly be the best, hasn't even come out yet. No contest. :laugh: Hey, I have another series of books you'll probably enjoy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 Originally posted by jrockster77 What?!?!? The hobbits all go through tons of character development. They start out as happy go-lucky kids whose only concern is when their next meal is. At the end of the book they are hardened warriors who easily reclaim the shire when they find it trashed on their return. Frodo probably undergoes the most character change; he starts out like the rest of the hobbits, but Tolkien adeptly describes his slow fall into darkness with the ring around his neck, culminating with the betrayal of Sam on the steps up to Shelob's layer. Strider goes from a nomadic, introverted ruffian into a powerful king and leader, for crying out loud!! Sheesh! :laugh: Hey, I have another series of books you'll probably enjoy: hobbits...maybe Strider...definitely not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 There was tons of character development in LOTR, especially with the Hobbits. Actually, every character developed or changed in some way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 Originally posted by Liberty hobbits...maybe Strider...definitely not How can you say that? I already told you how his character developes! I mean, the character that is 'Strider' is totally different from the character that is 'Aragorn' at the end of the movie. Even Legolas and Gimli have some character development; they start off at eachother's throats and end up close friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 Originally posted by jrockster77 How can you say that? I already told you how his character developes! I mean, the character that is 'Strider' is totally different from the character that is 'Aragorn' at the end of the movie. Even Legolas and Gimli have some character development; they start off at eachother's throats and end up close friends. He was always the big brave guy that chopped up orcs. In the beginning he was a ranger, in the end he was a king. That is not character development that is plot development. Whether he was a king or a ranger he was the same throughout all three books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 Well how does that explain how he was running from his destiny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowghost Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 I can't really pick over Tolkien or Rowling. Both happen to be very well known. I would rather read Salvatore than either of them. The best fantasy writers, IMHO, are Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman. Talk about 2 people that had a vision on how to expand on their ideas. I read sci-fi, but the Dragon Lance series is the cream of the crop as far as fantasy goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 Originally posted by Liberty He was always the big brave guy that chopped up orcs. In the beginning he was a ranger, in the end he was a king. That is not character development that is plot development. Whether he was a king or a ranger he was the same throughout all three books. Well, I can see this is an argument going nowhere. I would suggest that you read the books again and you'll see his character develope from a nomad into a king. And if you don't know the difference between the two and that there is a huge difference in character, then I don't know what to tell you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Going from being a guerrilla warrior constantly in hiding to being someone to wants to take on the enemies alone (Two Towers) to being a leader of men (Return of the King) is character development in my book. No, literally. That's what happens in my book. I'm not very original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black Going from being a guerrilla warrior constantly in hiding to being someone to wants to take on the enemies alone (Two Towers) to being a leader of men (Return of the King) is character development in my book. No, literally. That's what happens in my book. I'm not very original. :laugh: You stole my idea for an unoriginal book, you bastage! :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Originally posted by jrockster77 Well, I can see this is an argument going nowhere. I would suggest that you read the books again and you'll see his character develope from a nomad into a king. And if you don't know the difference between the two and that there is a huge difference in character, then I don't know what to tell you! I am reading Atlas Shrugged right now, give me a couple of months (or years) and maybe when I finish that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Originally posted by Gamebreaker Ok, so I would be too lost if I just picked up book 4 and started reading. Evidently the movies don't give you enough information. I suspect I'll still like Tolkien's LOTR better, but I'll give it a shot. No, you'll be fine if you start with book 4 after having seen the movies of the first 3. That's what I did. I then went back later and read books 1-3 to get the bits the movies don't cover. Tolkien is better, of course. The Harry Potter books are more of a lighter, easier read; still enjoyable to me though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.