IMPS

[Kevin]

Initial Medium Preference Syndrome.

I read the Lord of the Rings before I saw the movie. I like the books
better.

I saw Blade Runner before I read DADOES. I like the movie better.

I saw Walking Dead before I read it. I like the show better.

Recently, The Girl and I have watched the first season of Game of
Thrones. Then I tried to read the book on the Kindle. We like DVDs a
lot. Ok, "a lot" might be an overstatement, but it's certainly
watchable and interesting and I plan to watch as much of it as they
make. The book, on the other hand, is unreadable. It's dreadful.
But, comparing scene for scene (thanks youtube), a lot of the dialog
is exactly the same. So either a) the ambiance the show creates is
what I like, and what the show shows is objectively better than the
description in the book, or b) I just like tv better than books now
because I'm getting lazy, or c) IMPS.

So, GoTh the show or the book? IMPS in general? Or is the book
always better?

--
Kevin

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 14, 10:00 am, Kevin <K_S_ONe...@yh.com> wrote:

> So, GoTh the show or the book?  IMPS in general?  Or is the book
> always better?

Always? No. Often. Star Wars, the book is OK. Star Wars the movie
is FUCKING STAR WARS. Things go the other way between Starship
Troopers the book and a certain movie that has Denise Richards in
it...

Depends.

[bill van]

In article <g5e2r7dc0odlmjv3a...@4ax.com>,

I've very recently gone back to reading a bit of SF and fantasy. I've
been mostly ignoring the genre(s) for a couple of decades after
devouring thousands of books from 1960-something to 1990 or so. I bought
a pound or so of used paperbacks a couple of weeks ago that include work
by Vernor Vinge, Lois McMaster Bujold and Neil Gaiman, either because
I've already had a taste of them that I liked, or because of good word
of mouth. If they're to my liking, I may continue to explore.

But I will certainly continue to resist fantasy series with many
sequels, which generally sag in quality after the first book or two, so
I think the George R.R. Martin books are out. The TV series has very
good word of mouth, so if I ever start paying for the cable channel that
carries it, or encounter a DVD at the right price, I might give it a
whirl. HBO and AMC in particular have a very good job of producing
out-of-the-ordinary TV series over the last decade or so, and the Game
of Thrones series seems to be one of them.

bill

[bill van]

In article <billvan-9E4435...@news.shawcable.net>,

^
done

[Mark Brader]

IMPs? Better than matchpoints.

K_S_ONeill:

> Initial Medium Preference Syndrome.
>
> I read the Lord of the Rings before I saw the movie. I like the books
> better.
>
> I saw Blade Runner before I read DADOES. I like the movie better.
>
> I saw Walking Dead before I read it. I like the show better.

For another example... I saw the TV version of HHGttG before I read
the books, read the radio scripts, and saw the movie. And, that's
right, unlike everyone else, I liked the TV version best.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "I can be gullible about these kinds of things.
m...@vex.net | Or so people tell me, and I believe them."

[Opus the Penguin]

Kevin (K_S_O...@yh.com) wrote:

> Initial Medium Preference Syndrome.
>
> I read the Lord of the Rings before I saw the movie. I like the
> books better.
>

Same here.

> I saw Blade Runner before I read DADOES. I like the movie better.
>

Read the book a few days before I saw the movie. The book helped me
understand some of what was going on in the movie. Initially, I liked
the book better. I eventually came to like the movie quite a lot and
regard the book as good but not great. I'm not sure how possible it
is to compare the degree to which I like the book and film versions.
I think I like the movie better. I guess.

> I saw Walking Dead before I read it. I like the show better.
>

Only watched the first two or three eps. It was well done, but lacked
whatever it is that would've made me keep tuning in. Never read the
books.

> So, GoTh the show or the book? IMPS in general? Or is the book
> always better?
>

"Better" is really hard to assess when comparing works in different
media. Is Shakespeare's _Macbeth_ better than Verdi's? Rank the
following from best to worst: Chrétien's Arthurian tales (poetry),
Malory's _Morte d'Arthur_ (prose), John Boorman's _Excalibur_,
Wagner's _Lohengrin_, _Parsifal_, and _Tristan und Isolde_, John
William Waterhouse's paintings of Arthurian themes.

I think I tend to prefer the book to the movie, regardless of which
one I encounter first. I think I saw _One Flew Over the Cuckoo's
Nest_ before reading it. I still thought the book was more successful
as a book than the movie was as a movie.

Maybe the better a book is, the harder it is to turn it into a good
film. The book does what it does in bookish ways that can't be
duplicated on screen. So the movie maker's either have to figure out
how to produce similar effects through different means or they have
to ignore the book and just try to make a good movie out of the
characters and plot contained in the book.

The best example of the former that I can think of is the 1985
Merchant-Ivory production of _A Room with a View_.

The best example of the latter is, I suspect, _The Godfather_. I
haven't read the book, so I can't say for sure.

--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet

[Mark Steese]

bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca> wrote in
news:billvan-9E4435...@news.shawcable.net:

> In article <g5e2r7dc0odlmjv3a...@4ax.com>,
> Kevin <K_S_O...@yh.com> wrote:
>
>> Initial Medium Preference Syndrome.
>>
>> I read the Lord of the Rings before I saw the movie. I like the
>> books better.
>>
>> I saw Blade Runner before I read DADOES. I like the movie better.
>>
>> I saw Walking Dead before I read it. I like the show better.
>>
>> Recently, The Girl and I have watched the first season of Game of
>> Thrones. Then I tried to read the book on the Kindle. We like DVDs
>> a lot. Ok, "a lot" might be an overstatement, but it's certainly
>> watchable and interesting and I plan to watch as much of it as they
>> make. The book, on the other hand, is unreadable. It's dreadful.
>> But, comparing scene for scene (thanks youtube), a lot of the dialog
>> is exactly the same. So either a) the ambiance the show creates is
>> what I like, and what the show shows is objectively better than the
>> description in the book, or b) I just like tv better than books now
>> because I'm getting lazy, or c) IMPS.
>>
>> So, GoTh the show or the book? IMPS in general? Or is the book
>> always better?

A few personal data points: I read LoTR before the movies existed. I
like the movies better. I also read Jurassic Park before I saw the
movie: I like the movie better. OTOH, I read Congo before I saw the
alleged adaptation of it, and I'm still pissed off about how badly Frank
Marshall squandered his opportunity to make a kickass movie.

I'm also one of the five people who read Gary Wolf's novel "Who Censored
Roger Rabbit?" before seeing "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" The movie dumped
nearly everything that made the novel interesting; consequently, I'm
also one of the five people who thought the movie sucked. But then, I
think Romancing the Stone was Zemeckis's last good movie.
--
It can be hard, sometimes, to come home to Van Nuys. -Sandra Tsing Loh

[Mark Brader]

K_S_ONeill:

>> I saw Blade Runner before I read DADOES. I like the movie better.

"Opus the Penguin":

> Read the book a few days before I saw the movie. The book helped me
> understand some of what was going on in the movie. Initially, I liked

> the book better. I eventually came to like the movie quite a lot...

Ah, now there's a point. Thanks to Kubrick's manipulations, I saw
"2001: A Space Odyssey" before the book came out. I liked it a lot at
the time, but that's only because I was 13 and taken in by the visual
spectacle and the great futuristic details. When I read the book *and
learned what the movie was supposed to have been about*, I immediately
realized that I liked the book better. And today I consider the
movie to be a travesty of a good story, a piece of pretentious junk.

(But with great visuals and great details.)

Another exception: I read "The Day of the Jackal" first and saw the
movie afterwards, and I like them both *equally*. The adaptation is
extremely faithful, both versions telling the story almost identically,
and I think it works equally well in both media. But I'm more likely
to see the movie again than read the book again, simply because it
takes less time.
--
Mark Brader | "It never occurred to me that a living person could be
Toronto | used as a blowtorch, but we admit human beings are a
m...@vex.net | bit special, don't we?" --Hal Clement: STILL RIVER

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Howard Hola Hail]

m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote

> K_S_ONeill:

>>> I saw Blade Runner before I read DADOES. I like the movie better.
>
> "Opus the Penguin":

>> Read the book a few days before I saw the movie. The book helped me
>> understand some of what was going on in the movie. Initially, I liked
>> the book better. I eventually came to like the movie quite a lot...
>
> Ah, now there's a point. Thanks to Kubrick's manipulations, I saw
> "2001: A Space Odyssey" before the book came out. I liked it a lot at
> the time, but that's only because I was 13 and taken in by the visual
> spectacle and the great futuristic details. When I read the book *and
> learned what the movie was supposed to have been about*, I immediately
> realized that I liked the book better. And today I consider the
> movie to be a travesty of a good story, a piece of pretentious junk.
>
> (But with great visuals and great details.)

I liked the monkeys in the movie 2001 and that was about it. The book
was alright though, nothing great.

I read Cool Hand Luke after I saw the movie, and the movie was vastly
better. I read Catch 22 before seeing the movie, and the movie was much
worse. I read the short story Brokeback Mountain after I saw the movie,
and the story was much better, not because it was a particularly good
story, but because it was much, much shorter.

> Another exception: I read "The Day of the Jackal" first and saw the
> movie afterwards, and I like them both *equally*. The adaptation is
> extremely faithful, both versions telling the story almost
> identically, and I think it works equally well in both media.

To Kill a Mockingbird works about as well as a book as a movie. I can't
remember which I saw or read first. I saw The Life of Brian after I
read the book it was based on, and I liked them about the same. The
movie was only intermittently funny, but I'm not sure the book really
needed to tell the same story four times.

I've read Mad Magazine parodies before and after seeing the movies, and
I think more often than not I like the magazine versions better than the
movies.

[Mark Brader]

Mark Brader:

>> Another exception: I read "The Day of the Jackal" first and saw the
>> movie afterwards, and I like them both *equally*. The adaptation is
>> extremely faithful, both versions telling the story almost
>> identically, and I think it works equally well in both media.

"Howard Hola Hail":

> To Kill a Mockingbird works about as well as a book as a movie. I can't
> remember which I saw or read first.

I think I agree, but it's hard to tell. I read the book in high school
and saw the movie quite a few years later.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "I like the other Bobs. Now, if I can only
m...@vex.net | recall which Mark I hate." --Al Fargnoli

[Richard R. Hershberger]

On May 14, 3:24 pm, Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+use...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I hold the minority position of admiring the book of The Godfather a
great deal, while it is generally considered a mere potboiler. (This
ought not, by the way, be taken to suggest I don't admire the [first
two] movie[s].) There are some unfortunate bits to the book, mostly
having to do with sex, but pretty much everything that makes the
movies good is in there. And the ending is better. The theme is how
Michael is trying to break away from the family business and become a
full American. Marrying a WASP like Kate is part of this. In the
movie the failure of this attempt is shown in the scene where he lies
to her and then closes the doors. This is a terrific scene, but I
like the way the book does it better. In it, Kate asks her mother-in-
law why she (the m-i-l) attends mass every day. The answer is that
Vito Corleone does many bad things, and constant prayer is required to
compensate. The book ends with Kate putting on a veil and attending
daily mass with her mother-in-law. On a less exalted point, the book
also includes a lot of background that gets elided in the movies.
Luca Brasi is barely noticeable in the movies. In the books he is
shown to be key to the Corleone power, and his death nearly
disasterous to the family

[Stan]

In general books are more detailed. This can work against some and for
some. Your involvement and imagination play a bigger part when reading
vs. when viewing.

I am reading Birdsong. I started reading before I knew it was a BBC/PBS
mini-series. I won't watch the show until I finish reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birdsong_(novel)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01bcltb



--

Stan "read it" in NJ

[Mark Steese]

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in news:907e790f-63fd-4fdd-9e81-
f90b91...@f30g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:

> On May 14, 10:00 am, Kevin <K_S_ONe...@yh.com> wrote:
>
>> So, GoTh the show or the book?  IMPS in general?  Or is the book
>> always better?
>
>
> Always? No. Often. Star Wars, the book is OK. Star Wars the movie
> is FUCKING STAR WARS.

Star Wars the book was, of course, prepared from the screenplay of Star
Wars the movie, not the other way round.

And calling it OK is far too generous. George Lucas's dialogue, which Alan
Dean Foster reproduced verbatim, is bad enough when spoken by actual actors
in the context of an actual movie: on the printed page, it's so horrible
that it makes you wonder how nobody saw the prequels coming.
--
The Alps are grand in their beauty, Mount Shasta is sublime in its
desolation. -William H. Brewer

[Heather]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 13:49:29 -0500, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

>IMPs? Better than matchpoints.
>
>K_S_ONeill:
>> Initial Medium Preference Syndrome.
>>
>> I read the Lord of the Rings before I saw the movie. I like the books
>> better.
>>
>> I saw Blade Runner before I read DADOES. I like the movie better.
>>
>> I saw Walking Dead before I read it. I like the show better.
>
>For another example... I saw the TV version of HHGttG before I read
>the books, read the radio scripts, and saw the movie. And, that's
>right, unlike everyone else, I liked the TV version best.

My preference in this case follows the order in which I was exposed to
them. The radio series is brilliant, the books are very good, the
television series is acceptable and the movie was a horrible
disappointment, although this was not a surprise.



--
Heather

[D.F. Manno]

Kevin <K_S_O...@yh.com> wrote:

> So, GoTh the show or the book? IMPS in general? Or is the book
> always better?

I saw "True Blood" before I read the Sookie Stackhouse mysteries. I like
the books better.

--
D.F. Manno

[Les Albert]

I read some of the Kurt Wallander series by Henning Mankell and found
them only moderately interesting, but they really came alive and were
very good when some of the stories were made into TV productions (the
British productions with Kenneth Branagh).

I like the "Good Dog, Carl" stories, but they haven't been made into
anything other than books.

Les

[Mary]

On 5/14/2012 12:00 PM, Kevin wrote:

> So, GoTh the show or the book? IMPS in general? Or is the book
> always better?
>

I almost always like the book better, the Game of Thrones really is
dreadful.

Mary

[Mary]

Books all the way with this one.

Mary

[Dhubghall]

You've just brought up a major issue in my marriage. I can't read the
books. I've tried multiple times and the style and names/geneology is
just painful. My wife has read all of the books and is ITCHING to talk
about them. I've been really enjoying the series on HBO but she keeps
twitching about how it is different. I feel the need to calm her down but
I dont want to have to read through a couple thousand pages of story that
I don't care about. The names are too similar and the overall story moves
too slow to make it worthwhile.

Last week I discovered John Scalzi's "Old Man's War" and read it in 3
days. That is far mor interesting than a bunch of assholes who can't be
buggered to be a human being regardless of clan. I pickd up the followup
novel on Kindle and it is still a beter use of my time!

Dougall

[Kevin]

On 15 May 2012 01:49:18 GMT, Dhubghall <dou...@fnord.prismnet.com>
wrote:

I have sort of the same issue but backwards, and in reverse. I read a
series of books called The Borribles years ago, and several times
since. I really like them. The Girl has tried to read them a few
times and can't get through it, due to some personal failing on her
part or something. So we can't talk about them. But at least they're
not on tv.

[Opus the Penguin]

Mark Steese (mark_...@yahoo.com) wrote:

> I'm also one of the five people who read Gary Wolf's novel "Who
> Censored Roger Rabbit?" before seeing "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?"
> The movie dumped nearly everything that made the novel
> interesting; consequently, I'm also one of the five people who
> thought the movie sucked.

I don't know if I thought the movie sucked. (Never read the book.) But
it was a bit of a letdown. I've never wanted to see it again.

[N J Marsh]

Mark Steese <mark_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in news:907e790f-63fd-4fdd-9e81-
> f90b91...@f30g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On May 14, 10:00 am, Kevin <K_S_ONe...@yh.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So, GoTh the show or the book? IMPS in general? Or is the book
>>> always better?
>>
>>
>> Always? No. Often. Star Wars, the book is OK. Star Wars the movie
>> is FUCKING STAR WARS.
>
> Star Wars the book was, of course, prepared from the screenplay of Star
> Wars the movie, not the other way round.
>
> And calling it OK is far too generous. George Lucas's dialogue, which Alan
> Dean Foster reproduced verbatim, is bad enough when spoken by actual actors
> in the context of an actual movie: on the printed page, it's so horrible
> that it makes you wonder how nobody saw the prequels coming.

On the contrary, the dialogue is better typed.

On the other hand, there isn't much to SW other than the universe, so the
quality if the dialogue might stand out more in the book.

What was the Ford quote? Something like "you can type this shit, George,
doesn't mean we can speak it."

--
njm

[Greg Goss]

Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Mark Steese (mark_...@yahoo.com) wrote:
>
>> I'm also one of the five people who read Gary Wolf's novel "Who
>> Censored Roger Rabbit?" before seeing "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?"
>> The movie dumped nearly everything that made the novel
>> interesting; consequently, I'm also one of the five people who
>> thought the movie sucked.
>
>I don't know if I thought the movie sucked. (Never read the book.) But
>it was a bit of a letdown. I've never wanted to see it again.

I liked the movie, but I have a particular fondness for in-joke type
stuff. The book never really worked for me when I read it after the
movie. Never needed to go back to either one.
--
I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
wouldn't have rusted like this.

[Greg Goss]

m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

>For another example... I saw the TV version of HHGttG before I read
>the books, read the radio scripts, and saw the movie. And, that's
>right, unlike everyone else, I liked the TV version best.

Same here.

Never finished the computer game or the scripts.

[Greg Goss]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>
>>For another example... I saw the TV version of HHGttG before I read
>>the books, read the radio scripts, and saw the movie. And, that's
>>right, unlike everyone else, I liked the TV version best.
>
>Same here.
>
>Never finished the computer game or the scripts.

... which may be related to never seeking out the scripts until I was
a quarter century older.

[Mark Brader]

Mark Brader:

>> And, that's right, unlike everyone else, I liked the TV version best.

Greg Goss:
> Same here.

Inconceivable! :-)
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Logic is logic. That's all I say."
m...@vex.net -- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[Lee Ayrton]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 20:36:59 -0400, Stan wrote:


>> So, GoTh the show or the book? IMPS in general? Or is the book always
>> better?
>
> In general books are more detailed. This can work against some and for
> some. Your involvement and imagination play a bigger part when reading
> vs. when viewing.

Quoting Prof Joe Reed from memory: Books are books, movies are movies.
Both tell stories but do so in very different ways.

> I am reading Birdsong. I started reading before I knew it was a BBC/PBS
> mini-series. I won't watch the show until I finish reading.

I caught most of Birdsong in my usual random fashion, and am left hungry
for more WWI drama. I am curious about the social mechanism behind the
recent popularity of WWI. It doesn't appear from here to be a simple
case of nostalgie de la boue.

"War Horse" didn't satisfy. On so many levels. PLah.

[Kevin]

I heard Carrie Fisher say that, but it may have been a common
sentiment.

[Kevin]

On Tue, 15 May 2012 06:04:35 +0000 (UTC), Opus the Penguin
<opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Mark Steese (mark_...@yahoo.com) wrote:
>
>> I'm also one of the five people who read Gary Wolf's novel "Who
>> Censored Roger Rabbit?" before seeing "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?"
>> The movie dumped nearly everything that made the novel
>> interesting; consequently, I'm also one of the five people who
>> thought the movie sucked.
>
>I don't know if I thought the movie sucked. (Never read the book.) But
>it was a bit of a letdown. I've never wanted to see it again.

I just saw the remake in 3D. They called it "The Avengers", but it's
the same idea, no matter what you do to me I just grow a lump on my
head and look dazed, then I'm fine. Ok, how do you fight someone like
that? And, action...

I may never see another superhero movie again. If Joss Whedon can't
construct a backstory that justifies guys in underwear wrestling
around with each other and breaking New York to show how strong they
are and how the whole world is made of crackers as far as they're
concerned, all Not At All Homoerotic and Very Important and so on, I'm
not sure anyone can. Also, they stole the theme from LotR, which
stood out to me and The Girl like a sore thumb. Also, it was dumb.

[bill van]

In article <a1f4m...@mid.individual.net>,

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>
> >For another example... I saw the TV version of HHGttG before I read
> >the books, read the radio scripts, and saw the movie. And, that's
> >right, unlike everyone else, I liked the TV version best.
>
> Same here.
>
> Never finished the computer game or the scripts.

I have a vague memory of taping it to cassette from radio the first time
I heard/read/saw it. Wikipedia agrees the radio series was the first
iteration, preceding even the books. First broadcast on BBC in 1978.

bill

[Wally Sevits]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 12:00:51 -0500, Kevin <K_S_O...@yh.com> wrote:

>Initial Medium Preference Syndrome.
>
>I read the Lord of the Rings before I saw the movie. I like the books
>better.
>
>I saw Blade Runner before I read DADOES. I like the movie better.
>
>I saw Walking Dead before I read it. I like the show better.
>
>Recently, The Girl and I have watched the first season of Game of
>Thrones. Then I tried to read the book on the Kindle. We like DVDs a
>lot. Ok, "a lot" might be an overstatement, but it's certainly
>watchable and interesting and I plan to watch as much of it as they
>make. The book, on the other hand, is unreadable. It's dreadful.
>But, comparing scene for scene (thanks youtube), a lot of the dialog
>is exactly the same. So either a) the ambiance the show creates is
>what I like, and what the show shows is objectively better than the
>description in the book, or b) I just like tv better than books now
>because I'm getting lazy, or c) IMPS.
>

>So, GoTh the show or the book? IMPS in general? Or is the book
>always better?

My personal preference, arrived at over the years, is to see the movie
first. If I read the book first, then when I am watching the movie all
the changes, omissions, compositing of characters, etc. are a
continual distraction. And the movie keeps going so I need to pay
attention. Doing it in the other order, I can appreciate as the book
unfolds how it differs from the movie, who are the characters, and so
on. My favorite examples of this are a couple of movies from 20 years
ago, "The Prince of Tides" and "The Joy Luck Club". In each case, I
really liked the movies and saw each two or three times. Then, when
reading the book, the Tom Wingo character spoke with Nick Nolte's
voice. All the convoluted household relationships of the polygamous
Chinese rich guy in Joy Luck Club were a lot easier to understand, and
others which I don't have the time to recall right now.

Another effect of this is that upon subsequent viewing of the movies,
I wonder where this or that scene went to, when in truth it had never
been in the movie but only in the book. I had "viewed it in my head"
using the actors from the films. I enjoy stuff like that.

Right now I am violating my own rule, because I am reading the trilogy
which begns with "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" before seeing any
of the movies. But these books have grabbed me more strongly than any
I can remember in years. I can't put it down at night and am staying
up way too late reading.
--
Wally Sevits

[Greg Goss]

Then there's another category. Thinking about cases where I liked
books made from movies, I realize that both of the cases where I liked
the book-from-movie better, the movies were actually made from a song.

I actually liked the book versions of Convoy and Ode to Billy Joe,
though I'm unlikely to re-read the latter, and can't find my copy of
the former.

[Snidely]

After serious thinking Wally Sevits wrote :

> Right now I am violating my own rule, because I am reading the trilogy
> which begns with "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" before seeing any
> of the movies. But these books have grabbed me more strongly than any
> I can remember in years. I can't put it down at night and am staying
> up way too late reading.

FWIW, I saw Dr Zhivago while in high school, and read the book maybe 10
years later. There's a whole 'nother wife in there! I think I enjoyed
both equally.

For 2001, I saw the movie and read the book; I was wowed by the movie,
but the book was easier to understand. The wisdom of the times was,
"see the movie, read the book, then see the movie again". I haven't
quite completed the cycle., but that's because I dropped the ball.

I read LoTR and H in high school (missing dinner a few times), but have
yet to see more than excerpts of any of the animated or live action
versions. I also haven't finished the Silmarllion.

I read the Narnia books the first time in high school, and a couple of
times since then (Prince Caspian is my favorite, I think). I haven't
seen the movies, but I did catch an episode of the BBC treatment of The
Silver Chair where a Time Lord played a Marsh Wiggle.

I came across the HHGttG TV version while absorbing Dr Who (and Romana
II), then heard the Radiophonic version, and eventually read some of
the books. I like them all, but probably the Radio best.

I only recently read To Kill A Mockingbird, and have not seen the movie
yet.

I saw All Quiet on the Western Front in Western Civ class, and haven't
read the book yet.

I started my James Bond with On Her Majesty's Secret Service because my
brother had a copy, and eventually read Dr No and From Russia With
Love. Years later saw Dr No, but no where near caught up. The Sean
Connery set came out when I was too young to go to the theater for
them, without being as conniving as some of my classmates, and too late
to VHS, and I'm rather slowly getting it straightened out with DVDs.

I can't remember any examples of TV series based on books that weren't
made into movies first, but I'm sure there are some.

In two weeks, I'll remember some examples where I've both seen and
read, and smack my forehead and cry aloud.

Anyway, that's enough about you.

/dps


--
Who, me? And what lacuna?

[bill van]

In article <mn.7b6f7dc5c412a90f.127094@snitoo>,

Snidely <snide...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I read LoTR and H in high school (missing dinner a few times), but have
> yet to see more than excerpts of any of the animated or live action
> versions. I also haven't finished the Silmarllion.
>

The LotR book stands by itself. It was a great yarn that launched a
genre (arguably, as always).

The movies are not comparable to the book. They deviate in significant
ways. They add spectacular effects; orcs, assorted trolls and other
monstrous things and battle scenes are very well done. They subtract
entire sections of the book, some of them personal favourites. Some of
the plot changes are not true to the spirit of the book. Some of the
performances are excellent (Gandalf, Bilbo, Saruman, Theoden for four)
and some not so much. Frodo is all big eyes and angst; Gollum is
overplayed; Arwen Evenstar goes from a dignified character who could
have been played by a young Vanessa Redgrave to a sappy bag of phlegm
and tears in an expanded part nauseatingly played by Steve Tyler's
insipid daughter. (You might be able to tell she's not my favourite
character in the movies.)

If you tend to be a stickler about being true to a book, you shouldn't
see the movies. If you can appreciate a spectacle with good special
effects on its own merits, they're fine entertainment.

I don't personally know anyone who has finished The Silmarillion.

bill

[N Jill Marsh]

On Tue, 15 May 2012 15:30:26 -0700, bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca>
wrote:

Am I not personal enough?

nj"yep"m


--
"You always know after you are two. Two is the beginning of the end"

[Kevin]

I agree, I liked the book a lot too. The movie was good at what
movies are good at, but the book was tremendously detailed and
interesting. And science fiction, according to people I knew who
lived in New York and had some dealings with the mob via the unions.
But still quite good.

[Kevin]

On Tue, 15 May 2012 18:39:43 -0400, N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Neither am I, I guess.

[Stan]

Not to hijack the thread, but I also am newly interested in WWI. I
didn't know it was a trend. Next up is "Now it Can Be Told".
http://www.amazon.com/Now-It-Can-Be-Told/dp/1417917903

--

Stan in NJ

[Mark Steese]

N J Marsh <njm...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1481161056358771224.6...@news.eternal-
september.o
rg:

> Mark Steese <mark_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:907e790f-63fd-4fdd-9e81-
>> f90b91...@f30g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On May 14, 10:00 am, Kevin <K_S_ONe...@yh.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, GoTh the show or the book? IMPS in general? Or is the book
>>>> always better?
>>>
>>>
>>> Always? No. Often. Star Wars, the book is OK. Star Wars the
>>> movie is FUCKING STAR WARS.
>>
>> Star Wars the book was, of course, prepared from the screenplay of
>> Star Wars the movie, not the other way round.
>>
>> And calling it OK is far too generous. George Lucas's dialogue, which
>> Alan Dean Foster reproduced verbatim, is bad enough when spoken by
>> actual actors in the context of an actual movie: on the printed page,
>> it's so horrible that it makes you wonder how nobody saw the prequels
>> coming.
>
> On the contrary, the dialogue is better typed.

No, it really isn't. There's a reason Darth Vader's signature dialogue
consists of heavy breathing. James Earl Jones is a superb voice actor,
but absent his delivery, dialogue like "Don't be too proud of this
technological terror you've constructed" is ludicrously inept.

> On the other hand, there isn't much to SW other than the universe, so
> the quality if the dialogue might stand out more in the book.

Oh, the dialogue isn't the only thing wrong with the novel. Not by any
means.

> What was the Ford quote? Something like "you can type this shit,
> George, doesn't mean we can speak it."

It's usually given as "George, you can type this shit, but you sure as
hell can't say it." I always took it to mean that composing wretched
dialogue is much easier than performing it. (The quotation is somewhat
ironic given that Ford's delivery of the line "I don't know, I can
imagine quite a bit" is one of the best things in the movie.)
--
The "Kinkade Glow" could be seen as derived in spirit from the
"lustrous, pearly mist" that Mark Twain had derided in the Bierstadt
paintings, and, the level of execution to one side, there are certain
unsettling similarities between the two painters. -Joan Didion

[Dover Beach]

Kevin <K_S_O...@yh.com> wrote in
news:32n5r75sl87e426a9...@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 15 May 2012 18:39:43 -0400, N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 15 May 2012 15:30:26 -0700, bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca>
>>wrote:

>>>

>>>I don't personally know anyone who has finished The Silmarillion.
>>
>>Am I not personal enough?
>>
>>nj"yep"m
>
> Neither am I, I guess.

My stepson read it. He lives in Seattle; I could introduce you.

[Mark Steese]

Kevin <K_S_O...@yh.com> wrote in
news:oa05r797vgh702j43...@4ax.com:

Fisher said that later, and she was probably echoing Ford, who
reportedly said "George, you can type this shit, but you sure as hell
can't say it" when he was reading the script for the first time. Ford
had known Lucas for some time (he has a small role in "American
Graffiti") and was one of the few people who could get away with dissing
Lucas to his face.
--
The proud flag went up, hoisted on a staff in the center of the old
Sonoma Plaza. The crowds of Mexicans greeted it with laughter and
derision, taking the rather corpulent bear for a pig. -Lambert Florin

[Barbara]

The show, or the book?


--
Barbara

[Mark Steese]

Barbara <que.barbar...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:nvr5r7hvq7s70m0c8...@4ax.com:

The game. It's like musical chairs, except with thrones. It wouldn't be so
bad if you didn't have to take away another damn throne on every round -
those things weigh a ton.
--
The main house contained a carefully tuned piano at which Harris, without
any previous musical training, could play and thereby invoke his Lily Queen
into "electro-vital form." -Robert Hine

[bill van]

In article <32n5r75sl87e426a9...@4ax.com>,

Kevin <K_S_O...@yh.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 15 May 2012 18:39:43 -0400, N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 15 May 2012 15:30:26 -0700, bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca>
> >wrote:
> >

> >>I don't personally know anyone who has finished The Silmarillion.
> >
> >Am I not personal enough?

(Opens mouth as if to speak. Closes it again.)

> >
> >nj"yep"m
>
> Neither am I, I guess.

Heh. Guess I should have said, I don't know that I personally know
anyone, etc.

bill, now i know i know i know

doodah, doodah

[Heather]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 20:40:09 -0500, Mary <mrfea...@a0l.com> wrote:

>On 5/14/2012 8:06 PM, Heather wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 13:49:29 -0500, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>>
>>> IMPs? Better than matchpoints.
>>>
>>> K_S_ONeill:

>>>> Initial Medium Preference Syndrome.
>>>>
>>>> I read the Lord of the Rings before I saw the movie. I like the books
>>>> better.
>>>>

>>>> I saw Blade Runner before I read DADOES. I like the movie better.
>>>>

>>>> I saw Walking Dead before I read it. I like the show better.
>>>

>>> For another example... I saw the TV version of HHGttG before I read
>>> the books, read the radio scripts, and saw the movie. And, that's
>>> right, unlike everyone else, I liked the TV version best.
>>
>>

>> My preference in this case follows the order in which I was exposed to
>> them. The radio series is brilliant, the books are very good, the
>> television series is acceptable and the movie was a horrible
>> disappointment, although this was not a surprise.
>
>
>Books all the way with this one.
>

In general I agree but there definitely are exceptions.


--
Heather

[Mary]

Hm, that wasn't clear, was it? I disliked the book enough that I never
read the rest of the series OR watched the show.

Mary

[Mary]

Oh, and I gave the book away.

Mary

[Nick Spalding]

Mary wrote, in <QvWdnWks-M3uiS7S...@mchsi.com>
on Tue, 15 May 2012 21:44:04 -0500:

What had the recipient done?
--
Nick Spalding

[N J Marsh]

It's a brutal read for most people. I had read the others, of course, and
given up on the Silmarillian once or twice, but then I read Hobbit and the
trilogy to a child. (The Best Beloved heard Hobbit when he was five or six,
the trilogy a couple of years later - they are pretty good books to read
aloud, by the way.)

Because of that, I really had to pay close attention to the details, and I
also bought a book called "Travels with Frodo" which follows his trail from
start to finish, in real time, with maps. It was very useful wrt keeping
the stories straight.

So I had a pretty good feel for the geography of Middle Earth, as well as
how many of the characters are related to or have history with each other.
That makes reading the Silmarillian much easier, as you can recognise
places and people and cultures even though they have different names and
such.

Otherwise, it's a mash.
--
njm

[Mary]

On May 16, 2:08 am, Nick Spalding <spald...@iol.ie> wrote:
> Mary wrote, in <QvWdnWks-M3uiS7SnZ2dnUVZ_hmdn...@mchsi.com>

>  on Tue, 15 May 2012 21:44:04 -0500:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 5/15/2012 9:33 PM, Mary wrote:
> >> On 5/15/2012 7:08 PM, Barbara wrote:

> >>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 20:38:53 -0500, Mary<mrfeath...@a0l.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On 5/14/2012 12:00 PM, Kevin wrote:
>
> >>>>> So, GoTh the show or the book? IMPS in general? Or is the book
> >>>>> always better?
>
> >>>> I almost always like the book better, the Game of Thrones really is
> >>>> dreadful.
>
> >>> The show, or the book?
>
> >> Hm, that wasn't clear, was it? I disliked the book enough that I never
> >> read the rest of the series OR watched the show.
>
> >> Mary
>
> >Oh, and I gave the book away.
>
> >Mary
>
> What had the recipient done?
> --

> Nick Spalding-


Asked about it. I didn't see it as my job to save her from herself.

Mary
come to think of it, I haven't heard from her since....

[Kevin]

I also found the books unreadable. I rather like the show. We just
finished Ep 10 in season 1 last night, now I have to figure out how to
get season 2, since we don't have HBO. Anyway, if you're bored you
can find Ep 1 on youtube in ten minute sections, I think.

[bill van]

In article
<1479283366358862449.3...@news.eternal-september.org>

,
N J Marsh <njm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca> wrote:
> > In article <32n5r75sl87e426a9...@4ax.com>,
> > Kevin <K_S_O...@yh.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 15 May 2012 18:39:43 -0400, N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, 15 May 2012 15:30:26 -0700, bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I don't personally know anyone who has finished The Silmarillion.
> >>>
> >>> Am I not personal enough?
> >
> > (Opens mouth as if to speak. Closes it again.)
> >>>
> >>> nj"yep"m
> >>
> >> Neither am I, I guess.
> >
> > Heh. Guess I should have said, I don't know that I personally know
> > anyone, etc.
> >
> > bill, now i know i know i know
> >
> > doodah, doodah
>
> It's a brutal read for most people. I had read the others, of course, and
> given up on the Silmarillian once or twice, but then I read Hobbit and the
> trilogy to a child. (The Best Beloved heard Hobbit when he was five or six,
> the trilogy a couple of years later - they are pretty good books to read
> aloud, by the way.)

I read the trilogy aloud to Sue, ahead of our most recent viewing of the
movies. I recently acquired a new copy of The Hobbit, intending to do
the same before that movie comes out.

> Because of that, I really had to pay close attention to the details, and I
> also bought a book called "Travels with Frodo" which follows his trail from
> start to finish, in real time, with maps. It was very useful wrt keeping
> the stories straight.
>
> So I had a pretty good feel for the geography of Middle Earth, as well as
> how many of the characters are related to or have history with each other.
> That makes reading the Silmarillian much easier, as you can recognise
> places and people and cultures even though they have different names and
> such.
>
> Otherwise, it's a mash.

It has been 40 years, probably, since I last looked at it. Not sure if
I'll get around to it again, but I won't rule it out.

bill

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 16, 6:53 am, Mary <mrfeath...@aol.com> wrote:

> > >Oh, and I gave the book away.
>
> > >Mary
>
> > What had the recipient done?
> > --
> > Nick Spalding-
>
> Asked about it.  I didn't see it as my job to save her from herself.

'Chuck' (which I have now officially seen every episode of, the
library just got season 5) had a similar gag-

Morgan (comic sidekick, geek) had his memory partially erased. Hero
(eponymous 'Chuck', also geek) to fill in missing parts, gives him a
stack of DVDs, including all the Star Wars movies, recommending he
start with IV. Morgan's foil (John Casey, secret agent/tank) tells
him to start with I instead...

Morgan later asks Casey if he really liked Star Wars, cause... Casey
comes clean.

Later the Indiana Jones movies come up. Casey honestly tells him
they're OK. And reassures him in a nice moment, that there are only
3...

[S. Checker]

bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca> wrote:

> I don't personally know anyone who has finished The Silmarillion.

I read it over the winter, after having started it multiple times in my
teen years. It's... complicated. Some good ripping yarns in there. A
lot of geneaology. A nasty habit of having six names for each
character. But at least I finally learned the source of the word
"Elbereth" in NetHack.

Oh, and while of course it all precedes "Lord of the Rings"
chronologically, it should be read after, I feel. It makes the
backstory for LoTR much more interesting, but I almost feel it would
make the story in the trilogy less interesting if read first.
--
Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a
hero... must drink brandy.
-- Samuel Johnson

[doc...@gmail.com]

> Initial Medium Preference Syndrome.

Mr. Bubble was in most respects better as liquid than the original form, powder. However, Ivory soap was better as cakes than flakes, powder, or liquid. Yet Lux was better as flakes (its original form) than bars.

Money was better as coins than paper.

Polio vaccine was better as Sabin ingestible than Salk injectable.

Lucy was better on TV than her original form, radio ("My Favorite Wife").

Bob in the Bronx

[Opus the Penguin]

Lee Ayrton (lay...@panix.com) wrote:

> I caught most of Birdsong in my usual random fashion, and am left
> hungry for more WWI drama. I am curious about the social
> mechanism behind the recent popularity of WWI. It doesn't appear
> from here to be a simple case of nostalgie de la boue.

Remember when you were a kid and there was a lot of interest in the
Civil War? Well, now WWI was just as long ago, so its time has come.

--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet

[Opus the Penguin]

bill van (bil...@delete.shaw.ca) wrote:

> I don't personally know anyone who has finished The Silmarillion.

I never did, though I started it many times. If I recall, Tolkien's
publisher rejected The Silmarillion with a comment that might just have
been a tactful brush-off, but might also have been exactly right. He
said it was "full of a Celtic beauty that Anglo-Saxons find hard to
take in large doses." Or something like that. All I know is I find the
book quite beautiful and it isn't long before I've had enough.

I have a friend who's read The Silmarillion. I dated a girl who'd read
it, but I wasn't foolish enough to marry her. And I knew a kid in high
school who was RE-reading The Silmarillion. He was almost to his
favorite part--something about the elf wars. Wow.

[Howard Hola Hale]

From my memory, the part about the elf wars was the only digestable
part. There seemed to be long passages about creation of the world, all
of the gods and all the different talking things in the entire place.
I've met or read someone insisting it's all consistent with Catholic
theology, which is simply impossible for any meaningful values of
Catholic, theology, and consistent.

The elf wars I kind of liked, in part because it seemed less cut and
dried, with us or agin' us, in terms of the morality compared to the
Lord of the Rings. There were factions and intrigue and the whole
affair was evidently cursed by the gods for reasons I don't remember.
They seemed alive, rather than the elfs in the Lord of the Rings who
were oh so sadly singing and remembering and looking off in the distance
as they shot a single arrow with the sun setting and all that.

[Kevin]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 16:24:39 +0000 (UTC), Howard Hola Hale
<howar...@notmail.com> wrote:

>The elf wars I kind of liked, in part because it seemed less cut and
>dried, with us or agin' us, in terms of the morality compared to the
>Lord of the Rings. There were factions and intrigue and the whole
>affair was evidently cursed by the gods for reasons I don't remember.
>They seemed alive, rather than the elfs in the Lord of the Rings who
>were oh so sadly singing and remembering and looking off in the distance
>as they shot a single arrow with the sun setting and all that.

I agree with this.

[bill van]

In article <XnsA05A6DF11CEBEop...@127.0.0.1>,

Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:

I mildly regret having got rid of my copy in the distant past, but
probably not enough to acquire another one some time. Probably.

I remember being very impressed, in a you-must-be-nuts kind of way, by
the massively detailed histories, complete with invented languages. He
outdid Wagner in nearly every way, though not with the music. I don't
recall whether Tolkien wrote any tunes or not, but I thought his poetry
sucked. When I read the trilogy out loud to Sue, we had to skip most of
the verses because they were so stilted.

bill

[N Jill Marsh]

Yeah, me too. One of the reasons I'm glad I read it is that it puts
quite a bit of what goes on in LOTR in context, including all the
elves moping about.



--
"You always know after you are two. Two is the beginning of the end"

[Mark Steese]

bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca> wrote in
news:billvan-FD9998...@news.shawcable.net:

> In article <XnsA05A6DF11CEBEop...@127.0.0.1>,
> Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> bill van (bil...@delete.shaw.ca) wrote:
>>
>> > I don't personally know anyone who has finished The Silmarillion.
>>
>> I never did, though I started it many times. If I recall, Tolkien's
>> publisher rejected The Silmarillion with a comment that might just
>> have been a tactful brush-off, but might also have been exactly
>> right. He said it was "full of a Celtic beauty that Anglo-Saxons find
>> hard to take in large doses." Or something like that. All I know is I
>> find the book quite beautiful and it isn't long before I've had
>> enough.
>>
>> I have a friend who's read The Silmarillion. I dated a girl who'd
>> read it, but I wasn't foolish enough to marry her. And I knew a kid
>> in high school who was RE-reading The Silmarillion. He was almost to
>> his favorite part--something about the elf wars. Wow.
>
> I mildly regret having got rid of my copy in the distant past, but
> probably not enough to acquire another one some time. Probably.
>
> I remember being very impressed, in a you-must-be-nuts kind of way, by
> the massively detailed histories, complete with invented languages. He
> outdid Wagner in nearly every way, though not with the music.

That's a little bit like saying he outdid van Gogh in nearly every way,
though not with the painting.
--
Opposing phalanxes of automobiles stream and stop, stream and stop,their
motors agitated by complex refinements of the same subtance that
preserved, in the La Brea Pits, those petrified relics of vanished forms
of life. -David Lavender

[bill van]

In article <XnsA05A8DB...@88.198.244.100>,

Yep, that's the tone I was aiming for.

bill

[Howard Hola Hale]

N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 21 May 2012 11:43:42 -0500, Kevin <K_S_O...@yh.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 May 2012 16:24:39 +0000 (UTC), Howard Hola Hale
>>

>>>The elf wars I kind of liked, in part because it seemed less cut and
>>>dried, with us or agin' us, in terms of the morality compared to the
>>>Lord of the Rings. There were factions and intrigue and the whole
>>>affair was evidently cursed by the gods for reasons I don't remember.
>>>They seemed alive, rather than the elfs in the Lord of the Rings who
>>>were oh so sadly singing and remembering and looking off in the
>>>distance as they shot a single arrow with the sun setting and all
>>>that.
>>
>>I agree with this.
>
> Yeah, me too. One of the reasons I'm glad I read it is that it puts
> quite a bit of what goes on in LOTR in context, including all the
> elves moping about.

I also thought in The Hobbit that they were pretty silly, but at least they
seemed to be having fun and enjoying life. I could see in the Lord of the
Rings that they wouldn't be having fun because they were scared out of
their minds, or they were getting all stoked to go out in a blaze of glory,
or seized by some kind of millennial madness, but they mostly just seemed
to be depressed.

That kind of depression might even be a good theme to develop, but they
were just kind of leaden in The Lord of the Rings, I thought, and I would
have preferred either the happy ones or the reckless and infighting ones a
lot more.

[Stan]

Lee Ayrton wrote:

> On Mon, 14 May 2012 20:36:59 -0400, Stan wrote:
>
>
>>> So, GoTh the show or the book? IMPS in general? Or is the book always
>>> better?
>>

>> In general books are more detailed. This can work against some and for
>> some. Your involvement and imagination play a bigger part when reading
>> vs. when viewing.
>
> Quoting Prof Joe Reed from memory: Books are books, movies are movies.
> Both tell stories but do so in very different ways.
>
>
>> I am reading Birdsong. I started reading before I knew it was a BBC/PBS
>> mini-series. I won't watch the show until I finish reading.

>
> I caught most of Birdsong in my usual random fashion, and am left hungry
> for more WWI drama. I am curious about the social mechanism behind the
> recent popularity of WWI. It doesn't appear from here to be a simple
> case of nostalgie de la boue.
>

> "War Horse" didn't satisfy. On so many levels. PLah.

Lee, how about some WWI non-fiction instead of drama? Here is a link to
our own Pastime's website with his great-grandfather's journal.
http://tinyurl.com/lsfakv

--

I need a new signature.
Stan in NJ

[N Jill Marsh]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 23:25:18 +0000 (UTC), Howard Hola Hale
<howar...@notmail.com> wrote:

>N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 11:43:42 -0500, Kevin <K_S_O...@yh.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 21 May 2012 16:24:39 +0000 (UTC), Howard Hola Hale
>>>
>>>>The elf wars I kind of liked, in part because it seemed less cut and
>>>>dried, with us or agin' us, in terms of the morality compared to the
>>>>Lord of the Rings. There were factions and intrigue and the whole
>>>>affair was evidently cursed by the gods for reasons I don't remember.
>>>>They seemed alive, rather than the elfs in the Lord of the Rings who
>>>>were oh so sadly singing and remembering and looking off in the
>>>>distance as they shot a single arrow with the sun setting and all
>>>>that.
>>>
>>>I agree with this.
>>
>> Yeah, me too. One of the reasons I'm glad I read it is that it puts
>> quite a bit of what goes on in LOTR in context, including all the
>> elves moping about.
>
>I also thought in The Hobbit that they were pretty silly, but at least they
>seemed to be having fun and enjoying life.

Indeed, but it is such a different tone, it's a kid's book, mopey
elves just wouldn't fit in. How much humour is in LOTR, especially
compared to Hobbit?

>I could see in the Lord of the
>Rings that they wouldn't be having fun because they were scared out of
>their minds, or they were getting all stoked to go out in a blaze of glory,
>or seized by some kind of millennial madness, but they mostly just seemed
>to be depressed.
>
>That kind of depression might even be a good theme to develop, but they
>were just kind of leaden in The Lord of the Rings, I thought, and I would
>have preferred either the happy ones or the reckless and infighting ones a
>lot more.

Yes, but they were all mopey because of exactly those things, they
were remnants of a used up people who were only hanging about because
they hadn't got out of their rut and sailed off to paradise.

There's a lot of depression in LOTR, in spite of the lovely ending of
the trilogy, it truly is all about the end of an age, and it's sad.
Even the lovely ending is sort of heartless when one thinks about it.
Probably not the best thing to be thinking about in the wee hours.

nj"now all mopey"

[bill van]

In article <0ahmr71va9ahu17rf...@4ax.com>,

So the depressive elves are leaving and it's the age of man. Don't worry
about it. In the Shire it's one good harvest after another, and the
dwarves are moving into new digs. It's party time in Middle Earth, the
king has a soft spot for us and there are no more quick-to-anger wizards
to spoil the fun. Find yourself a nice cave troll and enjoy. Throw a
party, and don't forget to invite Ghan-buri-Ghan and the ghang.

bill

[Lee Ayrton]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 20:06:04 -0400, Stan wrote:


>> I caught most of Birdsong in my usual random fashion, and am left
>> hungry for more WWI drama. I am curious about the social mechanism
>> behind the recent popularity of WWI. It doesn't appear from here to be
>> a simple case of nostalgie de la boue.
>>
>> "War Horse" didn't satisfy. On so many levels. PLah.
>
> Lee, how about some WWI non-fiction instead of drama? Here is a link to
> our own Pastime's website with his great-grandfather's journal.
> http://tinyurl.com/lsfakv

Ooooh! Thank you.

[Mark Steese]

bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca> wrote in

news:billvan-65306C...@news.shawcable.net:

> In article <0ahmr71va9ahu17rf...@4ax.com>,
> N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>> There's a lot of depression in LOTR, in spite of the lovely ending of
>> the trilogy, it truly is all about the end of an age, and it's sad.
>> Even the lovely ending is sort of heartless when one thinks about it.
>> Probably not the best thing to be thinking about in the wee hours.
>>
>> nj"now all mopey"
>
> So the depressive elves are leaving and it's the age of man. Don't
> worry about it. In the Shire it's one good harvest after another, and
> the dwarves are moving into new digs. It's party time in Middle Earth,
> the king has a soft spot for us and there are no more quick-to-anger
> wizards to spoil the fun.

Right. And don't worry about the expulsions of the Easterlings and
Haradrim. Inferior races, they were, with their swarthy skins and lack of
deference to that mope with a magic sword who called himself king because
of something one of his ancestors did once. Sure, they revered learning and
their technology was far more advanced than that of the Men of the West,
but hey, swarthy skin!
--
The least objectionable of the inland scavengers is the raven, frequenter
of the desert ranges, the same called locally "carrion crow." He is
handsomer and has such an air. -Mary Austin

[Kevin]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 20:01:36 +0000 (UTC), Mark Steese
<mark_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca> wrote in
>news:billvan-65306C...@news.shawcable.net:
>
>> In article <0ahmr71va9ahu17rf...@4ax.com>,
>> N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>>> There's a lot of depression in LOTR, in spite of the lovely ending of
>>> the trilogy, it truly is all about the end of an age, and it's sad.
>>> Even the lovely ending is sort of heartless when one thinks about it.
>>> Probably not the best thing to be thinking about in the wee hours.
>>>
>>> nj"now all mopey"
>>
>> So the depressive elves are leaving and it's the age of man. Don't
>> worry about it. In the Shire it's one good harvest after another, and
>> the dwarves are moving into new digs. It's party time in Middle Earth,
>> the king has a soft spot for us and there are no more quick-to-anger
>> wizards to spoil the fun.
>
>Right. And don't worry about the expulsions of the Easterlings and
>Haradrim. Inferior races, they were, with their swarthy skins and lack of
>deference to that mope with a magic sword who called himself king because
>of something one of his ancestors did once. Sure, they revered learning and
>their technology was far more advanced than that of the Men of the West,
>but hey, swarthy skin!

This was exactly my reaction when I was about thirteen or so. I
thought Narnia was stealth religion, and I thought Tolkien was stealth
racism, I actually wondered if it was ok to be reading it. I think a
librarian at school told me what a great book it was and I thought,
well, I guess it's ok then, and I read the whole trilogy several times
and the Sil. once. But it's still there, even if you gloss over
reading that part.

[Howard Hola Hale]

N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com> wrote :

> On Mon, 21 May 2012 23:25:18 +0000 (UTC), Howard Hola Hale
>

For pure drama, I liked the Ents better. They had been all mopey and in
a rut for a thousand years or more, but then they got really, really
mad, and decided to leave behind what was left of their old homeland and
smash things up really good. I'm not saying all of the elfs should have
done that, but I think it would have been more interesting if more than
one or two did that.

Or, if they had decided to hide under the beds, and then were filled
with guilt after it was all over. Or were more like the leader of
Gondor and basically went crazy. Instead, the hobbits kept meeting elfs
like the first ones when they were being chased by the Black Riders, who
basically give them a nice bottle of wine and then ducked out, possibly
with some kind of mention that they just knew somehow that it was better
this way, and it would all be clear later, and good luck with those
killers on your trail. I think there are multiple ways of expressing a
sense of hopelessness and despair and loss, and what I liked about the
Simarillion was the way the elfs were more, well, human about the way
they dealt with a sense of gathering doom.

> There's a lot of depression in LOTR, in spite of the lovely ending of
> the trilogy, it truly is all about the end of an age, and it's sad.
> Even the lovely ending is sort of heartless when one thinks about it.
> Probably not the best thing to be thinking about in the wee hours.

I think the saddest thing was the elf who married Aragorn and turned
human, with the implication that her choosing to eventually die was a
lot like dying twice, since she'd turned her back on everything she'd
ever known and would never see her family again. It's the kind of inner
conflict I think would have helped the Lord of the Rings, although I
realize to an extent it's more of an Aeneid than the story of Jason.

I've heard that the Golden Compass books are more concerned with the
types of things I think I'm interested in, but I don't know when I'll
ever get the time to read them, and I've heard the movie was pretty
blah, so I don't know if that's an option.

[Howard Hola Hale]

Kevin <K_S_O...@yh.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 22 May 2012 20:01:36 +0000 (UTC), Mark Steese
>>

>>Right. And don't worry about the expulsions of the Easterlings and
>>Haradrim. Inferior races, they were, with their swarthy skins and lack
>>of deference to that mope with a magic sword who called himself king
>>because of something one of his ancestors did once. Sure, they revered
>>learning and their technology was far more advanced than that of the
>>Men of the West, but hey, swarthy skin!
>
> This was exactly my reaction when I was about thirteen or so. I
> thought Narnia was stealth religion, and I thought Tolkien was stealth
> racism, I actually wondered if it was ok to be reading it. I think a
> librarian at school told me what a great book it was and I thought,
> well, I guess it's ok then, and I read the whole trilogy several times
> and the Sil. once. But it's still there, even if you gloss over
> reading that part.

As a piece of that, I think I was creeped out by the whole birthright is
destiny thing, so that one drop of bad blood could decide who you were
and locked all your generations from then on into the same bad
situation. It seemed like an odd point of view for someone who was
supposedly a Christian writer, although I'm still not convinced by the
Christine O'Donnell perspective that he really was.

[Mary]

On May 22, 3:51 pm, Kevin <K_S_ONe...@yh.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 20:01:36 +0000 (UTC), Mark Steese
>
>
>
>
>

> <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >bill van <bill...@delete.shaw.ca> wrote in
> >news:billvan-65306C...@news.shawcable.net:
>
> >> In article <0ahmr71va9ahu17rf96ddgj0mfkek7g...@4ax.com>,

Narnia wasn't stealth religion. It was overt religion.

Mary

[Kevin]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:19:15 -0700 (PDT), Mary <mrfea...@aol.com>
wrote:

I was a fairly stupid child in some ways. I had to get all the way to
the glowing lion pontificating about love or coming back to life or
something to say, hey! Wait a minute! This is about GOD! Man, what
a gyp.

[Kevin]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 20:56:59 +0000 (UTC), Howard Hola Hale
<howar...@notmail.com> wrote:


>I've heard that the Golden Compass books are more concerned with the
>types of things I think I'm interested in, but I don't know when I'll
>ever get the time to read them, and I've heard the movie was pretty
>blah, so I don't know if that's an option.

I think they're a sort of anti-Narnia, with the resulting reversal in
the polarity of the preachyness. They're ok, but not earthshaking.
The movie was a perfectly fair rendition, which is to say it was ok
but not great.

[N Jill Marsh]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 02:16:44 -0700, bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca>
wrote:

I feel better, thank you. This is more like all the goths are leaving
and the punks are ramping up for some fun.

nj"totally behind that"m

[N Jill Marsh]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 20:56:59 +0000 (UTC), Howard Hola Hale
<howar...@notmail.com> wrote:

>N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com> wrote :

>> Yes, but they were all mopey because of exactly those things, they
>> were remnants of a used up people who were only hanging about because
>> they hadn't got out of their rut and sailed off to paradise.
>
>For pure drama, I liked the Ents better. They had been all mopey and in
>a rut for a thousand years or more, but then they got really, really
>mad, and decided to leave behind what was left of their old homeland and
>smash things up really good. I'm not saying all of the elfs should have
>done that, but I think it would have been more interesting if more than
>one or two did that.

I completely agree. The series would have been better with more angry
Ents, and them kicking the shit out of Isengard was the highlight of
the films for me. Though there should have been more death and
destruction.

>I think the saddest thing was the elf who married Aragorn and turned
>human, with the implication that her choosing to eventually die was a
>lot like dying twice, since she'd turned her back on everything she'd
>ever known and would never see her family again. It's the kind of inner
>conflict I think would have helped the Lord of the Rings, although I
>realize to an extent it's more of an Aeneid than the story of Jason.

Yes, that bit is dreadful, he could have done with a bit more of that.

>I've heard that the Golden Compass books are more concerned with the
>types of things I think I'm interested in, but I don't know when I'll
>ever get the time to read them, and I've heard the movie was pretty
>blah, so I don't know if that's an option.

I never saw the movie. I liked a lot of the first GC book, but
overall quite disliked the series, there was entirely too much
author's neuroses there for me to warm up to it. Which really
disappointed me, since what's not to like about ghost animals and
killer armoured polar bears?

[Greg Goss]

Kevin <K_S_O...@yh.com> wrote:

>This was exactly my reaction when I was about thirteen or so. I
>thought Narnia was stealth religion, and I thought Tolkien was stealth
>racism, I actually wondered if it was ok to be reading it. I think a
>librarian at school told me what a great book it was and I thought,
>well, I guess it's ok then, and I read the whole trilogy several times
>and the Sil. once. But it's still there, even if you gloss over
>reading that part.

The racism wasn't even stealth to me. It's what I choked on when I
tried to read Tolkien.
--
I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
wouldn't have rusted like this.

[Dover Beach]

Kevin <K_S_O...@yh.com> wrote in
news:duunr7dcrgjr1g6nq...@4ax.com:

>
> This was exactly my reaction when I was about thirteen or so. I
> thought Narnia was stealth religion, and I thought Tolkien was stealth
> racism, I actually wondered if it was ok to be reading it. I think a
> librarian at school told me what a great book it was and I thought,
> well, I guess it's ok then, and I read the whole trilogy several times
> and the Sil. once. But it's still there, even if you gloss over
> reading that part.

You have the worst luck with librarians.

[Dover Beach]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
news:a22gt3...@mid.individual.net:

> Kevin <K_S_O...@yh.com> wrote:
>
>>This was exactly my reaction when I was about thirteen or so. I
>>thought Narnia was stealth religion, and I thought Tolkien was stealth
>>racism, I actually wondered if it was ok to be reading it. I think a
>>librarian at school told me what a great book it was and I thought,
>>well, I guess it's ok then, and I read the whole trilogy several times
>>and the Sil. once. But it's still there, even if you gloss over
>>reading that part.
>
> The racism wasn't even stealth to me. It's what I choked on when I
> tried to read Tolkien.

In an issue of The New Yorker from the late 1920s, there is a profile of
Marian Anderson. The writer refers to her as a 'pickaninny'. The old
days were bad.

[Mark Steese]

N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:og2or71kpbi4hh9o0...@4ax.com:

Alas, all the punks in Gondor were rounded up and thrown into dungeons
by Aragorn because they refused to stop singing "Anarchy in Ithilien," a
ballad by a band of rogue troubadours who called themselves the
Crossbows of Coitus.
--
Usually annihilating a culture and romanticizing it are done separately,
but Bunnell neatly compresses two stages of historical change into one
conversation. -Rebecca Solnit

[Kevin]

On 22 May 2012 22:51:45 GMT, Dover Beach <moon.b...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Ha! No kidding.

I must have actually been in high school, since I remember the same
lady saved Analog magazines for me behind the counter when the George
RR Martin Wingover Windwing Woodwing Whatever came out in serial form,
so I could read them at lunch. So they're not all bad, I guess.

[Tim Wright]

Librarians are much more fun to have sex with than ophthalmologists.

--

Tim W

[Greg Goss]

Tim Wright <tlwri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Librarians are much more fun to have sex with than ophthalmologists.

Guys don't make passes at girls who prescribe glasses?

[Tim Wright]

On 5/22/2012 7:04 PM, Greg Goss wrote:
> Tim Wright<tlwri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Librarians are much more fun to have sex with than ophthalmologists.
>
> Guys don't make passes at girls who prescribe glasses?

No, the sex is ok, what's annoying is all the "Is it better like this,
or like this? Is it better like this, or like this? Is it better like
this, or like this?"

--

Tim W

[bill van]

In article <uj2or79umbu93arlb...@4ax.com>,

N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 22 May 2012 20:56:59 +0000 (UTC), Howard Hola Hale
> <howar...@notmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I think the saddest thing was the elf who married Aragorn and turned
> >human, with the implication that her choosing to eventually die was a
> >lot like dying twice, since she'd turned her back on everything she'd
> >ever known and would never see her family again. It's the kind of inner
> >conflict I think would have helped the Lord of the Rings, although I
> >realize to an extent it's more of an Aeneid than the story of Jason.
>
> Yes, that bit is dreadful, he could have done with a bit more of that.
>

I think he did about the right amount with it. The movie tried to do
more with it, and those scenes just got annoyingly weepy. Mind you, the
actress had a part in that.

bill

[Greg Goss]

I don't often actually laugh out loud.

[Howard Hola Hail]

Tim Wright <tlwri...@gmail.com> wrote

> Librarians are much more fun to have sex with than ophthalmologists.

The problem is, you think you're going to get #3 in this cartoon, but you
always end up with #4.

http://www2.citypaper.com/sb/47744/lulu-1.jpg

[Jack Campin]

>> Librarians are much more fun to have sex with than ophthalmologists.
> The problem is, you think you're going to get #3 in this cartoon, but
> you always end up with #4.
> http://www2.citypaper.com/sb/47744/lulu-1.jpg

They left out the air hostess: "put this over your nose and mouth
and breathe normally".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07800 739 557 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin

[Greg Goss]

Tim Wright <tlwri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Librarians are much more fun to have sex with than ophthalmologists.

A local eyeglasses outfit has been advertising the "Naughty Librarian"
look before saying that they have many styles to choose from.

"It looks like someone has a lot of late fees, mister. Someone needs
to teach you to return your books on time, hmmm?"

(I guess the "naughty" is all in the tone.)

[Mark Steese]

Howard Hola Hail <howarth...@notmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA05C6B78B...@94.75.214.39:

Pssh. Where's the busty high school teacher who tells you she wants to go
over your work after class? And the bespectacled lab assistant with a
clipboard, the one who's all business, except for that faint trace of a
smile playing about her lips?
--
Year after year you wrote up these stories, and they'd wind up archived in
a pile of cardboard boxes in the warehouse, flattening and drying like
pressed flowers under the weight of all the stories above them - the
unknown stratigraphy of your career. -Jordan Fisher Smith

[Lee Ayrton]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 09:26:30 -0600, Greg Goss wrote:

> Tim Wright <tlwri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Librarians are much more fun to have sex with than ophthalmologists.
>
> A local eyeglasses outfit has been advertising the "Naughty Librarian"
> look before saying that they have many styles to choose from.
>
> "It looks like someone has a lot of late fees, mister. Someone needs to
> teach you to return your books on time, hmmm?"
>
> (I guess the "naughty" is all in the tone.)

It is a national ad. I wonder what market they were trying to reach --
the current cadre of neo-puritians seems to be right out.

[Howard Hola Hale]

Mark Steese <mark_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Howard Hola Hail <howarth...@notmail.com> wrote in
>

>> Tim Wright <tlwri...@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> Librarians are much more fun to have sex with than ophthalmologists.
>>
>> The problem is, you think you're going to get #3 in this cartoon, but
>> you always end up with #4.
>>
>> http://www2.citypaper.com/sb/47744/lulu-1.jpg
>
> Pssh. Where's the busty high school teacher who tells you she wants to
> go over your work after class?

Turns out to be #4.

> And the bespectacled lab assistant with a clipboard, the one who's
> all business, except for that faint trace of a smile playing about her
> lips?

She's #4 too.

Wildcattin' truth tellin' former mayor and guv with, you betcha, more
than a passin' resemblance to Tina Fey? #4.

I'm not proud about how I found this out.

[N Jill Marsh]

It's a series, and a good one. I think they are definitely trying to
reach the twenty somethings or at least not the neo-puritans,
considering the content of some of the other spots. But the librarian
one has the same sex turn on gag as well.

nj"they dropped the charges"m

[Lee Ayrton]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 15:42:08 +0000, Opus the Penguin wrote:

> Lee Ayrton (lay...@panix.com) wrote:
>
>> I caught most of Birdsong in my usual random fashion, and am left
>> hungry for more WWI drama. I am curious about the social mechanism
>> behind the recent popularity of WWI. It doesn't appear from here to be
>> a simple case of nostalgie de la boue.
>
>
> Remember when you were a kid and there was a lot of interest in the
> Civil War? Well, now WWI was just as long ago, so its time has come.

While I see the tidiness of that explanation, I suspect that there is
something deeper at work.

Or perhaps I'm just too hopeful for society.

[S. Checker]

It's the 50th anniversary of the start of the Vietnam Unpleasantness.
To me that is astounding.

Also, the Centralia fire.
--
SHE TOOK ON A WHOLE GANG! A howling hellcat humping a hot steel hog on a
roaring rampage of revenge!
-- Bury Me an Angel (1972)