similar novels
Tony
similar to one another.
Mike Schilling
> What two science fiction novels written by two different authors are
> most similar to one another.
"Dune" by Frank Herbert and "Big Pile of Sand" by Ben Domenech.
Joel Olson
news:htKdnWIerPwZXabX...@giganews.com...
> What two science fiction novels written by two different authors are most
> similar to one another.
Although I don't have Clarke's _The Fountains of Paradise_, my paperback
of Charles Sheffield's _The Web Between The Worlds_ has in introductory
letter by Clarke, explaining the neither author copied the other, and that
any similarities are due to both of them starting from the same idea, at
about the same time.
Michael Stemper
>What two science fiction novels written by two different authors are most
>similar to one another.
Similar in what way? Outline of events depicted? Setting and mood?
Narrative style? Overarching themes?
If we're going to go for "outline of events", it's hard to beat
_Lord of the Rings_ v. _The Sword of Shanara_.
We could cheat and look at different Doc Savage books, some by Lester
Dent, and some by other instantiations of "Kenneth Robeson".
A lot of Simak feels like Bradbury. Some Varley feels like Heinlein.
So, with those examples in varying directions, what do you mean, in
this case, by "similar"?
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
This sentence no verb.
Dorothy J Heydt
Tony <to...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>What two science fiction novels written by two different authors are most
>similar to one another.
Let's see. By two different authors, so we can't count
Clarke's _Against the Fall of Night_ and _The City and the
Stars_.
There's Walter Jon Williams's _Knight Moves_, which is sort
of an exercise in "Gee, if I had been writing Zelazny's _This
Immortal, this is how *I* would've done it."
If we can include fantasy, there's _The Lord of the Rings_
with innumerable (mostly bad) copyists, beginning with Terry
Brooks and his umpteen Shannara books (these, I understand,
came into existence because Brooks really really loved LotR
and wished there were more of it; we may say he loved it
wisely but too well) and followed by entirely too many.
They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but
only if it's good imitation. They also say (well, actually,
T. S. Eliot said), immature artists imitate; mature artists
steal.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
htn963
> What two science fiction novels written by two different authors are most
> similar to one another.
What's the point of this question? Most of the titles in the genre
are interchangeable -- and this genre is not unique either in that
regard. A more interesting question might be which two authors are so
similar in temperament and political views, etc. yet write such
radically different books.
--
Ht
Juho Julkunen
> What two science fiction novels written by two different authors are most
> similar to one another.
_Three Hearts and Three Lions_ by Poul Anderson and
_The Drawing of the Dark_ by Tim Powers.
--
Juho Julkunen
William George Ferguson
>What two science fiction novels written by two different authors are most
>similar to one another.
>
Tarzan and the Jewels of Opar by Edgar Rice Burroughs
Tarzan and the Silver Globe by Barton Werper
These two books are eerily similar. Why, there are whole pages that match
word for word, even to the typeface :)
--
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
(Bene Gesserit)
plausible prose man
> What two science fiction novels written by two different authors are most
> similar to one another.
You might compare Lord of the Rings to Harry Turtledove's Darkness
series, but please note that Harry's a hack from the Bob Parker school
of extruded product, while Tolkien was the first and greatest Tolkien
nerd. Also, JRR was kind of an asshole in the way David Brin describes
here:
http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/feature/2002/12/17/tolkien_brin/index.html
So the various darknesses might actually have a better claim on
"literature" despite themselves.
Dorothy J Heydt
Awk. I don't think so. The major similarity is a person
from this world drawn into, and having major influence in,
the other world. And there are lots and lots of those. The
one that comes first to my mind is Gilman's _Moonwise._
(I don't say Poul never wrote a novel in which beer was a
major component. He did. It was called _A Bicycle Built for
Brew_ in serialization, and something like _The Makeshift
Spacecraft_ in novel form. And it had nothing in common with
_Three Hearts_ except the Danish expletive, _Det var som
fanden._)
Arthur
wrote:
Didn't Ben also write "Abattoir V" which was somewhat similar to
Slaughterhouse 5?
Mike Schilling
That was all a misunderstanding. He though Vonnegut gave him permission to
reproduce the book without any attribution.
Mike Schilling
> In article <MPG.24a61db9b...@news.kolumbus.fi>,
> Juho Julkunen <giao...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <htKdnWIerPwZXabX...@giganews.com>, Tony
>> (to...@hotmail.com) says...
>>> What two science fiction novels written by two different authors
>>> are most similar to one another.
>>
>> _Three Hearts and Three Lions_ by Poul Anderson and
>> _The Drawing of the Dark_ by Tim Powers.
>
> Awk. I don't think so. The major similarity is a person
> from this world drawn into, and having major influence in,
> the other world.
And really belonging to that world in a way he hadn't previously understood.
And being made worse off by having anything to do with that world.
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> > In article <MPG.24a61db9b50c4a9b989...@news.kolumbus.fi>,
> > Juho Julkunen <giaot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> In article <htKdnWIerPwZXabXnZ2dnUVZ_tSdn...@giganews.com>, Tony
> >> (t...@hotmail.com) says...
> >>> What two science fiction novels written by two different authors
> >>> are most similar to one another.
>
> >> _Three Hearts and Three Lions_ by Poul Anderson and
> >> _The Drawing of the Dark_ by Tim Powers.
>
> > Awk. I don't think so. The major similarity is a person
> > from this world drawn into, and having major influence in,
> > the other world.
>
> And really belonging to that world in a way he hadn't previously understood.
> And being made worse off by having anything to do with that world.
I don't think Holgier Carlson was made worse off by having to do with
the Swan May. I do think 3H has a lot in common with _Glory Road_ but
not enough to be an answer to the question that started this thread.
I've always intended to read tDotD but I've never picked it up.
--
Will in New Haven
bay...@gmail.com
> only if it's good imitation. They also say (well, actually,
> T. S. Eliot said), immature artists imitate; mature artists
> steal.
I thunk it were Beethoven who said,"Good composers borrow; great
composers steal."??
erilar
<05e2e5f6-9536-4e73...@l21g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
Arthur <art...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Whoever he may be, I've never heard of him.
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)
You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument is
that reason doesn't count. --Isaac Asimov
Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo�
erilar
<3d11202c-7a40-4a4d...@d38g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
htn963 <htn...@live.com> wrote:
> A more interesting question might be which two authors are so
> similar in temperament and political views, etc. yet write such
> radically different books.
There are also authors who write differently in different genres.
Dorothy J Heydt
I never heard that one. Eliot made his statement in an essay
on Shakespeare, who as any fule kno borrowed plots from
absolutely everybody.
Dorothy J Heydt
Its basic premise (which I referred to elliptically upthread)
repels me. I won't go further in case you are spoilerphobic.
Mike Schilling
You do realize that that's a completely idiosyncratic reaction, unlikely to
be held by anyone else.
Mike Schilling
Handel was a great composer then; he was known to steal entire movements.
Mike Schilling
> In article
> <05e2e5f6-9536-4e73...@l21g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
> Arthur <art...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 19, 12:58 pm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Tony wrote:
>>>> What two science fiction novels written by two different authors
>>>> are most similar to one another.
>>>
>>> "Dune" by Frank Herbert and "Big Pile of Sand" by Ben Domenech.
>>
>> Didn't Ben also write "Abattoir V" which was somewhat similar to
>> Slaughterhouse 5?
>
> Whoever he may be, I've never heard of him.
You can see what he's known for, though.
Dorothy J Heydt
Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>bayn...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Jun 19, 3:00 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>> only if it's good imitation. They also say (well, actually,
>>> T. S. Eliot said), immature artists imitate; mature artists
>>> steal.
>>
>> I thunk it were Beethoven who said,"Good composers borrow; great
>> composers steal."??
>
>Handel was a great composer then;
Indeed. For one thing, he was Beethoven's favorite composer,
of whom he said, "To him I go on my knees," and genuflected
where he stood.
>he was known to steal entire movements.
Of course. *Mostly* from himself, though. Handel had the
advantage of having had three (you could be picky and say
four) separate careers. After some early successes in his
native Germany, he went to Italy and took Rome, Venice, and
Naples by storm. Then he went to England and did Italian
operas till they went out of fashion; then he switched to
English oratorios. This gave him endless opportunities to
re-use in one country material he'd used in another.
David DeLaney
>"Tony" <to...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>What two science fiction novels written by two different authors are most
>>similar to one another.
>
>Similar in what way? Outline of events depicted? Setting and mood?
>Narrative style? Overarching themes?
>
>If we're going to go for "outline of events", it's hard to beat
>_Lord of the Rings_ v. _The Sword of Shanara_.
Though _Lord of the Rings_ v. _The Iron Tower_ trilogy (McKiernan) gives it
a run for its money. (He did have his reasons though, it turns out.)
>We could cheat and look at different Doc Savage books, some by Lester
>Dent, and some by other instantiations of "Kenneth Robeson".
>
>A lot of Simak feels like Bradbury. Some Varley feels like Heinlein.
And then there's all the various people who were Victor Appleton ( / II / III )
...
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Butch Malahide
wrote:
> A lot of Simak feels like Bradbury.
It does? Hmm.
Vintage Bradbury: _The Martian Chronicles_
Vintage Simak: _Cosmic Engineers_
I don't see it. Maybe it works better if we compare over-the-hill
Bradbury with over-the-hill Simak. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar
with the titles.
Mike Schilling
> In article <h1hft7$vfu$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> bayn...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Jun 19, 3:00 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>>> only if it's good imitation. They also say (well, actually,
>>>> T. S. Eliot said), immature artists imitate; mature artists
>>>> steal.
>>>
>>> I thunk it were Beethoven who said,"Good composers borrow; great
>>> composers steal."??
>>
>> Handel was a great composer then;
>
> Indeed. For one thing, he was Beethoven's favorite composer,
> of whom he said, "To him I go on my knees," and genuflected
> where he stood.
>
>> he was known to steal entire movements.
>
> Of course. *Mostly* from himself, though.
One of the movements of the "Alexander's Feast" concerto is almost
verbatim Telemann.
Mike Schilling
> I've always intended to read tDotD but I've never picked it up.
It's not quite mature Powers, but stilll a giant leap over his first
two novels.
Dorothy J Heydt
Yes, and the aria "O ruddier than the cherry" was lifted from
somebody else, I forget who. But the little recorder
tweedles that go with it are Handel's.
Robert A. Woodward
If we are going to include Fantasy, what about
_The Broken Sword_ by Poul Anderson
"The Children of Hurin" by Tolkien (one of the Lays of Beleriand, a
short version is chapter 21 of the _Silmarillion_, "Of Turin
Turambar"). Of course, while completely independent in creation,
both authors were using the same source material as inspiration.
--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>
Juho Julkunen
(djh...@kithrup.com) says...
> In article <MPG.24a61db9b...@news.kolumbus.fi>,
> Juho Julkunen <giao...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <htKdnWIerPwZXabX...@giganews.com>, Tony
> >(to...@hotmail.com) says...
> >> What two science fiction novels written by two different authors are most
> >> similar to one another.
> >
> >_Three Hearts and Three Lions_ by Poul Anderson and
> >_The Drawing of the Dark_ by Tim Powers.
>
> Awk. I don't think so. The major similarity is a person
> from this world drawn into, and having major influence in,
> the other world. And there are lots and lots of those. The
> one that comes first to my mind is Gilman's _Moonwise._
Well, there is also discovery of true identity, a matter of a sword,
and a conflict of concepts fought by proxy in mid 16th century Europe.
Of course, ideological conflict in mid-16th century Europe is probably
not too uncommon setting for a novel. For examplem, it forms the
background for _The Adventurer_ by Mika Waltari I'm currently reading.
--
Juho Julkunen
Michal Jakuszewski
> What two science fiction novels written by two different authors are most
> similar to one another.
John Varley - The Ophiuchi Hotline
Bruce Sterling - Schismatrix
Michael Swanwick - Vacuum Flowers
That makes three.
Howard Brazee
>What two science fiction novels written by two different authors are most
>similar to one another.
>
I'm glad this is limited to science fiction. When we add fantasy and
period pieces, we find lots of clones copied from earlier works.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Sean O'Hara
man declared:
> On Jun 19, 12:45 pm, "Tony" <t...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> What two science fiction novels written by two different authors are most
>> similar to one another.
>
> You might compare Lord of the Rings to Harry Turtledove's Darkness
> series, but please note that Harry's a hack from the Bob Parker school
> of extruded product, while Tolkien was the first and greatest Tolkien
> nerd. Also, JRR was kind of an asshole in the way David Brin describes
> here:
>
> http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/feature/2002/12/17/tolkien_brin/index.html
>
I see absolutely nothing about Tolkien being an asshole in that
essay. I see lots about why Brin has issues with the books, which is
completely different.
> So the various darknesses might actually have a better claim on
> "literature" despite themselves.
>
What does the message of a work have to do with whether it's
literature? You aren't one of those twits who says, "Ew, I don't
like Kipling's politics, therefore all of his books suck!"
You know, film critics never suffer from such compunction -- they
have no problem recognizing Triumph of the Will and Birth of the
Nation as great films despite the offensive content.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://www.diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
New audio book: As Long as You Wish by John O'Keefe
<http://librivox.org/short-science-fiction-collection-010/>
David M. Palmer
<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:45:33 -0400, "Tony" <to...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >What two science fiction novels written by two different authors are most
> >similar to one another.
> >
>
> I'm glad this is limited to science fiction. When we add fantasy and
> period pieces, we find lots of clones copied from earlier works.
For instance "Don Quixote" by Cervantes, and "Don Quixote" by Pierre
Menard.
--
David M. Palmer dmpa...@email.com (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)
Arthur
> In article <78jp35pdoj8k1bdnkjmirdcd8p0kbml...@4ax.com>, Howard Brazee
>
> <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:45:33 -0400, "Tony" <t...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >What two science fiction novels written by two different authors are most
> > >similar to one another.
>
> > I'm glad this is limited to science fiction. When we add fantasy and
> > period pieces, we find lots of clones copied from earlier works.
>
> For instance "Don Quixote" by Cervantes, and "Don Quixote" by Pierre
> Menard.
When I was a kid, I thought that novel was about a donkey.
plausible prose man
> In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful plausible prose
> man declared:
>
> > On Jun 19, 12:45 pm, "Tony" <t...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> What two science fiction novels written by two different authors are most
> >> similar to one another.
>
> > You might compare Lord of the Rings to Harry Turtledove's Darkness
> > series, but please note that Harry's a hack from the Bob Parker school
> > of extruded product, while Tolkien was the first and greatest Tolkien
> > nerd. Also, JRR was kind of an asshole in the way David Brin describes
> > here:
>
>
> I see absolutely nothing about Tolkien being an asshole in that
> essay.
I didn't mean Brin was saying JRR was the sort of fellow who made a
point of drinking the last beer or stiffing a waitress.
> I see lots about why Brin has issues with the books, which is
> completely different.
I think it reasonable enough to hold an author accountable to the
ideas he expounds on at length in his works, and "asshole" a way of
describing someone who holds anti-human, evil ideas like JRR did.
> > So the various darknesses might actually have a better claim on
> > "literature" despite themselves.
>
> What does the message of a work have to do with whether it's
> literature?
This requires a lengthier explanation than I really feel like going
into now.
> You aren't one of those twits who says, "Ew, I don't
> like Kipling's politics, therefore all of his books suck!"
No, of course not; see my statements in the "hate the artist" thread.
Indeed, I would hold JRR and some other fabulists up as casually evil
people who could really string together an enrapturing fantasy world.
On the other hand, I do think JRR's romanticism, in both sense of the
word, keep him out of a level of literature that, say, James Jones or
Joe Heller occupy.
> You know, film critics never suffer from such compunction -- they
> have no problem recognizing Triumph of the Will
I bet I can find all sort of articles where the author is fairly
troubled about recognizing Triumph of the Will as a great film.
> and Birth of the
> Nation as great films despite the offensive content.
I might also point to the Godfather paradox; the standards for what
makes a movie great are a lot lower than what makes a novel great.
Coppola's film is on most short lists for "greatest." Mario Puzo's
novel isn't.
Joel Olson
news:KLI24...@kithrup.com...
> In article <htKdnWIerPwZXabX...@giganews.com>,
> Tony <to...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>What two science fiction novels written by two different authors are most
>>similar to one another.
>
> Clarke's _Against the Fall of Night_ and _The City and the
> Stars_.
>
> There's Walter Jon Williams's _Knight Moves_, which is sort
> of an exercise in "Gee, if I had been writing Zelazny's _This
> Immortal, this is how *I* would've done it."
>
> If we can include fantasy, there's _The Lord of the Rings_
> with innumerable (mostly bad) copyists, beginning with Terry
> Brooks and his umpteen Shannara books (these, I understand,
> came into existence because Brooks really really loved LotR
> and wished there were more of it; we may say he loved it
> wisely but too well) and followed by entirely too many.
>
> They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but
> only if it's good imitation. They also say (well, actually,
> T. S. Eliot said), immature artists imitate; mature artists
> steal.
>
> Vallejo, California
> djheydt at hotmail dot com
> Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
> Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
>
My quote file has it by L. Trilling.
Which is not to say he didn't steal it.
Wayne Throop
: They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but only if it's
: good imitation. They also say (well, actually, T. S. Eliot said),
: immature artists imitate; mature artists steal.
I am never forget the day.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Paul
> What two science fiction novels written by two different authors are most
> similar to one another.
Heinlien's "The Sixth Column" and John W. Campbell's "All."
-Paul
Mark Stephen
> In article <78jp35pdoj8k1bdnk...@4ax.com>, Howard Brazee
> <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:45:33 -0400, "Tony" <to...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What two science fiction novels written by two different authors are most
>>> similar to one another.
>>>
>> I'm glad this is limited to science fiction. When we add fantasy and
>> period pieces, we find lots of clones copied from earlier works.
>
> For instance "Don Quixote" by Cervantes, and "Don Quixote" by Pierre
> Menard.
>
How can you say this? Menard's fragmentary Quixote is more subtle than
Cervantes'.
Mark
Sean O'Hara
man declared:
> On Jun 20, 11:10 am, Sean O'Hara <seanoh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I see lots about why Brin has issues with the books, which is
>> completely different.
>
> I think it reasonable enough to hold an author accountable to the
> ideas he expounds on at length in his works, and "asshole" a way of
> describing someone who holds anti-human, evil ideas like JRR did.
>
Horsehockey. Only fools believe they understand an author's politics
based upon their fiction.
>
>>> So the various darknesses might actually have a better claim on
>>> "literature" despite themselves.
>> What does the message of a work have to do with whether it's
>> literature?
>
> This requires a lengthier explanation than I really feel like going
> into now.
>
>> You aren't one of those twits who says, "Ew, I don't
>> like Kipling's politics, therefore all of his books suck!"
>
> No, of course not; see my statements in the "hate the artist" thread.
> Indeed, I would hold JRR and some other fabulists up as casually evil
> people who could really string together an enrapturing fantasy world.
> On the other hand, I do think JRR's romanticism, in both sense of the
> word, keep him out of a level of literature that, say, James Jones or
> Joe Heller occupy.
>
(James Jones? Really? Why not Harold Robbins and Jacqueline Suzanne?)
Why is romanticism antithetical to great literature? Are Dumas and
Hugo likewise excluded? How about Chretien de Troyes and Thomas
Malory? Why do you expect authors to subscribe to your view of
literary merit, and why is this view the only metric for great
literature?
>
>> You know, film critics never suffer from such compunction -- they
>> have no problem recognizing Triumph of the Will
>
> I bet I can find all sort of articles where the author is fairly
> troubled about recognizing Triumph of the Will as a great film.
>
Find one who says, "But it's not really a great film because it
affronts my political sensibilities."
>> and Birth of the
>> Nation as great films despite the offensive content.
>
> I might also point to the Godfather paradox; the standards for what
> makes a movie great are a lot lower than what makes a novel great.
> Coppola's film is on most short lists for "greatest." Mario Puzo's
> novel isn't.
Different is not lower.
Taki Kogoma
allegedly proclaimed to rec.arts.sf.written:
>: djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>: They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but only if it's
>: good imitation. They also say (well, actually, T. S. Eliot said),
>: immature artists imitate; mature artists steal.
>
> I am never forget the day.
But remember to always call it, please, "research".
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) quirk @ swcp.com
Just an article detector on the Information Supercollider.
plausible prose man
> In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful plausible prose
> man declared:
>
> > On Jun 20, 11:10 am, Sean O'Hara <seanoh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I see lots about why Brin has issues with the books, which is
> >> completely different.
>
> > I think it reasonable enough to hold an author accountable to the
> > ideas he expounds on at length in his works, and "asshole" a way of
> > describing someone who holds anti-human, evil ideas like JRR did.
>
> Horsehockey. Only fools believe they understand an author's politics
> based upon their fiction.
You know, it's not even his "politics" as the term is usually
understood.
> >>> So the various darknesses might actually have a better claim on
> >>> "literature" despite themselves.
> >> What does the message of a work have to do with whether it's
> >> literature?
>
> > This requires a lengthier explanation than I really feel like going
> > into now.
But, yeah, the themes of a book are some factor in evaluating the
books literary merit, or at least I can find a school of lit-crit
which holds so, even if its probably not what they teach you in school
nowadays.
> >> You aren't one of those twits who says, "Ew, I don't
> >> like Kipling's politics, therefore all of his books suck!"
>
> > No, of course not; see my statements in the "hate the artist" thread.
> > Indeed, I would hold JRR and some other fabulists up as casually evil
> > people who could really string together an enrapturing fantasy world.
> > On the other hand, I do think JRR's romanticism, in both sense of the
> > word, keep him out of a level of literature that, say, James Jones or
> > Joe Heller occupy.
>
> (James Jones? Really?
Yeah.
> Why not Harold Robbins and Jacqueline Suzanne?)
I don't think they caught the eye of the Paris Review, do you?
> Why is romanticism antithetical to great literature?
It's more likely to result in twaddle.
> Are Dumas and
> Hugo likewise excluded?
I'm not sure they're romantics in the same way, and Dumas, at least,
is someone who teeters on the nursery.
> How about Chretien de Troyes and Thomas
> Malory?
How about Homer?
>Why do you expect authors to subscribe to your view of
> literary merit, and why is this view the only metric for great
> literature?
If I haven't answered this, don't think its for any reason other than
there's a ballgame on.
> >> You know, film critics never suffer from such compunction -- they
> >> have no problem recognizing Triumph of the Will
>
> > I bet I can find all sort of articles where the author is fairly
> > troubled about recognizing Triumph of the Will as a great film.
>
> Find one who says, "But it's not really a great film because it
> affronts my political sensibilities."
My arguments a little more nuanced than that. let me cook it a little
more and I'll get back to you.
>
> >> and Birth of the
> >> Nation as great films despite the offensive content.
>
> > I might also point to the Godfather paradox; the standards for what
> > makes a movie great are a lot lower than what makes a novel great.
> > Coppola's film is on most short lists for "greatest." Mario Puzo's
> > novel isn't.
>
> Different is not lower.
You can get farther with sheer craftsmanship if all you're doing is
making a movie.
plausible prose man
> What two science fiction novels written by two different authors are most
> similar to one another.
1984, by George Orwell, and We, by some Russian you've never heard of/
Howard Brazee
<George...@aol.com> wrote:
> I might also point to the Godfather paradox; the standards for what
>makes a movie great are a lot lower than what makes a novel great.
>Coppola's film is on most short lists for "greatest." Mario Puzo's
>novel isn't.
They are different standards. But they are different media doing
different stuff, they *should* have different standards.
William December Starr
Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> said:
> Horsehockey. Only fools believe they understand an author's
> politics based upon their fiction.
*koff*koff*tomclancy*koff*
-- wds
Joel Olson
news:fd382802-e6f1-4fc3...@l21g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
~~~~~~~~~~~
How can they be similar? Orwell's title has twice as many letters.
Will in New Haven
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:11:01 -0700 (PDT), plausible prose man
>
> > I might also point to the Godfather paradox; the standards for what
> >makes a movie great are a lot lower than what makes a novel great.
> >Coppola's film is on most short lists for "greatest." Mario Puzo's
> >novel isn't.
>
> They are different standards. But they are different media doing
> different stuff, they *should* have different standards.
Besides, great films are _rarely_ made from great novels. Often, the
best films are not made from great novels at all or have only a
nodding acquaintance with the literary source, as Do Androids Dream
and Bladerunner.
It isn't simply that films have lower standards or different
standards, they are different _things_ and the Godfather films are
much better at being films than Puzo's novel is at being a novel. They
are, I would contend, much better works of art than the novel.
Actually, I'm agreeing with you and arguing with the person who spoke
before you did.
--
Will in New Haven
Mike Schilling
Huh? Orwell's title has no letters.
Mike Schilling
And they felt free to omit the weakest parts of the novel (e.g. the
part about Sonny's girlfriend and the doctor_, as well as inventing
entirely new material, e.g. the modern-day half of Godfather 2.
Paul Clarke
> What two science fiction novels written by two different authors are most
> similar to one another.
That reminds me, I wonder if Kate Nepveu still has her "Paired
Reading" page. Google, google, ... yes: it's at:
The paired readings aren't really what you're looking for - they're
pairs of books that share some major element of plot, theme or
structure - but it makes interesting reading anyway.
Michael Stemper
I've not read (or until now, even heard of) "All". However, given what's
been said on JWC's level of editorial involvement in _The Sixth Column_,
I'm not sure that it's fair in this case to call these works by two
different authors.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
If this is our corporate opinion, you will be billed for it.
plausible prose man
wrote:
> Joel Olson wrote:
> > "plausible prose man" <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote in message
See, and if I take the average of that, as we who love the dismal are
wont to do, well, what do I have?
plausible prose man
> In article <7a6tksF1u1om...@mid.individual.net>,
> Sean O'Hara <seanoh...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > Horsehockey. Only fools believe they understand an author's
> > politics based upon their fiction.
>
> *koff*koff*tomclancy*koff*
>
> -- wds
Didn't Ayn Rand say something like all the exegis her books really
required was something like the works themselves, plus "and I really
mean it!"
plausible prose man
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Jun 21, 3:26 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:11:01 -0700 (PDT), plausible prose man
>
> > <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > I might also point to the Godfather paradox; the standards for what
> > >makes a movie great are a lot lower than what makes a novel great.
> > >Coppola's film is on most short lists for "greatest." Mario Puzo's
> > >novel isn't.
>
> > They are different standards. But they are different media doing
> > different stuff, they *should* have different standards.
>
> Besides, great films are _rarely_ made from great novels. Often, the
> best films are not made from great novels at all or have only a
> nodding acquaintance with the literary source, as Do Androids Dream
> and Bladerunner.
To Kill a Mockingbird's a pretty good movie. And there's The Big
Sleep, Oh, and Lord of the Ring's really an accomplishment. Lolita,
Horse's Mouth, um...then again, there's Silence of the Lambs, and
there's also The Great Gatsby and The Razor's Edge.
All in all, though, I think a good argument can be made that watching
a movie is a more superficial experience than reading a novel.
> It isn't simply that films have lower standards or different
> standards, they are different _things_ and the Godfather films are
> much better at being films than Puzo's novel is at being a novel.
Let's not get too far into this, I have enough to do, writing a damn
paper about what makes literature great.. I usually charge money for
that, you know.
> They
> are, I would contend, much better works of art than the novel.
I think a good enough argument can be made the greatest film is an
inferior work of art alongside the greatest novel.
Will in New Haven
> On Jun 21, 6:30 pm, Will in New Haven
>
>
>
>
>
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 21, 3:26 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:11:01 -0700 (PDT), plausible prose man
>
> > > <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > I might also point to the Godfather paradox; the standards for what
> > > >makes a movie great are a lot lower than what makes a novel great.
> > > >Coppola's film is on most short lists for "greatest." Mario Puzo's
> > > >novel isn't.
>
> > > They are different standards. But they are different media doing
> > > different stuff, they *should* have different standards.
>
> > Besides, great films are _rarely_ made from great novels. Often, the
> > best films are not made from great novels at all or have only a
> > nodding acquaintance with the literary source, as Do Androids Dream
> > and Bladerunner.
>
> To Kill a Mockingbird's a pretty good movie.
Better than that. But the novel is _just_ a pretty good novel. Or
maybe a little better.
And there's The Big
> Sleep, Oh, and Lord of the Ring's really an accomplishment. Lolita,
> Horse's Mouth, um...then again, there's Silence of the Lambs, and
> there's also The Great Gatsby and The Razor's Edge.
I don't think any of those except LotR refute my contention, and my
contention was _often_ not always.
>
> All in all, though, I think a good argument can be made that watching
> a movie is a more superficial experience than reading a novel.
>
> > It isn't simply that films have lower standards or different
> > standards, they are different _things_ and the Godfather films are
> > much better at being films than Puzo's novel is at being a novel.
>
> Let's not get too far into this, I have enough to do, writing a damn
> paper about what makes literature great.. I usually charge money for
> that, you know.
>
> > They
> > are, I would contend, much better works of art than the novel.
>
> I think a good enough argument can be made the greatest film is an
> inferior work of art alongside the greatest novel.
I think that I agree with your conclusion and completely disagree that
a good, objective argument can be made that it is true. I think many,
maybe most, people get much more impact out of films than out of
novels. And I think they are wrong in some sense.
P. Taine
Perhaps if you are comparing related movies and novels. On the other hand I can
think of a number of films which have more impact than almost any novel I have
read. I would included many of the films of Ingmar Berman and of Sergei
Eisenstein.
P. Taine
Mike Schilling
>
> To Kill a Mockingbird's a pretty good movie. And there's The Big
> Sleep, Oh, and Lord of the Ring's really an accomplishment. Lolita,
> Horse's Mouth, um...then again, there's Silence of the Lambs, and
> there's also The Great Gatsby and The Razor's Edge.
Which is the good Gatsby movie? I've only seen the Redford-Farrow fiasco.
erilar
<1e668311-3df2-4968...@k15g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
plausible prose man <George...@aol.com> wrote:
> All in all, though, I think a good argument can be made that watching
> a movie is a more superficial experience than reading a novel.
Emphatically so. Watching a movie is much more passive. The moviemaker
has decided how the characters look, what they sound like, etc. With a
book, the reader gets to/has to do that, so it's a much more active
experience.
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)
You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument is
that reason doesn't count. --Isaac Asimov
Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo�
erilar
<7330ce6a-f3b9-4563...@37g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> I think many,
> maybe most, people get much more impact out of films than out of
> novels.
They are then obviously dependent on others to do the work they shirk or
else don't READ novels 8-)
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In article
> <7330ce6a-f3b9-4563...@37g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
> Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
>> I think many,
>> maybe most, people get much more impact out of films than out of
>> novels.
>
> They are then obviously dependent on others to do the work they shirk or
> else don't READ novels 8-)
>
Or are just visually and auditorially oriented. I don't think anyone
could seriously argue I don't read novels, but even the biggest impact
of a novel rarely comes up to the impact of a good movie scene.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Robert Bannister
> On Jun 21, 6:30 pm, Will in New Haven
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 21, 3:26 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:11:01 -0700 (PDT), plausible prose man
>>> <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> I might also point to the Godfather paradox; the standards for what
>>>> makes a movie great are a lot lower than what makes a novel great.
>>>> Coppola's film is on most short lists for "greatest." Mario Puzo's
>>>> novel isn't.
>>> They are different standards. But they are different media doing
>>> different stuff, they *should* have different standards.
>> Besides, great films are _rarely_ made from great novels. Often, the
>> best films are not made from great novels at all or have only a
>> nodding acquaintance with the literary source, as Do Androids Dream
>> and Bladerunner.
>
> To Kill a Mockingbird's a pretty good movie. And there's The Big
> Sleep, Oh, and Lord of the Ring's really an accomplishment. Lolita,
> Horse's Mouth, um...then again, there's Silence of the Lambs, and
> there's also The Great Gatsby and The Razor's Edge.
>
> All in all, though, I think a good argument can be made that watching
> a movie is a more superficial experience than reading a novel.
A novel certainly has greater depth than any movie can convey, so I
can't deny your "more superficial", but I don't believe a movie is
necessarily "superficial". Novels and movies and different. It is true
that some novels almost scream out to be made into movies, but they're
not usually good literature.
You gave some good examples above, but of those where I both saw the
movie and read the book, I did not have identical experiences - I'd go
so far as to say that my experiences were not even similar. For example,
the 2nd and 3rd LotR movies very much emphasised the fighting - now,
that's all there in the book, but in all my readings of it, I never had
the same feeling that it was all about fighting. Plus, the movie gave
much more (too much) emphasis to Golum, where my book experience was
mainly about the four hobbits. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and have
watched my dvds several times already, but reading the book is quite
different.
Movies are rarely as good as the book they are made from, despite the
several counter-examples that have been suggested, so on the whole, it
is perhaps best to see the movie before you read the book. On the other
hand, there are too many movies that make no sense if you haven't read
the book first.
--
Rob Bannister
plausible prose man
wrote:
> plausible prose man wrote:
>
> > To Kill a Mockingbird's a pretty good movie. And there's The Big
> > Sleep, Oh, and Lord of the Ring's really an accomplishment. Lolita,
> > Horse's Mouth, um...then again, there's Silence of the Lambs, and
> > there's also The Great Gatsby and The Razor's Edge.
>
> Which is the good Gatsby movie?
I think if you re-read the above, you'll see that I'm contrasting
Gatsby (and Bill Murray's Razor's Edge) with good movies made from
good books, as well as a great movie made from a trashy novel.
"...then again," usually indicates some contrast or contradiction,
something along those lines.
plausible prose man
"A is true and I do not believe A is true."
> I think many,
> >maybe most, people get much more impact out of films than out of
> >novels.
I think actually seeing something goes to some more immediate,
obvious place than having it described to you, and you can get a lot
more across in 500 pages than you can in two hours.
> And I think they are wrong in some sense.
Yeah, well...then again, there's Shoah, or those Ken Burns
documentaries. Still, those aren't really what I think of when I hear
"a film."
> Perhaps if you are comparing related movies and novels. On the other hand I can
> think of a number of films which have more impact than almost any novel I have
> read. I would included many of the films of Ingmar Berman and of Sergei
> Eisenstein.
I think it's possible for something to have more impact and still be
relatively superficial.
Mike Schilling
I'll take your word for it (mostly because no one breathing could
think The Great Gtasby was a good film.)
William December Starr
erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> said:
> plausible prose man <George...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> All in all, though, I think a good argument can be made that
>> watching a movie is a more superficial experience than reading a
>> novel.
>
> Emphatically so. Watching a movie is much more passive. The
> moviemaker has decided how the characters look, what they sound
> like, etc. With a book, the reader gets to/has to do that, so
> it's a much more active experience.
I don't think that has to make movie-watching "superficial," though.
I happened to catch the last hour or so of "2001" on tv while
channel-surfing early this morning, and I don't think that any
reader working from a script or a prose description could come
close to matching Kubrick's presentation of the events from
Bowman's entering an EVA pod (without his helmet) to attempt to
rescue Frank Poole, through the shutdown of HAL. (For one thing,
an author can describe "a soft, unthreatening male voice," but
_hearing_ Douglas Rain is something else entirely.)
Pity about the overly-long lightshow that followed, but whatcha
gonna do?
-- wds
Will in New Haven
This discussion, even minus the name-dropping, is exactly what I mean
by saying a good, objective argument cannot be made and I think you
are wrong in some sense. As the Buddha said about other things, these
are matters not amenable to discourse.
Will in New Haven
> In article
> <1e668311-3df2-4968-9fcc-2fb85a689...@k15g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > All in all, though, I think a good argument can be made that watching
> > a movie is a more superficial experience than reading a novel.
>
> Emphatically so. Watching a movie is much more passive. The moviemaker
> has decided how the characters look, what they sound like, etc. With a
> book, the reader gets to/has to do that, so it's a much more active
> experience.
>
good session in a role-playing game. Does that make the game less
superficial? It would be odd if this were widely seen to be so since
gamers are so widely condemned and ridiculed. On the other hand, I
_do_ consider a good role-playing session more entertaining and
fulfilling than the same number of hours reading or watching a film. I
just don't think there's an objective argument that this is the case
nor do I expect much agreement.
--
Will in New Haven
Sunspear, who walked the length of Shadows Dance
Sean O'Hara
declared:
Maybe he's talking about Martin Scorsese's version with Vincent
Chase as Nick Carroway. I know some people hate it because he
changed the location to the present day, but I think it's a big
improvement, especially the way they make explicit that Gatsby and
Daisy are exhibitionists who like Nick watching. The original novel
never made any sense, the way Nick's always there to witness the
romance.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://www.diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
New audio book: As Long as You Wish by John O'Keefe
<http://librivox.org/short-science-fiction-collection-010/>
erilar
<f91b777f-208e-4403...@k38g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
plausible prose man <George...@aol.com> wrote:
> I think it's possible for something to have more impact and still be
> relatively superficial.
Quite so. Some movies DO have more impact than some other movies. The
former do NOT tend to be based on novels. And some books are incredibly
superficial, too, of course. Case in point: Harlequin Romance.
erilar
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> erilar wrote:
> > In article
> > <7330ce6a-f3b9-4563...@37g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
> > Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I think many,
> >> maybe most, people get much more impact out of films than out of
> >> novels.
> >
> > They are then obviously dependent on others to do the work they shirk or
> > else don't READ novels 8-)
> >
>
> Or are just visually and auditorially oriented. I don't think anyone
> could seriously argue I don't read novels, but even the biggest impact
> of a novel rarely comes up to the impact of a good movie scene.
I cannot think of a movie with a fraction of the impact of many novels I
have read. This is not to say all books are good, but percentage-wise,
movies don't begin to compare for me.
erilar
<482b104a-6084-42d2...@3g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> And reading is a much more passive experience than playing a really
> good session in a role-playing game. Does that make the game less
> superficial? It would be odd if this were widely seen to be so since
> gamers are so widely condemned and ridiculed. On the other hand, I
> _do_ consider a good role-playing session more entertaining and
> fulfilling than the same number of hours reading or watching a film. I
> just don't think there's an objective argument that this is the case
> nor do I expect much agreement.
Well, I'd have to know whether you're talking of a role-playing game
involving live people in the same room--which I have done with great
enjoyment even at my advanced age 8-) --or one of those
sit-alone-at-the-computer games. I've tried a couple of the latter and
not felt anywhere near as engaged as I do with a good book(no, ALL books
are not "good").
Will in New Haven
> In article
> Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> > And reading is a much more passive experience than playing a really
> > good session in a role-playing game. Does that make the game less
> > superficial? It would be odd if this were widely seen to be so since
> > gamers are so widely condemned and ridiculed. On the other hand, I
> > _do_ consider a good role-playing session more entertaining and
> > fulfilling than the same number of hours reading or watching a film. I
> > just don't think there's an objective argument that this is the case
> > nor do I expect much agreement.
>
> Well, I'd have to know whether you're talking of a role-playing game
> involving live people in the same room--which I have done with great
> enjoyment even at my advanced age 8-) --or one of those
> sit-alone-at-the-computer games. I've tried a couple of the latter and
> not felt anywhere near as engaged as I do with a good book(no, ALL books
> are not "good").
I meant a live game, with the right mix of players and the right game-
master. And still, the number of sessions that are better than reading
a good book are a minority. But they do happen.
P. Taine
>In article <h1p2oa$s3v$3...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> erilar wrote:
>> > In article
>> > <7330ce6a-f3b9-4563...@37g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I think many,
>> >> maybe most, people get much more impact out of films than out of
>> >> novels.
>> >
>> > They are then obviously dependent on others to do the work they shirk or
>> > else don't READ novels 8-)
>> >
>>
>> Or are just visually and auditorially oriented. I don't think anyone
>> could seriously argue I don't read novels, but even the biggest impact
>> of a novel rarely comes up to the impact of a good movie scene.
>
>I cannot think of a movie with a fraction of the impact of many novels I
>have read. This is not to say all books are good, but percentage-wise,
>movies don't begin to compare for me.
I am no lit. crit., just a poor old programmer, so this is maundering off the
top of my head.
I suspect that two aspects of print verses film are the length and the pace.
Most novels will take more time to read than a film will, and will provide many
more words. I, and I would guess most people here, can read quite a bit faster
than I can absorb speech, and a film will have stretches without any speech.
Admittedly, some of the non-speaking time will provide visual information which
might require pages in a book. But in general you will be given more
information from an average novel than from a average film. This will make the
book seem "deeper".
The differing pace will have an effect on the "impact". (I'm adding the
quotation marks because I'm not sure that is the correct word for what I am
trying to talk about, but I can't think of a better.) Reading a book one can
always stop and consider what has just been given. With a film there is no
stopping the flow (unless you are watching a recording, but even then the
structure impels one to avoid that. Thus, with the book what might seem a CMOA
at first my fall flat on reconsideration, while in a film you are carried on
without having the chance think about it. This, at least in part, will add to
the impact.
It would be interesting to consider theater in this context. No one (I hope)
will claim that all theater is shallow, yet it shares much of the purported
flaws of film. I will say that comparing the same production on stage and in a
film, even when the film has "opened up" the presentation, I find the stage
production to be superior, even with non-star actors. (Perhaps especially with
non-star actors, who are not bearing the weight of their previous roles.)
There are things that print can do that film never will. E.g. "The Dictionary
of the Khazars", or "Informed Sources". Probably "Densha Otoko" ("Train Man"),
though I haven't seen the film yet. But I would challenge anyone to provide a
written text that would have the impact and the complexity of meaning of the
Odessa Steps scene in "Battleship Potemkin", or the enthrallment of "Marat ...
Sade".
P. Taine
(Yes, I like strange books and films)
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In article <h1p2oa$s3v$3...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> erilar wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <7330ce6a-f3b9-4563...@37g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think many,
>>>> maybe most, people get much more impact out of films than out of
>>>> novels.
>>> They are then obviously dependent on others to do the work they shirk or
>>> else don't READ novels 8-)
>>>
>> Or are just visually and auditorially oriented. I don't think anyone
>> could seriously argue I don't read novels, but even the biggest impact
>> of a novel rarely comes up to the impact of a good movie scene.
>
> I cannot think of a movie with a fraction of the impact of many novels I
> have read.
Which simply shows that we experience impact differently. I can think
of plenty of books with impact, but none that can hit me the way a
well-done movie or TV show can.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In article
> <482b104a-6084-42d2...@3g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
>> And reading is a much more passive experience than playing a really
>> good session in a role-playing game. Does that make the game less
>> superficial? It would be odd if this were widely seen to be so since
>> gamers are so widely condemned and ridiculed. On the other hand, I
>> _do_ consider a good role-playing session more entertaining and
>> fulfilling than the same number of hours reading or watching a film. I
>> just don't think there's an objective argument that this is the case
>> nor do I expect much agreement.
>
> Well, I'd have to know whether you're talking of a role-playing game
> involving live people in the same room
Of course. Those are the only things truly worthy of the name.
>--which I have done with great
> enjoyment even at my advanced age 8-) --or one of those
> sit-alone-at-the-computer games.
Those are CRPGs. I've had a few that impacted well (Chrono Trigger and
FFVII, despite Cloud's whinginess, Star Ocean (2 and 3)), but none of
them achieved the depth and force of impact of the best REAL RPG
sessions I've had. No movie or book has managed that either, to be fair.
Only other activity (besides this... thing called... LIFE) which
manages THAT level of impact is, not reading, but WRITING.
plausible prose man
> It would be interesting to consider theater in this context. No one (I hope)
> will claim that all theater is shallow,
All theater is shallow. You know, relatively, in the context of this
discussion, which doesn't mean it isn't impactful, and perhaps more
"impactful" than a book. So now that's two lengthy explanations I owe
you guys, huh?
plausible prose man
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 7:02 pm, erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:> In article
> > <1e668311-3df2-4968-9fcc-2fb85a689...@k15g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> > plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > All in all, though, I think a good argument can be made that watching
> > > a movie is a more superficial experience than reading a novel.
>
> > Emphatically so. Watching a movie is much more passive. The moviemaker
> > has decided how the characters look, what they sound like, etc. With a
> > book, the reader gets to/has to do that, so it's a much more active
> > experience.
>
> And reading is a much more passive experience than playing a really
> good session in a role-playing game.
No, I don't agree with that, especially when you get into the whole
complicated dialectic that is literature. You know, you don't just
read Starship Troopers or Lolita, you can read Lo's Diary and Forever
War.
> Does that make the game less
> superficial? It would be odd if this were widely seen to be so since
> gamers are so widely condemned and ridiculed.
I suppose it's at least theoretically possible that Shakespeare could
really GM the shit out of a dungeon for you.
> On the other hand, I
> _do_ consider a good role-playing session more entertaining and
> fulfilling than the same number of hours reading or watching a film.
Yeah, you know...here's an idea I'm halfway expecting to go over like
the proverbial lead zeppellin with a bunch of SF dorks, but people, at
least some people, read novels out of something beyond just how
entertaining they are, even in a kind of epicurean sense, that only
sort of applies to movies and hardly at all to role playing games.
erilar
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
No argument on that! That involves really major involvement!
erilar
<24cb6684-ae81-4f3b...@s12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> I meant a live game, with the right mix of players and the right game-
> master. And still, the number of sessions that are better than reading
> a good book are a minority. But they do happen.
I was in an interesting one once in Germany organized by a friend there.
I discovered he and I were the only ones who really knew how to play; I
had to keep rescuing the others, who preferred arguing with each other
about what to do instead of doing it. This was not a good move in the
presence of a dragon we COULD possibly have sneaked past if they had
shut up.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On Jun 23, 10:12 am, Will in New Haven
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 22, 7:02 pm, erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:> In article
>>> <1e668311-3df2-4968-9fcc-2fb85a689...@k15g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>>> plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> All in all, though, I think a good argument can be made that watching
>>>> a movie is a more superficial experience than reading a novel.
>>> Emphatically so. Watching a movie is much more passive. The moviemaker
>>> has decided how the characters look, what they sound like, etc. With a
>>> book, the reader gets to/has to do that, so it's a much more active
>>> experience.
>> And reading is a much more passive experience than playing a really
>> good session in a role-playing game.
>
> No, I don't agree with that, especially when you get into the whole
> complicated dialectic that is literature. You know, you don't just
> read Starship Troopers or Lolita, you can read Lo's Diary and Forever
> War.
And RPGs are at least that varied.
>> On the other hand, I
>> _do_ consider a good role-playing session more entertaining and
>> fulfilling than the same number of hours reading or watching a film.
>
> Yeah, you know...here's an idea I'm halfway expecting to go over like
> the proverbial lead zeppellin with a bunch of SF dorks, but people, at
> least some people, read novels out of something beyond just how
> entertaining they are, even in a kind of epicurean sense, that only
> sort of applies to movies and hardly at all to role playing games.
>
Aside from the fact that roleplaying is used as a psychological tool, a
training aid (for professional and even military purposes)?
Yeah, sure, Einstein.
Will in New Haven
> On Jun 23, 10:12 am, Will in New Haven
>
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 22, 7:02 pm, erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:> In article
> > > <1e668311-3df2-4968-9fcc-2fb85a689...@k15g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > All in all, though, I think a good argument can be made that watching
> > > > a movie is a more superficial experience than reading a novel.
>
> > > Emphatically so. Watching a movie is much more passive. The moviemaker
> > > has decided how the characters look, what they sound like, etc. With a
> > > book, the reader gets to/has to do that, so it's a much more active
> > > experience.
>
> > And reading is a much more passive experience than playing a really
> > good session in a role-playing game.
>
> No, I don't agree with that, especially when you get into the whole
> complicated dialectic that is literature. You know, you don't just
> read Starship Troopers or Lolita, you can read Lo's Diary and Forever
> War.
I've read all of those except Lo's Diary. I don't think I rank them
the same way you do. Despite all the hoity-toity shit you are handing
out, I don't think I'm wrong. Some of us were lit. majors and fucking
got OVER ourselves. Being a Melville scholar didn't ruin me for a life
of non-reflection. There may still be hope for you.
>
> > Does that make the game less
> > superficial? It would be odd if this were widely seen to be so since
> > gamers are so widely condemned and ridiculed.
>
> I suppose it's at least theoretically possible that Shakespeare could
> really GM the shit out of a dungeon for you.
Of course he could.
> > On the other hand, I
> > _do_ consider a good role-playing session more entertaining and
> > fulfilling than the same number of hours reading or watching a film.
>
> Yeah, you know...here's an idea I'm halfway expecting to go over like
> the proverbial lead zeppellin with a bunch of SF dorks, but people, at
> least some people, read novels out of something beyond just how
> entertaining they are, even in a kind of epicurean sense, that only
> sort of applies to movies and hardly at all to role playing games.
This SF dork was already tired of your act, poser. Go somewhere and
die.
Cordially as always
Brenda Clough
I am reliably informed that the thing to do is to smoke marijuiana
beforehand.
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
My novel REVISE THE WORLD is now appearing at
www.bookviewcafe.com
Will in New Haven
> > erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> said:
>
> >> plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>> All in all, though, I think a good argument can be made that
> >>> watching a movie is a more superficial experience than reading a
> >>> novel.
> >> Emphatically so. Watching a movie is much more passive. The
> >> moviemaker has decided how the characters look, what they sound
> >> like, etc. With a book, the reader gets to/has to do that, so
> >> it's a much more active experience.
>
> > I don't think that has to make movie-watching "superficial," though.
>
> > I happened to catch the last hour or so of "2001" on tv while
> > channel-surfing early this morning, and I don't think that any
> > reader working from a script or a prose description could come
> > close to matching Kubrick's presentation of the events from
> > Bowman's entering an EVA pod (without his helmet) to attempt to
> > rescue Frank Poole, through the shutdown of HAL. (For one thing,
> > an author can describe "a soft, unthreatening male voice," but
> > _hearing_ Douglas Rain is something else entirely.)
>
> > Pity about the overly-long lightshow that followed, but whatcha
> > gonna do?
>
> > -- wds
>
> I am reliably informed that the thing to do is to smoke marijuiana
> beforehand.
I was agreeing with you before I could see what you were responding
to. Sometimes, though, the thing to do is to smoker marijuana after.
Or during.
Robert Bannister
> I cannot think of a movie with a fraction of the impact of many novels I
> have read. This is not to say all books are good, but percentage-wise,
> movies don't begin to compare for me.
>
I'm still very much yes and no on this. My memory is mainly visual, so I
have clear, strong memories of some film scenes - like where Magwich
jumps out from behind a tombstone in "Great Expectations" that
frightened the life out of me when I was six. I can't even claim that
novels have a greater emotional impact on me, but characters and
"atmospheres" from novels do stick better for me.
--
Rob Bannister
Cheryl P.
> In article <h1p2oa$s3v$3...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> erilar wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <7330ce6a-f3b9-4563...@37g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think many,
>>>> maybe most, people get much more impact out of films than out of
>>>> novels.
>>> They are then obviously dependent on others to do the work they shirk or
>>> else don't READ novels 8-)
>>>
>> Or are just visually and auditorially oriented. I don't think anyone
>> could seriously argue I don't read novels, but even the biggest impact
>> of a novel rarely comes up to the impact of a good movie scene.
>
> I cannot think of a movie with a fraction of the impact of many novels I
> have read. This is not to say all books are good, but percentage-wise,
> movies don't begin to compare for me.
>
I find novels have more of an impact on me than movies, and I think it's
just that I naturally prefer text to film. I do sometimes watch and
enjoy TV and movies, but they don't seem to have the same impact, and if
I read the novel and watch the movie made from it, I invariably prefer
the novel because the director or actors didn't get things quite right
to my way of thinking. I feel this way about non-fiction, too. I've
pretty well given up on most documentaries because they seem so
superficial and unsatisfying - and the film makers don't ask the
questions I want answered. However, a movie or documentary might stir up
some interest in me about the subject - leading me to get a book.
Even before I read this thread, I knew many people don't react the way I
do. I've been told repeatedly about the marvellous experiences people
have with movies. My brain just doesn't seem to work that way, though. I
think my brain is wired so that it allows me to enjoy visual
presentations - movies, theatre, etc. - but those never seem to have the
impact of something I've imagined from reading a book - or heard. Some
music also has a big impact.
Cheryl
David DeLaney
>> I suppose it's at least theoretically possible that Shakespeare could
>> really GM the shit out of a dungeon for you.
>
>Of course he could.
...I think, but cannot be sure right now, that Irregular Webcomic has had
this happen.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Anthony Nance
Might be a chicken-and-egg thing, since the actors weren't
breathing either.
Tony
plausible prose man
Take your phrenology and go.
> a
> training aid (for professional and even military purposes)?
Which isn't at all what I was getting at, Steinmetz.
plausible prose man
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 6:46 pm, plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 23, 10:12 am, Will in New Haven
>
> > <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 22, 7:02 pm, erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:> In article
> > > > <1e668311-3df2-4968-9fcc-2fb85a689...@k15g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > All in all, though, I think a good argument can be made that watching
> > > > > a movie is a more superficial experience than reading a novel.
>
> > > > Emphatically so. Watching a movie is much more passive. The moviemaker
> > > > has decided how the characters look, what they sound like, etc. With a
> > > > book, the reader gets to/has to do that, so it's a much more active
> > > > experience.
>
> > > And reading is a much more passive experience than playing a really
> > > good session in a role-playing game.
>
> > No, I don't agree with that, especially when you get into the whole
> > complicated dialectic that is literature. You know, you don't just
> > read Starship Troopers or Lolita, you can read Lo's Diary and Forever
> > War.
>
> I've read all of those except Lo's Diary.
Have you read "The Wind Done Gone?"
>I don't think I rank them
> the same way you do.
and yet, I'm sure the sun will come up tomorrow and the republic will
endure.
> Despite all the hoity-toity shit you are handing
> out, I don't think I'm wrong.
Come up off your low-horse.
> Some of us were lit. majors and fucking
> got OVER ourselves.
Yeah, huh, at Yale, too, huh? I bet you got all that awful post-
struct stuff, huh?
> Being a Melville scholar didn't ruin me for a life
> of non-reflection. There may still be hope for you.
You know I'm right.
> > > Does that make the game less
> > > superficial? It would be odd if this were widely seen to be so since
> > > gamers are so widely condemned and ridiculed.
>
> > I suppose it's at least theoretically possible that Shakespeare could
> > really GM the shit out of a dungeon for you.
>
> Of course he could.
Eh...and yet, I think relatively few sessions of hackmaster ever
really get up to those lofty Hal Bloom heights, huh?
> > > On the other hand, I
> > > _do_ consider a good role-playing session more entertaining and
> > > fulfilling than the same number of hours reading or watching a film.
>
> > Yeah, you know...here's an idea I'm halfway expecting to go over like
> > the proverbial lead zeppellin with a bunch of SF dorks, but people, at
> > least some people, read novels out of something beyond just how
> > entertaining they are, even in a kind of epicurean sense, that only
> > sort of applies to movies and hardly at all to role playing games.
>
> This SF dork was already tired of your act, poser. Go somewhere and
> die.
Yeah, your mother!
plausible prose man
> > Only other activity (besides this... thing called... LIFE) which
> > manages THAT level of impact is, not reading, but WRITING.
>
> No argument on that! That involves really major involvement!
Something can be very involving and still quite superficial. I have a
movie here starring a certain Shay Jordan in which I was quite
engrossed, and I recall, you know, space invaders holding my attention
for hours on end, but outside of the sort of semiotician's argument to
the effect "a myth is as good as a menu" but I'm not at all sure I
came away as improved a person as I did after getting outside Moby
Dick and Gulliver's Travels and Catcher in the Rye.
Anthony Nance
> erilar wrote:
>
>> I cannot think of a movie with a fraction of the impact of many novels I
>> have read. This is not to say all books are good, but percentage-wise,
>> movies don't begin to compare for me.
>>
>
> I'm still very much yes and no on this. My memory is mainly visual, so I
> have clear, strong memories of some film scenes - like where Magwich
> jumps out from behind a tombstone in "Great Expectations" that
> frightened the life out of me when I was six.
The idea of having to watch that movie frightens the life out of me now.
There are books I was assigned to read that I suspect I would enjoy
much more now than when:
a) I was in school and had a much less developed sense of things; and
b) the teachers were doing so well at sucking the joy out of reading.
Great Expectations is not one of those books. In my little corner
of the world, it is the very definition of "this book sucks". This
does not mean I had a violent reaction to it - quite the opposite.
It means it was dreary, dull, and completely uninteresting, and the
100,000 years we spent on it in class just added to the suckitude.
Tony
Will in New Haven
At Yale? No, I used to write papers for Yalies. They paid well but
then I'd have to EXPLAIN the paper so the professor couldn't surprise
them with a comment or a question. They were greatful and some of the
girls were cute if you could get them to bathe.
>
> > Being a Melville scholar didn't ruin me for a life
> > of non-reflection. There may still be hope for you.
>
> You know I'm right.
I know you spend pages and pages telling us what we _should_ feel and
how we _should_ react and what art _is_ as if you had the key to the
secrets of the literary world, you pretentious jerk. Everyone else
here is giving their reactions and you are telling us what our
reactions _should_ be. It is people like you who give people a bad
name.
--
Will in New Haven
>
> > > > Does that make the game less
> > > > superficial? It would be odd if this were widely seen to be so since
> > > > gamers are so widely condemned and ridiculed.
>
> > > I suppose it's at least theoretically possible that Shakespeare could
> > > really GM the shit out of a dungeon for you.
>
> > Of course he could.
>
> Eh...and yet, I think relatively few sessions of hackmaster ever
> really get up to those lofty Hal Bloom heights, huh?
>
> > > > On the other hand, I
> > > > _do_ consider a good role-playing session more entertaining and
> > > > fulfilling than the same number of hours reading or watching a film.
>
> > > Yeah, you know...here's an idea I'm halfway expecting to go over like
> > > the proverbial lead zeppellin with a bunch of SF dorks, but people, at
> > > least some people, read novels out of something beyond just how
> > > entertaining they are, even in a kind of epicurean sense, that only
> > > sort of applies to movies and hardly at all to role playing games.
>
> > This SF dork was already tired of your act, poser. Go somewhere and
> > die.
>
> Yeah, your mother!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On Jun 24, 3:20 am, plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 23, 7:40 pm, Will in New Haven
>>> Being a Melville scholar didn't ruin me for a life
>>> of non-reflection. There may still be hope for you.
>> You know I'm right.
>
> I know you spend pages and pages telling us what we _should_ feel and
> how we _should_ react and what art _is_ as if you had the key to the
> secrets of the literary world, you pretentious jerk.
Will, this is PPM. He's either a kook or a troll. Don't let him
actually annoy you.
Mike Schilling
One of those books ruined by school, IMHO. As leisure reading, it
goes by quickly and has numerous rewards.
erilar
na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance) wrote:
> There are books I was assigned to read that I suspect I would enjoy
> much more now than when:
> a) I was in school and had a much less developed sense of things; and
> b) the teachers were doing so well at sucking the joy out of reading.
b), yes! A teacher so thoroughly destroyed Shakespeare for me in high
school that it took years and a book claiming Marlowe did NOT die and
wrote Shakespeare's plays to get me to take another look. I discovered
he wrote great stuff! I not only read all of Shakespeare and Marlowe,
but all the other Elizabethan plays I could find and kept going into the
Restoration and beyond.
When I later ended up TEACHING Shakespeare, I always tried to get my
students to look at the story first, I don't think we looked at the
actual story of Macbeth in high school at all. It was such a horrible
experience that by the time I started reading Shakespeare on my own, I
didn't remember what we DID do in that teacher's class besides
memorizing bits of quotation!
However, nothing will ever make me like _Silas Marner_.
Wayne Throop
: However, nothing will ever make me like _Silas Marner_.
But surely some similarity would be feasible.
"Be like Mike!" --- advertising catchphrase of a while back
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In article <h1t7l6$qnm$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance) wrote:
>
>> There are books I was assigned to read that I suspect I would enjoy
>> much more now than when:
>> a) I was in school and had a much less developed sense of things; and
>> b) the teachers were doing so well at sucking the joy out of reading.
>
> b), yes! A teacher so thoroughly destroyed Shakespeare for me in high
> school that it took years and a book claiming Marlowe did NOT die and
> wrote Shakespeare's plays to get me to take another look. I discovered
> he wrote great stuff!
Took me seven years to recover from High School Shakespeare. They'd
given us Romeo and Juliet, MacBeth, Julius Caesar, and Hamlet. (one per
year). This convinced me that this Shakespeare guy was a grim and
suicidal/homicidal bastard who hadn't had a truly happy thought in his
entire life.
James Nicoll
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>erilar wrote:
>> In article <h1t7l6$qnm$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>> na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance) wrote:
>>
>>> There are books I was assigned to read that I suspect I would enjoy
>>> much more now than when:
>>> a) I was in school and had a much less developed sense of things; and
>>> b) the teachers were doing so well at sucking the joy out of reading.
>>
>> b), yes! A teacher so thoroughly destroyed Shakespeare for me in high
>> school that it took years and a book claiming Marlowe did NOT die and
>> wrote Shakespeare's plays to get me to take another look. I discovered
>> he wrote great stuff!
>
> Took me seven years to recover from High School Shakespeare.
Ah, the benefits of living down the road from Stratford, ON.
ObSF: SLINGS AND ARROWS, a Shakespearian fantasy (The first two
seasons of which were good. The third, not so much).
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Will in New Haven
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> erilar wrote:
> > In article <h1t7l6$qn...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> > na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance) wrote:
>
> >> There are books I was assigned to read that I suspect I would enjoy
> >> much more now than when:
> >> a) I was in school and had a much less developed sense of things; and
> >> b) the teachers were doing so well at sucking the joy out of reading.
>
> > b), yes! A teacher so thoroughly destroyed Shakespeare for me in high
> > school that it took years and a book claiming Marlowe did NOT die and
> > wrote Shakespeare's plays to get me to take another look. I discovered
> > he wrote great stuff!
>
> Took me seven years to recover from High School Shakespeare. They'd
> given us Romeo and Juliet, MacBeth, Julius Caesar, and Hamlet. (one per
> year). This convinced me that this Shakespeare guy was a grim and
> suicidal/homicidal bastard who hadn't had a truly happy thought in his
> entire life.
Schoolteachers often don't seem to understand that Shakespeare didn't
write novels.
His plays can profitably be
Seen
Acted
or
Discussed
Sitting around reading them with none of those things in mind is not
what they are made for. We read the parts in HS. I went to a very bad
Appalachian high school with at least two wonderful teachers. Ms. Snow
actually knew that these were plays. Of course, I always thought Romeo
& Juliet was a comedy but I'm not a nice person.