Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Game of thrones vs LOTR
98 views
Skip to first unread message
tenworld
May 12, 2013, 1:10:16 PM5/12/13
to
I am curious how people on this group look at GoT. Its been described as "LOTR meets Sopranos". It is much more adult but does seem to be comparable in many ways. One big difference is Martin hasnt finished the books and its not clear who the protagonist really is (or are). Going to video before finishing books is also a difference altho Martin as a producer has a lot of control.
Message has been deleted
de...@pointerstop.ca
May 13, 2013, 11:04:40 AM5/13/13
to
On Monday, May 13, 2013 12:00:27 AM UTC-3, Lewis wrote:
>
> Other than the fantasy element I don't think they are at all similar.
> For one thing, GRRM is a lazy and poor writer. Sure, he can spin a yarn
> I guess, but are you likely to be quoting his prose, ever?
I agree with that, but...
> I believe it is GRRM who one referred to a black and white piebald horse.
What's the problem with that? It's not quite redundant. I have a brown-and-white piebald dog.
>
> Other than the fantasy element I don't think they are at all similar.
> For one thing, GRRM is a lazy and poor writer. Sure, he can spin a yarn
> I guess, but are you likely to be quoting his prose, ever?
I agree with that, but...
> I believe it is GRRM who one referred to a black and white piebald horse.
What's the problem with that? It's not quite redundant. I have a brown-and-white piebald dog.
Julian Bradfield
May 13, 2013, 11:50:10 AM5/13/13
to
Taemon
May 13, 2013, 12:23:48 PM5/13/13
to
On 13-5-2013 5:00, Lewis wrote:
> In message <96168c02-fe63-4414...@googlegroups.com>
NOW but he certainly didn't start out that way. And his characters
are... brilliant.
Still, Tolkien is so much better than anyone when it comes to history,
to roots of a world. Depths and layers.
T.
> In message <96168c02-fe63-4414...@googlegroups.com>
> tenworld <t...@world.std.com> wrote:
>> I am curious how people on this group look at GoT. Its been described
>> as "LOTR meets Sopranos". It is much more adult but does seem to be
>> comparable in many ways.
>
>> I am curious how people on this group look at GoT. Its been described
>> as "LOTR meets Sopranos". It is much more adult but does seem to be
>> comparable in many ways.
>
> Other than the fantasy element I don't think they are at all similar.
> For one thing, GRRM is a lazy and poor writer. Sure, he can spin a yarn
> I guess, but are you likely to be quoting his prose, ever?
Those first books are so very, very good. GRRM is a lazy and poor writer
> For one thing, GRRM is a lazy and poor writer. Sure, he can spin a yarn
> I guess, but are you likely to be quoting his prose, ever?
NOW but he certainly didn't start out that way. And his characters
are... brilliant.
Still, Tolkien is so much better than anyone when it comes to history,
to roots of a world. Depths and layers.
T.
Message has been deleted
de...@pointerstop.ca
May 14, 2013, 9:26:05 AM5/14/13
to
On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 4:49:37 AM UTC-3, Lewis wrote:
> In message <165d7819-b211-4f49...@googlegroups.com>
>
> piebald |ˈpīˌbôld|
>
> adjective
> (of a horse) having irregular patches of two colors, typically black and white.
Demonstrating that you have no understanding of _either_ genetics or how to use a dictionary. It says, "typically" - which implies "but not always". And the noun definition points out "horse or other animal". As I said "not quite redundant".
> In message <165d7819-b211-4f49...@googlegroups.com>
> de...@pointerstop.ca <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> I believe it is GRRM who one referred to a black and white piebald horse.
>
> > What's the problem with that? It's not quite redundant. I have a brown-and-white piebald dog.
>
> Piebald means a black and white horse.
> >
> >> I believe it is GRRM who one referred to a black and white piebald horse.
>
> > What's the problem with that? It's not quite redundant. I have a brown-and-white piebald dog.
>
>
> piebald |ˈpīˌbôld|
>
> adjective
> (of a horse) having irregular patches of two colors, typically black and white.
Demonstrating that you have no understanding of _either_ genetics or how to use a dictionary. It says, "typically" - which implies "but not always". And the noun definition points out "horse or other animal". As I said "not quite redundant".
de...@pointerstop.ca
May 14, 2013, 9:31:03 AM5/14/13
to
On Monday, May 13, 2013 12:50:10 PM UTC-3, Julian Bradfield wrote:
> On 2013-05-13, de...@pointerstop.ca <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
> You mean you have a skewbald dog.
Indeed I do. I also have a blind dog, a deaf dog, and an arthritic dog. None of those conditions are exclusive.
> On 2013-05-13, de...@pointerstop.ca <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
> You mean you have a skewbald dog.
An animal can be piebald and skewbald, but afaik a zebra can't be skewbald (though I'm not entirely sure a zebra's coloration strictly counts as piebald, either).
John W Kennedy
May 14, 2013, 2:35:20 PM5/14/13
to
difference between a dictionary definition and a technical definition.
In the horse world, "piebald" means black and white, period.
--
John W Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
Message has been deleted
John W Kennedy
May 14, 2013, 11:02:27 PM5/14/13
to
On 2013-05-14 23:55:47 +0000, Lewis said:
> In message <519283e8$0$19529$607e...@cv.net>
> reply to the followup because I decided derek was being insulting.
>
> Piebald means black and white as it refers to a magpie. Some people
> (mis)use the word to refer to other color combinations, in which case a
> clarification of a 'brown and white piebald horse' would be warranted;
> though I would still call that incorrect and/or ignorant. Saying a
> 'black and white piebald horse' is redundantly repetitive.
>
> A brown and white horse is properly called a 'pinto' as I recall.
In the US, yes; in the UK, it’s "coloured". However, "pinto" and
"coloured" also include piebald horses; the word for a pinto/coloured
horse that is not piebald is "skewbald". However, all these terms are
beginning to fade away in professional use, to be replaced by exact
(well, exact enough for a horsebreeder) genetic information.
--
John W Kennedy
"...if you had to fall in love with someone who was evil, I can see why
it was her."
-- "Alias"
> In message <519283e8$0$19529$607e...@cv.net>
> John W Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 2013-05-14 13:26:05 +0000, de...@pointerstop.ca said:
>
>>> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 4:49:37 AM UTC-3, Lewis wrote:
>>>> In message <165d7819-b211-4f49...@googlegroups.com>>
>>>> de...@pointerstop.ca <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe it is GRRM who one referred to a black and white piebald horse.
>>>>
>>>>> What's the problem with that? It's not quite redundant. I have a
>>>>> brown-and-white piebald dog.
>>>>
>>>> Piebald means a black and white horse.
>>>>
>>>> piebald |ˈpīˌbôld|
>>>>
>>>> adjective
>>>> (of a horse) having irregular patches of two colors, typically black and white.
>>>
>>> Demonstrating that you have no understanding of _either_ genetics or
>>> how to use a dictionary. It says, "typically" - which implies "but not
>>> always". And the noun definition points out "horse or other animal". As
>>> I said "not quite redundant".
>
>> Demonstrating, actually, that neither of you seem to know the
>> difference between a dictionary definition and a technical definition.
>> In the horse world, "piebald" means black and white, period.
>
> I thought leaving the etymology in would make it clear, and did not
>> On 2013-05-14 13:26:05 +0000, de...@pointerstop.ca said:
>
>>> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 4:49:37 AM UTC-3, Lewis wrote:
>>>> In message <165d7819-b211-4f49...@googlegroups.com>>
>>>> de...@pointerstop.ca <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe it is GRRM who one referred to a black and white piebald horse.
>>>>
>>>>> What's the problem with that? It's not quite redundant. I have a
>>>>> brown-and-white piebald dog.
>>>>
>>>> Piebald means a black and white horse.
>>>>
>>>> piebald |ˈpīˌbôld|
>>>>
>>>> adjective
>>>> (of a horse) having irregular patches of two colors, typically black and white.
>>>
>>> Demonstrating that you have no understanding of _either_ genetics or
>>> how to use a dictionary. It says, "typically" - which implies "but not
>>> always". And the noun definition points out "horse or other animal". As
>>> I said "not quite redundant".
>
>> Demonstrating, actually, that neither of you seem to know the
>> difference between a dictionary definition and a technical definition.
>> In the horse world, "piebald" means black and white, period.
>
> reply to the followup because I decided derek was being insulting.
>
> Piebald means black and white as it refers to a magpie. Some people
> (mis)use the word to refer to other color combinations, in which case a
> clarification of a 'brown and white piebald horse' would be warranted;
> though I would still call that incorrect and/or ignorant. Saying a
> 'black and white piebald horse' is redundantly repetitive.
>
> A brown and white horse is properly called a 'pinto' as I recall.
In the US, yes; in the UK, it’s "coloured". However, "pinto" and
"coloured" also include piebald horses; the word for a pinto/coloured
horse that is not piebald is "skewbald". However, all these terms are
beginning to fade away in professional use, to be replaced by exact
(well, exact enough for a horsebreeder) genetic information.
--
John W Kennedy
"...if you had to fall in love with someone who was evil, I can see why
it was her."
-- "Alias"
Julian Bradfield
May 15, 2013, 8:28:00 AM5/15/13
to
On 2013-05-14, de...@pointerstop.ca <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> An animal can be piebald and skewbald
As the OED says:
> An animal can be piebald and skewbald
Skewbald: Of animals, esp. horses: Irregularly marked with white and
brown or red, or some similar colour. Properly distinct from piebald
adj. and n. (see quot. 1874), which is sometimes inexactly used for
it.
If your dog has patches of white, black, and brown, it's neither
piebald nor skewbald, but just a mutt.
The 1874 quote is:
1874 W. Watson Youatt's Horse (rev. ed.) xv. 346 When the white is
mixed with black it is called ‘pie-bald’, with bay the name of
‘skew-bald’ is given to it.
As John said.
de...@pointerstop.ca
May 15, 2013, 1:01:56 PM5/15/13
to
On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 9:28:00 AM UTC-3, Julian Bradfield wrote:
> On 2013-05-14, de...@pointerstop.ca <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
> > An animal can be piebald and skewbald
>
> As the OED says:
> Skewbald: Of animals, esp. horses: Irregularly marked with white and
> brown or red, or some similar colour. Properly distinct from piebald
> adj. and n. (see quot. 1874), which is sometimes inexactly used for
> it.
Well, good for the OED, but there are plenty of other references that say differently (even Lewis's citation), and genetically there's ONLY piebald.
> On 2013-05-14, de...@pointerstop.ca <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
> > An animal can be piebald and skewbald
>
> As the OED says:
> Skewbald: Of animals, esp. horses: Irregularly marked with white and
> brown or red, or some similar colour. Properly distinct from piebald
> adj. and n. (see quot. 1874), which is sometimes inexactly used for
> it.
Taemon
May 16, 2013, 2:38:53 AM5/16/13
to
So, no discussion of Game of thrones vs LOTR in this group. Does that
answer the question?
answer the question?
tenworld
May 17, 2013, 12:32:03 AM5/17/13
to
On Sunday, May 12, 2013 8:00:27 PM UTC-7, Lewis wrote:
> tenworld <t...@world.std.com> wrote:
>
> >I am curious how people on this group look at GoT. Its been described
>
> >as "LOTR meets Sopranos". It is much more adult but does seem to be
>
> >comparable in many ways.
>
>
>
The Lannisters always pay their debts
Play the game of thrones: you win or you die.
There is no doubt that Tolkien was a master wordsmith.
Martin may be known as the author who morphed the media of written word into visual and may never write the final book, instead writing the final script.
> tenworld <t...@world.std.com> wrote:
>
> >I am curious how people on this group look at GoT. Its been described
>
> >as "LOTR meets Sopranos". It is much more adult but does seem to be
>
> >comparable in many ways.
>
>
>
> Other than the fantasy element I don't think they are at all similar.
>
> For one thing, GRRM is a lazy and poor writer. Sure, he can spin a yarn
>
> I guess, but are you likely to be quoting his prose, ever?
Winter is coming
>
> For one thing, GRRM is a lazy and poor writer. Sure, he can spin a yarn
>
> I guess, but are you likely to be quoting his prose, ever?
The Lannisters always pay their debts
Play the game of thrones: you win or you die.
There is no doubt that Tolkien was a master wordsmith.
Martin may be known as the author who morphed the media of written word into visual and may never write the final book, instead writing the final script.
John W Kennedy
May 17, 2013, 11:08:16 AM5/17/13
to
On 2013-05-17 04:32:03 +0000, tenworld said:
> On Sunday, May 12, 2013 8:00:27 PM UTC-7, Lewis wrote:
>
>> tenworld <t...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I am curious how people on this group look at GoT. Its been described
>>
>>> as "LOTR meets Sopranos". It is much more adult but does seem to be
>>
>>> comparable in many ways.
>>
>>
>>
>> Other than the fantasy element I don't think they are at all similar.
>>
>> For one thing, GRRM is a lazy and poor writer. Sure, he can spin a yarn
>>
>> I guess, but are you likely to be quoting his prose, ever?
>
> Winter is coming
In last year's Village Renaissance Faire (Wrightstown, PA), in which
> On Sunday, May 12, 2013 8:00:27 PM UTC-7, Lewis wrote:
>
>> tenworld <t...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I am curious how people on this group look at GoT. Its been described
>>
>>> as "LOTR meets Sopranos". It is much more adult but does seem to be
>>
>>> comparable in many ways.
>>
>>
>>
>> Other than the fantasy element I don't think they are at all similar.
>>
>> For one thing, GRRM is a lazy and poor writer. Sure, he can spin a yarn
>>
>> I guess, but are you likely to be quoting his prose, ever?
>
> Winter is coming
the storyline was based on "The Three Musketeers", I, as a
tavernkeeper, had the line, "Brace yourselves; de Winter is coming."
>
> The Lannisters always pay their debts
>
> Play the game of thrones: you win or you die.
>
> There is no doubt that Tolkien was a master wordsmith.
>
> Martin may be known as the author who morphed the media of written word
> into visual and may never write the final book, instead writing the
> final script.
John W Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract,
Man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams. "Bors to Elayne: On the King's Coins"
Morgoth's Curse
Dec 10, 2013, 4:06:05 AM12/10/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 10:10:16 -0700 (PDT), tenworld <t...@world.std.com>
wrote:
>I am curious how people on this group look at GoT. Its been described as "LOTR meets Sopranos". It is much more adult but does seem to be comparable in many ways. One big difference is Martin hasnt finished the books and its not clear who the protagonist really is (or are). Going to video before finishing books is also a difference altho Martin as a producer has a lot of control.
Comparing Tolkien to other authors is always a fool's errand
because J.R.R. Tolkien is the greatest writer of all time. No other
author even remotely comes close to matching Tolkien's flawless prose.
I suspect that it depends on what you are interested in. If you
are seeking high fantasy a la Tolkien, then you will be sadly
disappointed. Martin does not attempt to mimic that style. He excels
at world-building, but he is more interested in how characters
interact than in adhering to any single plotline. His work is
certainly darker than anything that Tolkien wrote, but can be equally
compelling. I have learned much wisdom from both authors.
Morgoth's Curse
wrote:
>I am curious how people on this group look at GoT. Its been described as "LOTR meets Sopranos". It is much more adult but does seem to be comparable in many ways. One big difference is Martin hasnt finished the books and its not clear who the protagonist really is (or are). Going to video before finishing books is also a difference altho Martin as a producer has a lot of control.
because J.R.R. Tolkien is the greatest writer of all time. No other
author even remotely comes close to matching Tolkien's flawless prose.
I suspect that it depends on what you are interested in. If you
are seeking high fantasy a la Tolkien, then you will be sadly
disappointed. Martin does not attempt to mimic that style. He excels
at world-building, but he is more interested in how characters
interact than in adhering to any single plotline. His work is
certainly darker than anything that Tolkien wrote, but can be equally
compelling. I have learned much wisdom from both authors.
Morgoth's Curse
Message has been deleted
Paul S. Person
Dec 11, 2013, 1:30:44 PM12/11/13
to
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 23:51:17 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>In message <sfhda99ebnmd2h2ok...@4ax.com>
>formula that has been very successful for him, and that is to throw a
>hundred plots into the air and juggle them while grinning maniacally.
>When he gets tired of a plot line, he simply kills the characters.
If that is George RR Martin, and if it is the same George RR Martin
who wrote /Fevre Dream/, you might want to read /Fevre Dream/.
It's a vampire novel set in a time and a place that could be described
as Mark Twain's Mississippi River.
And it would make one heck of a good movie.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>In message <sfhda99ebnmd2h2ok...@4ax.com>
> Morgoth's Curse <morgoths...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 10:10:16 -0700 (PDT), tenworld <t...@world.std.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>>I am curious how people on this group look at GoT. Its been described as "LOTR meets Sopranos". It is much more adult but does seem to be comparable in many ways. One big difference is Martin hasnt finished the books and its not clear who the protagonist really is (or are). Going to video before finishing books is also a difference altho Martin as a producer has a lot of control.
>
>Well, George is a poor-to-decent writer who has managed to hit on a
>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 10:10:16 -0700 (PDT), tenworld <t...@world.std.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>>I am curious how people on this group look at GoT. Its been described as "LOTR meets Sopranos". It is much more adult but does seem to be comparable in many ways. One big difference is Martin hasnt finished the books and its not clear who the protagonist really is (or are). Going to video before finishing books is also a difference altho Martin as a producer has a lot of control.
>
>formula that has been very successful for him, and that is to throw a
>hundred plots into the air and juggle them while grinning maniacally.
>When he gets tired of a plot line, he simply kills the characters.
If that is George RR Martin, and if it is the same George RR Martin
who wrote /Fevre Dream/, you might want to read /Fevre Dream/.
It's a vampire novel set in a time and a place that could be described
as Mark Twain's Mississippi River.
And it would make one heck of a good movie.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
Message has been deleted
Paul S. Person
Dec 12, 2013, 1:44:35 PM12/12/13
to
On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 06:42:56 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>In message <umbha9d2h0o8re5rv...@4ax.com>
I suppose it depends on what sort of vampire novels you like.
I found /Interview with the Vampire/ excruciatingly dull. I found this
one (/Fevre Dream/) and /Anno Dracula/ excellent -- the latter almost
up to the standard of the original.
But your preferences may vary.
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>In message <umbha9d2h0o8re5rv...@4ax.com>
> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
>> It's a vampire novel set in a time and a place that could be described
>> as Mark Twain's Mississippi River.
>
>Well, that doesn't sound good, but I'm willing to give it a try.
>> It's a vampire novel set in a time and a place that could be described
>> as Mark Twain's Mississippi River.
>
I suppose it depends on what sort of vampire novels you like.
I found /Interview with the Vampire/ excruciatingly dull. I found this
one (/Fevre Dream/) and /Anno Dracula/ excellent -- the latter almost
up to the standard of the original.
But your preferences may vary.
Message has been deleted
Ronald O. Christian
Dec 13, 2013, 11:26:12 AM12/13/13
to
>I am curious how people on this group look at GoT. Its been described as "LOTR meets Sopranos". It is much more adult but does seem to be comparable in many ways. One big difference is Martin hasnt finished the books and its not clear who the protagonist really is (or are). Going to video before finishing books is also a difference altho Martin as a producer has a lot of control.
It's a soap opera with swords. I think the intention is not to reveal
an overriding story arc, but to just keep pulling new points of
dispute and squabbling out of their collective arse for as long as
they can get paid to do so. Wife and I tried to give it a chance,
based on its popularity, but at some point we looked at each other and
said "why are we wasting our time watching this?"
Your mileage may vary, but I think this is a nighttime replacement for
all the daytime soaps that dried up. With swords and nudity so that
the husbands won't feel to embarrassed to be watching it also.
My opinion, of course.
Ron
-
2003 FLHTCUI "Noisy Glide"
http://www.christianfamilywebsite.com
http://www.ronaldchristian.com
Taemon
Dec 13, 2013, 12:53:59 PM12/13/13
to
I vividly remember reading the first book for the first time. I like
epic fantasy so I enjoyed it. Then, Eddard Stark faced beheading. I was
reading along, waiting for the inevitable last-minute rescue, daring
heroes, yada yada.
Chop.
I'll never forget that chop. I then realised that this was... different.
It was brilliant. Those first books are so damned good.
I started to reread a while after Dance with Dragons, to refresh things.
I was amazed at how good it was, so well-paced, such deep characters,
written so well.
I planned on rereading them all but couldn't bring myself to face the
Red Wedding again, so I quit after the first. Dance with Dragons is of
course terrible. But those first two, three books... Head and shoulders
above the rest of the genre. I weep for the decline of the series.
epic fantasy so I enjoyed it. Then, Eddard Stark faced beheading. I was
reading along, waiting for the inevitable last-minute rescue, daring
heroes, yada yada.
Chop.
I'll never forget that chop. I then realised that this was... different.
It was brilliant. Those first books are so damned good.
I started to reread a while after Dance with Dragons, to refresh things.
I was amazed at how good it was, so well-paced, such deep characters,
written so well.
I planned on rereading them all but couldn't bring myself to face the
Red Wedding again, so I quit after the first. Dance with Dragons is of
course terrible. But those first two, three books... Head and shoulders
above the rest of the genre. I weep for the decline of the series.
Morgoth's Curse
Dec 13, 2013, 2:35:35 PM12/13/13
to
mangle it as badly as Jackson mutilated LoTR, but my friends tell me
that it is as different from the books as Jackson's hideous mockery of
Tolkien's masterpiece is.
Morgoth's Curse
Message has been deleted
Rast
Dec 15, 2013, 11:04:47 PM12/15/13
to
Morgoth's Curse wrote...
> I refused to watch the TV adaptation since I knew that HBO would
> mangle it as badly as Jackson mutilated LoTR,
They've made changes, some bad or unnecessary, but they haven't butchered it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh3iLEMG-cA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEtar1BgI3U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73JC846RMl4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVfClyxJOHA
These are some of the best scenes. If you like them, you might like the show. If not,
you've made the right choice to ignore it.
> I refused to watch the TV adaptation since I knew that HBO would
> mangle it as badly as Jackson mutilated LoTR,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh3iLEMG-cA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEtar1BgI3U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73JC846RMl4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVfClyxJOHA
These are some of the best scenes. If you like them, you might like the show. If not,
you've made the right choice to ignore it.
0 new messages