Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: spotty review

Expand Messages
  • marcfcs
    ... I m ... usage ... characters. Nor ... dark) or ... difficult to ... what ... keep ... I think you are reading too much into my exact choice of words
    Message 1 of 158 , Feb 10 4:00 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, David Bratman <dbratman@e...> wrote:
      > At 01:57 AM 2/10/2004 +0000, Marc wrote:
      > >
      > >What can I say. As someone who grew up in a post-romantic world,
      I'm
      > >not particularly bothered by works that are dark, horrible, and/or
      > >have loathsome characters.
      >
      > Your change from my usage of _focusing_ on such a character to your
      usage
      > of _having_ such a character is noted. LOTR has loathsome
      characters. Nor
      > did I say anything about books that are dark (The Silmarillion is
      dark) or
      > horrible. These characteristics are not what made Donaldson
      difficult to
      > read: rather, they were among his strong points. Nor is it clear
      what
      > world you think I grew up in. Over what I read this rewording and
      > insertion as insinuating about my judgment and tastes, I wish to
      keep
      > civility, ergo silebo.
      >

      I think you are reading too much into my exact choice of words
      (something easy to do in informal email communications with people
      you don't really know and I apologize if I gave any offense). That
      comment was meant to refer to works that focus on or are almost
      exclusively about loathsome characters. Obviously, you probably
      wouldn't be on a list like this if you hated works with ANY loathsome
      characters or darkness. The Silmarillion is dark, but also, I think,
      has much that is beautiful and romantic and focuses on many noble (if
      often tragically flawed) characters. Closer to Shakespeare than
      Tarentino. Not the type of work I was referring to at all(and
      perhaps expressing badly). Perhaps I should have also thrown in
      words like cynical, violent, amoral, subversive, rough, and/or
      ironic. Not, of course, that Donaldson falls completely on that
      side either. I was mainly just trying to make a point about how
      someone can enjoy a work based around a main character(s) who they
      don't particularly like, identify with or sympathize with.

      However, they would not appeal to what
      > >Hollywood perceives as a core audience for fantasy movies:
      children
      > >and adolescents.
      >
      > Peter Jackson is not a Hollywood director, obviously.
      >
      I don't really understand the point you are making here. Jackson's
      film is not targeted narrowly just to an adolescent audience, but it
      makes a lot of allowances to ensure it will appeal particularly to
      the key male adolescent demographic (e.g., younger characters, near
      constant action and spectacle, lots of monster fights, highly visible
      bad guys, etc.).


      >
      > That rather proves my point. It is more than worth noting that
      Peter
      > Jackson emphasized that he considered himself as making LOTR as a
      > pseudo-historical film, not a fantasy. Obviously he did not omit
      fantastic
      > elements entirely, but he did strongly de-emphasize them.

      I think it depends what you mean by that. In my opinion, Jackson
      used just about every fantastic element that would play visually that
      he could. He even uses many that were off-stage in the book (e.g.,
      having the dead fight in ROTK, Sauraman's breeding program) or were
      much subtler (e.g., the ring temptation scenes with Gandalf, Bilbo, &
      Galadriel, the spell on Theoden, the spell to bring on the snowstorm
      in the Misty Mountains, etc.) or were largely left to the imagination
      (e.g., the monster at the end of the tentacles that come out of the
      lake in front of Moria).

      Regards,

      Marc
    • dmsherwood_heather
      ... has, ... completely ... comeuppance ... life. ... expectations ... an ... one ... kind ... that ... a ... explained ... argue ... discussion ... Hi I m
      Message 158 of 158 , Mar 8, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "marcfcs" <marcfcs@a...> wrote:
        > --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, David Bratman <dbratman@e...> wrote:
        >
        > >
        > > But neither of these describe Thomas Covenant. He is not
        > uninteresting, he
        > > is positively annoying. Nor is he merely detestable, but a
        > detestable
        > > person one is supposed to identify with (to an extent) as a
        > viewpoint
        > > character, without - at least as far as I read, three long weary
        > books of
        > > it - having a turning point or apotheosis of sympathy as Lear
        has,
        > or
        > > getting his due comeuppance as Richard III does.
        >
        > Two points: 1) I don't think you are supposed to identify with
        > Covenant. I think Donaldson goes out of his way to block you from
        > identifying with him(though as I said before, I know nothing about
        > his motivations beyond what is in the books, so I could be
        completely
        > wrong).
        >
        > 2) I don't have a problem with Covenant not getting his
        comeuppance
        > or having a turning point and learning some deep lesson about
        life.
        > The universe is an imperfect place. I don't mind if fiction
        > reflects that sometimes. I like it when a work subverts
        expectations
        > and does not unfold in a traditional way. It doesn't bother me if
        an
        > anti-hero character doesn't have a heart of gold and doesn't grow
        one
        > later (and isn't punished for that in some act of cosmic justice by
        > the author).
        >
        > > The problem with this moment is not the sentiment - for surely an
        > ancient
        > > king no more intends to outlive his son and heir than a modern
        > Oprah guest
        > > does - but the phrasing and style with which it is said.
        >
        > The phrasing is the worst part and the one that is most relevant to
        > me for enjoying the movie. However, the sentiment is wrong as well
        > as an adaptation of Tolkien since this clearly goes against the
        kind
        > of "men of the north" heroic ethos that Tolkien gives to Rohan.
        > Lamenting the death of a son is 1 thing. Saying no father should
        > outlive their children is not the right sentiment for a culture
        that
        > honors noble death more than survival at any costs. This changes
        a
        > culture that Tolkien meant to be a little alien to his audience and
        > makes it more like modern people in medieval clothing. Can anyone
        > imagine Beowulf or Sigurd saying such a thing, however you want to
        > phrase it? Not that Tolkien doesn't modernize those types of
        > characters a little, but not that much.
        >
        > Finally, as far as the whole post-Romantic thing goes, I've
        explained
        > my point and you clearly understand it now. We could probably
        argue
        > endlessly about the exact usage of the specific words I chose and I
        > doubt it would be of interest to anyone else reading this
        discussion
        > group. So, lets just let it drop.
        >
        > Regards,
        >
        > Marc
        >
        > marclists@a...

        Hi I'm (dmsherwood53@...) & I'm breaking into a conversation
        where the protagonists have agrred to let it drop wvery uncivilised
        of me.
        If your still listening coupla points:
        I agree theris a post-romantic sensibility.
        I think this and its opposite the romantic sensibility ties deeply
        intowhat a person is; wants to be; fears being; all thaT shimola
        I think ROMANCES using the term v widely tie into this more deeply
        than ordinary books tho its part of why anybody cares a damn about any
        art at all.
        Its a mistake to talk about a romance as tho it was a bad attempt to
        do what an ant-romance was doing and vice-versa-which was mostly what
        you guys were doing- altho take this to extremes and we all end us
        reading our own diaries and never confrunting another POV (Which
        Lewis thought the reason why there are booksat all)
        dmsherwood53@...
        PS Have you readthe NEW WEIRD fiction goes much further into anti-
        romantic vision than Donaldson eg a;lmost any CHINA MEILVILLE's books
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.