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

Re: spotty review

Expand Messages
  • dmsherwood_heather
    ... has, ... completely ... comeuppance ... life. ... expectations ... an ... one ... kind ... that ... a ... explained ... argue ... discussion ... Hi I m
    Message 1 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
    • 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.