Looks like chatstop.net has cut out all client access. The applet still works.
Potter & Tolkien discussion
- Thread starter Forostar
- Start date
I know. But I can't seem to find a free alternate.
Yeah, still though. That's not the point.
SneakySneaky
Trooper
Now that wasn't really nice. And I tried not to make it personal. It was merely an observationForostar said:
Well to use your analogy, it feels more like you're sometimes forcing the mirror on someone's face, not just showing itForostar said:
.
SneakySneaky
Trooper
Bah, I'm used to bad luck 
.
.
Well this is an interesting thread. Here's my contribution:
I started reading the Potter series when I was about 8 or so, as that's when it came out. I loved the first book. So I got the second when it came out. Loved that one too. So I got the next one and so on and so forth. I should add that just as with Hunlord I have been reading since an early age, it was always encouraged at home. Harry Potter was certainly not my first book and it did not inspire to continue my literary journey. In fact, it hardly influenced me at all (at least not to the extent of kids going out in wizarding hats and dressing as one of the characters for Halloween). I just loved the story, and I was particularily susceptible to the genre because of my age. Now we come to Tolkien. I hated The Hobbit. The first time it was read to me (and I guess I must have been very young at the time, because I started reading of my own accord pretty early) I hated it and begged my mother to stop. I thought it was tedious and I just didn't get it. I read it again with 11 because it was part of the English syllabus. I liked it enough to want to read what was then described to me as the "sequel": The Lord of the Rings. And I was hooked. I loved that thing. I still reread it every year. I wanted to collect all Tolkien's other works. I'm not quite there yet, but I have a formidable collection by now. So in terms of which one influenced me more, The Lord of the Rings wins hands down. Back to the Potter series. By the time I was 14 or 15 I had tired of it. I read the next one's in the series more out of loyalty to the first books (because I had enjoyed them so much and invested so much time in them) and because I wanted to know what happens with Harry and Voldemort. The details to the magic world that Rowling kept adding were also stimulating to the imagination. I hated the 4th and 5th book. I could deal with the 6th book. And I quite liked the 7th book, probably because the story came full circle. No doubt the series was well constructed, things from the beginning are important for the ending. However, well written I wouldn't say it is. It has its moments and I think certain books are stronger than others (the first few and the last one's particularily) but it isn't the same quality as The Lord of the Rings. It's written for a younger crowd and in terms of language I think this is clear (although The Lord of the Rings is accessible to kids, but it somehow seems less childish).
As for the Potter movies, I watch them because I've read the books and it's interesting to watch the younger actors develop (besides, they have star actors as the professors). This last movie was not bad, but I worry a bit about the last one because so many things will haveto be explained and cleaned up, how to do it in less than 3 hours I don't know.
And that's my two cents as they say. Neither of the books are crap and both have inspired generations in different ways. The Potter series is a bit more of a phenomena I think because when it came out, kids were hooked on other things such as playstations and what nots. In Tolkien's day, playstation's didn't exist. And there are things in the Potter books (dementors, Aragog, etc) that seem to take their inspiration from Tolkien's work. In that sense, Potter is a product of the earlier Tolkien books.
I started reading the Potter series when I was about 8 or so, as that's when it came out. I loved the first book. So I got the second when it came out. Loved that one too. So I got the next one and so on and so forth. I should add that just as with Hunlord I have been reading since an early age, it was always encouraged at home. Harry Potter was certainly not my first book and it did not inspire to continue my literary journey. In fact, it hardly influenced me at all (at least not to the extent of kids going out in wizarding hats and dressing as one of the characters for Halloween). I just loved the story, and I was particularily susceptible to the genre because of my age. Now we come to Tolkien. I hated The Hobbit. The first time it was read to me (and I guess I must have been very young at the time, because I started reading of my own accord pretty early) I hated it and begged my mother to stop. I thought it was tedious and I just didn't get it. I read it again with 11 because it was part of the English syllabus. I liked it enough to want to read what was then described to me as the "sequel": The Lord of the Rings. And I was hooked. I loved that thing. I still reread it every year. I wanted to collect all Tolkien's other works. I'm not quite there yet, but I have a formidable collection by now. So in terms of which one influenced me more, The Lord of the Rings wins hands down. Back to the Potter series. By the time I was 14 or 15 I had tired of it. I read the next one's in the series more out of loyalty to the first books (because I had enjoyed them so much and invested so much time in them) and because I wanted to know what happens with Harry and Voldemort. The details to the magic world that Rowling kept adding were also stimulating to the imagination. I hated the 4th and 5th book. I could deal with the 6th book. And I quite liked the 7th book, probably because the story came full circle. No doubt the series was well constructed, things from the beginning are important for the ending. However, well written I wouldn't say it is. It has its moments and I think certain books are stronger than others (the first few and the last one's particularily) but it isn't the same quality as The Lord of the Rings. It's written for a younger crowd and in terms of language I think this is clear (although The Lord of the Rings is accessible to kids, but it somehow seems less childish).
As for the Potter movies, I watch them because I've read the books and it's interesting to watch the younger actors develop (besides, they have star actors as the professors). This last movie was not bad, but I worry a bit about the last one because so many things will haveto be explained and cleaned up, how to do it in less than 3 hours I don't know.
And that's my two cents as they say. Neither of the books are crap and both have inspired generations in different ways. The Potter series is a bit more of a phenomena I think because when it came out, kids were hooked on other things such as playstations and what nots. In Tolkien's day, playstation's didn't exist. And there are things in the Potter books (dementors, Aragog, etc) that seem to take their inspiration from Tolkien's work. In that sense, Potter is a product of the earlier Tolkien books.
I seem to be the only person in the world who thinks the fifth book is the strongest in the Potter series. In my opinion, it has the most well-constructed plot and the greatest depth of character. Furthermore, the Department of Mysteries battle is by far the best climatic action sequence in the books. I'd say book five and six are the best, while book four is the weakest. I do think the series as a whole is a well-written one. Some complain about Rowling's writing style, but I'm not very sensitive to those things[sup]1[/sup] (you can't be when you're a Philip K. Dick fan), and the complexity of the plot and very vivid characters should make up for it anyway.
I'm not a big fan of the films. The first two were good childrens' movies, but the later one have failed to replicate the atmosphere of the books. I think The Half-Blood Prince was an improvement over The Order of the Phoenix, however, so I have some hope for the final two.
As for Tolkien, I read most of his books between the ages of ten and fourteen. I was really into it - I remember drawing my own illustrations for the stories and stuff like that. They had a lot of influence on my imagination.
[sup]1[/sup] I suppose I should clarify this[sup]2[/sup]: I'm rather sensitive to bad writing, but I think Rowling's is decent enough. You don't have to be a master stylist as far I'm concerned.
[sup]2[/sup] Yes, I only clarified this because I wanted to add a footnote.
I'm not a big fan of the films. The first two were good childrens' movies, but the later one have failed to replicate the atmosphere of the books. I think The Half-Blood Prince was an improvement over The Order of the Phoenix, however, so I have some hope for the final two.
As for Tolkien, I read most of his books between the ages of ten and fourteen. I was really into it - I remember drawing my own illustrations for the stories and stuff like that. They had a lot of influence on my imagination.
[sup]1[/sup] I suppose I should clarify this[sup]2[/sup]: I'm rather sensitive to bad writing, but I think Rowling's is decent enough. You don't have to be a master stylist as far I'm concerned.
[sup]2[/sup] Yes, I only clarified this because I wanted to add a footnote.
When it comes to Tolkien, I don't think anyone will argue that he has the inferior writing style. The man's prose is one of the best ever encountered in the English language, where as Rowling isn't nearly as good - one of the reasons that people have rebelled, visually, against the HP movies but most praised LotR for costumes and settings. Even people who disliked the films.
Choosing a favourite Potter book is hard. I would immediately discount the first two, and the fourth. The first two were very good children's books, but I don't personally think that they reached a level one could consider "excelling" in literature. They are still quite rough in their writing types and you can tell a lot of the finer points hadn't been sharpened yet in her book of the books. The fourth was the most bloated of the series. I think she took her luxury of writing and expanded on a lot of things that really didn't need to be expanded on.
I rather enjoyed the fifth book when it came out. It wasn't my favourite, but it was very, very good. I thought Harry's evolution into an angry 15 year old was very natural. I remember being 15. I didn't have Dementors and Voldemorts to fight, I just had to listen to Limp Bizkit. I agree with Shades: the battle at the end was one of the most climactic moments in the series, and it really gave you the impression that Harry was growing up. In the first few books, Harry's survival was requisite on his unique background and his quality of character. But in the fifth book, he learned to fight, and put it to good use. It really gave a new atmosphere. I enjoyed it.
The seventh book is a very thorough wrapping-up of the novel. I am not sure, to this day, if I loved it. But it was very good, and it didn't leave me feeling empty as many series-enders have. Some of the moments were very adult indeed, and I liked that. I also liked how she finally delved into the further past, something I had been wanting since book one - and that is the bit that has left me wanting more. I like the fictional history of worlds (a very, very good reason to love Tolkien as I do!).
The third book was my favourite for a long time, it is easily the best written of the shorter books, introduces two of my favourite characters in the series (Lupin and Sirius), and swings the children's attention away from their childhood friends (Hagrid is the big one, his role is very much minimized in this book as he is replaced as Harry's older mentor figure - first by Lupin, then Sirius, then finally Dumbledore). I think it has a darker tone, and it shows us some of the inner workings of Snape too.
But the sixth book has really become my favourite over the past few months as I re-read the books in a row for the first time. I think it is the best written of the novels. Deathly Hallows has a rushed feeling in places - an army feel I called it, "hurry up and wait". HBP is very nicely paced, and introduces the mystery of the title character. I rather like Slughorn as well, he has quickly become one of my favourite teachers. But I love the way the book shows us the mind of Dumbledore, and how he has pondered the enigma of Riddle for decades. The memory gimmick is amazing - the scenes where Dumbledore pieces together Voldemort's past bit by bit have drawn me back again and again. The rest of the drama I can almost do without - but those four chapters...amazing.
Yeah. I wrote a lot
Choosing a favourite Potter book is hard. I would immediately discount the first two, and the fourth. The first two were very good children's books, but I don't personally think that they reached a level one could consider "excelling" in literature. They are still quite rough in their writing types and you can tell a lot of the finer points hadn't been sharpened yet in her book of the books. The fourth was the most bloated of the series. I think she took her luxury of writing and expanded on a lot of things that really didn't need to be expanded on.
I rather enjoyed the fifth book when it came out. It wasn't my favourite, but it was very, very good. I thought Harry's evolution into an angry 15 year old was very natural. I remember being 15. I didn't have Dementors and Voldemorts to fight, I just had to listen to Limp Bizkit. I agree with Shades: the battle at the end was one of the most climactic moments in the series, and it really gave you the impression that Harry was growing up. In the first few books, Harry's survival was requisite on his unique background and his quality of character. But in the fifth book, he learned to fight, and put it to good use. It really gave a new atmosphere. I enjoyed it.
The seventh book is a very thorough wrapping-up of the novel. I am not sure, to this day, if I loved it. But it was very good, and it didn't leave me feeling empty as many series-enders have. Some of the moments were very adult indeed, and I liked that. I also liked how she finally delved into the further past, something I had been wanting since book one - and that is the bit that has left me wanting more. I like the fictional history of worlds (a very, very good reason to love Tolkien as I do!).
The third book was my favourite for a long time, it is easily the best written of the shorter books, introduces two of my favourite characters in the series (Lupin and Sirius), and swings the children's attention away from their childhood friends (Hagrid is the big one, his role is very much minimized in this book as he is replaced as Harry's older mentor figure - first by Lupin, then Sirius, then finally Dumbledore). I think it has a darker tone, and it shows us some of the inner workings of Snape too.
But the sixth book has really become my favourite over the past few months as I re-read the books in a row for the first time. I think it is the best written of the novels. Deathly Hallows has a rushed feeling in places - an army feel I called it, "hurry up and wait". HBP is very nicely paced, and introduces the mystery of the title character. I rather like Slughorn as well, he has quickly become one of my favourite teachers. But I love the way the book shows us the mind of Dumbledore, and how he has pondered the enigma of Riddle for decades. The memory gimmick is amazing - the scenes where Dumbledore pieces together Voldemort's past bit by bit have drawn me back again and again. The rest of the drama I can almost do without - but those four chapters...amazing.
Yeah. I wrote a lot
I find it a lot harder to write about music than I do books, Foro.
I think it is an immersion thing. I often have to work to immerse myself in music - it doesn't happen naturally. Books I absorb into very rapidly.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Aren't you referring to an earlier stage: getting into music, getting into a book?
Writing about it afterwards, is how we "throw it out" again, when we translate the listening-experience into words. Perhaps these processes could be related?
But how then does it work with the albums we know for a long time?
Writing about it afterwards, is how we "throw it out" again, when we translate the listening-experience into words. Perhaps these processes could be related?
But how then does it work with the albums we know for a long time?