What Are You Reading?

[Hawki]

I actually got an urge to read it recently. Was in the mood for some classic-style fantasy, but I'm super hesitant to get involved in the Wheel of Time, and I was tired of the others I had read a lot of already. Plus, I'm kind of tired of having to say "I haven't read that book." It's just something that NEEDS to be done.

I'd read The Lord of the Rings first, if only because Wheel of Time is wearing its influences on its sleeve. That, and the pacing of both sets of books is pretty similar. Main difference is that Tolkein was able to tell a compelling story (key word on "story" though, keep that in mind) in three volumes, while Jordan somehow drew it out to...well, there's the prequel, and there's when Sanderson took over, so let's not go there.

I do know the feeling though, of something "needing" to be done. It's the same philosophy that had me play Doom awhile back.

As for it being slow, since I've read drawn out, massive tomes of text in which each book in a multi-part series is longer than the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy, I doubt I'll have a problem with pacing. I've developed a zen-like patience for these types of things, assuming the book is good.

Yeah, but how much actually happens? I mean, I like LotR, but more as a concept - gets points for worldbuilding and arguably themes, but the pacing is really an issue in the first book. Does get a bit better later on though.

Dude. Bro. Broooo. Seriously, read the books. Those movies were insultingly bad. Peter Jackson has all the subtlety of a falling forklift, and sucks at dialogue too. I mean, even if you don't like the books (the part with Tom Bombadil is pretty darn weird), don't let anything Peter Jackson does scare you off.

Don't listen to Nissa. The movies are excellent, managing to score points for both action, and the quieter moments that, gasp, actually categorize the characters (which includes excellently written dialogue). And they're thankfully free of Tom Bombadil (yes, Tom is arguably symbolic of the series's overall themes, no, that doesn't me like him). Overall, the trilogy would be my favorite films (collectively) of all time.

Unless you've seen the movies, your comment doesn't make that clear. Still, if that's the case, Nissa can still suck it.

Already got the trilogy bought, just need to click play.

Wait...you got the audio books?

...you poor, poor man. I hope for your sake someone knows how to sing well, because trust me, you'll be getting plenty of it.

[TheEconomist]

Unless you've seen the movies, your comment doesn't make that clear. Still, if that's the case, Nissa can still suck it.

I saw the movies. And as someone raised on classic PC RPGs and Dragonlance novels and WarCraft, there's just never been enough to make me read the books until now. I've always wanted to, but always found a reason not to.

Yeah, but how much actually happens? I mean, I like LotR, but more as a concept - gets points for worldbuilding and arguably themes, but the pacing is really an issue in the first book. Does get a bit better later on though.

You read Gardens of the Moon, right? Let's say I've read two additional books two or three times the length and wordiness/complexity of that book. Should I fear teh Lotr?

Wait...you got the audio books?

...you poor, poor man. I hope for your sake someone knows how to sing well, because trust me, you'll be getting plenty of it.

You know, come to think of it. You're right. 99% of the time audiobooks are better for me than the text version, but, in this case, it might not be. I've got the eBook versions for free years ago from some Kindle special when they were first released, but.. damn... it's hard going back to text after doing audio for so long.

Damn, another reason to wait on actually reading the book.

[Hawki]

I saw the movies. And as someone raised on classic PC RPGs and Dragonlance novels and WarCraft, there's just never been enough to make me read the books until now. I've always wanted to, but always found a reason not to.

I can get that, actually. Certainly LotR kind of feels dated conceptually, similar to Dune, how in LotR's case, it more or less spawned the genre.

For me though, it was the opposite. The films were effectively my first intro to the genre bar Warhammer, though I'd tried reading the books beforehand, and saw bits and pieces of the Baski version. Never read Dragonlance, and for Warcraft, I was first introduced to it with WC3, after the films had at least started being released.

You read Gardens of the Moon, right? Let's say I've read two additional books two or three times the length and wordiness/complexity of that book. Should I fear teh Lotr?

Eh, probably not. LotR has a much slower pace, and much less complexity, at least in regards to characters and overall plot.

[Nissa]

Oh PLEASE, Hawki. Those LOTR movies weren't as bad as other stuff out there, but the things that were good about them tended to have nothing to do with writing: the scenery, costumes, swords, and horses. The dialogue is dry as mess, and I don't know what's worse -- Jackson's pitiful attempts at sounding like the book, or terrible performances ruining direct quotes. And it's horribly distracting whenever the actors speak normally for most of their lines, and then start trilling their Rs whenever they say a fancy word. "Morrrrdorrr", "Isildurrrr", etc. It doesn't help that about 3/5 of the cast speak in these low, hushed, melodramatic tones all the time.

The most emotional scene in the movies -- Boromir's death -- had a notable cause for its superiority. It wasn't edited by Peter Jackson.

Ironically enough, I absolutely love the behind the scenes parts in the extended LOTR dvds. Whenever the cast/crew talk about the movie, they make it sound a lot more interesting than it really is. Not to mention that these people who come across as dreary in the actual film turn out to be vivacious, funny, adorable people. They like to have fun, and have fun they do.

Basically, the LOTR films fail for me because they don't have any life in them. They're just an exercise in melodrama.

[Hawki]

Oh PLEASE, Hawki. Those LOTR movies weren't as bad as other stuff out there,

Examples.

but the things that were good about them tended to have nothing to do with writing: the scenery, costumes, swords, and horses. The dialogue is dry as mess,

The hell? I loved it how the dialogue had some actual life to it, as opposed to the books.

and I don't know what's worse -- Jackson's pitiful attempts at sounding like the book, or terrible performances ruining direct quotes.

I'd agree with you if we were talking about the animated adaptations, but the Jackson ones? The performances were excellent, and managed to convey the essence of the novels without falling into cheese (which is what the novels often did).

And it's horribly distracting whenever the actors speak normally for most of their lines, and then start trilling their Rs whenever they say a fancy word. "Morrrrdorrr", "Isildurrrr", etc.

I can barely recall that occurring. At the least, it wasn't distracting. If anything, it adds emphasis.

It doesn't help that about 3/5 of the cast speak in these low, hushed, melodramatic tones all the time.

I think you need to adjust your definition of "all the time."

The most emotional scene in the movies -- Boromir's death -- had a notable cause for its superiority. It wasn't edited by Peter Jackson.

Your point? Quality is quality. Boromir's death scene is emotional, but it's one emotional moment out of a trilogy that's filled with them.

Ironically enough, I absolutely love the behind the scenes parts in the extended LOTR dvds. Whenever the cast/crew talk about the movie, they make it sound a lot more interesting than it really is. Not to mention that these people who come across as dreary in the actual film turn out to be vivacious, funny, adorable people. They like to have fun, and have fun they do.

Which can apply to pretty much any behind the scenes section ever made.

Basically, the LOTR films fail for me because they don't have any life in them. They're just an exercise in melodrama.

Well, all I can say is that the LOTR films succeed for me because they do have so much life in them, and manage to avoid falling into melodrama.

[TheEconomist]

When I think of the LotR movies, I think of the scenery. Movie had awesome scenery and set pieces. The rest didn't stick with me as well. I think it's a great movie from a technical standpoint, but I had already been thoroughly desensitized to its charms for it to have an effect on me. You've both convinced me though. LotR is one of the next fantasy books I'll read. Too bad I'm on a scifi kick right now.

[Hawki]

When I think of the LotR movies, I think of the scenery. Movie had awesome scenery and set pieces. The rest didn't stick with me as well.

Funny, the scenery never really got to me in contrast. Could be because I've visited New Zealand more times than I can count, so have seen the scenery up front. Heck, I've even gone on tours to the sites where they filmed some of the scenes.

Anyway, I've recently made a post on childhood books as part of library work, so, I've copy-pasted it here in the interests of sparking conversation.

-The Chronicles of Narnia: I'm not sure if I can call these favorites, or at least, not anymore. Point is, there was a time when I didn't get the symbology behind them, and now that I do...well, sometimes it works (Aslan's resurrection, Aslan himself, Jadis, Tash, etc.) and sometimes it...doesn't (a.k.a. the entirety of book 7...gah). But hey, growing up with them, I definately did enjoy them. If I had to nominate a favorite from the series, it would probably be book 4 or 5.

-Wind in the Willows: Yes, did have them, or rather, it was a children's adaptation of the novel, separated into four parts, in the form of picture books. So, yes, did enjoy them.

-Phillip Pullman: I've read two works of his, one of them being 'Northern Lights', the first installment in 'His Dark Materials'. And to be honest I...didn't really like it. And before anyone asks, no, it's not because it's pretty much the "anti-Narnia book" that so many call it as, I just didn't find it that well written. That, and I didn't find Lyra that interesting a protagonist.

The other book of his that I read is far less well known, namely 'I Was a Rat!'. This, I really liked, and looking back, I can remember why. On one hand, it's a fairytale, with a good moral, that it's who, rather than what you are, that defines you, or "beauty is on the inside." Yeah, nothing that hasn't been done before, but still well done. What I can't praise many other childrens' novels for is its level of social sattire, mainly on the idea of a 'media circus' - celebrities, mob psychology, etc.

-Roald Dahl: Well, it's Roald Dahl, course I've read him. An entire thread could be dedicated to this, but I'll summize that yes, I loved his works, and they definately hold up. 'Matilda' would be my favorite out of all the ones I've read. Didn't hurt that the film adaptation was great as well.

-Treasure Island: I studied the book in year 7, and I've seen quite a few film adaptations as well. To be honest, I'm not sure whether I'd call it a children's book per se, because IMO, if we're using modern classifications, I'd say it kind of steers more towards young adult. TI is, at least in some respects, a coming of age story, that Jim has to learn about the dark underbelly of the world, but even in said underbelly, there are decent people that can still do terrible things (e.g. John Silver). I'm afraid I'm in this strange position where I can recall the adaptations I've seen better than the book itself, but the best adaptations I found, always touched on this theme in some regard. So yes. Good book, but I wouldn't readily reccomend it for children, if only because of its dark subject matter (and let's be honest, it does get pretty dark in areas).

-The Dark is Rising: Read the first book and...sorry, got nuthin' sad Can't really remember it that well.

-Lord of the Flies: Ah, secondary school was good to me, in that I was introduced to this text as well. Y'know, it's funny, a lot I said about Treasure Island can be applied to this, since the themes are similar (e.g. loss of innocence) and that both books get dark (and in LotF's case, VERY dark). I'd say I prefer LotF overall, in that it works as both a personal tale, but also commentary on human society/psychology, demonstrated by how quickly things go downhill when the children are stripped of rules and whatnot. So yeah. Heartilly recommend this one.

[TheEconomist]

I remember liking Treasure Island. One of the few school books I enjoyed. I didn't like it as much as The Count of Monte Cristo (which I reread for sheer pleasure later) but it did leave enough of an impression on me to make me want to re-read it some day.

Anyways, I read about an hour into Fellow of the Rings. Going to take my time since I don't have much interest in the outcome and I'm reading it just because, so it'll take me some time to do, but I plan to do it soon.

I'm also reading some books that I plan to talk a bit about in a bit.

[Hawki]

Heh, another opposite I guess, as most of the assigned texts at school were ones I enjoyed. Only exceptions I can recall were Heart of Darkness and The Tempest.

As for Fellowship, yeah, taking it slow is probably the way to go. Honestly, the pace of the story at the start more or less lasts throughout the entire novel. Not that that's inherently a bad, but it can easily be a turn off.

[Nissa]

Sign of a huge creeper: if a guy really likes the Xanth books by Piers Anthony, chances are, he's a man-child. Ugh, I read one of the dudes books, A Spell for Chameleon, and alongside a slew of plot issues, it was seriously creepy. Every time the male protagonist met a woman, he assessed both her intelligence and beauty. Every single time. It's like a book for perpetual fourteen year olds.