• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What are the great sci fi/fantasy out there?

Understood. After all that is all you can do, just say. Not as if you can put up a critique defending the books.

I'm supposed to pen an essay at your command?

It is a style of writing that has long gone out of fashion. Hopefully for good. The story is basic saga quest fantasy, Originally done by the greeks in such as jason or hercules stories. Tolkien just used elves and goblins instead of men. Unfortunately that style was full of descriptive narratives that had nothing to do with the story. Great if a person had little better to occupy their time but read a book by candle light because electricity had not been invented. but a waste of time for a modern reqadership.

And obviously you know nothing about how the style of writing has changed over the years. Tolkien still belonged to an era of the style of writing that has long since gone. Nor have i said anything of his knowledge only of the style of his writing. That he brings all this he has learned together and still mananges to produce a book where anyone could easily skip pass the boring poetry or tedious descriptions to try and follow the story line means he still created a book not really worth the time and effort to read.

You seem to be confusing your personal preference for an objective fact.

Plenty of other people consider Tolkien to be a stellar author and his language to be very eloquent.

Repeatedly mocking Tolkien is not going to change either of those two things.





If eloquent prose, masterful structure, and extensive reflection on the human condition aren't your thing, go for a Dan Brown book.

Oh dear! Nothing left but the good ol' fallacy of Argumentum ad populum. Try actually critiquing the book itself instead of advertising that if millions jumped off a cliff you would blindly follow them as well.

You say that, but then you seemed to think this was a critique:

Really! Why? If i had to put up with one more of his interminable vacuous elf poems i would thrown the book at the wall. I skipped many pages of laborious and completley unessential descriptive narratives . His writing style made moby dick look like a racy novella.

Saying nasty things about an author and about the people who like that author's work is not a "critique". Sounds like you prefer books that are the verbal equivalent of a shoot 'em up action movie. That's fine, I suppose, but you really are missing out.

Still...

:shrug:
 
Last edited:
I dont like Tolkien either- I think his writing is quaint and he went overboard on the languages, songs and stuff. I couldnt make it past a few chapters of LOTR.

Tolkien had created a brilliant universe and an action-packed story in his mind. Unfortunately, his plodding, ponderous prose would make many readers fling the trilogy into the nearest fireplace.

Fortunately, there were awesome, skilled writers with vision who turned a tome of most dry descriptive narrative into three of the best, most memorable, and most beloved movies of all time. To them, I am grateful, because had I read Tolkien's trilogy before seeing the movies, I would opted out of seeing them altogether. Since I enjoyed them immensely, it would have been my loss.
 
The times changed

Tolkien wrote in a very different time & place - reading was more demanding, especially coming out of the realist novel & the mythic sources that he was paralleling in Lord of the Rings (& the rest of his story/narrative/poetic cycle). I think the society (or @ least the readers he was aiming @) was much more used to this kind of writing - long exposition, background information conveyed by stories, poems, songs, etc. & artificial languages - many techniques which are off-putting (or @ least relatively unknown in print) to modern readers.

This was also true in the US - remember that in the Douglas/Lincoln debates pre-Civil War, people stood for hours & listened to finely drawn distinctions without artificial aids - except possibly for reporters or stenographers who kept a record for posterity or reporting purposes.

In many respects, it was a different World.
 
It is a style of writing that has long gone out of fashion. Hopefully for good. The story is basic saga quest fantasy, Originally done by the greeks in such as jason or hercules stories. Tolkien just used elves and goblins instead of men. Unfortunately that style was full of descriptive narratives that had nothing to do with the story. Great if a person had little better to occupy their time but read a book by candle light because electricity had not been invented. but a waste of time for a modern reqadership.

So you are saying that Greek epics and Homer suck because they are old styles. Brilliant!

:lol:
 
Tolkien had created a brilliant universe and an action-packed story in his mind. Unfortunately, his plodding, ponderous prose would make many readers fling the trilogy into the nearest fireplace.

Fortunately, there were awesome, skilled writers with vision who turned a tome of most dry descriptive narrative into three of the best, most memorable, and most beloved movies of all time. To them, I am grateful, because had I read Tolkien's trilogy before seeing the movies, I would opted out of seeing them altogether. Since I enjoyed them immensely, it would have been my loss.

I must admit I find reading the classics hard since their prose can be unwieldy at times, but I will not deny their contribution and influence to new writers. A lot of people hate Hemingway because he sort of created the modern style of writing with sparse, direct words too. Different strokes for different folks.
 
I'm supposed to pen an essay at your command?

:

I make my point by pointing out flaws in the book, you argue by fallacy.

You seem to be confusing your personal preference for an objective fact.
No, i gave a personal opiion on the quality of facts in the book. Considering it is an argument about the merits of a book rather than a scientificly empirical observation of a book then that is perfectly fine to do.
Plenty of other people consider Tolkien to be a stellar author and his language to be very eloquent.
Again arguement ad populum. Should every one who critiques a book or movie must first be forced to come to a unanimous agrement. Is that how you think a critique works?

Repeatedly mocking Tolkien is not going to change either of those two things.
It is not mocking to disagree with what someone has written.
If eloquent prose, masterful structure, and extensive reflection on the human condition aren't your thing, go for a Dan Brown book.
If tolkien actually produced those things i would read his books.
You say that, but then you seemed to think this was a critique:
I do,

Saying nasty things about an author and about the people who like that author's work is not a "critique". Sounds like you prefer books that are the verbal equivalent of a shoot 'em up action movie. That's fine, I suppose, but you really are missing out.

Still...
Yes it is a critique is about the quality of the penmanship which i have done. Where as all you have managed is to attack the person who makes a critique instead of defending the book itself.

And your next fallacy that of a slippery slope. You asssume because i do not care for one writer then i must dislike others. You have no idea of my preferences and trying to claim any knowledge off the comments on one book is ridiculous. Having no ability to make any comments about the boo itsef the best you can do is waste my time pretending you know me.

:shrug
 
So you are saying that Greek epics and Homer suck because they are old styles. Brilliant!

:lol:

No, I am more likely to say you demonstrate not even a single clue on how to debate with any credibility. Certainly making a slippery slope fallacy gives you none.
 
No, I am more likely to say you demonstrate not even a single clue on how to debate with any credibility. Certainly making a slippery slope fallacy gives you none.

That is not a Slippery Slope in the slightest.

Own your words.
 
Tolkien had created a brilliant universe and an action-packed story in his mind. Unfortunately, his plodding, ponderous prose would make many readers fling the trilogy into the nearest fireplace.

Fortunately, there were awesome, skilled writers with vision who turned a tome of most dry descriptive narrative into three of the best, most memorable, and most beloved movies of all time. To them, I am grateful, because had I read Tolkien's trilogy before seeing the movies, I would opted out of seeing them altogether. Since I enjoyed them immensely, it would have been my loss.

Jackson ruined the story. A complete waste of an amazing epic. He turned great writing... history and character depth into a few big battles. Barely watchable.
 
Dissent from the peanut gallery

Jackson ruined the story. A complete waste of an amazing epic. He turned great writing... history and character depth into a few big battles. Barely watchable.

There's material there for a whole additional thread. I think the LOR & The Hobbit movie trilogies were made as big-budget blockbuster movies - not an attempt to accurately transfer the literature to the screen. As blockbuster, LOR succeeded. I'm not sure about The Hobbit - the material there seems much thinner, in terms of making a blockbuster out of it.
 
Re: Dissent from the peanut gallery

There's material there for a whole additional thread. I think the LOR & The Hobbit movie trilogies were made as big-budget blockbuster movies - not an attempt to accurately transfer the literature to the screen. As blockbuster, LOR succeeded. I'm not sure about The Hobbit - the material there seems much thinner, in terms of making a blockbuster out of it.

I don't even mind going for the blockbuster... but turning a battle that is 1/30 (one chapter out of 30 in the book) into 1/3 of the movie (one hour out of three hours) and doing that in two of the three movies is ridiculous. They missed out on so much that could have been put in. So much depth. So much history.

The Hobbitt was a frickin' disaster. Turning one book into three movies meant they had to basically make a ton of crap up that had nothing to do with the book... but even then Jackson ruined it by taking parts that could have been great and basically leaving them out or shortening it greatly.
 
Re: Dissent from the peanut gallery

My main problem with the LOTR movies is that they aren't LOTR. To be accurate, they are "movies based on a fictional story."

It's like Jackson made a rough plot outline, then filled in the details as he saw fit. So the big things happen, but not in the way they did in the books, sometimes drastically so. And then, things happen in the movies that didn't happen in the books.
 
Forever war. The Vorkosigan saga was really good too. Isn't there a new book out?
 
Looks like more work for Section 9

My main problem with the LOTR movies is that they aren't LOTR. To be accurate, they are "movies based on a fictional story."

It's like Jackson made a rough plot outline, then filled in the details as he saw fit. So the big things happen, but not in the way they did in the books, sometimes drastically so. And then, things happen in the movies that didn't happen in the books.

Approximately the same relation that the recent live action Ghost in the shell movie bears to the predecessor movies/animae/manga. What relationship there is there, is mostly a coincidence - my opinion.
 
That is not a Slippery Slope in the slightest.

Own your words.

Of course it is. There is no real conection between the illiads and tolkien. What next, if i said romeo and juliet was not shakespeares best work you would probably accuse me of creating hate speech against mother goose.
 
Of course it is. There is no real conection between the illiads and tolkien. What next, if i said romeo and juliet was not shakespeares best work you would probably accuse me of creating hate speech against mother goose.

Lol. You made the connection. Not my fault you dont know what you wrote.
 
Of course it is. There is no real conection between the illiads and tolkien. What next, if i said romeo and juliet was not shakespeares best work you would probably accuse me of creating hate speech against mother goose.

"It (The Lord of the Rings) is a style of writing that has long gone out of fashion. Hopefully for good. The story is basic saga quest fantasy, Originally done by the greeks "

Right there in your own words...

You then compound it by adding:

"such as jason or hercules stories. Tolkien just used elves and goblins instead of men ... but a waste of time for a modern reqadership."

:lol:
 
"It (The Lord of the Rings) is a style of writing that has long gone out of fashion. Hopefully for good. The story is basic saga quest fantasy, Originally done by the greeks "

Right there in your own words...

You then compound it by adding:

"such as jason or hercules stories. Tolkien just used elves and goblins instead of men ... but a waste of time for a modern reqadership."

:lol:

These heroic sagas all fill a certain deep human need: these stories have existed in all cultures, across the ages:

Amazon.com: The Hero with a Thousand Faces (The Collected Works of Joseph Campbell) (8601404236419): Joseph Campbell: Books
 
"It (The Lord of the Rings) is a style of writing that has long gone out of fashion. Hopefully for good. The story is basic saga quest fantasy, Originally done by the greeks "

Right there in your own words...

You then compound it by adding:

"such as jason or hercules stories. Tolkien just used elves and goblins instead of men ... but a waste of time for a modern reqadership."

:lol:

You really are clueless. Those words were not criticisms they were examples.

the criticism was the fact that it was " Great if a person had little better to occupy their time but read a book by candle light because electricity had not been invented. but a waste of time for a modern reqadership."

What you are doing here is the dishonest attempt at quote mining. Rearranging my words in an attempt to pretend that i said something i did not. In this case pretending that i said stories of jason and hercules are a waste of time.

Of all the fallacies quote mining is the most detestable. It is the one where someone deliberately sets out a to lie about what another has said. that you would sink so low for a petty victory does not surprise me.
 
"It (The Lord of the Rings) is a style of writing that has long gone out of fashion. Hopefully for good. The story is basic saga quest fantasy, Originally done by the greeks "

Right there in your own words...

You then compound it by adding:

"such as jason or hercules stories. Tolkien just used elves and goblins instead of men ... but a waste of time for a modern reqadership."

:lol:

Utter nonsense. Tolkien holds his own against any modern fantasy writer. That's why it's called "fantasy" Bodhi.
 
Utter nonsense. Tolkien holds his own against any modern fantasy writer. That's why it's called "fantasy" Bodhi.

I showed that he is wrong... so not sure what you are arguing about.

That is all.

I love the stories and have read them many... many times.
 
I showed that he is wrong... so not sure what you are arguing about.

That is all.

I love the stories and have read them many... many times.

Because I must argue dammit!!!!!

I'M MAD AS HE'LL AND I'M NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!!!

:2mad::2mad::2mad::2mad::2mad:
 
Back
Top Bottom