|
|
Post by Spark Doll King on Apr 27, 2023 21:07:29 GMT
I'd say Arc, while I still really enjoy it even with nostalgia it just doesn't feel quite as good.
|
|
|
|
Post by iank on Apr 27, 2023 21:20:21 GMT
It's the contradictory elements of Five and Two Doctors that are the issue - Pat knowing Jamie and Zoe had their minds wiped in 5, and indeed the whole of Two Doctors with Pat working for the Time Lords.
|
|
mistressrani
Certified Mob Rallying Heretic Crank
"Ignore me, I'm a dickhead." Rob Filth, 2021
Posts: 129
|
Post by mistressrani on Apr 30, 2023 8:41:06 GMT
City of Death. Overly smug and not as funny as it thinks it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2023 12:45:18 GMT
City of Death. Overly smug and not as funny as it thinks it is. Don't know if I'll get crucified for this, but I f*cking hate Douglas Adams. "Smug and not as funny as it thinks it is" is exactly how I'd describe his style. That overly twee British bent does not work in his favour either. Same thing with Terry Pratchett. I think the worst thing about these guys is that their fans seem to think that they're on the level of literary giants such as Dickens or Dostoyevsky. At least Romance readers will openly accept that they read garbage; same goes for science-fiction and fantasy (not so much these days, since there are many who consider fantasy books like Sanderson and Rothfuss to be literature, but it certainly used to be the case, at least in the D&D/Conan days). I mean, hey, I enjoy Tolkien and Martin and others, but I'll openly admit it's pretty much just pulp trash. It's actually extremely liberating to remind yourself that not everything you consume has to be high art. |
|
|
|
Post by rushy on Apr 30, 2023 13:29:25 GMT
I was onboard until "Tolkien and Martin = pulp trash". No. Bad yak. Go to the corner!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2023 14:05:21 GMT
I was onboard until "Tolkien and Martin = pulp trash". No. Bad yak. Go to the corner! Martin is certainly pulp (by his own admission), though perhaps I was a little harsh with Tolkien. There is definite literary merit in The Hobbit/LOTR, but his prose is almost as dreadful as Poe's and his poetry firmly nestled in the lower ranks of the mode that begot such fellows as Tennyson and Kipling. As I said before, I enjoy Tolkien's works, but I don't kid myself into believing that they constitute high literature. |
|
|
|
Post by rushy on Apr 30, 2023 14:07:52 GMT
I was onboard until "Tolkien and Martin = pulp trash". No. Bad yak. Go to the corner! Martin is certainly pulp (by his own admission), though perhaps I was a little harsh with Tolkien. There is definite literary merit in The Hobbit/LOTR, but his prose is almost as dreadful as Poe's and his poetry firmly nestled in the lower ranks of the mode that begot such fellows as Tennyson and Kipling. As I said before, I enjoy Tolkien's works, but I don't kid myself into believing that they constitute high literature. Nuclear grade snobbery! Calumny and base! |
|
|
|
Post by iank on Apr 30, 2023 21:10:08 GMT
Some people with seriously shite taste in here today. Go watch Partners in Crime and tell us all what a masterpiece it is.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2023 22:48:21 GMT
Some people with seriously shite taste in here today. Go watch Partners in Crime and tell us all what a masterpiece it is. Along with Yahweh, Christ and Allah, Donna constitutes the fourth part of the divine quaternity of the Western Canon. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2023 0:26:09 GMT
Martin is certainly pulp (by his own admission), though perhaps I was a little harsh with Tolkien. There is definite literary merit in The Hobbit/LOTR, but his prose is almost as dreadful as Poe's and his poetry firmly nestled in the lower ranks of the mode that begot such fellows as Tennyson and Kipling. As I said before, I enjoy Tolkien's works, but I don't kid myself into believing that they constitute high literature. Nuclear grade snobbery! Calumny and base! I am confused as to how this constitutes snobbery tbh. The greats are regarded as great for a reason, and it has nothing to do with "gatekeeping". More often than not, I have to defend my views against those who complain of elitism and gatekeeping, not realising that they themselves are the ones who are gatekeeping, just not in the traditional manner. Like, seriously, just own the fact that you read children's books. It's fine, no one cares. People will be surprised you even read in this day and age. This isn't directed towards you btw, it's just my general sentiment regarding predominantly YA-readers and such. |
|
|
|
Post by rushy on May 1, 2023 5:46:45 GMT
I was being hyperbolic for comedic effect. Anyway, it'd be one thing if we were talking about Harry Potter, but just because something is a work of sci-fi or fantasy doesn't automatically put it in the lower ranks of literature. Tolkien's work has become THE definitive fantasy epic. It's the king of its particular genre. Not a lot of authors could make a boast like that. That's more than just having literary merit. He's earned his place on the Rushmore of writers.
And if Martin hadn't let "A Song of Ice and Fire" get away from him, he might have been up there too. Not quite Tolkien level, of course, but somewhere in the B-tier. The character development and worldbuilding in those books is exquisite. I just wish the narrative lived up to it.
I won't argue when it comes to matters of poetry, because it's never been of any interest to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spark Doll King on May 1, 2023 7:34:42 GMT
Brain of Morbius is another one I find to be a bit of a slog. I enjoyed a lot it originally but on my last viewing found it a story that, while great in premise, is lacking in it's final execution. Still enjoyed it though. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2023 10:22:41 GMT
I was being hyperbolic for comedic effect. I know lol Anyway, it'd be one thing if we were talking about Harry Potter, but just because something is a work of sci-fi or fantasy doesn't automatically put it in the lower ranks of literature. Tolkien's work has become THE definitive fantasy epic. It's the king of its particular genre. Not a lot of authors could make a boast like that. That's more than just having literary merit. He's earned his place on the Rushmore of writers. Oh I have nothing against fantasy and science-fiction. Some of the greatest books ever written might be classified as "fantasy". However, both sci-fi and fantasy in their modern iterations are extremely lacking, as everyone knows. It's essentially been reduced to mass-market YA crap. And yes, you're right in that Tolkien has become the definitive modern fantasy epic. However, to think that it can hold a candle to the likes of Dante or Shakespeare is just silly. There are even a few fantasy books I'd consider to be better than Tolkien on a purely literary merit. Again, there's that curious twee that's inescapable while reading his works. As an essayist once so aptly said, if American sci-fi is written by robots, about robots and for robots, then English fantasy is written by rabbits, about rabbits and for rabbits. This isn't to say that they're not good works, but they read very much like a late 19th century translation of an ancient epic, which I suppose is what he was going for (he was a sterling translator of ancient texts, after all). Read the 19th century translations of the Mahabharata or the Norse epics and compare them to LOTR (especially the battle scenes). You'll notice the obvious similarities. And if Martin hadn't let "A Song of Ice and Fire" get away from him, he might have been up there too. Not quite Tolkien level, of course, but somewhere in the B-tier. The character development and worldbuilding in those books is exquisite. I just wish the narrative lived up to it. On the other hand, Martin is, always has been and always will be pulp. There is no literary merit whatsoever in ASOIAF. It's purely cheap thrills, and this is coming from someone who enjoys the series and is anticipating the next book. I respect Martin immensely for what he's done, but it's not literature; it's something else entirely. Scorsese touched on this a little bit with his spiel on the Marvel films. One can respect a rollercoaster designer for his craftsmanship, but can that ever constitute true art? I can see the mechanicals behind Martin's characters; I can see Martin at his desk working out "what's gonna happen next?". None of the characters have automation; it's like a puppet-show, albeit a highly entertaining one. At least I can respect Martin as a craftsman, however. Someone like Brandon Sanderson is selling off tens of millions of dollars worth of books that read like stuff I could've found on a free fiction site in 2005. Anyway, the idea that fantasy and sci-fi can constitute the entirety of someone's reading list is a bit disturbing. Even the great fantasists have read the greats and understand that genre fiction should pretty much just be a way to refresh the palate in between serious reading. What's even more disturbing are the adults who exclusively read YA fiction. I think it speaks to a generation terrified to grow up and take responsibility, as well as a plague of intellectual stultification that grips even scholastic environments. I mean, the fact that you have fleets of English professors at every university who regard Maya Angelou as anything more than a bumbling activist who wrote shit poetry is just astounding, so don't expect them to know any better. I prospected a university recently and it was chock full of the usual sorts who just wanted to read YA and write fan-fiction, having chosen to study English at uni because it's simply something they're "good at". Quite a depressing scene, really. I think the canon has less defenders than ever, and it's honestly difficult seeing it disintegrate in the realm of academia. However, people will always be prudent about what they read, and deep down everyone knows what's good and what's not. Anyway, rant over. |
|
|
|
Post by rushy on May 1, 2023 10:53:23 GMT
> Anyway, the idea that fantasy and sci-fi can constitute the entirety of someone's reading list is a bit disturbing. Even the great fantasists have read the greats and understand that genre fiction should pretty much just be a way to refresh the palate in between serious reading.
I find the notion that it can't be someone's reading list equally disturbing. Why would non-fantasy novels be serious reading and fantasy novels not?
> Again, there's that curious twee that's inescapable while reading his works.
That's probably the product of Tolkien's Catholic background. Which has no bearing on the quality of his works, merely the style.
> Read the 19th century translations of the Mahabharata or the Norse epics and compare them to LOTR (especially the battle scenes). You'll notice the obvious similarities.
I think you're falling into the pitfall of assuming that because someone did it first, they automatically have some kind of superiority over who was inspired by them later. Despite the fact that people like Dante and Shakespeare obviously had their own mentors and storytellers whom they looked up to.
> Scorsese touched on this a little bit with his spiel on the Marvel films. One can respect a rollercoaster designer for his craftsmanship, but can that ever constitute true art?
Of course it can. It depends on the level of personal investment the writers and directors put into them. Marvel films are generally a bad example, but it'd be a lie to say Batman Returns doesn't have Tim Burton's fingerprints all over it. It's his idea of what a Batman movie should be like, which makes it his work of art.
> It's purely cheap thrills, and this is coming from someone who enjoys the series and is anticipating the next book. I respect Martin immensely for what he's done, but it's not literature; it's something else entirely.
I find it a little naive to assume Martin had nothing else in mind other than entertaining people. His novels are brimming with his personal worldview and interests. The conveying of someone's particular POV is the reason art exists.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2023 12:51:00 GMT
> Anyway, the idea that fantasy and sci-fi can constitute the entirety of someone's reading list is a bit disturbing. Even the great fantasists have read the greats and understand that genre fiction should pretty much just be a way to refresh the palate in between serious reading. I find the notion that it can't be someone's reading list equally disturbing. Why would non-fantasy novels be serious reading and fantasy novels not? I never advocated extirpating sci-fi and fantasy from everyone's reading list lol. But when one's reading list is comprised entirely of YA sci-fi, romance, fantasy, and other books of such categories, you can't seriously think that they're using their time wisely. That's really what this is about imo. We haven't world enough and time to read everything ever written, and most people get through a book or two a month, if that. Therefore, it's important that we read the greatest ever written, and I know I sound like Bloom or some other dinosaur here, but this has been the prevailing wisdom for thousands of years; pieces that are of their time, as it were, are discarded. Maybe the odd one survives (Malory's "Morte D'Arthur", for example) but even then it's an outlier. Asimov, Clarke, Dick? No one gives a shit these days. They're all about Sanderson, Rothfuss and Martin nowadays. Even Harry Potter has faded to become a relic of 90s/early 2000s culture, though obviously there is some residual energy owing to just how massive it was. Works like the Potter books will be noted in cultural history books as having been cultural landmarks of the time, but no one will be reading them in 100 years. Just look at historical best-seller lists. You'll be disturbed by the fact that you will never have heard of any of them, or the fact that most of their online presence consists of dead Wikipedia links and little more. Even the fastest reader you can imagine could probably only read 0.001% or less of all works in his lifetime. So, how to choose which 0.001%? Why, the greatest ever written, obviously. > Again, there's that curious twee that's inescapable while reading his works. That's probably the product of Tolkien's Catholic background. Which has no bearing on the quality of his works, merely the style. I mean that when it's not written in a pseudo-ancient-Germanic-translation style, it comes off as bumbling and doddery, like an early 20th century children's book, e.g. Winnie the Pooh. > Read the 19th century translations of the Mahabharata or the Norse epics and compare them to LOTR (especially the battle scenes). You'll notice the obvious similarities. I think you're falling into the pitfall of assuming that because someone did it first, they automatically have some kind of superiority over who was inspired by them later. Despite the fact that people like Dante and Shakespeare obviously had their own mentors and storytellers whom they looked up to. No, I'm just pointing out that his prose reads like the shoddy, pseudo-KJV translations of foreign works you used to get in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. > Scorsese touched on this a little bit with his spiel on the Marvel films. One can respect a rollercoaster designer for his craftsmanship, but can that ever constitute true art? Of course it can. It depends on the level of personal investment the writers and directors put into them. Marvel films are generally a bad example, but it'd be a lie to say Batman Returns doesn't have Tim Burton's fingerprints all over it. It's his idea of what a Batman movie should be like, which makes it his work of art. Again, I'm not sure I get your point. Batman Returns is a legitimately good film, though I'm not really sure why you brought it up. The "Marvel" thing was more of an umbrella-category on my part, and I think we both know what I'm referring to. > It's purely cheap thrills, and this is coming from someone who enjoys the series and is anticipating the next book. I respect Martin immensely for what he's done, but it's not literature; it's something else entirely. I find it a little naive to assume Martin had nothing else in mind other than entertaining people. His novels are brimming with his personal worldview and interests. The conveying of someone's particular POV is the reason art exists. "The Room" is brimming with Tommy Wiseau's personal worldview and interests. This sort of blind-eye attitude towards obvious artistic merit has taken us the way of accepting mediocrity under the doctrine of "differing worldviews", "personal taste" and your typical "all art is subjective" tripe. Every literary scholar worth their salt will turn their nose up at any form of relativism, because it's simply a product of lesser minds trying to compensate for artistic inability. Sure, you might find your odd undergrad lecturer who endorses it, but no one who really knows their stuff actually takes it seriously. One could spend a lifetime studying Milton, but the concept of studying a lifetime's worth of sci-fi worldbuilding is just utterly ludicrous. That says enough to me. |
|
