Ogged, don't say "'twas". You can't carry it.
You know who could carry it? Linda Fiorentino, in The Last Seduction, could carry it. Rrowr.
I thought it was a bit disjointed; the individual scenes were alright, but there weren't really any transitions to speak of. And it seemed like they were trying to allude to a lot of things from the book without actualy fleshing them out, which could be confusing if you haven't read the book.
With book to movie adaptations, you can either have an include-everything approach (like the first two movies), or you can tweak it into something that is "based on" the original material (like the third movie). This one seemed like they were trying to split the difference, putting in as many scenes from the book as possible as if they had a checklist.
Agreed on Richard Harris-- he had this glint in his eye that screamed "Dumbledore".
Linda Fiorentino would make the Houston Texans cool. Citing her as the vehicle by which subject X would be made cool implicitly acknowledges that X is deeply uncool.
Linda Fiorentino doing what with the Houston Texans would make them cool?
I particularly appreciated the casting of Cedric Diggory, because I didn't much care what happened to him in the book, but the actor--hale, handsome, but still a bit boyish--made me sorry in the movie.
You're insane.
Anyway, as most of the spell incantations in the books are bits of wordplay, does anyone know if the summoning charm, accio, is playing off anything? (Latin, maybe?)
One of the things that's so great about Dumbledore in teh books is that he is so good at dealing with distraught and angry people. In this movie, he became just another of the overly-emotional characters. I was quite upset at that.
Oh, and the Arthur Weasly in the movie is very different than the one I see in the books, who is much more laid-back and amicable.
Also, I think, on the whole, they dumbed down the mystery too much in the movie. I appreciate that Moody's subterfuge was probably too complicated to work into the movie, but they didn't have to be so blatant about Crouch. I didn't like the way they changed the dragon scene, either. And they could have used some more pauses in the movie, e.g. the scene of Voldemort's return. No real dramatic pause between the touching of the dark mark and the appearance of the death eaters, and no pause between their appearance and Voldemort's speech. As Matt said, they needed more transitions. Adding a few extra minutes likely would have made the movie seem shorter, by capturing the audiences attention more effectively.
I have nothing against seeing Harry Potter movies, and I'll see this one eventually, but if any of you live in a city where Jesus is Magic is playing and chose to perv on Hermione instead, for shame.
Oh, forgot:
**************SPOILER************
Voldemort returns.
**************/SPOILER*********
Ogged didn't use a spoiler warning in the post. Gary Farber will be upset.
Ugh. I thought Gambon's Dumbledore was a crime against humanity. It made me so angry. I'm still furious. That wasn't Dumbledore.
Richard Harris's Dumbledore was better, to be sure, but that's not saying much. I thought Harris failed to bring the twinkle in his eye -- the humor! -- that is the defining characteristic of Dumbledorosity. But at least he wasn't shouting and grabbing and shaking Harry like in this movie.
Ugh. Sucked.
What Matt said in 3. Choppy, poor follow-through, not very well-told as a story. The action scenes were spectacular, though, and for those alone I'd see it again. I was disappointed, though, by the graveyard scene. Sort of made Voldemort and his followers seem like a bunch of puny losers, not a terrible dark army to be feared. There should have been five times as many death eaters there, just for the sake of the visual. No one's afraid of six guys in pointy hats, I don't care how fancy the Dark Lord's magic wand is.
I don't care how fancy the Dark Lord's magic wand is.
God, if I had a dollar for every time a pretty woman has told me that...
are we in agreement that the third Potter was the bestest so far? The first two sucked ass and didn't floss afterwards.
Re 7
The Latin accedere, "to approach."
(Yess! My first almost-practical application of higher education!)
Dude, aren't these, like, kids' books about wizards and stuff? I mean, I'm wearing a minus 3 armor class ring as I type this, but aren't there limits?
17: apo, I don't know what to say.
You don't have to say anything, bg. Just give me a dollar.
You don't have to say anything, bg. Just give me a dollar.
Hey! You charged me a buck fifty!
"but still very good"
Okay. Any chance you might move on to, ah, different fantasy (I'm trying to phrase this non-judgmentally), such as Gene Wolfe, Geoff Ryman, Christopher Priest, William Golding, Peter Beagle, John Crowley, Disch, Banks, Lafferty, Ballard, Le Guin, Leiber, Gaiman, Kushner, whatever? Some of Ellen and Terri's (Datlow and Windling) older collections?
"Gary Farber will be upset."
Seems unlikely.
Farber, what concern is it to you if ogged likes Harry Potter books and movies?
Any chance you might move on to, ah, different fantasy
None whatsoever.
See, that completely puzzles me about the whole Harry Potter thing. I am both a complete sf and fantasy geek, and capable of sympathizing with people who find it all embarassingly geeky.
But -- once you're reading and enjoying books about teenage wizards getting their mail delivered by owls, we know what you are, we're just arguing about the price. If you like the HP books, you like fantasy. At that point, you have to admit that they kind of suck. I've read worse (I've read lots worse) but as Gary strongly implies, there's much, much better out there. So, why not?
We've had this discussion before, no? I thought we agreed that if you aren't generally a fantasy fan, you love the Potter books, but that if you are, you find them unsatisfying.
Ogged isn't gay, LB, he just keeps winding up in situations in which he has sex with men. But he's no fag.
The thing is, I can see that as an argument for the (previous) non fantasy-fan to overlook flaws in the books. If you like them, though, what keeps you from seeking out more of the same, and maybe better? If it's fear of appearing geeky, 32 does appear to sum the situation up.
move on to, ah, different fantasy
Or, instead, you could try reading literature for adults. Just sayin'.
Here's the previous discussion.
I don't doubt that I could find fantasy that I like, but I'm not very motivated to seek it out. But that's true of a lot of genres. And I think I've read two books in the last three months, so it's all a bit moot as far as I'm concerned.
once you're reading and enjoying books about teenage wizards getting their mail delivered by owls, we know what you are, we're just arguing about the price. If you like the HP books, you like fantasy.
I've read about 50 pages of HP, tops, but this doesn't seem to me like it's always true. There might be a humorous setting in which an ordinary school story along "Mike and Psmith" lines was set at a school where, it happens, the students are wizards and the mail is delivered by talking owls. The wizardry could just set up more of the humor. That doesn't mean that you'd like something like Wolfe, Crowley, or Le Guin, where the wizardry is somehow taken more seriously.
Actual example: Someone who likes the talking horse in Queneau's Blue Flowers won't necessarily like any other talking-animal stories. It's partly a question of whether the book bothers to situate itself with respect to the conventions of the genre. (I'm not sure exactly what I mean by that, but it doesn't mean that I think fantasy is necessarily in any way generic or cliched. Just that there's something Wolfe and Crowley and Le Guin are up to that Queneau isn't, even though he uses a talking horse.)
My wife, after 7 years (today!) together, has begun asking me to give her a science fiction or fantasy book to read that I think she'll like, and I confess I'm stumped (she loved the Harry Potter books). She normally reads either vapid chick-lit or serious, artsy but popular women-authored books (Lovely Bones, My Year of Meat, etc.). She has an extraordinarily limited understanding of the "vocabulary" of science fiction (from blasters and hyperspace through quantum computing and the Eschaton), so I'm hesitant to start her on any of the hard stuff. I mostly read the adventury type sci-fi (David Drake, Weber, et al.) and the hard-science stuff (Greg Egan).
Any thoughts/suggestions?
37 being largely directed at LB and Gary, but anyone who wants can chime in.
Connie Willis, To Say Nothing of the Dog?
Maybe not--there's a great romantic comedy plot but there's also a lot of time-travel stuff (business about the Net opening) that might get in the way. Also I'm not the biggest SF fan.
Why is it that people who like and seek out Rowling often don't like fantasy, or spend time seeking it out?
By way of explanation I'd like to riff off a comment of LB's in the thread ogged links: "there are lots of charming things about the books that I don't really give Rowling credit for, because they're fantasy basics."
I would go almost exactly the other way on this. To my mind, the most appealing features of the Potter series are Rowling's sense of humor and the immensely winning characters she has created. And these elements -- humor and strong characters -- aren't fantasy basics at all. To the contrary they are a frequent weakness of fantasy writing. [and are pretty scarce on the ground in genre fiction generally].
Hey I like Gene Wolfe, I even read his new "Wizard Knight" dealeo in a two-day period while traveling last month. But it's never *funny* like the Harry Potters, and no character comes through with the force of Hermione or Snape. Likewise Severus the torturer -- anyone feel deeply connected to him? This isn't just to beat up on Gene Wolfe. That Storm of Feast of Sword Crows guy? Fun, fun books. But you know why he can keep killing off major characters every third chapter? Because we don't care! But I swear, if anyone touches a hair on Ginny Weasely's head...
Severus the torturer
You wanna take this, Gary, or should I?
37: Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell is the obvious choice.
And what was up with Voldemort's wand? Shouldn't it look the same as Harry's? Rubbish idea, giving him a "scary" wand. Made him look like a git.
Second Michael on that. Strange and Norrell is great.
The Time Traveler's Wife might be even more obvious.
Any thoughts/suggestions?
As She Crawled Across the Table by Jonathan Lethem is good, but might not really qualify as scifi.
Is it that the world of the HP books is not so removed from this world? Rowling has one foot in the totally recognizable everyday (Muggle) world, and one in the world of Hogwarts? Whereas lots of more hardcore fantasy books are set in completely other worlds? Maybe that's the sense in which they take themselves more seriously? A lot about HP is reassuringly familiar. This would be true of Narnia, also.
I say that as someone who reads the Potter books and not other fantasy.
Re Strange and Norell: I'd like to start her off on books fewer than 1000 pages, thanks (plus it puts me to sleep).
I have heard of this Time Traveller's Wife, but not read it.
Could I be any more tentative about my theory?
Chops, you seem pretty down on your wife's reading ability.
#37- Just starting with young adult fantasy, you can get into some pretty good stuff.
Ursula Leguin's Earthsea books, Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy, The Dark is Rising, by I'm forgetting, The Black Cauldron, by I'm forgetting again... and then if she's gotten into these, you can try out The Hobbit on her. If she's not into the hard SF stuff, though, don't force it.
I'm irrationally fond of Peter S. Beagle -- The Last Unicorn, The Folk of the Air... a little less so anything else he's written. The Black Cauldron, and generally the Chronicles of Prydain are by Lloyd Alexander, and I loved them as a child; I reread them before giving them to a niece, and while they're wonderful children's books, they're very much written for children.
Lois McMater Bujold? Cordelia's Honor and Barryar are nicely poised on the brink between chick-lit and shoot-em-up space opera, and The Curse Of Chalion and Paladin of Souls similarly with fantasy,
51 - not at all. I'm down on her patience with and/or understanding of things technological/scientific. (She has a bit of a phobia.) She can go on for hours about second language acquisition strategies in elementary-school-aged immigrants, or the impact of NCLB on school funding and it's concommitant impact on education. She's a smart lady, my wife.
Bujold is a good suggestion. I shy away from starting her with the YA stuff, although I've been toying with the idea of starting her on the Harper Hall trilogy by McCaffrey.
While I read about a million McCaffrey books as a teenage girl, I wouldn't actually, like, recommend them to anyone.
re: 58, exactly my experience. I put them down at 13, never to pick them up again.
I maintain that the Harper Hall books and the original Dragonrider trilogy are still worthwhile (if nothing else for the world-building). I haven't read it in a long time, but I recall thinking hightly of the first Crystal Singer book as well.
I was cleaning out the basement at the house I grew up in, and decided to re-read the McCaffrey books, and... man. One's ability to judge quality writing really does improve as one ages.
Phillip Pullman may be techncally young adult stuff, but it blew me away. His Dark Materials is a fantastic trilogy.
21: Thanks, L! Now how about aveda kedavra?
I dunno--I loved the Pullman trilogy when I read it a few years ago, but it's awfully dark for a first foray into F/SF.
Mayhap I'm being overly picky about this whole process, but I've spent 25 years up to my neck in this stuff, and I just want my wife to have some idea of why I like it so much--thus, giving her something as long as Strange/Norrell (I might really like Russian Literature, but do I start a neophyte on The Brothers Karamazov?), or as dark as the Pullman books (God is a malevolent being), seems a bit much.
It's like sushi--you don't start someone off with sea urchin liver, you start them off with a california roll.
[You and LB and all the rest may be right about McCaffrey, but dammit leave me some illusions--next you're going to tell that the Xanth books aren't as enthralling as I found them at 10!]
I would never tell you that. (If I thought you hadn't figured it out on your own, I might move slightly away from you, of course.)
Don't be put off by JS&MN's length -- it's great.
I got through about 70% of the His Dark Materials trilogy. The opening parts were cool, but once Pullman's agenda became clear it got very tiresome very quickly.
I think people make a mistake when they assume that the HP series is loved because people are hungry for fantasy but don't realize it. They aren't, and, as noted, HP isn't very good fantasy. But it scratches the itch for both Anglophilia (so does Jonathan Strange) and retroactive adolescent wish fulfillment. Also, with its wide array of comforting parental figures and constant assurances that the protagonist is uniquely persecuted, the HP universe is psychologically comforting for the reader.
I think I'm on the borderline for fantasy fandom. I'm the type of guy who enjoys LoTR because of its epic scope, but can't help rolling his eyes whenever characters start speaking in Elvish. HP is just about right for me.
Strange/Norrell is long, yeah, but it's not like reading "Dune" or something. More like reading a Victorian novel. It's not heavy Fantasy, it's basically a good story that happens to do with magic.
Chick-lit light fantasy? A whole sub-genre.
Piers Anthony? Sold millions. I consider Rowling not that much better than Anthony. Anthony was funnier.
Glen Cook's "Metal" detective series...after which she might try the Black company.
Mercedes Lackey and her innumerable co-authors?
My lady always has pb's about gnomes hanging around, I will ask her
My lady found Bujold too heavy.
Looking thru her bookshelves, came across Chelsea Quinn Yarbro and Sharon Shinn. Why do we hesitate to recommend the bestsellers?
So young, and yet so wise. Terry Pratchett indeed, although Discworld is pretty dependent on knowing fantasy tropes and finding them funny. Maybe Good Omens?
One of the City Watch ones, I think -- they're more like detective stories than fantasy. The first one I read was Men at Arms.
Night Watch was good. I also liked Thief of Time
L, don't get lazy after just answering one question. (I did google the curse, btw, but I'm afraid just on the results page that I saw something that may have spoiled the surprise ending to the 6th book for me. I'm scared to google further.)
21: Oh good - my $7 grand isn't down the drain.
Night Watch is my favorite, but I also like The Fifth Elephant.
re 48: perhaps, then, Little, Big?
For standalone Discworld, I'd say Small Gods.
(Little, Big left me, not exactly cold, but dissatisfied. Each element was fascinating, but the book as a whole? Not for me.)
Hey, happy anniversary, Chops!
LB, the blogcrush is revoked again.
Aw, darn it.
You're fond of Crowley's writing? I really did enjoy each chapter as a set-piece -- I just couldn't summon up enough interest to figure out why I should care about the book as a whole. But my taste in fiction is sadly plebian. Without a strong narrative, I drift away and get bored. (When I'm not reading genre stuff, I stay pretty firmly in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Mmmm, plot.)
And happy anniversary as well. The seventh anniversary present is tinsnips, right? Or is it decoupage?
I think _Little, Big_ is one of the greatest novels I've read, but it's tough going, esp. after the first section.
How about a pure modern space opera like _Startide Rising_ or _A Fire Upon The Deep_? Or a moving and varied collection of short stories like Connie Willis's _Fire Watch_? (Though I would suggest my wife skip "All My Darling Daughters".)
I loved and Engine Summer. One thing is that I had some impetus to keep going to figure out what was going on (it helps to be too stupid to look at the family tree and figure out who Grandfather Trout might be). But, basically, I cared about the characters. I had pretty much the same complaint as you about the Aegypt books though--no forward momentum.
Incidentally, though Engine Summer is about one-fifth the length of Little, Big, I wouldn't recommend it to Chopper's wife--way too much of the "We're going to throw a lot of new terminology at you and let you sort it out" for the SF novice. In a way I think it's like Book of the New Sun with a humane spirit.
Of the three books in that Crowley omnibus, I think I liked Beasts the most.
s/b "I loved Little, Big and Engine Summer"
_Startide Rising_ or _A Fire Upon The Deep_?
Thought they were both great, but not so much for someone who might be put off by too much sciencefictionyness.
I've never liked Connie Willis all that much, and always felt kind of bad about it -- people whose taste I generally approve of like her, and the stuff she writes is the sort of stuff I like, but her writing specifically? I'm just not crazy about it.
Ben, last time I saw you, didn't you say you liked Beasts the least?
question mark:Lizardbreath::colon:baa
_Engine Summer_ is too damn heartbreaking to recommend as an intro. (_Aegypt_ did not work for me at all. _The Translator_ however is excellent.)
How about a standard classic like _The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress_? Not in the class of Ford's _Growing Up Weightless_, but more approachable. Or _A Canticle for Leibowitz_? Or whichever of _The Dispossessed_ and _The Left Hand of Darkness_ is less depressing (the former I guess)?
Actually, on reflection, this is about the best intro to SF I know.
I doubt it, since actually I liked The Deep the least.
The seventh anniversary present is tinsnips, right?
Based on my own observations, the seventh anniversary present is usually divorce papers.
A post without colons is like a night without stars.
I am with LB 100% on Connie Willis, and I'm glad I'm not the only one...
To clarify--yesterday was the anniversary of the night we met, not our marriage. But thanks for all the warm thoughts, anyway.
88--Good suggestions, all, but I'm trying to to find something that she'll find accessible given the type of stuff she normally reads.
Also, as much as I like John Ford, comparing Growing Up Weightless to The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and somehow arriving at the conclusion that Ford's book is superior--well, that's just lunacy. (Sorry.)
The thing about The Time Traveler's Wife is that it is primarily a love story, which from what you say might appeal to your wife. I like some of the stuff she does, though I haven't read The Lovely Bones 'n'at. On the other hand, it is long, and ac found it too bound up with the mechanisms of time travel. So maybe it wouldn't be ideal. Also, it might not be a good gateway drug, kind of for the reasons I was talking about in 36--even if you like this novel, it doesn't necessarily mean you'll be into any other science fiction.
(Shouldn't it be "A post without colons: like a night without stars!")
I would have thought:
Post:Colons
a) Night:stars
w-lfs-n's penis:colons::Ogged's penis:vaginas
You are *so* right, washerdreyer. Much more elegant.
The blog wasn't going to be called The Magic Johnsons for nothing.
Did Majik Johnson know this, or was his choice of handle a happy coincidence?
He knew, from reading Unf's "About" page.
Sorry, Magik. I was thinking of that other blog, Unfojjed.
Interestingly, magicjohnsons.com is still available, but themagicjohnsons.com is not.
I'll believe "Magic Johnson" is a coincidence when I believe "Boise Gladiators" is a coincidence.
"Boise Gladiators" is a coincidence
Or the Butte Pirates, for that matter.
You know what's great about the Butte Pirates link? When I click on it, I get an error message: "This operation is not allowed."
Me too, but then it loads. Guess it's one of those times when no really means yes.
Available: tinglinglingams.com. Should have a sister site iownmyownyoni.com, also available.
lindaspudendaagenda.com is still up for grabs.
Only then could we have w/d's sought-after blogospheric intercourse.
Apo: shouldn't that be "glendas"?
(First line of 109 continues 106.)
Yes, yes, it obviously should. Mea culpa.
Or the Hoopston Corn Jerkers. But I repeat myself.
You're culping yourself! Are you alone?
Where can you find these things out?
I'm curious about dorisclitoriseuphoros.edu
I'm curious about the orals.
I'm also curious about whether ogged gets it. The joke I mean.
Was the link in 116 supposed to be broken? (Pot, kettle.)
Oops.
www.register.com, get there yourselves!
I conclude that Ægypt is a good book.
Though now that I'm on Love and Sleep, I'm finding it hard to be that interested in the exploits of the young Pierce Moffet.