Discussion Forums > The Lounge
How would YOU have ended Lord of the Rings?
fohfoh:
Narnia was a fun one to read too. I liked Narnia better than LOTR tbh. But I wouldn't directly compare the two.
shabutie:
--- Quote from: Enzedder on March 01, 2011, 03:38:21 PM ---Still my favourite...
--- End quote ---
Would have saved a bundle on time and movie productions ^_^
One of my favs
(Granted, I'm a Kevin Smith fan)
Ixarku:
--- Quote from: fohfoh on March 03, 2011, 02:32:10 AM ---Narnia was a fun one to read too. I liked Narnia better than LOTR tbh. But I wouldn't directly compare the two.
--- End quote ---
Narnia was the very first fantasy I ever read, around when I was maybe age 7. Good stuff. Interestingly, C.S. Lewis and Tolkien were friends. Both were members of an informal literary group when they were at Oxford.
Fool010:
--- Quote from: Ixarku on March 03, 2011, 10:35:40 AM ---Narnia was the very first fantasy I ever read, around when I was maybe age 7.
--- End quote ---
Same for me, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe was my entry into fantasy and later sci-fi. Read it when I was 12.
The Narnia cycle is an easier read because it's specifically aimed at a younger audience, whereas LOTR is by no means meant to be a children's book. LOTR seems to be better suited for teenagers, though I always felt young adults were more likely to have the necessary maturity to oversee the basic 'kickass' factor.
undetz:
--- Quote from: Ixarku on February 28, 2011, 11:45:48 PM ---H.P. Lovecraft was a horrible writer from a purely technical standpoint, and yet his writing has also been hugely influential over the years.
--- End quote ---
You're joking, right? From a purely technical standpoint HPL is possibly one of the greatest writers ever. The pacing of the stories is pretty much perfect, with constantly mounting tension until the climax at the end. He drops enough hints to give the reader an idea of what's going on, in fact the revelation in his stories often comes as a confirmation, but this doesn't diminish its effect on the reader, to the contrary, it enhances it. Despite the fact that he writes about things that often derive their horror from being contrary to the natural laws of the universe there's never anything resembling an ass-pull.
His understanding of rhythm and intonation was excellent, certainly, he's often long-winded in his descriptions, but the language flows from one sentence to the next. Never does one receive the impression of a shopping list where ordered items are ticked off after having been brought to the reader's attention. Try reading his stories as though you were speaking them out loud with no music or chatter in the background, and you may see what I mean.
If you've ever read some of the letters he wrote you'll notice that they're better formulated than much of what passes for literature, and he wrote those in one go. When crafting a story he kept writing and rewriting until he was satisifed, polishing the language, timing when a new bit of information would be revealed to the reader. No, to say Lovecraft's writing technique is horrible only goes to show you haven't studied the matter which you expound.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version