ClumsyMonkey.net

Automatic_Flowers wrote:I think Salinger should give the rights to the movie, that would be such a good movie, I'd watch it 23856754089 times.

As long as Sallinger is alive, Catcher In The Rye will never be a book. Sadly enough, it's that simple. Sallinger feels that movies never do books justice, and he's right. They could have the best directors out there try to make this book into a movie, and it would be nothing like the book, it's that simple.

you mean movie
not book

see spot run....leaves me breathless every time

Axtech wrote:Firstly, you can't judge all the books by one... The plotline in Wizard's First Rule is quite straight forward, which makes sense as it was his first novel.

I found the characterization quite good. I thoroughly enjoyed Zedd in particular. I also felt quite close to the characters. I don't know, maybe I'm just more susceptible to human emotions...

In what way(s) is the writing unrealistic. Keep in mind that it is a fantasy novel, after all.

I don't understand how people think that the standards for basic good writing change from genre to genre. I think every book, in every category, should have a solid plot, good characterization, etc. Fantasy/science fiction is not just the poor relation of "real" literature. I actually get upset with the fiction-only readers who refuse to acknowledge the value of other genres. When was the last time you heard of a science fiction novel being studied in a university english class? It never happens. (BTW, this isn't an attack on you, just a rant in general.) George RR Martin's series is far better literature than The Reader (which I had to read in English this year), but you'd never find it in first-year English. I HATE book snobs!

As for Wizard's First Rule, the plot was predictable. I found it impossible to get an emotional attachment to any of the characters, mostly because Goodkind's writing is very detached. He might write, "Richard felt angry because Zedd wasn't telling him (fill in the blank)" but that feeling of anger is never really conveyed. It is like someone is observing the emotion in a lab and noting it in his notebook. Clinical, almost.

As well, relationships between the characters were unrealistic. Within the first three pages of the book, Richard is in love with this girl he knows nothing about, and he calmly accepts her secrets, even though he doesn't know that they won't jeopardize his mission. And he gets this thorn in his hand, and Goodkind writes about how much agony Richard is in for pages, but then a pretty lady comes along and it's forgotten about for hours? Yeah right.

I acknowledge that the other books in the series may be better. But I had to force myself to finish that one.

I disagree with you completely. I think you misunderstood the point of these novels, which is not to tell you a fairy story, but rather to take a fantasy storyline and use it as the base or backdrop for an intricate commentary on several aspects of society, economics, politics, and human behaviour and relationships, all of which are painfully applicable to our modern world. In short, I believe you missed the point.

My comments were not directed to Goodkind's purpose for writing the book, the concepts behind it, or any commentary he may or may not be making. They are directed at the writing structure of the book. Which was bad. For the reasons I've already stated.

Example to illustrate the difference: Atlas Shrugged is definitely a political, philosophical, and social commentary. And from what I've heard, it is good. However, that does not make Ayn Rand a good writer. In fact, I've heard the book sucks in terms of structure and writing style.

happeninfish wrote:I disagree with you completely. I think you misunderstood the point of these novels, which is not to tell you a fairy story, but rather to take a fantasy storyline and use it as the base or backdrop for an intricate commentary on several aspects of society, economics, politics, and human behaviour and relationships, all of which are painfully applicable to our modern world. In short, I believe you missed the point.

Exactly.

You said that you found things like Richard's love-at-first-site type situation unbelievable. But great writing is based around slightly over the top circumstances.

Also, in the same post, you said...

soccerchick wrote:He might write, "Richard felt angry because Zedd wasn't telling him (fill in the blank)" but that feeling of anger is never really conveyed

and

soccerchick wrote:And he gets this thorn in his hand, and Goodkind writes about how much agony Richard is in for pages

Now, I know you exaggerated to get your point across, but Goodkind's writing doesn't vary that much. When it does vary, it is to emphasize certain more important aspects of the book. The anger towards Zedd was largely overshadowed by his love for the old man. At the begining with the thorn, Goodkind was establishing a character and setting through a show of emotions and the magic that exists in his world.

Just for the record, I'm not a "fiction-only" reader. My literary pallet is very expansive, covering many genres.

I just remembered something else I love. It's the way the narrative is omniscient, and yet sympathetic with each character at a time. What's a better way to put this.... the narration switches to whichever character is the main focus at that point, and things are described in a style, language and viewpoints that the particular character would use, were they the ones talking (instead of the narrator). He even manages to do this with a horse, near the end-ish of Soul Of The Fire... rob you know what i'm talking about, when Zedd and Spider go to the ovens, and Zedd disappears in, and the only character left is the horse, wondering where the man disappeared to. It says things like "The man was beyond the falling water, in the dark hole. She didn't like holes. No horse did." See what I mean? The terms are simplified, like the way a horse would think about it... that's an extreme example, he does that with every single character who is the momentary focus, I'm just trying to get my point across. Anyway it's neat and I loves it.

Yes, that is a great aspect of his writing style. I suppose that's part of the reason that I love these books. Stephen King also does it, so that helps explain why I like both of them.

Whoever it was that said "Whale Music" by Paul Quarrington earlier was right! that book was awesome I thought...I had to read that and "on the road" by Jack Kerouac and compare them for my gr. 12 english ISU...They were actually very comparable I found, despite choosing one because of a line in an OLP song and the other cause it was about a musician...lol

~*alana*~

Paul Quarrington is the shit

The Spirit Cabinet is such a weird-cool book by him

a great Canadian book... No Great Mischief by Alistair Macleod

i just stole Faulkner's 'As I Lay Dying' from the book collection in my english class. anyone read it? is it good stuff?

c.s. lewis - the screwtape letters

Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged

sandsleeper wrote:i just stole Faulkner's 'As I Lay Dying' from the book collection in my english class. anyone read it? is it good stuff?

it's ok...
it's one of Faulker's better works.

better= you don't want to kill yourself as you read it

Woah...I didn't think I read that much but I know ALOT of these books,

1984
Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
Catcher in the Rye
Ender's Game
Most of the Stephen King novels

I personally like American Gods by Neil Gaiman. It can seem a bit 'out there' but is a really interesting book.

<--------- O'Reilly, "The O'Reilly Factor"