Review And Book Review He Did

[Volourn]

"Green Mile, Shawshank, and It are only excellent ("It" was okay) because of the actors that played in them, the directors, and the film editors. The books SUCKED. You want to see what happens when they actually film a Stephen King book the way he wrote it? One word: Cujo. Stupid, stupid shit. Exactly like the book."

Bullshit. Have you read the books? Damn fine writing. Those movies are nothing without the Kingmeister.

And, what the hell is wrong with Cujo - movie or book? Fuck. It is as good as any 'thriller', and the vast majority of the movie is set in, and around a car FFS. That's fantastic writing. And, hell, the term 'Cujo' is pretty much commonly used to desrcibe 'wild dog attacks'. Awesome. Fuckin' awesome.



"King's only good book is the Tommyknockers - which is of course hated by all the King fanbois. That's one of the best scifi books ever written. King readers just can't stand quality (one of the most common complaints reads somewhat like this: "LOL this bok sux!!!1 to long!! wut kingy dednt got an editer or sumthin??111 lol"). He got the message, because he was back to writing shit soon after."

WUT? Tommyknockers is a fantastic book and the movie is definitely underrated. btw, Moron, what Stephen King fan (of his books not the movies) would whine about a book being 'too long' - not counting his short stories anthologies, his books tend to be damn long. FFS You *are* retarded.



"A writer is even worse than 'just bad' if his shit is praised by millions and causes the quality of writing in near future generations to decline."

That's retarded. A writer is either good or bad based on his writing not anything else. Moron.

And, to claim that he's 'one of the worst' is just plain ignorance and retardedness. the fact you agree the movies listed were all good yet try to pretend it is IN SPITE of King is moronicy at its root.


It's one thing to bash BIO, it's another thing to attack A Living Legend. The guy is a GOD OF WRITING. GOD.

So, in conclusion, FUCK OFF RETARDED TROLL!!!!

 

[Chefe]

It's one thing to bash BIO, it's another thing to attack A Living Legend. The guy is a GOD OF WRITING. GOD.

R00fles!

 

[WhiskeyWolf]

I raise my eyebrow at the idea that fantasy should be historically accurate, as if all fantasy took place in medieval Europe copies.

There is a difference between "historically accurate" and "logical".

 

[Data4]

I... well, no. Remember the scene in, what was it, Memnoch the Devil where she has Lestat suck menstrual blood off a woman's tampon? YEAH NO. NO. NO.

I rolled her over gently, careful not to press her with my weight, and I pulled up her
skirt, and I lay my face against her hot naked thighs. The smell of the blood flooded my
brain.

"Forgive me, forgive me," I whispered, and my tongue broke through the thin cotton of
her panties, tearing the cloth back from the soft down of pubic hair, pushing aside the
bloodstained pad she wore, and I lapped at the blood just inside her young pink vaginal
lips, just coming from the mouth of her womb, not pure blood, but blood from her, blood
from her strong, young body, blood all over the tight hot cells of her vaginal flesh,
blood that brought no pain, no sacrifice, only her gentle forbearance with me,
with my unspeakable act, my tongue going deep into her, drawing out the blood that was yet to
come, gently, gently, lapping the blood from the soft hair on her pubic lips, sucking
each tiny droplet of it.
...
I lay panting against her. The blood was all gone inside me now. I had drawn all of it
from her womb that was meant to come. I had licked away even what had collected on the
pad that had lain against her skin.

I meant her technical skills as a writer. If it's possible to remove yourself from the subject matter you can see that... well, okay, I'll concede that you CAN'T remove yourself from THAT subject matter.

But compare her dialogue to, say, David Eddings', and her narrative and... shit, everything about her writing to Salvatore and it should be clear. She's a good writer.

 

[Lesifoere]

I raise my eyebrow at the idea that fantasy should be historically accurate, as if all fantasy took place in medieval Europe copies.

There is a difference between "historically accurate" and "logical".

Absolutely. Which is why "omg pay attention in history class!" or "research the Roman Empire damn it" don't always apply. "Research your subject matter" is another story.

But compare her dialogue to, say, David Eddings', and her narrative and... shit, everything about her writing to Salvatore and it should be clear. She's a good writer.

Yeah, but comparing someone to David Eddings is--you might as well compare her to Christopher Paolini or JK Rowling, it doesn't say much.

 

[nomask7]

Poocolator, you seem a little confused. Like a good troll, you inspired me to share my knowledge in superb prose. That's not the same thing as my being interested in having a "discussion" with you. Frankly, that should have been clear from my last two messages, which after all were as short as possible. I had to consciously ignore most of your extended mess of hackneyed non sequiturs and general brainlessness to pull off that feat, so don't feel butthurt. It wasn't easy for me either, dear.

 

[Jora]

I always suggest R. Scott Bakker's The Prince of Nothing trilogy (and its sequel The Aspect-Emperor) to those who want deep characters, strong thematic elements, good prose, and an intelligent plot. Bakker is also a devoted world-builder and likes his fantasy epic, so in theory he should be accessible to those who just want to see armies, battles, swords, sorcery, and bodies.

This is how the author explains the basic idea behind the world:

"What would it be like, what would it mean, to live in a world where everything had objective value, where everything was ranked and ordered, so that men actually were ‘spiritually superior' than women, and so on. The tendency in much fantasy fiction is to cater to readers’ moral expectations, to depict ideologically correct worlds and so avoid all the kinds of trouble I seem to get into with my fiction. In other words, the tendency is to be apologetic rather than critical (and then to be critical of those who refuse to apologize). My interest lies in the glorious ugliness that is a fact of traditional world making. Bigoted worlds. Biased worlds. Human worlds expressed through fantastic idioms."

 

[Lesifoere]

Ohhhh, Lyric Suite and Higher Game will love that. Er... which of them is the misogynist again?

 

[Jora]

The books are not misogynist. They depict a misogynist world from a critical perspective. The women (or sorcerers either, for that matter) aren't less intelligent or capable than men, but they are less equal in the eyes of the God (although what the God actually is is unclear at this point in the series) who happens to be an asshole. It's men who are portrayed as just lusting animals.

 

[nomask7]

It's men who are portrayed as just lusting animals.

...which some of us are for fully 1% of our adult lives. Still, I'm more into books that portray 99% of humanity as dumb as a turtle skin boot. You can't get more realistic than that.

 

[Baley]

Ohhhh, Lyric Suite and Higher Game will love that. Er... which of them is the misogynist again?

Gender realist.

 

[Lesifoere]

You're so edgy your wrists cut themselves.

 

[Baley]

I'm on your side.

 

[Lesifoere]

There are no sides on the Codex! And it's always hard to tell.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Tommyknockers - which is of course hated by all the King fanbois.

wat

also, you suck.

 

[nomask7]

Oh, by the way...

 

[poocolator]

Poocolator, you seem a little confused. Like a good troll, you inspired me to share my knowledge in superb prose.

Eh? How's that?
1) You shared your knowledge of superb prose?
2) You shared your knowledge through superb prose?

If #1 then:
Pretending to be a literary connoisseur is no big feat on the internet it's simply that not everyone cares to do it. Most people don't need affirmation from the internet, like you and Cleve do.
if #2 then:
Your writing is not up to par with someone who actually dissects novels and possesses a "superior intellect." Also, don't pull that "It's the internet, so I don't apply myself fully" excuse either, because, dimwits like yourself always apply themselves in an attempt to "show off." It becomes too easy to poke fun at you.

That's not the same thing as my being interested in having a "discussion" with you. Frankly, that should have been clear from my last two messages, which after all were as short as possible. I had to consciously ignore most of your extended mess of hackneyed non sequiturs and general brainlessness to pull off that feat, so don't feel butthurt. It wasn't easy for me either, dear.

Did it hurt when you were reading it? I'm sorry, I didn't mean to make you cut yourself. I just like making fun of you no hard feelings, k? I'd still vote for you in an election 'cause I honestly do believe that deep down, under that desperately false exterior, you are a good guy and want to be loved more than just on a superficial level.

 

[poocolator]

Absolutely. Which is why "omg pay attention in history class!" or "research the Roman Empire damn it" don't always apply. "Research your subject matter" is another story.

Isn't "pay[ing] attention in history class" technically "Research[ing] your subject matter"?

 

[Shannow]

Didn't really like it [Prince of Nothing]. Overall, I think that the first book was great and then it slowly went downhill.

Pretty much. But I liked the concept of

Spoiler

a repressed homogay becoming more violent and macho than any other man to prove he's not gay...

Overall too much sex for my liking and the Prince of Nothing is far too powerful for a mere human. No matter the conditioning. I simply can't buy into that.

Rowan, the beautiful warrior maiden betrothed to Maric since birth.

This is 100% bullshit. His a prince, if she's betrothed to him from birth shouldn't she be... you know, a royalty? Besides, doesn't she have anything to say in this, like: "No, your not the prince anymore, the deal is off"?

Are warrior maiden and nobility (easily good enough for a prince ) mutually exclusive? Martin's Brienne of Tarth disagrees. I have no idea of Rowan's pedigree but it's basically possible that she's royalty/nobility.
As to the betrothal from birth without say: Very common. Both in medieval times and today in certain cultures. Most cultures would see the breaking of such a bond to be a shameful act. So Rowan ditching Maric in this time of need would not be something a dark, gritty, heroic romancable npc would do

 

[Elzair]

I demand extracts from this masterpiece!

Post them NAO.

Here you go!

This is a sad scene.

While I am glad that Gaider realized that blood (at least mine) tastes metallic, the sentence is still pretty fucking horrible!

P.S. Sorry about the blurriness, but there is no way in hell I am typing that shit!

 

[Elzair]

Here is some more.

Angry red blood. This guy has a way with woids!

 

[PrzeSzkoda]

I am about as nonplussed as Maric was.

 

[nomask7]

Why do you think so many people write science fiction/fantasy? It's because they don't know enough about how the world works, and used to work, to write anything else. They've got to make shit up.

An absolutely moronic theory. Why read fiction in the first place if it can't be, well ya know, FICTION? There is only one real distinction that exists or need be made if it doesn't—that between good fiction and bad fiction. All books of fiction fall neatly into one of those two categories, but any other attempt at categorization will end up in a god awful mess with severed limbs, broken faces.

First of all, I never said, "don't read fiction."

A brainless non sequitur. Try to pay attention now: why read fiction if it can't be fiction? If you want to read about how the world works, or used to work, why not read non-fiction instead?

Fiction writers can write wonderfully and I myself love a number of science fiction authors. Characters are fleshed out, and interact believably; innovative scenarios are presented to the reader and the book's characters; unforeseen consequences to actions, yadda yadda...

What does that have to do with your theory that writers write fantasy because they don't know enough about the real world?

Secondly, while I did overreact, I'm somewhat justified in bitching about how fantasy writers always create worlds, socially and practically speaking, identical to ours.

I didn't notice that part. Is it relevant, somehow, to what I quoted in my response, or what I ranted about in it, do you think?

If you're going to include witches and warlocks, princes and princesses, knights and fucking demons, why not the attendant taboo? Make it interesting for a change; impose some law & order in that regard. Also, flesh out a believable economy. Where does the food come from? Why are broadswords being sold at the marketplace, to the general public, instead of foodstuffs? Why are there no fiefs scattered about the countryside if your nation is allegedly a feudalism? If you want to do a take on the Roman Republic, then do so and provide details so we know you aren't fibbing, and don't have a clue.

What makes you care? Do you have difficulty suspending your disbelief if the author doesn't go out of his way to explain to you how everything works? Perhaps you should, again, escape into history books rather than fiction. Good fiction should be a game rather than a walkthrough of a game. Incidentally, that's also what games should be.

Thirdly, if you can call my tiny tidbit of a statement a "theory," then I think you yearn for the sort of discussion you won't find here, with me.

I used the word 'theory' in a conventional sense. Try a dictionary, my sweet child. (I can see that you don't want to do anything for yourself. That makes sense considering what kind of books you seem to like. You don't want to have to think about what you read; the author should be your father, should do everything for you, should take responsibility for everything that happens in your head. Kind of feminine of you, too. Sure you're not gay, & about to turn into a tranny?)

Realistic fiction: it's like that Hollywood stamp "based on a true story".

Let's agree to stop calling it "Realistic fiction" and start calling it "Historical fiction" because I'm not at all interested by the connotation of the former. That being said, I've read plenty of Historical fiction very, very well-researched from which I've even managed to learn a thing or two. I've done follow-ups on my own and, lo and behold, the book hadn't lied.

Wow. Hey, I have a thought. Maybe if you read a history book you can learn even more about history!

I'm proposing a goodly combination of the two. Something these dime-a-dozen, prolific fantasy writers don't seem to be able to achieve.

A retarded proposition. Bad fantasy, and there is a lot of it, doesn't become good by becoming less like fantasy. Yours is a fish-on-the-land proposition. It's just not bright. You want something that imaginative literature simply isn't used for by anyone intelligent enough to be a good writer to begin with. I think you're prodding the wrong writers. What you really want to propose is that historians add elves and wizards to their exhaustively researched accounts of real world stories. You want to read history books, but with real witches.

Any moron can shit out fantasy worlds, but to add features separating them from our own, modern world, takes knowledge and heart.

Modelling your fantasy lands on historical ones isn't difficult. Trust me. It's just so stupid that most fantasy writers don't do it explicitly. They don't want to admit that they didn't have enough imagination to come up with something of their own.

You sound butthurt here, and I can't imagine why.

Something wrong with your ears, perhaps?

I read for the literary value, regardless of subject matter.

So you say. I've noticed that you say a lot of things that you don't mean. It's a symptom of manboonism, as I'm sure I've mentioned. The inability to speak the truth about anything more abstract than the location of the dining room. If you read for literary value, you should be able to name books that have literary value. I doubt you can do that.

In any case, literary value has nothing whatsoever to do with exhaustively researched imaginary worlds (lol) or consistent historical settings. My working hypothesis is that you don't know what literary value means and wouldn't be able to recognize it standing in a suspect lineup with shit, shite, and sheeiiit.

You become even more off-topic and crazy in your later posts, so I'll pass.

 

[poocolator]

A brainless non sequitur. Try to pay attention now: why read fiction if it can't be fiction? If you want to read about how the world works, or used to work, why not read non-fiction instead?

I can't believe how butthurt you sound with all of the personal insults; this is gold. Stop dissecting for gold, you'll give yourself an anuerism without finding any.

What does that have to do with your theory that writers write fantasy because they don't know enough about the real world?

Absolutely nothing. As intended.

I didn't notice that part. Is it relevant, somehow, to what I quoted in my response, or what I ranted about in it, do you think?

No. As intended.

Good fiction should be a game rather than a walkthrough of a game. Incidentally, that's also what games should be.

Doesn't make sense.

I used the word 'theory' in a conventional sense. Try a dictionary, my sweet child. (I can see that you don't want to do anything for yourself. That makes sense considering what kind of books you seem to like. You don't want to have to think about what you read; the author should be your father, should do everything for you, should take responsibility for everything that happens in your head. Kind of feminine of you, too. Sure you're not gay, & about to turn into a tranny?)

Good stuff.

A retarded proposition. Bad fantasy, and there is a lot of it, doesn't become good by becoming less like fantasy. Yours is a fish-on-the-land proposition. It's just not bright. You want something that imaginative literature simply isn't used for by anyone intelligent enough to be a good writer to begin with. I think you're prodding the wrong writers. What you really want to propose is that historians add elves and wizards to their exhaustively researched accounts of real world stories. You want to read history books, but with real witches.

Retarded how?

Modelling your fantasy lands on historical ones isn't difficult. Trust me. It's just so stupid that most fantasy writers don't do it explicitly. They don't want to admit that they didn't have enough imagination to come up with something of their own.

This is interesting, because you've actually got no idea. What a silly statement, no offense.

Something wrong with your ears, perhaps?

I don't see how my ears have to do with what I'm reading.

So you say. I've noticed that you say a lot of things that you don't mean.

Certainly, especially when you distort what it is I'm saying.

It's a symptom of manboonism, as I'm sure I've mentioned. The inability to speak the truth about anything more abstract than the location of the dining room. If you read for literary value, you should be able to name books that have literary value. I doubt you can do that.

Not completely, but I'll let internet-accessible lists compiled by people as yourself finish the job. Mmmm... google.

In any case, literary value has nothing whatsoever to do with exhaustively researched imaginary worlds (lol) or consistent historical settings.

Indeed.

My working hypothesis is that you don't know what literary value means and wouldn't be able to recognize it standing in a suspect lineup with shit, shite, and sheeiiit.

Tell me... do those great humanitarian works teach you to behave like a butthurt little child? Is this all you've gleaned reading them? Upsetting for an individual quoting great works. Your conduct has thoroughly convinced me my diagnosis was correct: see, you do it because of a certain monkey on your back-- a superiority complex; the sooner you recognize it, the happier off you'll be.

Superiority complex refers to a subconscious neurotic mechanism of compensation developed by the individual as a result of feelings of inferiority. The feelings of inferiority in this specific complex are often brought on by real or perceived social rejection.

Social rejection, huh? Like the kind which causes one to invoke their "superior intellect" on a web forum?

Otherwise, do continue; this is good stuff.

EDIT: To make it less hurtful

 

[Chefe]

Here is some more.

Angry red blood. This guy has a way with woids!

Angry red blood! Angry red blood!

ARGGHHHHHHH!!!