1427: Self-Aware

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by TheMikeLawrence

Deaderest, what they are doing now with CM Punk is pretty anti corporate. The last few weeks have been great and less cartoony then youd think.

After years of Joker, Dr. Doom, and even Mr. Burns, Voldemort just didnt work for me as a compelling villain. I heard some comedian, and I honestly do not remember who, doing a joke about how Voldemort couldnt even kill a baby. Not a big Sauron fan as hes just a Maguffin, just an example of someone who was built up so much. And that the evil group is called Slytherin (sp) is lame, and thos is coming from a guy who has read the sentence "How could you betray us Sinestro?!" Multiple times.

The Harry Potter books are not about the villain. Voldemort is as much of a Maguffin as Sauron is, and the concepts and complexities of evil in Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings are as base and simple in one as the other.

Pointing out dumb shit in fiction that people like means nothing and isn't really material to the actual appeal of the work. Every piece of the plot of Star Wars hinges on something stupid, nonsensical, contradictory, or silly, and yet I hear it's a big hit with the nerds. Not to mention, that's another work with extremely simple morality distinctions.

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

Okay, I admit I couldn't get through all three books because I found them extremely tedious to read, but I do recall that several years pass after Bilbo leaves the ring with Frodo and when Gandalf comes back after researching what the ring is. I remember this fucking boring subplot where Bilbo's relatives are fighting Frodo's inheritance of Bag End.

Bilbo's one hundred and eleventh birthday is also (though this is not mentioned in the movie) Frodo's 33 birthday, which is his coming of age as an adult hobbit. I think that's supposed to be roughly analogous to a human age of 21. Anyway, Frodo doesn't actually go out with the ring until he's like 50 or something, so yeah.

[Medium Brumski]

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

Okay, I admit I couldn't get through all three books because I found them extremely tedious to read, but I do recall that several years pass after Bilbo leaves the ring with Frodo and when Gandalf comes back after researching what the ring is. I remember this fucking boring subplot where Bilbo's relatives are fighting Frodo's inheritance of Bag End.

Well I guess I meant the actual adventure portion of Lord of the Rings, not all the weird politics and legal silliness going on in the Shire. Tolkien gets strangely in depth in his world, I skipped large portions of his books. For the record I think alot of modern fantasy authors are much better, Tolkien is simply iconic for being one of the first.

[stulagu]

Originally Posted by Medium Brumski

Tolkien gets strangely in depth in his world, I skipped large portions of his books. For the record I think alot of modern fantasy authors are much better, Tolkien is simply iconic for being one of the first.

I am a huge Lord of the Rings fan, I read the books once a year, and have even read the Simarillian. Though I will be the first to admit that he is not a good author...I just happen to love the small complexities of his world as much as he does. Not enough to learn Elvish, but enough to appreciate that he actually wrote many languages that are speakable. I love his worlds and think the movie did such justice because you can visuall soak in what can be very boring to some to read.

I think the whole Shire and back adventure took about 3 years, but I could be wrong. The hobbits took a long time to get home to find their world scoured by Saruman.

And Mike, this is my friend Marie's blog. She is a nerd through and through and is an excellent pastry chef. Her blog is fun to read, and this is her entry on "nerd vs geek", I thought you'd like it! Nerd or Geek? « Celebration Generation: Absolutely Hardcore… Lifestyle Blog!

[stulagu]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

The Harry Potter books are not about the villain. Voldemort is as much of a Maguffin as Sauron is, and the concepts and complexities of evil in Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings are as base and simple in one as the other.

Pointing out dumb shit in fiction that people like means nothing and isn't really material to the actual appeal of the work. Every piece of the plot of Star Wars hinges on something stupid, nonsensical, contradictory, or silly, and yet I hear it's a big hit with the nerds. Not to mention, that's another work with extremely simple morality distinctions.

I don't think any of those stories were meant to be about complexity, they are entertainment, they are stories. The charm of Harry Potter isn't that it is a book that is so deep you have to read it over and over to get the concept. The charm is that those books are FUNNY, they have great characters, you can't put them down once you start reading, and you get wrapped up in the world. That is a different kind of depth.

And another note to Mike, Voldemort couldn't kill the baby because his mom died to protect him and it put a magical charm over him. Dying when you didn't have to for someone you love is the ultimate magic and Voldemort never understood that, which was his weakness. He couldn't kill Harry in the end because in the 4th book he took some of Harry's blood into his own body to become whole again...so when he did the killing curse, it didn't work.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by stulagu

I don't think any of those stories were meant to be about complexity, they are entertainment, they are stories. The charm of Harry Potter isn't that it is a book that is so deep you have to read it over and over to get the concept. The charm is that those books are FUNNY, they have great characters, you can't put them down once you start reading, and you get wrapped up in the world. That is a different kind of depth.

That's what I was saying. It is simple, but it isn't about being complex. Complexity isn't the point of the work. That's precisely what I just said.

I think people have been browbeaten into referring to Harry Potter as fluff, saying it's "entertainment", but I think it's more than that. Those books have the same optimistic view of life, the same reverence for friendship and kindness that the best Disney and Pixar movies have been valued for, and I think the popularity of such fiction is a social boon.

I have no problem with entertainment; I quite enjoy it. But I would say The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is literary fluff, literary entertainment. Harry Potter has more heart to it than that.

[dEadERest]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

Those books have the same optimistic view of life, the same reverence for friendship and kindness that the best Disney and Pixar movies have been valued for, and I think the popularity of such fiction is a social boon.

Bob shows his cardiac ganglia sometimes.

[Keith]

Ah jeez.

[Junkenstein]

It's sad yet hilarious, like seeing a cripple fight.

[TheMikeLawrence]

He could have just typed " Harry Potter is still real to me, damnit!!"

[Cretaceous Bob]

You're disappointing, Mike.

One thing you learn very quickly about nerds is that they never learn anything from their social status; they all think that they are the limit of what is acceptable and anything past their level of nerdiness isn't cool.

I was not here to say that Harry Potter is fantastic; I was here to say the dude that extolls the virtues of wrestling while talking about Dr. Doom as a great villain is painfully lacking in self-awareness when he criticizes silly stuff in Harry Potter. You have a history of liking dumb shit, so pointing out that something has dumb shit as a reason you don't/wouldn't like it makes no sense. You can't talk about the quality of writing: you like comic books and wrestling.

When you're done drawing lines in the sand trying to desperately prove that I'm two ounces less cool than you, I made a post with some salient points about how stupid you sound that you might want to read.