strathcona: [30.media.tumblr.com image 500x347]

You rule. That was so funny.

Fark may be drowning in trolls and idiots but this thread delivers.

logic523: You rule. That was so funny.

I wish it was my work!

brukmann: GameSprocket: It if was Tolkien, the sex scenes would take 40 pages.

/40 sticky sticky pages.

Based on the last movie i assume there was a hobbit orgy for 40 pages.

If it was Jordan we'd have to read how she had 'labia like the leaves of a leatherleaf'.

I just wish that Hollywood would do a decent-budget Pratchett.
Although, given what Hollywierd often does to books, I might regret that wish...

People who live in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones.

Jackson Herring: [goo.gl image 485x348]

Thanks. I snerted so hard my co-workers came to see if I was dying.

Jake Havechek: Terry Pratchett? Bilge. Utter crap.

Crivens!!! Step o'side, ye scunner that ye are! I'll gi ye a taste o my boot!

heinekenftw: [www.indecisionforever.com image 570x320]

Pfft, I'd vote for Arya Stark LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG before voting for Rmoney.

Holy hell, that's hilarious.

mhd: [i43.tinypic.com image 460x276]

...and that's terrifying.

Thread delivers. Thanks for the laughs, all.

GameSprocket: It if was Tolkien, the sex scenes would take 40 pages.

Nah, if it were Tolkien, there wouldn't be any sex scenes because:

1) He didn't write for women well enough to give them many serious roles.

and

2) The only sex that's even implied would be between husbands and wives in a marriage ordained by Eru.

Skyrmion: GameSprocket: It if was Tolkien, the sex scenes would take 40 pages.

Nah, if it were Tolkien, there wouldn't be any sex scenes because:

1) He didn't write for women well enough to give them many serious roles.

and

2) The only sex that's even implied would be between husbands and wives in a marriage ordained by Eru.

With GRRM pretty much being the polar opposite - as far as I can tell he's most interested in explicit sex that involves either prostitutes, first degree blood relatives, or both.

Edsel: Skyrmion: GameSprocket: It if was Tolkien, the sex scenes would take 40 pages.

Nah, if it were Tolkien, there wouldn't be any sex scenes because:

1) He didn't write for women well enough to give them many serious roles.

and

2) The only sex that's even implied would be between husbands and wives in a marriage ordained by Eru.

With GRRM pretty much being the polar opposite - as far as I can tell he's most interested in explicit sex that involves either prostitutes, first degree blood relatives, or both.

That's true; Middle Earth could be a grim world in many respects, but there's basically no such thing as rape, incest, or illegitimacy. (Hell, there's more implied rape in Harry Potter.) In GoT, all three are everywhere.

cynicalbastard: I just wish that Hollywood would do a decent-budget Pratchett.
Although, given what Hollywierd often does to books, I might regret that wish...

There are some British TV adaptations that are worth looking into if you haven't seen them. I think "Going Postal" was the best one.

Skyrmion: cynicalbastard: I just wish that Hollywood would do a decent-budget Pratchett.
Although, given what Hollywierd often does to books, I might regret that wish...

There are some British TV adaptations that are worth looking into if you haven't seen them. I think "Going Postal" was the best one.

Have seen all of 'em, even the animated (Soul Music, Wyrd Sisters.) While all pretty good, there wasn't anything done for the big screen yet. Personally, I'd love to see the Pratchett/Gaiman collaboration, Good Omens, hit the screen.

ObscureNameHere: Currently on Book 4 now (Feast of Crows). While I am reading it and enjoying it now and then, I REALLY hate the knob-slobbering review quotes on the book that say RRRRRR Martin is an "American Tolkien".

No. Not even close. Do NOT go there.

What Martin does do is present a salacious low-fantasy tale told in a Tom Clancy "8 stories at once" style that bait-and-switches the reader at several points as well as not actually forming a plot or having a protagonist. If you boiled down the actual plotline for one character for one book, you might have a 20 page read out of 800 pages. There is no 'point' to the story, it is just an ambling hither and yon tale that does entertain in its own way.

But it is NOT Tolkien.

In much the same way an apple is not an orange.

MurphyMurphy: Tolkien | Martin
Fantasy in a fantasy world | Political drama in a fantasy world

also,

[i.chzbgr.com image 475x505]



"Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall"

Tax Boy: tear down this wall"

His buddy has the probably-magic horn, I think there is a good chance he'll bring the wall down to win the war against the ice demon thingies, because of strategy.

Winter is cumming.

quickdraw: Jake Havechek: Terry Pratchett? Bilge. Utter crap.

lol - trolling a sci fi/fantasy book thread? You must be bored. Didnt you you get the MoP beta invite yet?

I got a couple of MoP beta invites, but I'll wait for the final product.

Skyrmion: Edsel: Skyrmion: GameSprocket: It if was Tolkien, the sex scenes would take 40 pages.

Nah, if it were Tolkien, there wouldn't be any sex scenes because:

1) He didn't write for women well enough to give them many serious roles.

and

2) The only sex that's even implied would be between husbands and wives in a marriage ordained by Eru.

With GRRM pretty much being the polar opposite - as far as I can tell he's most interested in explicit sex that involves either prostitutes, first degree blood relatives, or both.

That's true; Middle Earth could be a grim world in many respects, but there's basically no such thing as rape, incest, or illegitimacy. (Hell, there's more implied rape in Harry Potter.) In GoT, all three are everywhere.

Well, in the Children of Hurin story, Turin does marry his sister.. because she lost her memory, and he didn't know he had a sister. After Turin dies, and she gets her memory back, she throws herself off a cliff.

Technically I think its from The Silmarillion, but close enough. The children of Hurin is exerpts fro the Silmarillion iirc.

strathcona: quatchi: /Rick has a certain cersei-esque quality to him.

Nice cheekbones?

A certain focus on the family.

what_now: [hipsterdanys]

FTW! ^_^

/This thread rawks, I know, I know.

Shostie: Solon Isonomia: Detinwolf: ObscureNameHere: Solon Isonomia: Certainly, some of the characters do shine as interesting (Sandor Clegane comes to mind).

I more meant that I can buy why characters do what they do, that it isn't feeling forced for a character to take an action. One character in Book 5 makes TERRIBLE choices and the character should know better, but its exactly what a normal person would've done.

The Hound is interest, but I've really been digging Jamie's arc.

I will grant ONE upside to Martin's style: I can easily skip/skim named chapters for uninteresting plotlines / characters so I can get to the one's I care about more quickly.

/"Oh look, this chapter is titled "Sansa" *skimmmmmming*...nnnnooope, nothing interesting. Hey! This one is called 'Jon' *settle in to read in detail*

Sansa chapters: Literary kryptonite.

Ah, but her last chapter in book 3 is one of the best in the whole series.

And it's through Sansa's chapters that we learn that Baelish is playing the long game and thinking farther ahead than most all of the other characters.

BINGO!

I've not read the 5th book yet, but at the end of the 4th book you get to see what a conniving little bastard Baelish really is. He's five steps ahead of everybody else in the game.

The comparisons throughout that book are pretty obvious. (POSSIBLE MILD SPOILERS)

Cersei -- short term thinking. Her plan to deal with people is to have them tortured, or killed, or tortured AND killed. And look where that gets her.

Baelish -- long term thinking. Growing alliances and trying to broker trust, and playing the long con with Sansa as one of his pieces. And we'll have to wait and see where that gets him.

Skyrmion: ObscureNameHere:
/"Oh look, this chapter is titled "Sansa" *skimmmmmming*...nnnnooope, nothing interesting. Hey! This one is called 'Jon' *settle in to read in detail*

That's funny, because for the first three books, I was pretty much the opposite. I thought the interwoven King's Landing plotlines were great, but wanted to skim through the unrelated Jon and Daenerys stuff.

The last time I re-read them, I tried reading each character's chapters all in a block for each book. So I'd read all the "Jon" chapters through, then all the "Arya" ones, etc. It removed a lot of the cliffhanger nature, but I actually found the sense of revisiting the same story and finding hidden intersections and influences quite satisfying.

That and it kept me from skimming the intervening chapters to get to the resolution of the last cliffhanger.

InmanRoshi: ObscureNameHere:

But it is NOT Tolkien.

Couldn't agree more. George RR Martin is overrated, but he's nowhere near Tolkien overrated.

Heh, true.

Tolkien is like Beef Wellington...delicious, but it can be too rich if you eat it all the time.

Martin's work is like literary meatloaf; cheap and filling...and if you like it, you're in luck, because there's a LOT of it.

/still give Tolkien props for diving into the genre
//anyone who went over the top during the Somme gets a pass on a multitude of sins
///I don't believe anyone actually finished the Silmarillion

Ok, i take it back. If these Indecision sponsored links can produce such hilarious threads on Fark, we should have one a week. (Moar pictures please, these are great).

PunGent: InmanRoshi: ObscureNameHere:

But it is NOT Tolkien.

Couldn't agree more. George RR Martin is overrated, but he's nowhere near Tolkien overrated.

Heh, true.

Tolkien is like Beef Wellington...delicious, but it can be too rich if you eat it all the time.

Martin's work is like literary meatloaf; cheap and filling...and if you like it, you're in luck, because there's a LOT of it.

/still give Tolkien props for diving into the genre
//anyone who went over the top during the Somme gets a pass on a multitude of sins
///I don't believe anyone actually finished the Silmarillion

*raises hand in a long but well structured and purposeful fashion*
I did.

ObscureNameHere: PunGent: InmanRoshi: ObscureNameHere:

But it is NOT Tolkien.

Couldn't agree more. George RR Martin is overrated, but he's nowhere near Tolkien overrated.

Heh, true.

Tolkien is like Beef Wellington...delicious, but it can be too rich if you eat it all the time.

Martin's work is like literary meatloaf; cheap and filling...and if you like it, you're in luck, because there's a LOT of it.

/still give Tolkien props for diving into the genre
//anyone who went over the top during the Somme gets a pass on a multitude of sins
///I don't believe anyone actually finished the Silmarillion

*raises hand in a long but well structured and purposeful fashion*
I did.

I've finished the Silmarillion about a dozen times or so.

Alphax:
I've finished the Silmarillion about a dozen times or so.

The real test is the 12-volume "History of Middle Earth".

I STILL don't believe it.

You two are going to have to pass a Turing test for me.

Of course, admitting you've read the Silmarillion means you failed the Turing test...

PunGent: I STILL don't believe it.

You two are going to have to pass a Turing test for me.

Of course, admitting you've read the Silmarillion means you failed the Turing test...

Alphax: ObscureNameHere: PunGent: InmanRoshi: ObscureNameHere:

But it is NOT Tolkien.

Couldn't agree more. George RR Martin is overrated, but he's nowhere near Tolkien overrated.

Heh, true.

Tolkien is like Beef Wellington...delicious, but it can be too rich if you eat it all the time.

Martin's work is like literary meatloaf; cheap and filling...and if you like it, you're in luck, because there's a LOT of it.

/still give Tolkien props for diving into the genre
//anyone who went over the top during the Somme gets a pass on a multitude of sins
///I don't believe anyone actually finished the Silmarillion

*raises hand in a long but well structured and purposeful fashion*
I did.

I've finished the Silmarillion about a dozen times or so.

Same here. It's odd people think of Tolkein's writing like it's Dickens or Shakespeare or something. I found LoTR and Silmarillion pretty easy reading. And half my sixth grade class read The Hobbit fer crissakes.

There's also this strange notion that LoTR is an incredibly long story. Not counting appendices, the whole thing clocks in at a little over 1000 pages which is about the size of just Storm of Swords.

cynicalbastard: Skyrmion: cynicalbastard: I just wish that Hollywood would do a decent-budget Pratchett.
Although, given what Hollywierd often does to books, I might regret that wish...

There are some British TV adaptations that are worth looking into if you haven't seen them. I think "Going Postal" was the best one.

Have seen all of 'em, even the animated (Soul Music, Wyrd Sisters.) While all pretty good, there wasn't anything done for the big screen yet. Personally, I'd love to see the Pratchett/Gaiman collaboration, Good Omens, hit the screen.

To the pTerrymobile!

MORT:

"A production company was put together and there was US and Scandinavian and European involvement, and I wrote a couple of script drafts which went down well and everything was looking fine and then the US people said 'Hey, we've been doing market research in Power Cable, Nebraska, and other centres of culture, and the Death/skeleton bit doesn't work for us, it's a bit of a downer, we have a prarm with it, so lose the skeleton.' The rest of the consortium said, did you read the script? The Americans said: sure, we LOVE it, it's GREAT, it's HIGH CONCEPT. Just lose the Death angle, guys.

"Whereupon, I'm happy to say, they were told to keep on with the medication and come back in a hundred years."

In other nice news, SkyOne is doing Sourcery some time soon, and apparently talks are happening to have Sam Raimi direct a big-screen movie version of Wee Free Men (live action or animated not specified).