Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
uziq
Member
+254|2029
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/us/s … rdose.html

even the kennedy’s are dropping to opiate abuse. sad.
uziq
Member
+254|2029
RIP clive james. 10 years after a terminal diagnosis isn't bad going. got some good poetry out of it, too.

i had quite a lot of time for him.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,785|5349|USA

RIP Christopher Tolkien, 95
uziq
Member
+254|2029
a stroppy whiner responsible for some very bad books.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,785|5349|USA

I'm not very familiar with his personality or public interactions. But I do remember this bit:

Christopher Tolkien to New Line: The Hobbit is Mine!
https://filmschoolrejects.com/christoph … t-is-mine/
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+734|5262|United States of America
Mofucka sounding like Saruman-possessed Theoden.
uziq
Member
+254|2029
i mean, tolkien was a bad writer and an old pedant, but at least he came up with something.

his son seemed to inherit the pedantry and dryness of personality but without any of the talent.

there's a certain type of literary executor that publishers, academics, producers, etc. all abhor: and he was one of them. just squatting on the intellectual property, adding nothing of value, and generally being a sod. james joyce's and dickens' estate are, or have been, in similarly miserable hands.

Last edited by uziq (2020-01-17 07:12:17)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,678|4683|eXtreme to the maX
Why was Tolkien a 'bad writer'?

" james joyce's and dickens' estate are, or have been, in similarly miserable hands." Good, I haven't read any Joyce but apparently its also shit.
Epstein didn't kill himself
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,785|5349|USA

"RANT: The Silmarillion is not "dry"!!" -via reddit
https://www.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/co … is_not_dry

"Got a negative opinion of any of the material? Scandalous!" -LotR community

Perfect example:
It's dry if you have the reading attention-span of a kid - who wouldn't necessarily be able to judge artistic merit in the first place. This isn't racking on anyone who doesn't like Silmarillion […]
Sure it isn't belittling anyone who doesn't like it. It's just calling them out for "low attention spans" and the inability to judge artistic merit. wth
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,844|5209|949

fandoms are stupid.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,678|4683|eXtreme to the maX
So are anti-fandoms.
Epstein didn't kill himself
SuperJail Warden
Member
+300|2297

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

fandoms are stupid.
Says the guy who takes pictures with rappers and follows hip-hop.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,844|5209|949

haha what?

i don't make my identity about hip hop. I don't see it as hypocritical that I am a huge homer sports fan, because i'm not making my life about it. I don't live and die by what some sportswriter says about my team, or follow athletes on twitter. I'm not writing 1500 word medium articles on how bobafett's mandalorian armor should actually be a different shade of mauve because that's how it originally appeared 40 years ago.

There's nothing wrong with enjoying something - people should be happy to support something that gives them joy. But realize the creators, the athletes, the actors, the writers don't owe you as a fan anything.

@dilbert: yeah, whatever. Antifandom...lol
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,678|4683|eXtreme to the maX
There are plenty of anti-fandoms, hating on things which don't matter for no coherent reason.

So far Uzique has written 925 words critiquing a film he hasn't seen, for example.
Epstein didn't kill himself
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,785|5349|USA

That doesn't really make him a part of an anti-fandom. Cats isn't the most critically loved stage production to begin with, and the bizarre design choices mentioned in that thread speak for themselves.

If they were going CGI, they should have just made them cats. Not like Lion King remake, more like a Dreamworks thing or something. Instead, we have you and macbeth drooling over furries.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,678|4683|eXtreme to the maX
Have you seen it?
Epstein didn't kill himself
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,785|5349|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

Have you seen it?
I don't have to. It's like with Ghostbusters 2016. I can make an educated guess.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,678|4683|eXtreme to the maX

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Have you seen it?
I don't have to. It's like with Ghostbusters 2016. I can make an educated guess.
LOL OK So you've jumped on the anti-fandom bandwagon with everyone else.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/a4b24fa1c3f439ebc65c7142fbd4797a/tenor.gif?itemid=7497049

Whats more retarded, liking something you have experience of or hating something you have no experience of?
Epstein didn't kill himself
SuperJail Warden
Member
+300|2297

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

haha what?

i don't make my identity about hip hop. I don't see it as hypocritical that I am a huge homer sports fan, because i'm not making my life about it. I don't live and die by what some sportswriter says about my team, or follow athletes on twitter. I'm not writing 1500 word medium articles on how bobafett's mandalorian armor should actually be a different shade of mauve because that's how it originally appeared 40 years ago.

There's nothing wrong with enjoying something - people should be happy to support something that gives them joy. But realize the creators, the athletes, the actors, the writers don't owe you as a fan anything.

@dilbert: yeah, whatever. Antifandom...lol
Team sports has to be the dumbest shit you can follow. My opinion of anyone drops a little when they start talking about sports. I'm sure the part of my brain that would have been devoted to sports is instead occupied by something frivolous too like Magic the Gathering but at least that is constantly changing and evolving. Why would anyone want to watch people try to get a ball into a tall hole for 1000 hours of their life?
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,785|5349|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Have you seen it?
I don't have to. It's like with Ghostbusters 2016. I can make an educated guess.
LOL OK So you've jumped on the anti-fandom bandwagon with everyone else.

TODO: FIX GAL IMAGES

Whats more retarded, liking something you have experience of or hating something you have no experience of?
Seen the trailers, seen the clips, seen screencaps, seen you and macbeth drool over cgi catgirl pinups. It doesn't look very good and I don't see a need to waste two hours of my life to confirm that. How does that make me any part of this "anti-fandom bandwagon?"

Is this like the second thread you've gotten yourself all worked up because someone doesn't want to see Cats, or did I miss one.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,678|4683|eXtreme to the maX
But you haven't seen the actual film.

I just find it remarkable how many people jump on the various anti-bandwagons for no coherent reason.
Epstein didn't kill himself
RTHKI
mmmf mmmf mmmf
+1,656|5314|Oxferd

SuperJail Warden wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

haha what?

i don't make my identity about hip hop. I don't see it as hypocritical that I am a huge homer sports fan, because i'm not making my life about it. I don't live and die by what some sportswriter says about my team, or follow athletes on twitter. I'm not writing 1500 word medium articles on how bobafett's mandalorian armor should actually be a different shade of mauve because that's how it originally appeared 40 years ago.

There's nothing wrong with enjoying something - people should be happy to support something that gives them joy. But realize the creators, the athletes, the actors, the writers don't owe you as a fan anything.

@dilbert: yeah, whatever. Antifandom...lol
Team sports has to be the dumbest shit you can follow. My opinion of anyone drops a little when they start talking about sports. I'm sure the part of my brain that would have been devoted to sports is instead occupied by something frivolous too like Magic the Gathering but at least that is constantly changing and evolving. Why would anyone want to watch people try to get a ball into a tall hole for 1000 hours of their life?
ah yes, cause sports never change.
https://i.imgur.com/tMvdWFG.png
uziq
Member
+254|2029

Dilbert_X wrote:

Why was Tolkien a 'bad writer'?

" james joyce's and dickens' estate are, or have been, in similarly miserable hands." Good, I haven't read any Joyce but apparently its also shit.
those are not controversial opinions. tolkien's writing is very dry, flat, and endlessly descriptive. he was not a novelist by trade, he was an etymologist/linguist of old english/norse, what in the 19th century would have been termed grandly a 'philologist'. his world building is done with a metric tonnage of words, words, words. his sentences do not vary. his characters all talk in the same voice. his plots/arcs and dramatic conceits are all just taken from old norse sagas or epics. the only difference being, of course, the technical differences of the many imagined languages he came up with. but putting 4 new languages and alphabets, alien to the reader, into a book isn't literature, it's an autistic brain dump, a tweedy oxford don depositing the contents of his study or writing desk's top-right drawer onto the page.

tolkien was criticised for his style then, he was criticised during the 'boom' of popular fantasy writing in the 1970s and 1980s, he was criticised by sci-fi writers and cyberpunks, etc. read a page of william gibson's 'neuromancer' and a page from 'the Silmarillion' and tell me who is the more engaging and exciting stylist (somehow i doubt you've read either). here's how a writer interested in language opens a novel: 'The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel.'. here's how tolkien opens: 'There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called lluvatar; and he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, that were the offspring of his thought ...' even with the intentionally old testament genesis vibe, this shit continues for about THIRTY pages. all of these entirely made-up names are no doubt interesting for their etymological roots, and i'm sure 'Eru' means something in sanskrit that would warm an erudite oxford prof's cheeks with recognition, but good writing it is emphatically not.

not to mention the fact that he gave to fantasy a cast-iron conservatism, everything determined, like his close associate c.s. lewis, by some predetermined view of the world that was hardly imaginative and more a re-dressing of some very old ideas (pastoral-sentimental pre-ww1 guff about england in tolkien, high-anglican god toss with lewis).

but can you really say you've read 1,100 pages of lord of the rings and enjoyed it? that it jumped off the page? that you sat in an armchair in a state of rapt attention, wondering just what was over that 135th escarpment awaiting your plucky fellowship?

btw joyce's estate was controlled in a different way, in that his grandson controlled strictly what was permissible research and what topics constituted libel. it's certainly never hindered the publication of his books. they are all (justly) celebrated as some of the best works of the 20th century.

Last edited by uziq (2020-01-18 00:20:35)

uziq
Member
+254|2029

Dilbert_X wrote:

But you haven't seen the actual film.

I just find it remarkable how many people jump on the various anti-bandwagons for no coherent reason.
dilbert: i haven't hardly heard of this joyce chap but he MUST be shit because all the critics and university professors rather like him.

i know you're being facetious in this instance, but your posts here in the past have been full of this sort of stuff. and it's fairly transparent that what you do is kneejerk-reactionary dismiss anything considered 'high' culture, because it in some self-conceited way impinges on your enjoyment of taylor swift dressed as a cat or your flip-pad full of teen popstars' autobiographies, gathered patiently in the rain after about 30 years of stadium gigs. anyone who dislikes what you like, e.g. stuff for tweens and for absentminded au pairs to leave on with their charges, must be part of some conspiracy of the 'cuuuultuuured' to make you feel small. you're forever railing against 'literati'.

though i guess you're right in that you have 'a coherent reason' rather than no good coherent reason: it's just that yours is somehow pathetic in a way that makes me feel achingly sad for you.

Whats more retarded, liking something you have experience of or hating something you have no experience of?
Q.E.D.

i recommend you read dubliners, the short story collection. it's really very good.

Last edited by uziq (2020-01-18 00:34:31)

uziq
Member
+254|2029

Dilbert_X wrote:

There are plenty of anti-fandoms, hating on things which don't matter for no coherent reason.

So far Uzique has written 925 words critiquing a film he hasn't seen, for example.
i don't hate on Cats, that implies that i actually give a damn either way. the original poems hardly stir my interest, and they're by a poet i revere. the musical has never caused me any thought or consternation. the film certainly hasn't. it's just a ludicrous concept for a franchise/adaptation of any kind. no surprises that i know i won't like a bunch of famous celebrities thrown together in a CGI blender to recite nonsense poems.

an 'anti-fandom'? i type at like 200 wpm. a few paragraphs on why cats is a ridiculous premise does not constitute an anti-fandom. stop being so butthurt all your life. i'm sure the critical reception of the film and its box office performance are all senseless, 'incoherent' phenomena.

Last edited by uziq (2020-01-18 00:35:49)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2020 Jeff Minard