what are you reading?

Final_Product said:
OK...so she pandered to the nature of children, I fail to see why I should appreciate her writing because of that.

Well thats true. Hm, the best I can say, is that different people enjoy different forms of literature and writing. In the turgid childrens fantasy genre, she is currently the standard setter.
 
speed said:
Well thats true. Hm, the best I can say, is that different people enjoy different forms of literature and writing. In the turgid childrens fantasy genre, she is currently the standard setter.

I'd read phillip pullman over her anyday. I enjoyed northern lights a great deal when I was younger, and even now it still reads quite well.
 
BasilisK said:
She disgraced the basilisk. Unforgivable.

I recently watched the first 3 movies. I didn't like the lack of imagination for a "fantasy" story. A three-headed dog guarding a passage. Hmm... something really familiar about this... And those prison guards in the third movie couldn't possibly look any more like those knights from LOTR (Nazghul, sp?). And of course the basilisk (which is NOT a damn snake), also not created by the author. Those look to be the three main beasts from the first three movies, and none are remotely original.

Maybe it's just my personal interest in cryptozoology/mythology/demonology, and I'm knit-picking, but I don't see any reason to shell out money for the books. I just think a fantasy story should be made of more creativity than piecing together used elements.

In my not-so-necessarily-educated-opinion, a great deal of fantasy borrows from other books. It is difficult to make something up which seems at least slightly original. But then I find Harry Potter to be entertaining so my opinion on this doesn't really mean much.
 
Neith said:
In my not-so-necessarily-educated-opinion, a great deal of fantasy borrows from other books. It is difficult to make something up which seems at least slightly original. But then I find Harry Potter to be entertaining so my opinion on this doesn't really mean much.

I do agree with that; After re-reading my post I may have implied that there is some other story that's completely unique, which obviously isn't the case. Not just fantasy, but any genre really. There are always elements that have been used before. The main complaint I had was just with the beastiary, mainly the basilisk and Cerberus. With the amount of imagination the author used to create a story as large as this one has become, I was a little confused to see such replicated beasts. I thought she would have done better to create something a little more original, rather than simply duplicating a Greek myth or cryptozoology.

That's just one element that stood out to me, obviously there's a lot more to the story than a few beasts. Being an interest of mine, it probably caught my attention more than most. Overall, I really don't have much against Harry Potter. Not my favorite story, but there's a lot worse out there. I found it entertaining at the least, just as you did.
 
Is anything ever unique? Is it actually possible for anyone to ever be unique, or are all writers doomed to be a bastard mix of their influences and personal feelings that ten million people have also felt?
 
When brought to that level, the answer is obviously no. Everything anyone could possibly create is a variation or advancement based on something that already exists. I don't believe anyone can create anything, literature or otherwise, that is by definition "unique", even though we (including myself) use that term however loosely to describe certain things. But on-topic, it's just entertainment. If it appeals to us, we like it, if it doesn't, we don't. I'm just tossing out personal opinions on the subject. Nobody may agree with me. I'm fine with that. I'll respect the opinions of others and make an effort to see their point of view if they make it clear enough. "Right" and "wrong" don't apply in a discussion of opinion (I know, this ended up a little off-topic from your question). :)
 
Final_Product said:
Is anything ever unique? Is it actually possible for anyone to ever be unique, or are all writers doomed to be a bastard mix of their influences and personal feelings that ten million people have also felt?

Ever since i read this discussion i keep thinking of David Hume and his damned Golden Mountain, and how nothing is truly unique, it all borrows from something else.
 
Currently:
Michel Chossudovsky - War and Globalization: The Truth about 9/11
Mika Waltari - The Egyptian (yes, still, it's a slow book)

I did read Bukowski's "Women" last week. Good, although a bit repetitive. I also decided to read all books in my shelf that I haven't read for one reason or another, so I've 14 books in queue now....
 
Harry Potter 6
I don't know its name, becouse I read it in Hungarian
I think... And The Halfblood Prince?
 
Anna Karenina by Tolstoy.

I had tried to read it when I was younger but I threw it to the side in frustration. I actually like it a lot now.

Next on the agenda are various books about WWII.
 
majdenrulz said:
Do you know Drizzt Do'Urden?
Ha, I was reading the Dark Elf Trilogy but I had to take a break to read Billy Budd by Herman Melville for school. I read the Icewind Dale Trilogy and that was great. Can't wait to pick up on the Dark Elf Trilogy.