 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:37:40 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Gail Shaw wrote:
>
>> They're good. Read Magician. Seriously. It's an excellent book.
>> Technically it's the first of a trilogy, but it stands alone quite
>> well.
>
> Actually, I recall a number of people urging me to read The Hobbit.
> After a chapter or two I was bored stupid. Watching paint dry would have
> been more fun.
>
> Oddly, the LotR films are really quite good. I don't know how they
> managed to get so much excitement out of such a dull series of books...
Well, I found the books to be good, but they are heavy on exposition. It
translated to films well, I think, because instead of exposition on what
the mountains looked like, we just had a picture to look at. The scouts
did very well, I thought, in scouting locations that evoked the images of
the books.
I hope they do get the Hobbit film(s) made.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> The scouts
> did very well, I thought, in scouting locations that evoked the images of
> the books.
Yes. Especially the place for Edoras was a superb find. (Only some
buildings were added with CGI, all the rest is real scenery.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:59:50 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> The scouts
>> did very well, I thought, in scouting locations that evoked the images
>> of the books.
>
> Yes. Especially the place for Edoras was a superb find. (Only some
> buildings were added with CGI, all the rest is real scenery.)
Yes, I thought that was one of the most outstanding locations they had.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Actually, I recall a number of people urging me to read The Hobbit.
> After a chapter or two I was bored stupid. Watching paint dry would have
> been more fun.
>
> Oddly, the LotR films are really quite good. I don't know how they
> managed to get so much excitement out of such a dull series of books...
>
I feel that the style of The Hobbit is a little different from that of
the LotR books. I still prefer the LotR even after reading each many
times...
I actually I had to read The Hobbit at school and I did not like it at
all (as nearly everything I had to read at school actually ;-) ). Only
some years later I stumbled by accident on The Two Towers somewhere in
the basement, and got caught immediately... To the point of digging out
the other two volumes :-)
I read The Hobbit again later, and even now I enjoy it mostly for the
connections with the rest of Tolkien's books, not really on its own. So
don't judge the whole series based on The Hobbit, in my opinion...
--
Vincent
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:480f9338$1@news.povray.org...
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:16:45 +0200, Gail Shaw wrote:
>
> > Let's see, in the last week and a half, I've reread Daughter of the
> > Empire, Servant of the Empire, Mistress of the Empire (by Raymond E
> > Feist and Janny Wurts) and 3/4 reread Magician (Raymond E Feist)
>
> I need to reread those again - have you read Fairie Tale? Very well
> written, but also quite scary (particularly if you have kids the age of
> the kids in the book). I think that one is one of Feist's best.
No. I have a friend threatening to lend me the book. So far she hasn't made
good on the threat.
Note to self - raid the bookshelf next time I visit.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:480f8ff1$1@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw wrote:
>
> > They're good. Read Magician. Seriously. It's an excellent book.
Technically
> > it's the first of a trilogy, but it stands alone quite well.
>
> Actually, I recall a number of people urging me to read The Hobbit.
> After a chapter or two I was bored stupid. Watching paint dry would have
> been more fun.
Tolkien's writings are expansive. Lots of details, lots of words. Some
people enjoy that, some don't.
Give the Lord of the Rings a try. You may enjoy it more than the Hobbit (I
do), but you may not. Do not even try reading the Silmarillion. It reads
like a history text book.
I love the Lord of the Rings story, but I struggle to read the second book
in The Two Towers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> Note to self - raid the bookshelf next time I visit.
Oh, I'm sorry - am I making you hungry? :-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:480f9ea8$1@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw wrote:
>
> > Note to self - raid the bookshelf next time I visit.
>
> Oh, I'm sorry - am I making you hungry? :-)
Huh?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:03:00 +0200, Vincent Le Chevalier wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Actually, I recall a number of people urging me to read The Hobbit.
>> After a chapter or two I was bored stupid. Watching paint dry would
>> have been more fun.
>>
>> Oddly, the LotR films are really quite good. I don't know how they
>> managed to get so much excitement out of such a dull series of books...
>>
>>
> I feel that the style of The Hobbit is a little different from that of
> the LotR books. I still prefer the LotR even after reading each many
> times...
Well, the Hobbit was written as a children's story, IIRC....LOTR wasn't.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:17:09 +0200, Gail Shaw wrote:
> Do not even try reading the Silmarillion. It reads like a history text
> book.
Ain't *that* the truth. I found it to be very difficult to read - ended
up starting it 3 times before I read it all the way through.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
