INN OF LOST SOULS: general chit-chat thread

[zoom]

All I can think of right now: the dead parrot of monty python!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218

[Jan]

So as far as I understand it, Sleepless is the Chosen One, isn't he? Congratulations! And show us the way!

*prepares a sandal*

*prepares also a gourd (just in case)*

Now, as I think about it, there was also a crucifying involved, wasn't it? It's going to be cool. Although I prefer stoning (Ameena, of course, can't attend).

[Gambit37]

In other news: I'm very late to this party, but I only just learned that Martin Freeman will play Bilbo Baggins in the Hobbit film.

I'm sooooooooo disappointed. He's just so wrong for the part. He's not a flexible actor and is only good at playing... Martin Freeman.

[zoom]

'The site I just visited quoted Jackson saying : Freeman was born to play bilbo! And I must say he looks kind of like a bilbo to me. Add a mask and there you go. I guess Flexibility in acting isn´t that important in this case ..

[Jan]

I don't know Freeman too well, but flexibility is important in any acting, and particularly for Bilbo in that case - his character evolves in the story very much. The last thing the movie needs is a stone face of the main character. And the fact that you look like Bilbo doesn't mean that you'll be good in the role. Anyway, we'll see. Making the Hobbit, IMHO, is going to be a real challenge for Peter Jackson et al. - much greater than the LOTR. This is really going to be interesting.

[zoom]

In the end of the day we have to wait and see - or: watch the movie.
In essence I think the Hobbit is an even cooler story than TLotR! Jan, why do you think it will be a real challenge . It is not clear to me


Maybe Gambit is right to be sceptical.

Anyways, I think - I believe- Peter Jackson and the others will make a good job. They should know what they are doing!!
for TLotR they chose mainly unknown actors.
I do not know martin freeman(first thought it would be morgan freeman!) Gambit maybe you just know too many actors!

[beowuuf]

You could have argued that Elisha Wood was not a name to associate with Frodo, and yet it turned out ok. Martin Freeman is hunourous, can play the fish out of water brit fine (he was ok as Arthur Dent, even if the film sucked), so I assume he will be fine as Bilbo.

[Jan]

In essence I think the Hobbit is an even cooler story than TLotR!

I agree completely. I loved it so much when I was a kid and I still love it. Of course, the LOTR is a much larger and more complex story, but somehow, I prefer the Hobbit. You maybe surprised, but from the LOTR, I enjoy mostly the Book one (the Old Forest, Barrow-downs, Tom Bombadil, Bree, Weathertop, etc.). Actually, A Shortcut to Mushrooms and The Old Forest are my most favourite chapters in all three books.

Jan, why do you think it will be a real challenge

Because it's "just" a fairy tale. IMHO, many people (who haven't read the book) might expect "something like the LOTR" (and actually some of my friends - believe or not, there are people who haven't read the books - think that it will be in more or less the same style). And I'm a bit afraid that Jackson et al. might be tempted to kind of follow these expectations. I'm not saying they're going to do it - they just may be tempted. You know, stress the battle(s), make it more epic, put more stress on the Ring, make the Elves and dwarfs and Gandalf more serious, etc. I don't know, it's just a thought. I would just like the film to be a rather small-scale fairy tale, not an epic Hollywood movie, if you know what I mean.

[raixel]

GAH! *Slams hands over ears and runs away*

I hate LOTR/The Hobbit!

*Prepares for rotten fruit chucking*

And Im a total fantasy dork and have been since I was 2. Maybe its cuz I grew up with DnD and read the Moorcock novels first, followed by Dragonlance and then other great fantasy authors of the early 80s, but I dont understand the nerdy obsession with those damn books. Seriously, I am a tiny tattooed ultra-dork (obviously! I hang out on here!) but I could never get over the (to me) clunky/old fashioned writing style. Everyone would always be like 'youre into fantasy, have you read these' as a kid and give them to me. I tried to enjoy them, I really did. But I hate them and they bore me to this day, nevermind when I was 6.

It wasnt until the movies came out that I actually appreciated the story for what it was, if only because it didnt sound like I was reading a Victorian era english novel. (no offense to you Britsh people on here. I love Victorian writing, just dont want it in my fantasy novels!)

So, one question....Something ive never been able to figure out--WHY do people like these books so much? Most of the answers I get are because "I didnt know fantasy existed before I read them." So, is there anyone on here who had read other fantasy books before those? Do they hate them or at least think theyre just OK instead of AMAZING? Do they sound better when translated in another language?...

Do I still have friends on here now that Ive admitted that?

[beowuuf]

By reading Moorcock first, and getting in to D&D so early, you've jumped the step where you've read the LOTR in isolation. Tolkien created the world we all take for granted, and created it richly. Of course if you come back to it at the tail end it's going to seem 'meh'. He was a professor detailing a history of the world first, and so his writing isn't as slick or tight as some. And it is an old novel, so is just paced differently to modern stuff anyway without the very scholoarly love of the world. No harm in not in to it, but it is well crafted and the template everyone has either built upon or fought against. Just like trying to get in to a groundbreaking show much later in years, you probably do need to experience it first and early to get hooked, or else it's too easy to pick fault now.

The same is true for old Doctor Who, Snoopy, old Star Trek, etc

I wonder what people's reactions are to going back to someone like Moorcock if they didn't read them early in life like we have? You might find there's the same lack of respect for those novels too!

[raixel]

So, beo. You basically said what everyone else has said 'It was the first fantasy novel I ever read'. I guess then if you know fantasy exists and then someone offers you those books, they come across as badly written then? And it wasnt like I tried to read them way later in life. I have been able to read at a high school level from the time I was 2, the first time I picked up LOTR I was 6(1986). It bored the ever living crap outta me then. At that time I was reading Moorcock and Dragonlance and watching my dad and his buddies play CRPGS and D&D. It wasnt until I was about 14 that I got to finish it, and sort of appreciate the story. But by then I was reading stuff like Mercedes Lackey and Andre Norton and Marion Zimmer Bradley, and honestly it just seemed trite and clunky. And it wasnt until the movies came out that i really really appreciated it. Its the writing style that kills me.

It reminds me of something a professor once told me. He was a linguistic anthro PHD, spoke/read like 5 languages fluently and spent his life studying ancient/dead languages like Latin and Middle English. He said (paraphrasing) :

Anyone who says they understand every single word in shakespeare is lying. I dont, and Ive spent my life studying this stuff. Perhaps if I took notes and took them home and spent time translating them I would. But the average person has been told they must appreciate it in its "true" form, so they go and "enjoy" it. People would enjoy it so much more if it was translated into Modern English. I didnt enjoy it until I went and saw it in France. It had been translated into Modern French, and was amazing. But because in the English speaking world we have this belief that it cant be tampered with to be "true" shakespeare, it is relegated to the dusty halls of academia.

So, anyone who has read LOTR in a different language. Did it have a 'clunky' or 'archaic' writing style? Or was it translated well?

[Gambit37]

I have been able to read at a high school level from the time I was 2

Forgive me but that does seem a bold claim. Were you a super-prodigy or hyperlexic (or indeed, both?)

So, anyone who has read LOTR in a different language. Did it have a 'clunky' or 'archaic' writing style? Or was it translated well?

I think this an interesting line of discussion. I love LOTR but agree some of the language can get in the way of the story. I also wonder if modern translations are easier to enjoy?

[raixel]

I honestlly cant tell you why. All I know is I was born with(or aquired due to a real bad allergic reaction to a DPT immunization at about 3 months) partial paralysis on the left side of my body from the neck down. I couldnt walk till I was almost 4 but could speak in complete sentences at a year and read when I was two. By the time I was three I had read Comptons encyclopedia. Im not just saying it for the hell of it, its the damn truth. I believe that the reason why it happened is because most children at that age are learning how to move their bodies, and I only had half a working body, so I my brain did something...else. Believe me, I wish I had been born with a fully working body and not this weird ability, woulda saved me a lotta pain(physical and mental) when I was young, took me until I was in my early 20s to be comfortable with it (and still a lot of annoyance today with twitch mechanic video games, why I naturally gravitate to RPGs, i guess)

Ive gotten so used to it, that I forget what it sounds like when I say that to random people. I didnt mean it like I was bragging, just meant it like I had read a LOT in my life.

*goes away now cuz she doesnt really like talking about personal stuff on the net*

[Gambit37]

That's really, genuinely amazing. I apologise if my query sounded blunt, it was a genuine question: I was intrigued by the fact you could read at 2. As you say, most children do not develop such abilities at such an early age, so I was a bit sceptical. I apologise if I made you feel uncomfortable at all. Your gift does rather explain why you found LOTR trite after starting with other fantasy -- perfectly understandable now.

[raixel]

No offense taken.

[Jan]

So, anyone who has read LOTR in a different language. Did it have a 'clunky' or 'archaic' writing style? Or was it translated well?

Well, the Czech translation is relatively modern (Hobbit ca 1980 and the LOTR ca 1990). Of course, Czech is much poorer and simpler language (in terms of vocabulary, not in grammar) when compared to English, so the richness of the books is kind of smaller, especially of the LOTR. I have no problems with reading Hobbit in English, but I can only read LOTR with a dictionary - without it, I can understand the meaning of course, but only about 2/3 of the vocabulary. How many words does English have for so simple things like sunrise / sunset!

So the Czech translations is relatively modern and normally readable (I guess), but there are some issues, e.g.:

1. Translation of the Hobbit is too childish. This can be demonstrated by many examples, but names are typical. E.g. Smaug, in English evoking smoke (I think), is translated as "Šmak", meaning "tasty" or "chomp(y)" in a very childish way. You can feel no fear form the name. Or Baggins is translated as "Pytlík" (i.e. a very small bag - with some... erm... erotic connotations), which generally sounds extremely childish too. I could go on.

2. In LOTR, there were problems with translating Rohirric. Most names are kept as they are in English, but that just sounds weird in Czech. It should evoke something historical and half-forgotten (Anglo-Saxon language etc.) but it just sounds strangely in Czech.

I could go on. Generally, many names and words evoking something in English were kind of "lost in translation" to Czech, evoking either something else or just nothing.

All I know is I was born with(or aquired due to a real bad allergic reaction to a DPT immunization at about 3 months) partial paralysis

I would say I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure you don't want to hear that, so I'll say nothing. I just always feel so.. guilty, or stupid, with my small "problems".

[raixel]

Wait, wait wait... From what you are saying, Jan, Baggins was translated as something like scrotum?! As far as the names go, it sounds like they were going with the sounds sometimes and the meaning others, but they tried to write it for a child.

Oh, geez. Theres nothing to be sorry for. I am who I am and have never been any other way, so I dont 'miss it' or anything.

[Jan]

Wait, wait wait... From what you are saying, Jan, Baggins was translated as something like scrotum?!

Yeah. But a small one. Of course, it's just one of the meanings of the word.

As far as the names go, it sounds like they were going with the sounds sometimes and the meaning others

Exactly.

but they tried to write it for a child.

Yeah, for the Hobbit. I suspect the translator hadn't read LOTR (or anything else from JRRT), so she thought the Hobbit was "just another" fairy tale. But the translations are sometimes funny and witty. For instance, Beorn is "Medděd", from "Medvěd" (bear) and "děd" (old-fashioned for grandfather). Anyway, again, it sounds too kindly and friendly.

[raixel]

Hm, perhaps if they had been named Bilbo and Frodo Small-Scrotum I woulda liked the books a little better

[oh_brother]

So, is there anyone on here who had read other fantasy books before those? Do they hate them or at least think theyre just OK instead of AMAZING?

My name is Oh Brother and I...and I...uumm...I didn't think LoTR was that great. Ah, feels good to get that off my chest! In fact, I never read Return of the King.

I read the Hobbit when I was 7, and I loved it. But Lord of the Rings bored me a bit. I found it very drawn out and too long. Read the first two after the Hobbit, but then stopped. I never tried to read it again.

[beowuuf]

Funnily, I found certain parts of LOTR great, and certain parts dragged. The last time I read it, I found both extremes went to the middle. The great bits were ok, but the long dragging bits no longer dragged. Odd, really!

[raixel]

Yeah. Overall the Hobbit IS better than the other 3. Meaning I actually finished it and went 'that was OK' instead of a painful slog through boredom. I'm sorry but the part in the first one when they first go to the elves and theres all those names reads like the part in the bible where it goes "And Jehosephat begat Ham, and Ham begat Bacon..." and all that. Like OB, I never finished the last one.

See though! Its like if you are a proud 'dork' or 'nerd' you are automatically supposed to like them. Hey, OB, lets go start an 'I didnt like LOTR anonymous' group.

[Jan]

So I guess you didn't read The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales, did you? I mean if you find LOTR boring, you would definitely fall asleep or even unconscious when trying to read those two.

[Roquen]

I'll unlurk for a moment to say: I found them all very dull.

[raixel]

Ugh. One of my close friends is REALLY into LOTR. LIke to the point that he had 'If you can read this youre a nerd' in elvish spray painted on a plaque hanging above his door, and hand painted maps of middle earth hanging on the walls ect. HE found the Simarillion boring(but still read it because its MIDDLE EARTH). And this is someone who can go off for HOURS about the series.

So no, I didnt even try.

Roquen:

Aha! Thank you for taking this brave step and possibly earning snorts of derision from your fellow dorks. Did/have you read it in French or English? If you have read it in French, how was the translation?

[ian_scho]

Oh wow. Thank you all for letting me know about how dull The Simarillion is. I never finished it (after having read LOTR) and put it down to the fact that I was still too young to understand what was going on... I believe it was Tolkien's son that finished it off, plus he was forced to fill in gaping holes in the work.

[beowuuf]

Yeah, i gave up on the silmarrilion too

[zoom]

I read the simarillion(or was it silmarillion?) The scope of the book is not the one of a party of adventurers but more of kingdoms, wars and so on.
One story was quite nice, some kind of a love story with a sad ending or some difficulties involved.(elfish woman , human male?)
The rest was sometimes hard to digest & read
The stuff in there is not to be taken very seriously, loosely arranged , not necessarily connected stories.
It´s additional "fluff" to Middle Earth, sometimes a bit over the top which you can happily leave out.

I did read the english "original" tLotR (at age 19), not a translation, so I cannot comment on the german one. But I guess it is ok.
It takes a while to get into the book but when you do then there are very nice parts to it. I guess I overall prefer the hobbit.. :roll

[Jan]

So far I've read The Hobbit about 5 times, the LOTR about 3 times, and The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales about 2 times, I think.

Of course, The Silmarillion is a collection of fictional history stories, kind of serious, it's not a fancy fairy tale. I can't say I love it too much, but I still find it interesting.

But, after all, I'm a strange guy, who reads everything he finds.

[Roquen]

raixel: I read in English.

Jan: I've read LOTR 3 times as well. Each "reread" I convinced myself that I must be missing something. Hopefully I won't make that mistake again. To be fair, I found The Hobbit OK.