Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 7543821" data-attributes="member: 6704184">Colville put up a video about the Lord of The Ring series recently. [video=youtube;o2U6RG4HOwM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2U6RG4HOwM[/video]In it, he complains quite a lot about Tolkien's &quot;over-written&quot; passages, and about the &quot;flowery&quot; language. Now, to be fair, I don't like Colville, and perhaps this wasn't the best choice of video for me to try and give him a second chance to win me over. However, while I think he mostly gets the series overall, and understands the importance of the Tom Bombadil sequence, I think he is completely wrong in a few areas. He reads a beautiful passage aloud, while constantly stopping to mock&nbsp; the...descriptions? Because those are a bad thing? And the counting&nbsp; thing he does, like...oh no! The lanterns are described as swinging, and&nbsp; the candles are described! At one point he complains that we don't need&nbsp; to be told what candles do, and it makes me wonder if he has ever been&nbsp; in a candlelit room. Because they don't always shine brightly, Matt.&nbsp; They really don't. It tells us what the room looks like to tell&nbsp; us that we have both lantern and candle light, and that the candles are&nbsp; burning bright, not low. It also helps inform us of how the room likely&nbsp; feels and even smells. It puts the reader inside of the room. He cringes at the description of Goldberry. Why wouldn't the reader want a clear image of her, Matt? There are a thousand greens, and silver like dew drops is a specific appearance. Her belt is decorated in gold and gem flowers. He understands that placing her entirely in terms of nature is important, but can't see the value in beautifully written description to get there? this sort of thing makes me inclined to believe that some people are just bad readers, but nothing is that simple. Perhaps the prominence of post modern prose has warped the perceptions of the average reader? We get taught at some point that words shouldn't be beautifully constructed, but plain and utilitarian, and that is a lie. It's nonsense. There is nothing wrong with plainly &quot;spoken&quot; prose, but it certainly isn't superior to JRRT or Dickens. Anyway, what do y'all think? Do you agree with Matt, or would a less &quot;flowery&quot; LoTR be poorer for it?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="doctorbadwolf, post: 7543821, member: 6704184"] Colville put up a video about the Lord of The Ring series recently. [video=youtube;o2U6RG4HOwM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2U6RG4HOwM[/video] In it, he complains quite a lot about Tolkien's "over-written" passages, and about the "flowery" language. Now, to be fair, I don't like Colville, and perhaps this wasn't the best choice of video for me to try and give him a second chance to win me over. However, while I think he mostly gets the series overall, and understands the importance of the Tom Bombadil sequence, I think he is completely wrong in a few areas. He reads a beautiful passage aloud, while constantly stopping to mock the...descriptions? Because those are a bad thing? And the counting thing he does, like...oh no! The lanterns are described as swinging, and the candles are described! At one point he complains that we don't need to be told what candles do, and it makes me wonder if he has ever been in a candlelit room. Because they don't always shine brightly, Matt. They really don't. It tells us what the [I]room[/I] looks like to tell us that we have both lantern and candle light, and that the candles are burning bright, not low. It also helps inform us of how the room likely feels and even smells. It puts the reader inside of the room. He cringes at the description of Goldberry. Why wouldn't the reader want a clear image of her, Matt? There are a thousand greens, and silver like dew drops is a specific appearance. Her belt is decorated in gold and gem flowers. He understands that placing her entirely in terms of nature is important, but can't see the value in beautifully written description to get there? this sort of thing makes me inclined to believe that some people are just bad [I]readers[/I], but nothing is that simple. Perhaps the prominence of post modern prose has warped the perceptions of the average reader? We get taught at some point that words shouldn't be beautifully constructed, but plain and utilitarian, and that is a lie. It's nonsense. There is nothing wrong with plainly "spoken" prose, but it certainly isn't superior to JRRT or Dickens. Anyway, what do y'all think? Do you agree with Matt, or would a less "flowery" LoTR be poorer for it? [/QUOTE]

Verification