Books you hate

[Piscivore]

Nopers, that's not how I understood it.

Harry's death and return were under very special circumstances, and the culmination of, well, pretty much his entire life. His mother's sacrifice gave him the protection that held Voldemort at bay, and defeated him, up until the final confrontation.

Anyone else struck by the killing curse was worm food, and if Harry was hit with it by anyone else, he also would have been pushing dasies too.

That's the way I understood it too. The killing curse killed Voldemort's horcrux inside Harry, but Harry's soul got dragged "over the border" so to speak as well. Either because there were two souls crossing over- or maybe because of some help by Dumbledore- he was able to "go back". No one else would be granted this opportunity.

And do not overlook the Xtian parallels- Harry is Christ: he dies, literally ridding the world of the taint of (this specific) evil, and comes back.

 

[RobRoy]

That's the way I understood it too. The killing curse killed Voldemort's horcrux inside Harry, but Harry's soul got dragged "over the border" so to speak as well. Either because there were two souls crossing over- or maybe because of some help by Dumbledore- he was able to "go back". No one else would be granted this opportunity.

I think you just summed up nicely what I've been trying to say all along. Thanks!

And do not overlook the Xtian parallels- Harry is Christ: he dies, literally ridding the world of the taint of (this specific) evil, and comes back.

Oh definately. Rowling, in the Harry Potter series, is all about myths, and she does a very nice job incorporating them into each story. There is not too much new that she makes up in regards to the fantastical that she uses, but she remains, mostly, true to them and their origins.

There's more than a little Christ in Harry. He is generally non-violent, returns to the Hogwarts/Jerusalem for the final confrontation, gives himself over willingly for sacrifice, and thus frees the magical world from that oppression.

I would argue, however, that he does not rid the world of taint. One of the themes of Rowling is that there are always evil folk willing to do evil things. There was in Dumbledore's time, and there will be again.

 

[Madalch]

A book called "Rosehaven". About the third chapter from the end, the characters suddenly remember that they were supposed to be finding out what "Rosehaven" is. So they do.

The blurb on the back gushes about "richly-drawn characters such as Gilbert the Goat." A goat is not a character- all it does is give milk and eat a piece of leather.

 

[gumboot]

Want a look at this thread?

I never even got as far as plot. Here's the first three sentences of the book:

"Wind howled through the night, carrying a scent that would change the world. A tall Shade lifted his head and sniffed the air. He looked human except for his crimson hair and maroon eyes."

By the time I read this I had already given up.

 

[FSM]

Tiny little interesting derail:

I read the last few posts about Harry Potter and Star Wars and Eragon... and I started thinking: here's the formula...



young person (under 20) who is living a very humble life, perhaps while being oppressed by others or mocked by others-- but who knows he is somehow SPECIAL underneath it all

+

A coming of age incident where the young person is tested and it bears out that he is INDEED the special one

+

A wise guide to lead the young person into heavy introspection and ultimately glory

+

The death/and or dying or mortal peril of this wise person

+

HUGE self-sacrificing act by the young person

+

A defeat of enemies of some kind

+

A 'rebirth' of some kind

=

Neo
Jesus
Eragon
Harry Potter
Luke Skywalker
Aslan? (Narnia)
Charlie in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Frodo Baggins (? this one is off a bit)
Buffy the Vampire Slayer (I'm serious...I think it fits.)



I'm sure there's a fancy name for this type of formula somewhere, and I'm sure the ideas are so general that it could fit many stories.

Any additions to the list?

 

[Piscivore]

There's more than a little Christ in Harry. He is generally non-violent, returns to the Hogwarts/Jerusalem for the final confrontation, gives himself over willingly for sacrifice, and thus frees the magical world from that oppression.

I would argue, however, that he does not rid the world of taint. One of the themes of Rowling is that there are always evil folk willing to do evil things. There was in Dumbledore's time, and there will be again.

Yet another way Harry Potter is superior to Xtianity.

 

[RobRoy]

Yet another way Harry Potter is superior to Xtianity.

Agreed. There was a cartoon out at least a decade back that showed Jesus sitting at a desk with a counting machine and rolls and rolls of paper with figures on them. Jesus was looking down at the tally and seemed quite distraught. The caption read, "Jesus figures he shouldn't have died for everyone sins and just made them responsible for thier own."

 

[Piscivore]

I'm sure there's a fancy name for this type of formula somewhere, and I'm sure the ideas are so general that it could fit many stories.

Indeed there is.

 

[Sunni Man]

Off the top of my head, the books that I really, really didn't enjoy were The Kite Runner, The Red Tent, and The Lovely Bones. I do have to say though that The Red Tent did start me on my path towards atheism. I went back to the old testament and reread the story of Dinah, and realized that it was such revolting rubbish.

I agree about the "Kite Runner". What a piece of contrived trash!

 

[FSM]

Indeed there is.

Well, isn't that handy? And fancysmancy sounding! monomyth... hmm.

All right, well e'rybody ignore my half page above of excited sound and fury signifying absolutely dick...

ETA: Hey everybody! I just had this brilliant idea! What if somebody wrote down lines on paper and then got different people to act out those lines, maybe on a, I don't know, a STAGE or something! Wouldn't that be awesome! (Patent pending.)

 

[Piscivore]

Well, isn't that handy? And fancysmancy sounding! monomyth... hmm.

All right, well e'rybody ignore my half page above of excited sound and fury signifying absolutely dick...

Actually, I was going to commend you for figuring that out on your own. Joseph Campbell took years to come up with it.

Not your fault he did so first.

 

[gumboot]

It should be noted that George Lucas read The Hero With A Thousand Faces before he had finished the first draft of Star Wars, and he consciously used the Monomyth formula in the narrative.

 

[RobRoy]

It should be noted that George Lucas read The Hero With A Thousand Faces before he had finished the first draft of Star Wars, and he consciously used the Monomyth formula in the narrative.

My understanding was that Lucas put forth this story himself as a ret-con to try to lend more mythos to his movies that he hadn't originally intended and had actually just stumbled upon.

 

[Polaris]

Any additions to the list?

It's not a book but The Day the Earth Stood Still. Except Klaatu isn't exactly young.

 

[alfaniner]

It should be noted that George Lucas read The Hero With A Thousand Faces before he had finished the first draft of Star Wars, and he consciously used the Monomyth formula in the narrative.

Several beats and characters are also taken directly from Kurasawa's The Hidden Fortress. Lucas said so himself.

 

[RobRoy]

Several beats and characters are also taken directly from Kurasawa's The Hidden Fortress. Lucas said so himself.

Did he? I thought he never replied on this one way or the other. There certainly are characteristics of characters and "beats" as you say taken from the film though. I know some people have claimed the entire film was transcribed, which is simply silly. I know Lucas stated he drew from other sources of influence like the pre-movie serials.

 

[phrenicgermal]

A book called "Rosehaven". About the third chapter from the end, the characters suddenly remember that they were supposed to be finding out what "Rosehaven" is. So they do.

Sounds like a poorly executed rip-off (in book form) of Citizen Kane.

 

[luchog]

Did he? I thought he never replied on this one way or the other. There certainly are characteristics of characters and "beats" as you say taken from the film though. I know some people have claimed the entire film was transcribed, which is simply silly. I know Lucas stated he drew from other sources of influence like the pre-movie serials.

He has alternately sort-of confirmed, and sort-of denied it. The problem with Lucas is that he has a bad habit of retconning both his movie storylines, and his movie creation storylines.

However, it's pretty bloody clear that he ripped off a huge amount from The Hidden Fortress to makeup about three-quarters of Star Wars. The similarities are far too obvious and blatant.

 

[RobRoy]

He has alternately sort-of confirmed, and sort-of denied it. The problem with Lucas is that he has a bad habit of retconning both his movie storylines, and his movie creation storylines.

Agreed.

However, it's pretty bloody clear that he ripped off a huge amount from The Hidden Fortress to makeup about three-quarters of Star Wars. The similarities are far too obvious and blatant.

Disagree. While I'll never support Lucas' retcon efforts (HAN SHOT FIRST, DAMNIT!) I've never seen anyone make The Hidden Fortress-theft argument stick. I'm something of a Kurosawa fan, and own any number of his films, including The Hidden Fortress which is hardly his best, or even his standard fare by any measure. There are not "huge" amounts of of this movie in Star Wars. As previously mentioned, a few character traits, and a couple of beats do not make "huge" amounts. But, I would love to hear counter-arguments on this score. It's been awhile since I've seen them. Perhaps something will stick . . . and any excuse to watch Kurosawa is never bad!

 

[BPScooter]

Well, to get back to the Original Post.

Basically books, which are things on paper that you read, and hate, which is a visceral emotion of intense dislike that causes you to destroy the book or otherwise preserve others from having to read it.

I've offered my opinions a hundred posts ago or so, but I've only felt that way about the horror genre and such when Silence of the Lambs was winning Oscars. Nothing against horror, or the actors in the movie, but the the book itself took itself willingly into some areas I'd rather not contemplate. I blame the author, but have no desire to burn him.

But I did willingly put that book into my pile of stuff to take to the Goodwill.

Could we get back to the idea of literature that you really didn't like? I haven't read enough new stuff to really have a good opinion here. If this is recycling old territory for this thread then feel free to ignore.

I remember when "the World According to Garp" was pretty famous--I read it and maybe I wasn't getting it but all I can remember is something about a wrestling coach, and weeny biting, and Robin Williams in a movie that flopped. Whereas I remember more about Great Gatsby, or Richard III even though I kind of didn't like them so much either way. Come to think of it, Richard III is better than the others.