PDA

View Full Version : Stories you hate to admit you once liked



Pages : [1] 2

Eric Tolle
2011-11-13, 04:32 PM
We've all done it. We've all read those books or stories that at the time we thought were wonderful, they spoke to us. Later on though, with more maturity or simply perspective, we realize not just that those stories are bad, but we are actually embarrassed that we ever liked them.

For me, one of the big embarrassments in my reading past is Emergence, by David Palmer. At first as a callow youth I thought this story of a genius 11 year-old girl traveling across an America where a plague wiped out 99.9% of humanity was a fun adventure story...but then on later reflection the creepiness started surfacing. The Mary Sue nature of the protagonist (black belt genius who everyone wants to sleep with), the elitist "Fans are Slans" distinction taken to the genetic level (the plague wiped out all the mundanes, you see), the far, far right wing politics (all Communists are evil psychopaths who must be killed), the pedophilia, and of course, the telepathic macaw. Oh god, the telepathic macaw. The book is really like a parody of a bad post-apocalyptic novel, except serious.

There's also The Harper Hall trilogy, which has Menolly as the definition of a Mary Sue (literally everyone except her parents and the bad guys loves her). And anything I read by Ann Ricin. And finally, Enders Game, about which enough has been written.

So let's hear it people- what are some stories that you're embarrassed to admit you ever liked?

Julian84
2011-11-13, 05:10 PM
Eragon. Used to be a favorite of mine, now I view it as pretty cliche and hackneyed.

Also, Redwall. I love the more darker stories (e.g. The Long Patrol, Legend of Luke, Martin the Warrior, Mossflower (...kinda), Mariel/The Bellmaker, and whichever Salamandstron book had the main badger getting killed towards the end in a massive siege), but the rest of the series follows the same formula and rarely does anything really interesting.

Tirian
2011-11-13, 05:29 PM
I'll take a daring position. I continue to love Dr. Seuss' mastery of language and visual style, but as time goes on I find myself more and more troubled by the moralism to the point of siding against the protagonists.


Sam I Am is a stalking harasser. It's not about how good green eggs and ham are, it's about you needing to learn that No Means No.
The Lorax could have saved the truffula trees by being less of a grumpy jerk from day one. You were wrong and mean about how cool thneeds turned out to be, so why should the Onceler trust you on the long-term effects of his factory?
The Star-Bellied Sneetches were hard to like. But, hey, their beachmates weren't helping out to organize the frankfurter roasts and their songs were really whiny and downbeat. I wouldn't have invited them to my parties either, and they should have put their efforts into having their own rather than crashing mine.
I won't even try to justify the jackassery that The Cat in The Hat was pulling. The fact that he turned out to clean up in the end does not make the goldfish wrong.


To be clear, I'm not discussing the real-world issues that prompted these morality tales and which is the right side to take. My point is that even when I agree with Seuss I'm frustrated with his unsympathetic heroes and straw-men antagonists.

ThePhantasm
2011-11-13, 05:41 PM
Eragon.............

Claudius Maximus
2011-11-13, 05:52 PM
The Sword of Truth. When I was reading it as a teenager I was constantly slightly bothered by something, but I couldn't put my finger on it. I still totally liked them though. Now I can look back and see that it's the objectivism, the sueness of the good guys, and a whole lot of wasted potential (there was a decent amount of actually cool stuff in there, but it never seems to have been handled as well as it could have, especially later on).

But yeah, the objectivism (with its obligatory walls of text) and the heavy-handed manner in which the good and bad guys were handled are what makes me groan a little looking back.

Dr.Epic
2011-11-13, 06:21 PM
Harry Potter.

The first book/movie/installment/whatever was good. But the 2nd was just such a copy and paste and so uncreative. I'm not even sure why I continued to read to book 5 after that let down.

McStabbington
2011-11-13, 10:43 PM
Star Trek: Voyager.

I thought it was better than people were giving it credit for, even if it wasn't quite up to the snuff of TNG in the 4th and 5th seasons. Man, oh man, was I overrating that show.

Lateral
2011-11-13, 10:50 PM
Eragon.
This. My little brother still reads them. (I read it first when I was eight- not to be hipster, but I read it before anyone else had even heard of it. Reading it again, I realize how crappy it is.)

Starwulf
2011-11-14, 01:13 AM
We've all done it. We've all read those books or stories that at the time we thought were wonderful, they spoke to us. Later on though, with more maturity or simply perspective, we realize not just that those stories are bad, but we are actually embarrassed that we ever liked them.

For me, one of the big embarrassments in my reading past is Emergence, by David Palmer. At first as a callow youth I thought this story of a genius 11 year-old girl traveling across an America where a plague wiped out 99.9% of humanity was a fun adventure story...but then on later reflection the creepiness started surfacing. The Mary Sue nature of the protagonist (black belt genius who everyone wants to sleep with), the elitist "Fans are Slans" distinction taken to the genetic level (the plague wiped out all the mundanes, you see), the far, far right wing politics (all Communists are evil psychopaths who must be killed), the pedophilia, and of course, the telepathic macaw. Oh god, the telepathic macaw. The book is really like a parody of a bad post-apocalyptic novel, except serious.

There's also The Harper Hall trilogy, which has Menolly as the definition of a Mary Sue (literally everyone except her parents and the bad guys loves her). And anything I read by Ann Ricin. And finally, Enders Game, about which enough has been written.

So let's hear it people- what are some stories that you're embarrassed to admit you ever liked?

Umm, why are you embarrassed about having read and liked Enders Game? I'm 30, and I still enjoy that book, and it's sequels as well. Nothing to be ashamed about imo. Why do you feel you should be?

edit: Oh, and just to add to the thread: The Boxcar Kids! When I was like...8 or 9?

PhantomFox
2011-11-14, 01:19 AM
Animorphs. I love all kinds of animals, so I thought the pretense was pretty cool, but I realized it was dime-store drama once I noticed the writer write herself into a corner once or twice.

Friv
2011-11-14, 01:38 AM
The Sword of Truth.

Oh, god this. When I first read Wizard's First Rule, I thought it was an interesting take on a setting where there is no right answer, and where a lot of the main characters have interesting and flawed characters, and don't always make the right decisions.

Later, I realized that the characters were not meant to be flawed, they were meant to be perfect. The shine went off pretty soon after that.


Also: Piers Anthony. When I was younger, I missed all of the incredible sexism and creepiness that he was capable of.

Random_person
2011-11-14, 01:57 AM
Piers Anthony, check. Percy Jackson. Artemis Fowl (although that's at least partly just sequel decay: still, I liked Lost Colony when it first came out). Um... Nothing else, really, but those are enough.

Sanguine
2011-11-14, 02:13 AM
Look in spoiler for off-topic rant.
Not quite what this thread is about but well it's being discussed so I'll give my two cents on the matter.

The Sword of Truth.

It started out good, I genuinely liked the early books. Richard just walking up to the leaders of the midlands and saying "I'm your autocratic ruler now. Suck it." was awesome. Cara and the other two Mord Sith were really cool and even Kahlan was kind of interesting.

Then at some point I can't really pin point things started going down hill. I would like to say it was when the young Prophet died, I liked him, but honestly it's been too long for me to recall if it started going downhill before or after that. As it went down hill the characters became less interesting and the writing became an utterly unapologetic Author Tract. At first I liked Richard but as things went down hill I began to loathe him. Kahlan went from a mildly interesting character to a mildly annoying character. Cara went from awesome to bland.

I read through the entire series, but only for the moments with the two characters I liked throughout the entire series: Zed and Nathan. Unfortunately as the series went on those moments grew fewer and farther between. As for the ending; well, let's just say I didn't like it.

As for the actual topic. Eragon is a definite example. I really enjoyed it years ago when I found it in my local library. Now, I have absolutely no interest in continuing the series. Otherwise I can't really think of any. I might not be as rabid about some books now as I used to be, but for the most part I still find enjoyment in them.

Dumbledore lives
2011-11-14, 02:21 AM
Harry Potter.

The first book/movie/installment/whatever was good. But the 2nd was just such a copy and paste and so uncreative. I'm not even sure why I continued to read to book 5 after that let down.

I can accept you not liking the series, and I disagree with your assessment of the second book, but letting a previous book in a series make you dislike the future of a series is frankly, ridiculous.

Eragon is definitely one for me, in that at the time I thought it was amazing that someone so young could get his book published, and enjoyed it as a basic fantasy series, but now I look back and it just kind of.. disappoints me.

Ravens_cry
2011-11-14, 02:23 AM
Star Trek: Voyager.

I thought it was better than people were giving it credit for, even if it wasn't quite up to the snuff of TNG in the 4th and 5th seasons. Man, oh man, was I overrating that show.
It had several enjoyable characters that were well acted. It had a potentially interesting situation, but was hampered by recycled scripts and plots, just plain weirdness, a lack of fully realizing the potential of the situation and writers who had no idea how to handle some of the characters.
I am not ashamed I like it, but I am saddened it wasn't better.
My biggest shame is being engrossed by the Left Behind series. It did get help me get over a particular phobia though, at least it, mostly, cleared up shortly after I started reading them.

dgnslyr
2011-11-14, 02:29 AM
Eragon.............

This.

As penance, I try to introduce every Eragon reader to Eragon Sporkings (http://eragon-sporkings.wikispaces.com/), in the hope they too will realize their folly.

Feytalist
2011-11-14, 03:54 AM
I'm agreed on the Sword of Truth series. I did once enjoy it. Not any more.

Piers Anthony as well, but then I never really liked his humour. Or that of Robert Rankin, to be honest. Or (and this will get me flamed, I'm sure :smallbiggrin:) Douglas Adams.

I don't mind Eragon. I've read the books, and for a guy as young as he was when he wrote them, it's not bad. But I won't read it again.

I'm a bit ashamed that I'm still reading Ayn Rand, but beyond her philosophies she's actually quite a good descriptive novelist.

Fri
2011-11-14, 03:55 AM
Eragon, though I only ever like the first book. I'm not really ashamed to like the first book, it's pretty cool.

And... cough. Dominic Deegan. I used to say that it's one of my favourite webcomic...

Ravens_cry
2011-11-14, 05:19 AM
It actually started out OK in my opinion. If it had stayed small scale, a grumpy seer with a sarcastic familiar with a love for alliteration and puns, it could have worked. It was when it tried to get epic, the world building started showing cracks. Some of the characterization choices could have used some work.

Togath
2011-11-14, 05:33 AM
I don't really see anything that wrong with the eragon books(of course I can only remember having read the first book, not even sure I ever read the other 2 in the trilogy)

*adding to the thread, I feel a little silly at myself for having read city of ashes(I found city of bones ok, and I never read city of glass), the plot of the first book[city of bones] was fairly rapid and well paced, but it slowed down quite a bit in the second book[and somewhat near the end of the first as well](the whole vampires vs. werewolves thing was a bit clichéd, and it didn’t help that one of the characters got turned into a vampire[which kind of ruined it for me, I liked the main vampire aspect in the story being a short slightly insane Mexican guy], and better still, an “immune to sunlight, with no weaknesses” vampire[can you say “twilight c*manure*], just immune to sunlight wouldn’t have been so bad. /rant end)
spoilered for length, and because it's a little bit of a rant about the book "city of ashes"

llamamushroom
2011-11-14, 05:55 AM
Oh, I have a whole shelf on back home devoted to this... Eragon and Eldest feature therein, as when I first read them I wasn't as familiar with the cliché storylines. The Twilight series also take up a large section. In their case, I read them too quickly to notice anything, really, until I got to the fourth book. Then, at the explicit retconning and... interesting birthing scene, I took a moment to think back and realise that the first three weren't too crash hot either. The Earth to Heaven series (I think that's its name - it's by Kylie Chan) is also pretty shameful for me.

A semi-example (in the sense that I still like it but hate to admit it) is the Age of the Five trilogy by Trudi Canavan.

Feytalist
2011-11-14, 06:04 AM
Oh, Age of Five was brilliant. I don't mind admitting that at all. And I'm going to read whatever else Trudi Canavan publishes, I'm sure. Her books does come across as kinda feminist in a way, which might be why some guys are hesitant to admit they're read it, but I don't care. She's a genius.

Aotrs Commander
2011-11-14, 06:12 AM
I quite liked Eragon (and I've read 'em at least twice, the first time and third the third book came out). They're hardly earth-shattering, but they're okay.

(Mind you, I also quite liked the Star Wars prequel trilogy, Wolverine: Origins (the movie), Pokemon the anime and Naruto (even and especially the filler arcs), so...)



I went off Dragonlance after a few years. I read it again a couple of years ago (even getting Dragons of Summer flame, I think it is, which I was very underwhelmed by). So that's probably the closest I've gotten (except maybe for some of the Enid Blyton series I read as a child. Some, not all.)



...

...

Yes, I am probably the only person in the world that would prefer Eragon to Dragonlance.

You may throw things now.



Edit: Yes, Age of Five wasn't up to the standard of the first books. Wasn't bad, just a bit... I dunno. Went downhill.

Oh, that also brings up David Eddings' Elder Gods series, which was a fairly sad way to end out his illustrious career. (I never even bought the last one I was so bored with Crystal Gorge.)

thubby
2011-11-14, 06:21 AM
This.

As penance, I try to introduce every Eragon reader to Eragon Sporkings (http://eragon-sporkings.wikispaces.com/), in the hope they too will realize their folly.

*reads a few entries*
ya, hes clueless.
1) shades are ghosts in mythology. which are in modern times portrayed as white of all things. he has nothing to complain about there.

2) holding arrows while using a bow is mildly uncomfortable, not terribly difficult. nor is the action in question requiring any amount of real dexterity, much less extra limbs.

his complaints are inane when they aren't baseless from what I've read. and while i certainly won't go saying its a great work of fiction, it's wholly undeserving of the amount of hate it gets.

Serpentine
2011-11-14, 06:55 AM
Animorphs. I love all kinds of animals, so I thought the pretense was pretty cool, but I realized it was dime-store drama once I noticed the writer write herself into a corner once or twice.Bah! Animorphs are amazing! :tongue:
But man, would I love to see them edited, smoothed out and compiled into fewer, larger, books. And have a couple of inconsistencies ironed out while they're at it...

The Glyphstone
2011-11-14, 06:57 AM
They were written by a bunch of different people, it's only logical that inconsistencies would arise.

Though I still maintain that the Bolivian Army Ending was stupid and unnecessary.

Serpentine
2011-11-14, 07:20 AM
Eh, sort of. She had a lot of ghostwriters, but she wrote out all the plots and everything herself.
I don't mind the ending, but then I also don't view it as being so "everyone dies" as everyone else seems to - the story just stops before we find out how they managed to get out of this bind.

I don't think I'm really ashamed of anythign I used to like. I was a little sad to find that a childhood favourite of mine - High Spirits - received all of zero out of 5 stars in a respected film review book. And upon a later viewing, it's... it's really not so great :/ (nostalgia still wins out, though!)
I have a sad feeling I'll be a bit ashamed of loving The Famous Five and maybe even The Magic Faraway Chair as a kid if I read them again :smallfrown: Seems Blyton was... not so great at her female characters :/

llamamushroom
2011-11-14, 07:33 AM
his complaints are inane when they aren't baseless from what I've read. and while i certainly won't go saying its a great work of fiction, it's wholly undeserving of the amount of hate it gets.

I agree - their only crime (beyond plagiarism...) is that they became wildly popular. In a sense, the hate started because people were all "this doesn't deserve to be as popular as it is, so the only solution is to hate it more than it deserves!"

The film, on the other hand? That's fair game. (http://www.agonybooth.com/recaps/Eragon.aspx)

Edit: Regarding Age of the Five, it's been a while since I read it, and I was definitely in one of my many crud fantasy binges, so I might have blacklisted it by association.

Animorphs is awesome, but.

comicshorse
2011-11-14, 10:57 AM
The Gor novels. I'm not sure calling it sexism really covers the problems (and I only read the first few apparently they get worse)

WalkingTarget
2011-11-14, 11:21 AM
I can accept you not liking the series, and I disagree with your assessment of the second book, but letting a previous book in a series make you dislike the future of a series is frankly, ridiculous.


I only read the HP books after they were all out (and was in my mid-20s). My favorite was actually the last one - and it took me until that point to realize what had been bugging me about the series. The sameness of all the books (Harry's home life sucks, Wizard school is wacky, there's something odd going on but almost nobody will listen to Harry, Harry saves the day [probably with some help]) just bugged me and I only figured that out when we got to the book that moved away from that format.

Growing up outside of anything resembling the British Public School system and not having the benefit of growing up with the characters (which was a genius move on JKR's part) probably puts me outside of the target demographic, though. It's not that I actively disliked the books, but I recognize what Dr. Epic is talking about.

Gamerlord
2011-11-14, 11:26 AM
Are films allowed?
When I first watched The Phantom Menace as a youngling, I liked it. I still kinda like it now, but only for the pod racing sequence and the duel with Darth Maul. Everything else is....yeah.

Julian84
2011-11-14, 11:36 AM
Some of the Drizz't books.

I liked the stories, but since then I've often complained about Salvatore's desire to be dark and edgy, to the point of being off-putting. The Homeland and Icewind Dale trilogies were tragic and adventurous respectively, but kept things at a pretty even keel. After that, it went downhill. Fast.

PhantomFox
2011-11-14, 11:38 AM
Bah! Animorphs are amazing! :tongue:
But man, would I love to see them edited, smoothed out and compiled into fewer, larger, books. And have a couple of inconsistencies ironed out while they're at it...

I mainly remember one scene where an ant crawls over the morphing cube and then onto one of the cast, and proceeds to morph into a human and start freaking out. The cast ponders what to do with it and the moral implications of killing it, and drag it around for a scene or two, when it conveniently gets killed in a firefight with the bad guys.

Sunken Valley
2011-11-14, 11:58 AM
Molly Moon. First book was good but I failed to notice her transformation into a sue until book 4.

In other news, Twilight. Not because I once liked it. But because I still do:smallamused::smallamused::smallamused:

Kindablue
2011-11-14, 08:43 PM
Until fairly recently I owned signed copies of Eragon and about half of the Left Behind series. Do I win?

Lord Raziere
2011-11-14, 09:10 PM
Eragon. Redwall. Pokemon. Yu-Gi-Oh. Naruto. Jimmy Neutron. Fairly Oddparents. Harry Potter.

…..:smallsigh: I hate my childhood.

byaku rai
2011-11-14, 09:11 PM
I have fewer of these than Sequel Decay stories. The main series that I can think of that I sort of liked at the time was the Twilight series. I was never that into it (I had a lot of female friends in high school who obsessed over it a bit), but I was determined to read the whole thing. So I did. And in hindsight, there were fifty million things done just plain wrong and another hundred thousand done just to pander to the target audience, which I wasn't a part of.

A particular sticking point for me is how helpless Bella is throughout the series right up until the end. But then, I prefer Action Girls, so...

Sequel decay list:
Eragon (liked the first one alright, but the others seem more rushed and shallow... And I don't acknowledge the movie's existence unless forced)
Sword of Shannara (It's just LotR reflavored, but the first few are worth a read. After that it's the same book with different characters, with the Voyage of the Jerle Shannara trilogy being a notable exception)
Ender's Game (really should have just been the one book, and I still like it despite its manifest flaws)
Redwall (maybe just a case of outgrowing it, but I did legitimately enjoy the grittier ones like Marlfox, Lord Brocktree, and Mattimeo (side note: stupidest name ever :smallfurious:))

... That's all I can think of for now. This post should be taken with a grain of salt because in the past year I have been corrupted by WH40k novels. Dan Abnett is THE MAN.

Sanguine
2011-11-14, 09:12 PM
Fairly Oddparents.

You sir are a madman. And not the good kind either. Fairly Oddparents is a wonderful show.

Reverent-One
2011-11-14, 09:28 PM
Redwall does not deserve to be named in this thread. It's may be a children's series, but it's meant to be one, and it's a darn good one. It's nothing to be embarrassed about.

Lord Raziere
2011-11-14, 09:33 PM
You sir are a madman. And not the good kind either. Fairly Oddparents is a wonderful show.

same stupid protagonist that does not learn his lesson.
same stupid fairies that have little to no logic
same stupid parents and people that do nothing but complicate everything.
same stupid wishes.

yaaaaaaaaaawn.

Lateral
2011-11-14, 09:43 PM
same stupid protagonist that does not learn his lesson.
same stupid fairies that have little to no logic
same stupid parents and people that do nothing but complicate everything.
same stupid wishes.

That's pretty much the plot of a lot of episodic cartoons. For what it is (a kid's cartoon show) it's not bad- some of the episodes are pretty clever, and some of the humor (and caricatures of types of people) are kind of funny.

It's certainly not a work of genius, but it isn't bad.

Lord Raziere
2011-11-14, 09:47 PM
That's pretty much the plot of a lot of episodic cartoons. For what it is (a kid's cartoon show) it's not bad- some of the episodes are pretty clever, and some of the humor (and caricatures of types of people) are kind of funny.

It's certainly not a work of genius, but it isn't bad.

Ok, I still do like the part where it points out the live-action drama-tragedy movie bias Hollywood has, but thats it.

Mutant Sheep
2011-11-15, 01:16 AM
Redwall does not deserve to be named in this thread. It's may be a children's series, but it's meant to be one, and it's a darn good one. It's nothing to be embarrassed about.

*stands up*
*slowly starts clapping*
What he said. Some stories get repetitive. So what? They are still all awesome.:smallbiggrin:

Xondoure
2011-11-15, 02:34 AM
Redwall does not deserve to be named in this thread. It's may be a children's series, but it's meant to be one, and it's a darn good one. It's nothing to be embarrassed about.

Here here.

Feytalist
2011-11-15, 02:45 AM
I must say I enjoyed the first two Drizzt trilogies. I never read farther than that, but the consensus seems to be that they get really bad after a while. Regardless, the first few were okay.

Knaight
2011-11-15, 03:28 AM
I agree - their only crime (beyond plagiarism...) is that they became wildly popular. In a sense, the hate started because people were all "this doesn't deserve to be as popular as it is, so the only solution is to hate it more than it deserves!"

The film, on the other hand? That's fair game. (http://www.agonybooth.com/recaps/Eragon.aspx)

Becoming wildly popular probably ramped the hate up. However, they can be considered poorly written for numerous reasons without even going into the popularity of them, they can be disliked for at least as many reasons, so on and so forth. If one has intense emotional reactions to books, hating them is entirely reasonable - even if it isn't hard to find other books that are also quite popular, far worse in every regard, and strangely lacking in a hatedom.

Megaduck
2011-11-15, 08:23 AM
Hmm, Stories that I once liked but now hate to admit?

Sword of Truth - I got up till temple of the winds before that little nagging feeling at the back of my mind caught up with me.

Star Trek Voyager books. I used to collect them.

Books that I once liked but the shine has worn off?

Ender's Game - Now that I'm older, and a little more experienced with the military, I start seeing MASSIVE holes in this plot.

Dune - I still love the setting. I like the characters less and less each time I read it.

PhantomFox
2011-11-15, 12:15 PM
I like the Redwall series too. There was a period where Jacques fell into a slump (Triss especially) but he seemed to be pulling out of it and back into old form before he passed. Still have to see what his last two books are like.

Jade Dragon
2011-11-15, 12:45 PM
Why is Percy Jackson in this thread? I guess Jason's flat, especially since his equivalent is Percy, who Riordan designed a couple quirks for at the start and developed over five books, but I can't really name any other problems. Or is it just going from an "amazing!" to an "okay" kinda thing, rather than a "good" to a "don't read this. Ever" kinda thing?

Redwall was always slow. Really the only ones that were good were Lord Brocktree, Martin the Warrior, Mossflower, Mariel, The Bellmaker, The Long Patrol, and The Pearls of Lutra. I sorta liked Rakkety Tam, but it's not one of the good ones. It's been too long since I've read High Rulain to remember how that one went, but I remember it being sorta like Martin the Warrior.

To add to this thread, I once enjoyed DD. But that was when I was going through the archives at lightning speed.

Whiffet
2011-11-15, 12:52 PM
Add me to the list of people who once liked Eragon. I liked it when I read it, when it had recently come out, but then later I looked back at it and you know how it goes.

Also, my favorite animated Disney movie used to be 101 Dalmatians. Here in the present day, I can't stand it. I realize now that my little kid self just thought the puppies were adorable and didn't care about anything else.
... they're still cute.

DiscipleofBob
2011-11-15, 01:08 PM
Does it count if I'm not quite ashamed of the books, but the remakes or movies they spawned? :smallconfused:

If so, then both Ella Enchanted and Lightning Thief make my list. I don't know why I picked up Ella Enchanted, but it ended up being a fairly good story. Sort of like Cinderella, but with more defined characters and consequences of their actions. Then the Anne Hathaway movie came out, and it not only destroyed the book, it actually made me hate Cary Elwes.

And then there's Lightning Thief. I picked it up, read it, thought "This is good. A little below my usual reading level, but it's clever and good and well-done greek mythology is always a plus." Then I saw the movie... The less said about that the better.

Karoht
2011-11-15, 01:49 PM
@Harry Potter
I read Parts 1-6. I refuse to read 7. There is nothing in that book that could possibly interest me. 5 and 6 honestly read like the bad fanfics circulating the internet, I hear 7 and My Immortal are nearly on par with one another. Yes, I'm sure that the last remark is a joke, but I am honestly not willing to risk it.
Also, the fact that JK Rowlings supposedly wrote the first book to encourage kids to read (thats how I heard it anyway) only to have Harry announce at the end of book 6 that he would be dropping out of school sends a pretty mixed message to me. Yes, the school system in the series was messed up, but it typically made bad guys out of teachers and then had Harry drop out. Yes, the teachers as antagonists and semi-antagonists serves to deepen the narrative, but only to a point.
On the other hand I could not get over the common theme of all the adults ignoring the kids who seemed to be more in the know than they were. Every. Single. Time.

That said, I absolutely loved books 1-4, and still read them to this day.

@Star Trek
I loved TNG, I was the only sci-fi nerd in my friend group that enjoyed DS9 (I had to keep it a secret though) and I watched Voyager from start to finish, hoping that one day it would get cool so I wouldn't have to hide it from my friends.
New movie is awesome. But I still can't talk with anyone about how DS9 was something I secretly thought was cool, and god help you mention Voyager around the 'fans' where I am.


@Star Wars
Yes, I was once a Star Wars fan. I loved the Xwing series by Michael A Stackpole and that other guy. I secretly used to think Jedi were cool. Of course now I have to hide the fact that I no longer enjoy Star Wars. Funny how 3 really bad prequels being released had that effect.


========
I've never disliked any Disney movies, except for Hunchback of Notre Dames, and Emperor's New Groove is still hilarious to me. I was a huge fan of Darkwing Duck, I still treasure my old VHS tapes of Ducktales, I enjoyed Rescue Rangers and no, not because of Gadget. I'm man enough to admit that the old witch in Snow White scared the hell out of me as a child, and I was rather happy that Goof Troop made light of that as a plot point in an episode. I was excited to see Tangled.

I rather liked the Percy Jackson movie and can't wait until I have time to get around to reading the novels, even if they are oriented at a lower age group than me.

Marnath
2011-11-15, 01:56 PM
@Harry Potter
I read Parts 1-6. I refuse to read 7. There is nothing in that book that could possibly interest me. 5 and 6 honestly read like the bad fanfics circulating the internet, I hear 7 and My Immortal are nearly on par with one another. Yes, I'm sure that the last remark is a joke, but I am honestly not willing to risk it.
Also, the fact that JK Rowlings supposedly wrote the first book to encourage kids to read (thats how I heard it anyway) only to have Harry announce at the end of book 6 that he would be dropping out of school sends a pretty mixed message to me. Yes, the school system in the series was messed up, but it typically made bad guys out of teachers and then had Harry drop out. .

He drops out of school because people are trying to kill him. I think you're missing out by not reading the last book, too.

hamishspence
2011-11-15, 02:12 PM
I occasionally feel that I ought to be embarrassed that I can enjoy reading virtually all the Star Wars EU novels- even the really weird ones.

Marnath
2011-11-15, 02:31 PM
I occasionally feel that I ought to be embarrassed that I can enjoy reading virtually all the Star Wars EU novels- even the really weird ones.

I recently thought about re-reading those but looking at the wiki I apparently am missing 51 books out of the series(I stopped reading after Chewbacca died):smalleek:. And they're probably all out of print now.

hamishspence
2011-11-15, 02:37 PM
They can probably still be bought second-hand from various places.

Still, I'm less interested in the New Jedi Order era (and afterward) than in the era leading up to that point.

Karoht
2011-11-15, 02:41 PM
He drops out of school because people are trying to kill him. I think you're missing out by not reading the last book, too.
And upon realization of this fact that he's dropping out, not one adult cautions him about the detriment to his future. Not one. Oh look, he succeeds and has a bright future anyway. Nevermind.
(At least, that is my understanding of the matter)

And I'm sorry, but after struggling through the dribble that was 6, I have absolutely zero interest in 7.

hamishspence
2011-11-15, 02:44 PM
And upon realization of this fact that he's dropping out, not one adult cautions him about the detriment to his future. Not one. Oh look, he succeeds and has a bright future anyway. Nevermind.

Mrs Weasley's very clear she disapproves of it- in book 7.

Given that jobs like Auror require good OWLs followed by good NEWTs, followed by much training, I suspect Harry repeated a year between the last chapter of the book, and the epilogue set decades later.

GloatingSwine
2011-11-15, 02:45 PM
And upon realization of this fact that he's dropping out, not one adult cautions him about the detriment to his future. Not one.

That's because they're all aware that people are trying to kill him, and that he is not safe there.

The Glyphstone
2011-11-15, 02:46 PM
On the flip side, when did Harry learn anything useful whatsoever in class, or even really spend much time there, outside Lupin's DADA? Rowling's unfavorable portrayal of getting a school education starts in Book 1 with Harry's repeated and occasionally unofficially sanctioned cutting of class and breaking curfew, not in Book 7 where he finally clues in to how Hogwarts is teaching him completely diddly (and that, y'know, staff members are among those trying to murder him).

Jade Dragon
2011-11-15, 02:54 PM
@Harry Potter
I read Parts 1-6. I refuse to read 7. There is nothing in that book that could possibly interest me. 5 and 6 honestly read like the bad fanfics circulating the internet, I hear 7 and My Immortal are nearly on par with one another. Yes, I'm sure that the last remark is a joke, but I am honestly not willing to risk it.
Also, the fact that JK Rowlings supposedly wrote the first book to encourage kids to read (thats how I heard it anyway) only to have Harry announce at the end of book 6 that he would be dropping out of school sends a pretty mixed message to me. Yes, the school system in the series was messed up, but it typically made bad guys out of teachers and then had Harry drop out. Yes, the teachers as antagonists and semi-antagonists serves to deepen the narrative, but only to a point.
On the other hand I could not get over the common theme of all the adults ignoring the kids who seemed to be more in the know than they were. Every. Single. Time.

That said, I absolutely loved books 1-4, and still read them to this day.
He drops out of school after it gets taken over by death eaters.

@Star Wars
Yes, I was once a Star Wars fan. I loved the Xwing series by Michael A Stackpole and that other guy. I secretly used to think Jedi were cool. Of course now I have to hide the fact that I no longer enjoy Star Wars. Funny how 3 really bad prequels being released had that effect.
You know there are only three Star Wars movies, right? >_>

Seriously, Star Wars prequels aren't worth hating the entirety over. I'm lucky because I was warned in advance and will never watch them.

I rather liked the Percy Jackson movie and can't wait until I have time to get around to reading the novels, even if they are oriented at a lower age group than me.

Does it count if I'm not quite ashamed of the books, but the remakes or movies they spawned? :smallconfused:

If so, then both Ella Enchanted and Lightning Thief make my list.
...
And then there's Lightning Thief. I picked it up, read it, thought "This is good. A little below my usual reading level, but it's clever and good and well-done greek mythology is always a plus." Then I saw the movie... The less said about that the better.

You mean the one where the characters are four years older, Annabeth has the wrong hair color, and there's a plot hole about how the medusa's still alive?

McStabbington
2011-11-15, 02:56 PM
They can probably still be bought second-hand from various places.

Still, I'm less interested in the New Jedi Order era (and afterward) than in the era leading up to that point.

I would have put those in there, but I stopped at the second of Kevin J. Anderson's trilogy. Even as a ten year-old, I can remember putting down the book and saying "You know, for a supposed tactical genius, Admiral Daala does a lot of really dumb things." From what I've gleaned from discussion with others, it seems as if made the right move.

hamishspence
2011-11-15, 02:57 PM
Seriously, Star Wars prequels aren't worth hating the entirety over. I'm lucky because I was warned in advance and will never watch them.

I find their novelizations much more enjoyable than the movie versions. Especially the Revenge of the Sith novelization, written by Matt Stover, one of the better Star Wars authors, who leaves out some of the worst lines and includes quite a few scenes that were dropped from the movie.


I would have put those in there, but I stopped at the second of Kevin J. Anderson's trilogy. Even as a ten year-old, I can remember putting down the book and saying "You know, for a supposed tactical genius, Admiral Daala does a lot of really dumb things." From what I've gleaned from discussion with others, it seems as if made the right move.

I, Jedi fixes some of the issues (not the ones with Daala though).
And from that point there are better books to come- with the Hand of Thrawn duology being some of the best books of that era.

The later-written X wing novels are also hilarious, in a good way.

Murdim
2011-11-15, 03:11 PM
Molly Moon. First book was good but I failed to notice her transformation into a sue until book 4.
Ooh, I remember this one. I only read the first book, but today I think I could already tell early signs of it. While the character herself didn't feel Sue-ish (yet?), the way everyone acted around her kinda did (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlackHoleSue). Even then, it disturbed me somewhat. Mind you, this was all before I heard about the term "Mary Sue".

The first Eragon book was... actually pretty enjoyable, to be honest. Sure, I wouldn't say the writing is good, but it was adequate enough to keep me hooked. The side characters (some of them, anyway) were pretty engaging, the villain was trite but still quite well done, and there were obvious signs that the local orc stand-ins aren't as unidimensional as, say, Tolkien orcs. Sure, Eragon wasn't a mind-blowing reading experience, but it didn't suffer from any crippling flaw, either.

Then Eldest came along. Do I need to say anything else? Well, I can't say I hated it. Not at the first reading, anyway. But I did hate : the "love" story, Eragon's "character development", the entire elven "race", and of course, the treatment of Murtagh as a straight villain and a traitor that we are supposed to hate. I think this is that last point that got me to give up on the series. Until then, I was still, to some extent, an Eragon fan. :smallyuk:

Karoht
2011-11-15, 03:18 PM
That's because they're all aware that people are trying to kill him, and that he is not safe there.And yet not one takes his education seriously enough in the books prior to do anything about it. Though Macgonical offers to tutor him privately but fails to make good in book 7, so I guess it was just an empty threat and act of posturing VS Umbridge.

If all the issues with schooling was the author getting on a soapbox, bravo. Not only does she paint anyone with the power to do anything about it as apathetic or ineffective (including the great and mighty Dumbledore) but the overlying message is pretty much deal with it like everyone else, or drop out. That is something I greatly disagree with, both for the message, and for poor storytelling.

hamishspence
2011-11-15, 03:25 PM
By book 7 Death Eaters haven't just taken over the school, but the country. For Harry to change his mind at that point and go back to school would have been suicidal.

Him deciding that "putting an end to Voldemort for good" trumps "finishing his education" makes sense in context. If he wins, he can always repeat his final year. But if he goes to school, he's leaving the country in the hands of Voldemort.

erikun
2011-11-15, 03:40 PM
I can't say that there are any books that I am embarrassed to admit to having liked. If anything, I consider it a good point, because then I can point out why someone may like a particular title despite its faults. I can also point out what, specifically, is wrong with a story, rather than a general blanket "it's bad".

Then again, I will also note that I enjoyed the Naruto/Bleach manga for the first couple of arcs each, at least until they followed the DBZ/YYH plot train (respectively) and lost most of my interest.

Karoht
2011-11-15, 03:52 PM
By book 7 Death Eaters haven't just taken over the school, but the country. For Harry to change his mind at that point and go back to school would have been suicidal.

Him deciding that "putting an end to Voldemort for good" trumps "finishing his education" makes sense in context. If he wins, he can always repeat his final year. But if he goes to school, he's leaving the country in the hands of Voldemort.
He makes the decision at the end of book 6. Book 6 features an attack on the school, not a complete and total takeover by the death eaters. If the bad guys control the country in book 7, it doesn't affect his decision in book 6.

Also, doesn't Harry use the Killing Curse in book 7? Isn't that against the rules?


Drop out of school, break the rules, be no better than the bad guys, be the hero of the day. lolwut?

Forum Explorer
2011-11-15, 04:02 PM
regardless of how I actually hate Harry Potter (I didn't even get to book 6 by the way) a flaw in your dropping out argument is that the last two years aren't mandatory and are in fact kinda like post-secondary. Missing a year of post-secondary for pretty much any reason isn't that big of a deal as long as you go back and get it done later. Of course I could be remembering things incorrectly.

On topic there are no books I'm ashamed to have read. Even series that I absolutly hate and regret reading (Sword of Truth I want my time back) I'll still openly admit to having read them and early on actually liked them.

Also Redwall is a great series and since most books are stand alone you can just skip the ones you don't like.

hamishspence
2011-11-15, 04:05 PM
Also, doesn't Harry use the Killing Curse in book 7? Isn't that against the rules?

No- but he does use the other two. Molly uses the Killing Curse.



Drop out of school, break the rules, be no better than the bad guys, be the hero of the day. lolwut?

The "Unforgivables" were authorized during the last war against Voldemort- against suspects.

Using similar methods to the bad guys, out of desperation, to achieve a goal, is a bit different from using them for fun, as the Death Eaters often did.

Lateral
2011-11-15, 04:08 PM
Also, doesn't Harry use the Killing Curse in book 7? Isn't that against the rules?
Not that I know of, no. You might wanna read the book before you comment on its plot holes; they exist, but they're neither as blatant nor as gaping as you seem to think they are.


To add to this thread, I once enjoyed DD. But that was when I was going through the archives at lightning speed.
Oh, man, me too. It's kind of fun when you're just blasting through it and watching PLOT and WORLD-BUILDING happen. Then you get to the end, think for a minute, and all those plot holes, crappy characterization, blatant self-insertion, and just all-around mediocrity hit you in the face.
It's still fun, and I still read it, but now more because I'm imagining all the alternate character interpretations and making fun of how bad it is.

Megaduck
2011-11-15, 04:12 PM
Before this turns into a Harry Potter Fan Fest I'm going to bring up a story that I actually still like, thought I am a little ashamed to admit I like it.

SuperNova (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1084878-supernova/).

It's only got a 10% on rotten tomatoes but I enjoyed it.

Karoht
2011-11-15, 04:12 PM
regardless of how I actually hate Harry Potter (I didn't even get to book 6 by the way) a flaw in your dropping out argument is that the last two years aren't mandatory and are in fact kinda like post-secondary. Missing a year of post-secondary for pretty much any reason isn't that big of a deal as long as you go back and get it done later. Of course I could be remembering things incorrectly.I respect that, but now he's a college dropout instead of a highschool dropout. That isn't really much better.



On topic there are no books I'm ashamed to have read. Even series that I absolutly hate and regret reading (Sword of Truth I want my time back) I'll still openly admit to having read them and early on actually liked them. This is an excellent attitude to have. I don't regret reading what I have of Harry Potter, I just disenjoy it to the point where I don't wish to read the last part.

I used to love the Goosebumps books published by Scholastic. I purchased every one of them until around 20-something and then sort of lost touch with them. I greatly wished I hadn't. But once I was in highschool, I'd be sitting around with people, and I'd mention them, and just about everyone I knew would be all like "omg those books were so dumb" but I liked them. But then highschool was a weird time where even my friends would look at me oddly for commenting on enjoying a book.

Jade Dragon
2011-11-15, 04:40 PM
Oh, man, me too. It's kind of fun when you're just blasting through it and watching PLOT and WORLD-BUILDING happen. Then you get to the end, think for a minute, and all those plot holes, crappy characterization, blatant self-insertion, and just all-around mediocrity hit you in the face.
It's still fun, and I still read it, but now more because I'm imagining all the alternate character interpretations and making fun of how bad it is.

Nah, it wasn't stopping to think that happened, it was waiting a day between every strip that happened. When you go through the archives, the story seems to move along at a good pace and you don't really stop to think and by the end you've forgotten most of the bad details.

molten_dragon
2011-11-15, 06:18 PM
The young jedi knights series of SW books. I used to love those things, and looking back at them now they're just awful.

breakdownjason
2011-11-15, 09:00 PM
Goosebumps by R.L. Stine. I owned the entire original collection. All... I think 60 plus books? And going back and looking at them, good lord are they awful.

Gnoman
2011-11-15, 09:02 PM
I find their novelizations much more enjoyable than the movie versions. Especially the Revenge of the Sith novelization, written by Matt Stover, one of the better Star Wars authors, who leaves out some of the worst lines and includes quite a few scenes that were dropped from the movie.



I, Jedi fixes some of the issues (not the ones with Daala though).
And from that point there are better books to come- with the Hand of Thrawn duology being some of the best books of that era.

The later-written X wing novels are also hilarious, in a good way.

Death Star fixes the issues with Daala. She recieved brain damage in a failed Rebel attack on the Death Star.

The entire EU deserves maybe a tenth of the hate it receives. Some of the older books (from before a lot of terminology and setting details were codified), or the ones written for younger readers (by definition more simply written), require the Broad Strokes treatment, but as a whole, it's not bad at all. (For that matter, the hate directed at the prequels is excessive as well, though more deserved.)

Helanna
2011-11-15, 10:51 PM
I respect that, but now he's a college dropout instead of a highschool dropout. That isn't really much better.


Why not? Missing a year of college or taking a year off isn't really a huge deal even in our world. Also, there's a major war going on, it's less like dropping out and more like deciding to join the military.


In any case, add me to the people who used to like Eragon and Dominic Deegan. I stopped enjoying Dominic Deegan after I finished the archives and had to go through it day by day, just as the Maltak arc was starting. I think I stopped enjoying Eragon after reading Eragon Sporkings and I realized how awful a lot of it was.

I'm also one of the people who has a disproportionate hatred for Eragon, but I'm not sure why. Logically, I know that it's really not all that bad, mostly just amateurish and inexperienced. But for some reason I just really can't stand the books at all.

MammonAzrael
2011-11-15, 10:56 PM
I've read the entire Sword of Truth books. I still think the first several, Stone of Tears in particular, are still decent reads. But I was tearing through them quite quickly with my brain mostly off and enjoyed the latter ones the first time through for the most part. Then, as I tend to do with books I like that have a new installment coming out, I went back and reread them. I don't know when exactly it fell apart, but now I can't read and enjoy them at all, and am even unsure if I want them to continue taking up space on my bookshelf. I think I'll supplant them with the Stormlight Archives.

On a different note - why the hate for Ender's Game? While there are probably plot holes and instances of MILITARY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY that I could pick out if I thought about it, I still thoroughly enjoy the book. What's so bad about it that makes you now dislike it?

On the Harry Potter topic - I feel like all of you non-Karhot people are missing one of Karhot's issues. It's not that there are specific reasons why Harry isn't in school. It's that one of the initial reasons Rowling wrote the story was to inspire a desire to read and learn in children, and then turn around and make most authority figures either impotent or villains, and make the school the protagonist attends insanely inefficient and useless. Bit of mixed messaging.

Knaight
2011-11-15, 11:16 PM
Why not? Missing a year of college or taking a year off isn't really a huge deal even in our world. Also, there's a major war going on, it's less like dropping out and more like deciding to join the military.

That said, from a story view it did hurt the book. Harry Potter was highly dependent on the setting of Hogwarts, which had more character than the entire cast combined. Outside of Hogwarts, the setting is decidedly mediocre.

Griemont
2011-11-15, 11:35 PM
Also, Redwall. I love the more darker stories (e.g. The Long Patrol, Legend of Luke, Martin the Warrior, Mossflower (...kinda), Mariel/The Bellmaker, and whichever Salamandstron book had the main badger getting killed towards the end in a massive siege), but the rest of the series follows the same formula and rarely does anything really interesting.

this is me

Also with the Dreamers series by David Eddings, it was interesting enough that I didn't mind the occasional weird bits, and had some downright brilliant moments, but I don't relish going back and reading it again. :smalleek:

mikeejimbo
2011-11-16, 12:00 AM
[...] turn around and make most authority figures either impotent or villains, and make the school the protagonist attends insanely inefficient and useless. Bit of mixed messaging.

To be fair, learning needn't be limited to school. Rowling could have been espousing the viewpoint that learning is a self-directed thing.

Although I doubt it.

Megaduck
2011-11-16, 02:14 AM
On a different note - why the hate for Ender's Game? While there are probably plot holes and instances of MILITARY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY that I could pick out if I thought about it, I still thoroughly enjoy the book. What's so bad about it that makes you now dislike it?


In my case, the plot holes in military does not work that way are minor. It's two parts of Enders personality. First, It's the entire persecution complex that Ender has. He spends most of the book going I'm-so-special-but-everyone-hates-me. This is part of the reason, I'm ashamed to admit, that I used to like it because I was also never one of the popular kids and I wanted to believe it was just because I was so much better then everyone else that they disliked me. Now it just feels like wish fulfillment and I want to go in and smack all the characters and tell them to grow up. (I'm becoming a crotchety old man i know.)

The second reason is that the entire book tries to impress upon you how INNOCENT Ender is. Nothing is ever his fault, he's always forced into it. He spends a lot of time angsting on how he isn't a killer. It was another thing I used to agree with when I was younger, that he was innocent, but as I got older I reread it and realized he was a killer. He killed a schoolmate when he was six, he killed a classmate when he was 12 or something, and neither of these were accidents. So in the end when he's angsting about committing genocide he basically goes if only I could have known I wouldn't have done it, my response became, no, you would have done it anyway because you've done it twice already in this book. So all the times when the books tries to state how innocent Ender is and how it's not his fault just become sort of annoying and delusional.

Serpentine
2011-11-16, 04:34 AM
If so, then both Ella Enchanted and Lightning Thief make my list. I don't know why I picked up Ella Enchanted, but it ended up being a fairly good story. Sort of like Cinderella, but with more defined characters and consequences of their actions. Then the Anne Hathaway movie came out, and it not only destroyed the book, it actually made me hate Cary Elwes.UGH! Don't get me started on that catastrophe of a film :smallyuk: I can't even watch it all the way through, it's that painful.
I respect that, but now he's a college dropout instead of a highschool dropout. That isn't really much better.Uh... No, that makes him one of many people who choose to end their education (which he actually doesn't) after the legal requirement. That's... pretty meh, really.

The Glyphstone
2011-11-16, 06:34 AM
There is no film of Ella Enchanted. Just like there are no Matrix sequels.:smallyuk:

SlyGuyMcFly
2011-11-16, 06:36 AM
I respect that, but now he's a college dropout instead of a highschool dropout. That isn't really much better.

He's dropping out of school in order to defeat magical Nazis. Cut the kid some slack there. :smalltongue:

Aotrs Commander
2011-11-16, 07:31 AM
@Harry Potter
Also, the fact that JK Rowlings supposedly wrote the first book to encourage kids to read (thats how I heard it anyway) only to have Harry announce at the end of book 6 that he would be dropping out of school sends a pretty mixed message to me. Yes, the school system in the series was messed up, but it typically made bad guys out of teachers and then had Harry drop out. Yes, the teachers as antagonists and semi-antagonists serves to deepen the narrative, but only to a point.

To be fair, until and if the new laws come in 2013 (and the case certainly during the time period that Harry Potter takes place in - which is, incidently, the same time as my school time - I would have been in Harry's year1) English school leaving age is sixteen. After that many - but not all - elect to go to college.

Which can be done at any age - in fact a fair number of people take a year out before starting college in this country (or at least did at the time). It doesn't carry the same stigma as it does stateside - we don't have quite so much of cultural drive to succeed (excepting some subcultures). (Where as - at least from the perspective offered from telly - "you could grow up to be president" seems to be said as goal to strive for, over here, very few people say "you could grow up to be prime minister". Of course, that could just be rather more that we don't trust, as a rule, any of our leaders (since, well, really, ever...!) less people would want to...! Magical Britain was a bit odd in that regard too, actually trusting their media and politicians...)

(And considering the general cultural backwardsness of Wizarding Britiain, school ending at seventeen is actually kind of progressive for them...)



I liked the Star Wars prequels. But I watched them from an Imperial perspective, where you are rooting for Palpatine and enjoying watching the Jedi collapse under their own hubris - which gives a totally different perspective to watching them from a pro-Jedi stance.

I gave up during the New Jedi Order, and only managed a book-and-a-half into the Caedus arc stuff. I limit myself now to go as far as Zahn did, and then me and EU canon diverge.



1That would have been hilarious...

Death Eater: Avadra Kedavra!

Me: Lich2. Immune to death effects. Also, I don't need a freaking wand to cast my spells...

2Yeah, okay, technically untrue, since I wasn't a Lich for a few years after the time-period, but the image of myself as a chibi-Lich Bleakbane, clobbering Umbridge to death with a rocket launcher is just inherently amusing...

(Hell, I'd do that NOW. Umbridge totally deserved a messy end she didn't get in the books, sadly.)

Iskandar
2011-11-16, 10:18 AM
Yeah, count me among those who no longer can read th Sword of the Truth books.

I liked the first one, but by the time the Temple of the Winds rolled around my interest was waning. And when all the political mumbo jumbo and moral crap really started to get in the way of the fantasy I had come to read, I just gave up.

For me, a lot of the TV I used to watch as a kid now REALLY makes me cringe. Knight Rider, for example. Holy CRAP what was I thinking? A lot of the Saturday morning cartoons back from the day. A lot of the 80s prime time stuff. Mind, some of it still holds up, but a lot of it, yikes.

Karoht
2011-11-16, 10:46 AM
Goosebumps by R.L. Stine. I owned the entire original collection. All... I think 60 plus books? And going back and looking at them, good lord are they awful.And how. But at my age, they were awesome. They beat most books that were on the trolly at free reading hour, and that probably says something right there.

memnarch
2011-11-16, 11:24 AM
...

Ender's Game - Now that I'm older, and a little more experienced with the military, I start seeing MASSIVE holes in this plot.

...
Heh, just the military? I'm going through engineering school and I can find plot-holes up to wazoo in almost every science fiction story I've read or watched to date. A good story needs some plot holes or hand-waves (mind you, not really massive ones) to work; they just need to be sold as realistic to the reader.

Mind you, I still like reading Ender's Game and the sequels, so I don't feel that it's bad writing.

Karoht
2011-11-16, 11:53 AM
For me, a lot of the TV I used to watch as a kid now REALLY makes me cringe. Knight Rider, for example. Holy CRAP what was I thinking? A lot of the Saturday morning cartoons back from the day. A lot of the 80s prime time stuff. Mind, some of it still holds up, but a lot of it, yikes.Oh man, Knight Rider? Go read the wiki article on the specs of the new series car. The thing gets like 900 MPG if and when it's burning gas and if it isn't its running on solar with a power output that could run a nuclear aircraft carrier.
(I'm exaggerating, but not as much as you'd think)

Yeah, old Knight Rider was awesome, back when the laws of physics had absolutely no meaning to viewers.

Dr.Epic
2011-11-16, 11:55 AM
I'd like to add half the shows I watched on Nickelodeon. Most of them just simply didn't hold up as I got older.

Mewtarthio
2011-11-16, 12:19 PM
The "Unforgivables" were authorized during the last war against Voldemort- against suspects.

Using similar methods to the bad guys, out of desperation, to achieve a goal, is a bit different from using them for fun, as the Death Eaters often did.

Which directly contradicts Book 5, in which it's stated that you can't use the Unforgivables out of desperation. Or, at least, that's the case with the Cruciatus; Harry tries it on Bellatrix, but it doesn't work because you have to actually enjoy causing pain to cast it. Righteous anger is explicitly called out as insufficient. And then Book 7, Harry casts the Cruciatus out of... righteous anger? I mean, the book tries to fluff it as "Harry now knew what it meant to truly wish to cause someone pain" or something, but it's pretty clearly motivated by righteous anger.


The second reason is that the entire book tries to impress upon you how INNOCENT Ender is. Nothing is ever his fault, he's always forced into it. He spends a lot of time angsting on how he isn't a killer. It was another thing I used to agree with when I was younger, that he was innocent, but as I got older I reread it and realized he was a killer. He killed a schoolmate when he was six, he killed a classmate when he was 12 or something, and neither of these were accidents. So in the end when he's angsting about committing genocide he basically goes if only I could have known I wouldn't have done it, my response became, no, you would have done it anyway because you've done it twice already in this book. So all the times when the books tries to state how innocent Ender is and how it's not his fault just become sort of annoying and delusional.

Wasn't that the point? The military was expressly trying to get someone who could be ruthless without being an unstable sociopath. They're trying to keep him innocent. They like that he considers it acceptable to use overwhelming force against an enemy, but they don't want him to look too closely at the consequences of his actions. He's only a killer because he has no idea that people are dying.

hamishspence
2011-11-16, 12:52 PM
Which directly contradicts Book 5, in which it's stated that you can't use the Unforgivables out of desperation. Or, at least, that's the case with the Cruciatus; Harry tries it on Bellatrix, but it doesn't work because you have to actually enjoy causing pain to cast it. Righteous anger is explicitly called out as insufficient. And then Book 7, Harry casts the Cruciatus out of... righteous anger? I mean, the book tries to fluff it as "Harry now knew what it meant to truly wish to cause someone pain" or something, but it's pretty clearly motivated by righteous anger.

Could be that Harry's gained a little extra power and vindictiveness between book 5 and book.

The Imperius curse does work for him when he casts it- but not very well.

Given the references to the Unforgiveables being "authorized" during the last war (Book 4) and several mentions of Death Eaters being killed by Aurors, it may be that Avada Kedravra isn't an especially "evil" spell.

grimbold
2011-11-16, 01:15 PM
Could be that Harry's gained a little extra power and vindictiveness between book 5 and book.


that would assume character development on harry's part :smalltongue:

but seriously looking back one of the things i hate about HP is how the characters never seem to really evolve

by the end of the 6th book when Harry is supposed to be a top level wizard he still has no idea about the theories used on some of dumbledores spells and equipment and there are still alrge parts of wizarding culture he doesn't understand

ron never seems to go anywhere and is just there for comic relief

and hermione conveniently knows everything

it really gets annoying after a while!

The Glyphstone
2011-11-16, 01:54 PM
Could be that Harry's gained a little extra power and vindictiveness between book 5 and book.

The Imperius curse does work for him when he casts it- but not very well.

Given the references to the Unforgiveables being "authorized" during the last war (Book 4) and several mentions of Death Eaters being killed by Aurors, it may be that Avada Kedravra isn't an especially "evil" spell.

I always saw it as that Avada Kedavra was 'Evil' magic specifically because it could only be used for killing. Spells that kill people are hardly uncommon or illegal in Harry Potter, they're just not emphasized because it's a children's series. Harry himself undoubtedly murdered several Death Eaters during his escape from Privet Drive by Stunning them in midair, for example - the Reducto Curse that blows apart solid objects would be effective and incredibly gory if used on a human being. But both of those have nonlethal applications (As do Cruciatus and Imperius) - the other two 'Unforgivables' may have just gotten lumped in with AK because they were the three most popular curses used by the Death Eaters.

hamishspence
2011-11-16, 01:58 PM
Actually, Harry got a ticking off by members of the Order for not stunning Death Eaters (specifically, Stan Shunpike).

Forum Explorer
2011-11-16, 02:09 PM
I always saw it as that Avada Kedavra was 'Evil' magic specifically because it could only be used for killing. Spells that kill people are hardly uncommon or illegal in Harry Potter, they're just not emphasized because it's a children's series. Harry himself undoubtedly murdered several Death Eaters during his escape from Privet Drive by Stunning them in midair, for example - the Reducto Curse that blows apart solid objects would be effective and incredibly gory if used on a human being. But both of those have nonlethal applications (As do Cruciatus and Imperius) - the other two 'Unforgivables' may have just gotten lumped in with AK because they were the three most popular curses used by the Death Eaters.

well the other two take away free will and the other can only be used to torture someone. That seems like a good enough reason to me.

But since Harry Potter keeps coming up....How it should have ended (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsYWT5Q_R_w)

The Glyphstone
2011-11-16, 02:16 PM
well the other two take away free will and the other can only be used to torture someone. That seems like a good enough reason to me.

But since Harry Potter keeps coming up....How it should have ended (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsYWT5Q_R_w)

Cruciatus I'll give you - I can't think of any outright 'good' ways to use a torture spell. Imperius, though - we've seen other magic spells of lower grades that take away free will (various charms and enchantments), and they're not even considered Dark magic, let alone Unforgivable. Heck, Memory Charms should be Unforgivable by some standards, since erasing someone's memory/personality is as good as murdering them one piece at a time.


For example, a perfectly ordinary prison with all inmates under Imperius Curses would be a far more humane facility than Azkaban, with no less security.

Karoht
2011-11-16, 02:22 PM
For example, a perfectly ordinary prison with all inmates under Imperius Curses would be a far more humane facility than Azkaban, with no less security.Azkaban is proof positive that the wizarding world of Harry Potter really isn't all that interested in what is humane. Or even efficient.

You know those guys? Those horribly evil soulless creatures? Yeah we will just leave them in charge of our prison filled with the most evil people we know. Yeah, that'll work.

Starwulf
2011-11-16, 03:42 PM
In my case, the plot holes in military does not work that way are minor. It's two parts of Enders personality. First, It's the entire persecution complex that Ender has. He spends most of the book going I'm-so-special-but-everyone-hates-me. This is part of the reason, I'm ashamed to admit, that I used to like it because I was also never one of the popular kids and I wanted to believe it was just because I was so much better then everyone else that they disliked me. Now it just feels like wish fulfillment and I want to go in and smack all the characters and tell them to grow up. (I'm becoming a crotchety old man i know.)

The second reason is that the entire book tries to impress upon you how INNOCENT Ender is. Nothing is ever his fault, he's always forced into it. He spends a lot of time angsting on how he isn't a killer. It was another thing I used to agree with when I was younger, that he was innocent, but as I got older I reread it and realized he was a killer. He killed a schoolmate when he was six, he killed a classmate when he was 12 or something, and neither of these were accidents. So in the end when he's angsting about committing genocide he basically goes if only I could have known I wouldn't have done it, my response became, no, you would have done it anyway because you've done it twice already in this book. So all the times when the books tries to state how innocent Ender is and how it's not his fault just become sort of annoying and delusional.

He was 6 when he killed the first kid. What 6 year old, even a super-intelligent one, realizes that what they are doing is going to end up in another childs death? I'll argue to the day I die that he is completely innocent on that one, all he did was put a stop to the kids bullying in the only way he knew how. Hell, it wasn't even bullying, if he hadn't stopped it, they would have caused serious harm to him.

The second instance, well, that's a bit more hazy, but I'd hardly call him a killer for it. Again, he was being tortured, and THIS time, if he hadn't defending himself in a definitive manner, his abuser would have likely killed him, or at least done enough harm to him to put him in a hospital and out of the Fleet Academy. Also, he again wasn't trying to kill, he was trying to finish the fight in a manner that would preclude future occurrences. A bit of bad luck occurred and the kid ended up dead. Still not killer or bad boy material there, and still somewhat innocent.

Not to mention, you have to think, in BOTH instances, authorities were completely aware of what was going on, and REFUSED TO STEP IN AND PUT A STOP TO IT. It's not his fault AT ALL, it's theirs for allowing it to go on, just to see how he would overcome it. Sadistic and cruel adults should be blamed here, not Ender, never Ender.

zingbat
2011-11-16, 05:00 PM
He spends a lot of time angsting on how he isn't a killer. It was another thing I used to agree with when I was younger, that he was innocent, but as I got older I reread it and realized he was a killer. He killed a schoolmate when he was six, he killed a classmate when he was 12 or something, and neither of these were accidents. So in the end when he's angsting about committing genocide he basically goes if only I could have known I wouldn't have done it, my response became, no, you would have done it anyway because you've done it twice already in this book. So all the times when the books tries to state how innocent Ender is and how it's not his fault just become sort of annoying and delusional.

This. I still enjoy Ender's Game (it's pretty good, but not amazing), but he was always a killer. You can beat a bully up without murdering them. Before war school, before training, before mental conditioning, Ender saw no other way to deal with a bully other than murdering him in an unarmed fight.

zingbat
2011-11-16, 06:12 PM
I always saw it as that Avada Kedavra was 'Evil' magic specifically because it could only be used for killing. Spells that kill people are hardly uncommon or illegal in Harry Potter, they're just not emphasized because it's a children's series. Harry himself undoubtedly murdered several Death Eaters during his escape from Privet Drive by Stunning them in midair, for example - the Reducto Curse that blows apart solid objects would be effective and incredibly gory if used on a human being. But both of those have nonlethal applications (As do Cruciatus and Imperius) - the other two 'Unforgivables' may have just gotten lumped in with AK because they were the three most popular curses used by the Death Eaters.

I've always found the ethics of the Harry Potter world to be... odd, to say the least. Avada Kedavra is a good example. It kills a singe person instantly and painlessly. How is that worse than, say, the unnamed curse that killed over a dozen people? Would it not be the perfect spell for law enforcement, when deadly force was required? Wizards seem to be allowed to kill in self-defence or as a last resort in law enforcement, as long as they burn, crush, explode or otherwise kill their attacker in a painful, messy fashion. But casting the quick-death spell? One-way trip to Azkaban.

I also don't see why Imperious is unforgivable, while memory charms, mind reading, vitaserum and all the other mind-screwing magic is fine.

Xondoure
2011-11-16, 10:09 PM
In regards to the unforgiveable curses. I believe Avada Kadavra is there because it has no purpose other than to kill. Seeing as it has been used by good guys without consequences on bad guys I'd assume the law is really more against murder. As for cruciatus torture is generally considered bad. And I believe the Longbottom case weighed heavily in its permanent banning. Imperius as an unforgiveable curse doesn't really make sense when you think of all the other mindscrews but does when you remember it alone was responsible for many death eaters escape from Askaban as "they were only acting under the curse." The ministry would try to avoid that being a valid defense in as many cases as possible.

Gnoman
2011-11-16, 10:34 PM
Besides that, nothing else shown has that level of control. In book 6 a character under the curse acted as an accomplice in multiple murder attempts against an old and (by all appearances) dear friend. Had either Ron or Katie been killed by the clumsy attacks meant for Dumbledore, Malfoy would have been quite safe.

The Glyphstone
2011-11-16, 10:37 PM
In regards to the unforgiveable curses. I believe Avada Kadavra is there because it has no purpose other than to kill. Seeing as it has been used by good guys without consequences on bad guys I'd assume the law is really more against murder. As for cruciatus torture is generally considered bad. And I believe the Longbottom case weighed heavily in its permanent banning. Imperius as an unforgiveable curse doesn't really make sense when you think of all the other mindscrews but does when you remember it alone was responsible for many death eaters escape from Askaban as "they were only acting under the curse." The ministry would try to avoid that being a valid defense in as many cases as possible.

But that makes no sense either - it's casting the Imperius that is Unforgivable, not being hit with it.

Mewtarthio
2011-11-16, 10:49 PM
But that makes no sense either - it's casting the Imperius that is Unforgivable, not being hit with it.

The thing is, the Imperius Curse can really only be countered by extreme paranoia. Your most trusted friend can be forced to betray and kill you under its influence. Furthermore, it is by all accounts incredibly difficult to detect: In the books, we usually don't find out someone's been Imperius'd until after they've carried out their mission. No other spell is that dangerous. Other mind control effects are either too obvious to go undetected or too general to be of much use (often both). A Polyjuice Potion in the hands of a skilled actor could come close, but even that fails under close observation (or a simple password).

Gnoman
2011-11-16, 10:55 PM
But that makes no sense either - it's casting the Imperius that is Unforgivable, not being hit with it.

Exactly. It allows you, the caster, to kill anyone, steal anything, accomplish any task, in perfect safety. Even if your proxy proves that they were under the influence of the curse, book 6 shows that they are unlikely to know who put it on them. Nothing else shown in the series is remotely that powerful. Of the three curses, Imperius is probably the most dangerous by far.

Tavar
2011-11-16, 11:14 PM
I think the point The Glyphstone is making isn't that it doesn't make sense for the casting of the spell to be unforgivable, but that Xondoure's reasoning doesn't make any sense. Xondoure appears to be saying that it's unforgivable because the ministry wanted to be able to charge the subject of the spell, and making it unforgivable allowed that.

Marillion
2011-11-16, 11:38 PM
(Hell, I'd do that NOW. Umbridge totally deserved a messy end she didn't get in the books, sadly.)

Except that she was probably gang-raped by centaurs (http://www.cracked.com/article_19397_the-5-most-depraved-sex-scenes-implied-by-harry-potter.html).

Xondoure
2011-11-17, 12:17 AM
I think the point The Glyphstone is making isn't that it doesn't make sense for the casting of the spell to be unforgivable, but that Xondoure's reasoning doesn't make any sense. Xondoure appears to be saying that it's unforgivable because the ministry wanted to be able to charge the subject of the spell, and making it unforgivable allowed that.

My reasoning was simply that if it were used by anyone other than a dark wizard it would be that much harder to detect.

And for what its worth I also agree with the other arguments put forth for its place among the unforgiveable curses. Its a very scary spell.

Mystic Muse
2011-11-17, 01:09 AM
Except that she was probably gang-raped by centaurs (http://www.cracked.com/article_19397_the-5-most-depraved-sex-scenes-implied-by-harry-potter.html).

Except that she probably wasn't. Look at the passage from the book.


"Professor Umbridge was lying in a bed opposite them, gazing up at the ceiling .... Since she had returned to the castle she had not, as far as any of them knew, uttered a single word. Nobody really knew what was wrong with her, either. Her usually neat mousy hair was very untidy and there were still bits of twigs and leaves in it, but otherwise she seemed to be quite unscathed."


The only possible thing you can bring up there is the untidy hair. The book says that other than that, she was quite unscathed. This is also ignoring the fact that the centaurs as written would likely never do that, and that these aren't the centaurs from mythology. In fact, there's no reason to believe they are since a lot of her creatures deviate from most legends as well.

Umbridge was so racist that Firenze simply teaching at the school pissed her off. She made very clear what she thought of the "Filthy Half-breeds" throughout the entire book. I imagine what they did is threaten to kill her a few times, because that seems more consistent with the attitude they've shown throughout the book. At least, from what I recall.

Serpentine
2011-11-17, 03:17 AM
Except that she probably wasn't. Look at the passage from the book.


"Professor Umbridge was lying in a bed opposite them, gazing up at the ceiling .... Since she had returned to the castle she had not, as far as any of them knew, uttered a single word. Nobody really knew what was wrong with her, either. Her usually neat mousy hair was very untidy and there were still bits of twigs and leaves in it, but otherwise she seemed to be quite unscathed."


The only possible thing you can bring up there is the untidy hair. The book says that other than that, she was quite unscathed.I don't especially have an opinion either way on whether that article's right, but I don't think your reasoning here is solid. Can you always tell when someone's been raped? It might be unlikely that it could have happened without leaving external signs, but it's not impossible, and it certainly (unsurprisingly...) doesn't say in the book that the wizard-doctors brought out a rape kit* to check for sure.

*It's the thing doctors and similar have on hand in case of rape or possible rape cases, to gather the evidence for it quickly.

Aotrs Commander
2011-11-17, 05:45 AM
I doubt even the most vile rapist centaurs in Greek mythology would touch Umbridge with a barge-pole stick there's no way to end that sentence without it sounding dirty is there...

I mean, even they had standards...

It's Umbridge, for crying out loud. Umbridge.

(I suspect Slaanesh him/her/itself would be going "Like, dude, no! Just... eeeww! There are some thing even a god of Chaos won't sink to!")

Anyway, the point remains is that she finished the series very much alive and unpunished for her undiluted evil.

VarenTai
2011-11-17, 09:02 AM
Oh, gads. DragonLance is one of my biggest. I loved loved loved the series growing up, reread it when I turned 30, and shook my head and said, "What the heck was I thinking?"

The characters are awful, the plot is flat, and the character development which seemed sooooo deep and amazing as a kid makes me cringe now.

I can't say I regret reading them because they were wonderful at the time and they helped shape my current interests, but I can't say I would ever go back and read them again.

HOWEVER... I would not be averse to running the actual D&D campaigns they were based on with my kids as they get older. Those were quite well done. :)

Aotrs Commander
2011-11-17, 09:07 AM
Oh, gads. DragonLance is one of my biggest. I loved loved loved the series growing up, reread it when I turned 30, and shook my head and said, "What the heck was I thinking?"

The characters are awful, the plot is flat, and the character development which seemed sooooo deep and amazing as a kid makes me cringe now.

I can't say I regret reading them because they were wonderful at the time and they helped shape my current interests, but I can't say I would ever go back and read them again.

HOWEVER... I would not be averse to running the actual D&D campaigns they were based on with my kids as they get older. Those were quite well done. :)

I think after you get over the lustre of Tas and Raistlin being cool, the rest of the stuff sort of falls flattish. At least it did to me. The after aforementioned pair (and arguably Fizban, because he did have a few funny moments), the rest of the cast is kinda "meh" in my opinion.

DiscipleofBob
2011-11-17, 09:15 AM
Anyway, the point remains is that she finished the series very much alive and unpunished for her undiluted evil.

Considering what the centaurs probably did to her in the forest when they carried her off, I'd consider her punished.

VarenTai
2011-11-17, 09:19 AM
I think after you get over the lustre of Tas and Raistlin being cool, the rest of the stuff sort of falls flattish. At least it did to me. The after aforementioned pair (and arguably Fizban, because he did have a few funny moments), the rest of the cast is kinda "meh" in my opinion.

It's true - I really enjoyed the dynamic between Raist and Caramon, and the 2nd series with the resolution of the brothers had all the trappings of a really good "What can change the nature of a man?" (cookies to whoever gets the ref :smallcool:) story, but the adult reread showed how it really just was mishandled badly and the potential of a good story went to crap. Tas was always great, and he may arguably be the one character that didn't have a very wooden feel to his character development.

Feytalist
2011-11-17, 09:24 AM
..."What can change the nature of a man?" (cookies to whoever gets the ref :smallcool:)...

Planescape: Torment is, at least on these boards, one of the greatest literary achievements known to man, so it's not that much of a oblique reference, heh.

Just popped in here to say that. :smallbiggrin:

VarenTai
2011-11-17, 09:25 AM
Planescape: Torment is, at least on these boards, one of the greatest literary achievements known to man, so it's not that much of a oblique reference, heh.

Just popped in here to say that. :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, it's true. Too many people here appreciate the best CRPG ever to have that particular quote go too long without being recognized. :smallbiggrin:

Mystic Muse
2011-11-17, 11:38 AM
I don't especially have an opinion either way on whether that article's right, but I don't think your reasoning here is solid. Can you always tell when someone's been raped? It might be unlikely that it could have happened without leaving external signs, but it's not impossible, and it certainly (unsurprisingly...) doesn't say in the book that the wizard-doctors brought out a rape kit* to check for sure.

*It's the thing doctors and similar have on hand in case of rape or possible rape cases, to gather the evidence for it quickly.

I would think there'd be marks where they'd held her down or something.

Personally, I just prefer to not think that's what happened because I just saw no or very little evidence in the book that it is what happened. You're free to have either interpretation though.

Aotrs Commander
2011-11-17, 11:42 AM
Planescape: Torment is, at least on these boards, one of the greatest literary achievements known to man, so it's not that much of a oblique reference, heh.

Or to Lich...


Considering what the centaurs probably did to her in the forest when they carried her off, I'd consider her punished.

And yet, it didn't stop her from actively working with Voldy to oppress muggleborns and using bits of dead Aurors down the line, did it? In fact, one might say that whatever the centaurs did or did not do to her, it had no lasting effect on her whatsoever.

Serpentine
2011-11-17, 11:47 AM
I would think there'd be marks where they'd held her down or something.As I said: possible, even likely, but not necessarily.

The Glyphstone
2011-11-17, 12:55 PM
Well, it's indisputable that they traumatized her somehow - the bit right after what was quoted above, where she is sent into a momentary panic by Ron imitating the sound of hooves, says that something happened.

As for book 7...either she got over it naturally, or she just had the memory erased.


And yet, it didn't stop her from actively working with Voldy to oppress muggleborns and using bits of dead Aurors down the line, did it? In fact, one might say that whatever the centaurs did or did not do to her, it had no lasting effect on her whatsoever.

Alternatively, what they did/didn't do to her had an extremely lasting effect on her; before she was just a nasty, power-hungry bureaucrat, but afterwards, her treatment at the hands of 'beasts' deepened her hatred to where she would actively support Voldemort.

Winter_Wolf
2011-11-17, 01:10 PM
Dragonlance trilogy, as has been said. I too tried to go back and read them as an adult. Didn't make it far before I said, "what was wrong with me?"

The downward spiral that is the Sword of Truth series. It just kept getting worse. Although I did like the sheer Machiavellian evil of Dalton in I think it was Soul of the Fire. Pillars of Creation annihilated the series for me. It didn't even make sense. WTH, Goodkind? Can I have my money back?

Piers Anthony's Xanth series devolved into soft-core porn after a while. Actually, anything I'd ever read that was written by him ended up with hefty doses of smut. To be perfectly clear, I have no issue with smut, but when I go to read a fantasy novel, I'm looking for dragons-and-wizards fantasy, not bedroom-role-play fantasy.

Aotrs Commander
2011-11-17, 01:11 PM
Alternatively, what they did/didn't do to her had an extremely lasting effect on her; before she was just a nasty, power-hungry bureaucrat, but afterwards, her treatment at the hands of 'beasts' deepened her hatred to where she would actively support Voldemort.

Considering beforehand, she was not only willing - but took great pleasure in - torturing children, I'm pretty sure she was already that far gone. Given the chance to keep her status and power (and get a boost) - which she was, let us not forget, willing to use an Unforgivable on a minor to retain - given the chance to bully as much as she liked with official backing who wouldn't care what her methods were? I'll bet she snapped Voldy's hands off.

In any case, even if it were true, it doesn't even remotely change the fact that she continued to do evil, long after the centaurs. All the crap she did post-book five went completely unpunished, and that was argueably far worse.

She, unlike many characters, deserves every single iota of hate directed her way; she is the very worse kind of bully, hateful, petty and hypocritical, without the slightest redeeming feature. Voldemort himself was more likable, and he was a fragging mass murderer.

hamishspence
2011-11-17, 01:53 PM
All the crap she did post-book five went completely unpunished, and that was argueably far worse.

According to TV Tropes:

The books make no mention of her final fate, but Word Of God confirms that she was ultimately tried, convicted, and sent to Azkaban.

WalkingTarget
2011-11-17, 02:13 PM
She, unlike many characters, deserves every single iota of hate directed her way; she is the very worse kind of bully, hateful, petty and hypocritical, without the slightest redeeming feature. Voldemort himself was more likable, and he was a fragging mass murderer.

I read all of the books. I thought that they were ok. I neither love nor hate them - I got enough entertainment from them to not dislike reading them despite the only real reason I bothered with them at all is/was their status as a cultural touchstone that I'm sure, like it or not, will have a lasting effect on future works.

Dolores Umbridge is one of the most successful villains I think I've ever read. The part I bolded in the quote above: exactly my feeling on the matter. Unlike the vast majority of characters in the series, she evoked an actual emotion. I hate her as a person more than I've hated any real, flesh and blood person I've ever met. As a character I think that this makes her extraordinarily successful.

Yora
2011-11-17, 02:19 PM
Are films allowed?
When I first watched The Phantom Menace as a youngling, I liked it. I still kinda like it now, but only for the pod racing sequence and the duel with Darth Maul. Everything else is....yeah.

I thought Episode 2 was worse than Episode 1, but still waaaay better than Episode 3 after leaving the theatre after the last one.
Now I realize 3 is actually the only one that is halfway decent. Episode 2 is so awful, when I try to watch it I almost skip 3/4th of the movie because they are boring and unimportant.

Also, when I say The Golden Child many years ago, at least twice, if not even three times, I really liked it. Havn't seen it in 15 years or so, but now I frequently read how abysmal it is supposed to be.

SiuiS
2011-11-17, 02:46 PM
<<

>>

<<

The Anita Blake: novels.
The first one was pretty novel (pardon me, but it's true), and as the story 'progressed' a lot of interesting dynamics were exposed. Things which could have been really cool if fleshed out. Some of them were really cool, and fleshed out. Hay, as horrible as it is, I still like the way lycanthropes work out. There's potential there.

And then.
The slow climb from flawed to flawless. The subtle and not so subtle influx of uber characters, always on the protagonists side. The Uh, exceedingly rampant and contrived sex scenes.


A lot of it was tolerable; there was just enough reasonable doubt; sure the protagonists oboe ever have problems because they're selfish and too dumb to actually notice anything. That's how most of my D&D games go, so it makes sense. Sure, the world has a secret hierarchy of monsters who exist only to coerce semi-consensual sex out of each other; that's lowestcommon denominator, and the book does specifically focus on the bad while hinting at the good. That's understandable. Sure, the writing started to fall apart, and become rote; I still find that being able to predict a story and enjoy it anyway is a sign of good writing, and I was spiting my friends who all insisted how horrible the books were.

And then, a book opens with "oh my god I'm pregnant!" "who's the father?" "one of these eight guys! I added a couple between books, lol"

I haven't been back to that library since. The librarian saw me with the book. She knows my face. I'm afraid I'll walk in, and they'll give me this knowing look, like I've been there. I understand. and I just couldn't handle that.

Also, Dominic Deegan, the web comic. It's still got some appeal, but... Yeah. Not quite embarrassed, just rather disappointed.

Aotrs Commander
2011-11-17, 05:59 PM
According to TV Tropes:

The books make no mention of her final fate, but Word Of God confirms that she was ultimately tried, convicted, and sent to Azkaban.

That actually doesn't surprise me (though I hadn't heard that), both from an in-universe and out-universe sense.

I still think she got off lightly. The wizards weren't daft enough to put dementors back in Azkaban, were they?


I read all of the books. I thought that they were ok. I neither love nor hate them - I got enough entertainment from them to not dislike reading them despite the only real reason I bothered with them at all is/was their status as a cultural touchstone that I'm sure, like it or not, will have a lasting effect on future works.

Dolores Umbridge is one of the most successful villains I think I've ever read. The part I bolded in the quote above: exactly my feeling on the matter. Unlike the vast majority of characters in the series, she evoked an actual emotion. I hate her as a person more than I've hated any real, flesh and blood person I've ever met. As a character I think that this makes her extraordinarily successful.

One of the reasons I don't put her on my most hated list alongside vampires (it's a Lich thing) and Shi'Ar-plus-Gladiator, is that was her purpose as a character. I wouldn't have personally ranked her as a good villain (I personally prefer the likes of Grand Admiral Thrawn or Babylon 5's Bester); but you said successful, and I'd have to agree with that.

I'd have still preferred to see somone set her intestines on fire though...!

Iskandar
2011-11-17, 06:35 PM
The Shannara series by Brooks is an example where I can't stand the specific series anymore, but other books by the same author are still okay.

I remember reading the first three when I was a kid, recently I'm going through and rereading a lot of books i used to love, and I just cannot wade through this series anymore. However, the Kingdom of Landover series is still quite a good read.

Similarly, Stasheff's Warlock series of books has lost a lot of their charm over the years, but the Wizard in Rhyme books still amuse me.

Emmerask
2011-11-17, 09:11 PM
Well I agree with the sword of truth series haters ^^
Though mainly because of book 3 to 13.
The first two books are if not actually good okay to read with some interesting ideas.
But after these two it got downhill extremely fast especially the "everyone needs a weapon to protect his freedom" agenda (which was there in the first two books two but not to that extent...) every freaking second sentence and very dubious motivations and actions of characters really made the whole series pretty obnoxious.

Pie Guy
2011-11-17, 09:17 PM
Dominic Deegan here. I read through up to Greg inventing heavy metal in a week or so, turned to the webcomics forum to see if there was a thread and then the disappointment settled in.

Forum Explorer
2011-11-18, 12:30 AM
The third book in the Golden Compass series managed to ruin the entire thing for me. To be more accuarte the ending of the series ruined it for me. A problem is solved in a 5 seconds flat and the main characters don't even relize it. Also it makes zero sense. Which makes that whole sub-plot pointless. Then its followed up by a pointless tragedy that also makes exactly zero sense. Its like the author just gave up in the last hundred or so pages and actually started to hate his own characters.


Regarding Dragonlance: I still love that series and I don't see where your complaints are coming from. Perhaps I'm just being blinded by nostogia but I don't care.

Terry576
2011-11-18, 04:51 AM
Really? I began to hate the Golden Compass books for a different reason:

Lyra starts out as a lovable, cheeky heroine. However, like 150 pages after Will is introduced, she becomes irrevocably attached to him. Lyra barely does anything of significance post-Will, and Will is suddenly OMGSOOPERIMPORTANTANDSOCOOL.

I love Lyra in book one, she was cheeky, headstrong, and noble to a fault. Then she meets Will, it continues for a bit then just vanishes. :smallfrown:

Knaight
2011-11-18, 10:29 AM
Really? I began to hate the Golden Compass books for a different reason:

Lyra starts out as a lovable, cheeky heroine. However, like 150 pages after Will is introduced, she becomes irrevocably attached to him. Lyra barely does anything of significance post-Will, and Will is suddenly OMGSOOPERIMPORTANTANDSOCOOL.

I love Lyra in book one, she was cheeky, headstrong, and noble to a fault. Then she meets Will, it continues for a bit then just vanishes. :smallfrown:

I don't hate the Golden Compass for this, as the Golden Compass doesn't have that problem. I don't hate the Subtle Knife, as Will and Lyra really share protagonist duties. I don't even hate the Amber Spyglass, but I do consider this a great glaring weakness in it that prevents me from liking it nearly as much as the other two. Moreover, it is one of many great glaring weaknesses in it.

grimbold
2011-11-18, 12:30 PM
\
Regarding Dragonlance: I still love that series and I don't see where your complaints are coming from. Perhaps I'm just being blinded by nostogia but I don't care.

blinded by nostalgia is the main reason i still like a lot of things when i was little :smallwink:

Nerd-o-rama
2011-11-18, 12:46 PM
Let's see...

Dominic Deegan, for reasons that have been illustrated in both this thread and about 40 others. Even looking back at when the comic was "good", it was really mainly just okay.

Other than that, I'm mostly shameless. I have no problem with enjoying what I enjoyed even when it's gotten bad or I've grown to realize it's not very good - Star Wars, most of the ouvre of Daving Eddings and Brian Jacques, every third Discworld novel or so...

I will agree with people earlier in the thread who were mentioning Star Trek Voyager, though. Looking back, I realize I was only watching that show as a teenager for one reason. Well, two reasons, both of them attached to Jeri Ryan.


Oh, and there are a few individual characters I liked for internet reputation before actually seeing them in action in whatever fiction they're from. The most prominent case: Gilgamesh from Fate/Stay Night. I very much enjoyed the cocky, twisted attitude I picked up about him from the fandom, and then I started reading about what he actually does and says in the story.

Yeah.

DiscipleofBob
2011-11-18, 12:59 PM
Similarly, Stasheff's Warlock series of books has lost a lot of their charm over the years, but the Wizard in Rhyme books still amuse me.

Sir, if I was a gentleman I'd challenge you to pistols at dawn for that remark. Warlock series is awesome.


In other news, I fired up the Netflix, found the original Power Rangers series and thought "Nostalgia Gold Mine!".

I couldn't even make it through the first episode. I was so depressed that this used to qualify as entertainment for me.

This is coming from a guy who still thinks Yu-Gi-Oh! and Jackie Chan Adventures are still awesome.

Jade Dragon
2011-11-18, 01:44 PM
Sir, if I was a gentleman I'd challenge you to pistols at dawn for that remark. Warlock series is awesome.


In other news, I fired up the Netflix, found the original Power Rangers series and thought "Nostalgia Gold Mine!".

I couldn't even make it through the first episode. I was so depressed that this used to qualify as entertainment for me.

This is coming from a guy who still thinks Yu-Gi-Oh! and Jackie Chan Adventures are still awesome.

I never liked Power Rangers. Even the only one I saw the first episode of where they have to stop some rampaging dinosaurs by forging a permanent bond with them using their... whatever it was.

On the other hand, I loved Kamen Rider: Dragon Knight, which is like Pkwer Rangers, although I only saw a few of the early episodes where all they did was fight other guys with the equipment given to them by the BBEG after he took it from the original Kamen Riders after "killing" them (placing them in temporal stasis on some plane of existence only accessible by the Kamen Rider mentor's special equipment, by defeating them in combat), so I mostly saw the episodes where the writers had figured it out and were making PLOT happen.

I've also seen the first 13 episodes of Yugioh GX, and scatterings of Yugioh episodes on Pegasus Island, as well as a couple episodes of 5Ds. I think I would spend time on all of them, but GX was really the only one I would be willing to spend money on.

Karoht
2011-11-18, 02:09 PM
I'm ashamed to admit I liked power rangers as a kid.
Of course it could have something to do with the fact that I was a martial artist at age 4. And suddenly, being a martial artist was all of a sudden cool in a 'save the world' kind of way.
I grew out of it a year or 3 later. But I too watched it on Netflicks. And that rocking guitar solo during the (terribad, even back then) opening credits brought back all the awesome nostalgia and none of the negative.
My fiance and I actually sat through a whole episode, and we very nearly watched a second.

Years later I looked it up and discovered the Super Sentai / Kamen Rider was it's own genre. I was impressed.

Starwulf
2011-11-18, 04:31 PM
Sir, if I was a gentleman I'd challenge you to pistols at dawn for that remark. Warlock series is awesome.


In other news, I fired up the Netflix, found the original Power Rangers series and thought "Nostalgia Gold Mine!".

I couldn't even make it through the first episode. I was so depressed that this used to qualify as entertainment for me.

This is coming from a guy who still thinks Yu-Gi-Oh! and Jackie Chan Adventures are still awesome.

Yu-Gi-Oh up to the 5Ds series is awesome! Absolutely love it. 5Ds though, completely ruined the series. What does riding a damn bike around a track have to do with dueling monsters? Even having watched half of the series, I still don't get the point. They could have just had the standard duels and it would have had the same significance and probably have been a bit more bearable, though probably not, as many of the cards start to go ape**** crazy in that series.

Isn't there a new series coming out though for Yu-Gi-Oh? I know there is a new card series, and I would think that that presages the coming of a new anime series as well, which would be nice as long as it doesn't involve riding around on a damn bike on a racetrack.

Helanna
2011-11-18, 07:30 PM
Regarding Dragonlance: I still love that series and I don't see where your complaints are coming from. Perhaps I'm just being blinded by nostogia but I don't care.

I was actually struck with a fit of nostalgia a few days ago and I re-read Dragons of Autumn Twilight. About four pages in, I was like "Wow, the prose in this is not as good as I remember". As I continued, well . . . it didn't quite live up to my memories. But dammit, I still love that series and I don't mind admitting it.

Pianonab338
2011-11-19, 12:01 AM
Harry Potter


"I'm gonna let all of my friends die for me and fight for me and cast one spell, kill Voldemort, and get all the credit, all because I was never in any real peril because all of the Death Eaters are ex-Stormtroopers, and everyone knows that there are SEVEN BOOKS, so I HAVE to survive at least until the last one!"


Eragon

"Sorry, Aragorn (um, Eragon) we're not supposed to be together because I, Arwen (oops. Arya) am an elf and you're a human. Also, have you read these books about 'Middle Earth?!' They totally stole ALL of our ideas about where the elves came from, how everyone acts, and totally cribbed ALL of our names!"


Star Wars

"Let's stand and face each other dramatically, not attacking, on the edge of a 1,000 meter ledge, and NOT Force-Push the other person to their doom!"

Dienekes
2011-11-19, 03:33 AM
West Side Story

When I was really young I enjoyed the dynamic of the gang warfare and the funny delinquency of the Jets and Sharks, even that stuff with the girls had some catching songs.

Now I hate this play with a passion, somehow managing to make the Bard's worst play even worse. The music annoys me, the characters are as idiotic as ever, and even the Tybalt stand in seems to have lost most of the fire that made him one of the two interesting characters, and the other lost all of the depth that made him more than just the comedic sidekick.

Jade Dragon
2011-11-19, 05:51 PM
Harry Potter


"I'm gonna let all of my friends die for me and fight for me and cast one spell, kill Voldemort, and get all the credit, all because I was never in any real peril because all of the Death Eaters are ex-Stormtroopers, and everyone knows that there are SEVEN BOOKS, so I HAVE to survive at least until the last one!"


Uh huh. Like all of his friends died. Would you prefer if it was a story about how all the good guys arbitrarily survived because they were the good guys?

McStabbington
2011-11-19, 07:56 PM
I read all of the books. I thought that they were ok. I neither love nor hate them - I got enough entertainment from them to not dislike reading them despite the only real reason I bothered with them at all is/was their status as a cultural touchstone that I'm sure, like it or not, will have a lasting effect on future works.

Dolores Umbridge is one of the most successful villains I think I've ever read. The part I bolded in the quote above: exactly my feeling on the matter. Unlike the vast majority of characters in the series, she evoked an actual emotion. I hate her as a person more than I've hated any real, flesh and blood person I've ever met. As a character I think that this makes her extraordinarily successful.

Agreed on all counts. Voldemort was more or less a generic diabolical archenemy, who could be expected to do the usual dastardly-villainous thing at the appropriate moment. Umbridge, by contrast, was so spot-on as a child abuser that there was some debate in my mind as to whether Book V should have come labeled with a trigger warning. The psychological manipulation, emotional blackmail, and the attempt to isolate and coerce her victims into silence were textbook abusive techniques.

Voldemort wanted to rule the world. Umbridge wanted to break wills, one victim at a time. The only fictional character I can think of who inspired equal levels of black hatred was Jody from Preacher, for much the same reason.

Just to keep the thread on track: Labyrinth was one of the scariest movies I'd ever seen as a child. Now, I spend most of my time watching it picking apart the logical inconsistencies (So, the goblins will only steal a baby if you ask for it while rhyming?) and just kind of slack-jawed at The Area on David Bowie. It's not a sexual thing so much as wondering how in the deuce they got that into a kid's film.

Serpentine
2011-11-19, 11:00 PM
I'd like to see them try and stop it :smallamused:
And Labyrinth is still one of my very favourite movies.
Not quite the same, but oddly I've been finding it harder to watch Edward Scissorhands. I seem to find it more and more depressing every time...
Why the Hell couldn't you go up and visit him in all those decades?! Why?! He's just sitting up there making ice sculptures and stuff! It's like a ten minute walk away! Everyone else has long forgotten him, and anyone who would've cared was dead long before you got so old! WHYYY!

TheArsenal
2011-11-20, 03:51 AM
Harry potter. Mostly because the 4-7 book expects us to treat the saga seriously.

So if it suddenly says "Im dark and gritty now, not just a kids book" you end up asking "Why don't the call the muggles? They got guns"

Jade Dragon
2011-11-20, 01:49 PM
Harry potter. Mostly because the 4-7 book expects us to treat the saga seriously.

So if it suddenly says "Im dark and gritty now, not just a kids book" you end up asking "Why don't the call the muggles? They got guns"

Because that would ruin the entire point of "don't reveal the secret society"?

dgnslyr
2011-11-20, 01:55 PM
Then why not cut out the middleman and get guns for yourself? It's not like a wizard should have trouble waltzing into a gunstore and compelling the owner to relinquish his stock of firearms and ammunition.

TheArsenal
2011-11-20, 01:56 PM
I meant more like that when it wasn't supposed to be taken seriously, I could excuse plot holes, and just enjoy the ride.

But when the ride becomes bad, and says "Im serious now" I start asking questions:

"So your childs sport is flying at deathly speeds hitting each other with balls with a high chance of killing each other"

"So you group your children into premature clicks to ensure that they don't overgrow or change who they are-ever"

"Are all the slytherine evil?"

"What the hell is Voldemort doing attacking Muggles! Those guys could easily destroy the entire Magic world"

"So its bad to use avadakadabra, but death by fire is a OK?"

"There are date rape candies that are widely available for childrens use.....OK"

Jade Dragon
2011-11-20, 01:57 PM
Then why not cut out the middleman and get guns for yourself? It's not like a wizard should have trouble waltzing into a gunstore and compelling the owner to relinquish his stock of firearms and ammunition.

I think a Protego would stop bullets. Harry cast one when Ron and Hermione were fighting to keep them apart, and it was basically a wall of force.

dgnslyr
2011-11-20, 02:01 PM
Well, there's a pretty big difference between a lover-proof wall and a bullet-proof wall, though now that you mention it, it would only make sense for a spell that blocks bullets to exist.

Mystic Muse
2011-11-20, 02:08 PM
[quote]
"So its bad to use avadakadabra, but death by fire is a OK?" I think Avada Kedavra is considered unforgivable because it can ONLY be used for killing.



"There are date rape candies that are widely available for childrens use.....OK"

It actually wasn't like that. The candies were supposed to, at most, make you think the person looked cuter than they normally were. That love potion had been expired for several months, and so its effects had become a lot more potent than they ever were intended to be.



"What the hell is Voldemort doing attacking Muggles! Those guys could easily destroy the entire Magic world" Probably killing the unsuspecting ones. For one, they aren't going to be suspecting Voldemort or death eaters, or anything like that. For another, Voldemort is pretty much immortal anyway.

thorgrim29
2011-11-20, 02:11 PM
That's when you use the Kincaid solution: a high calibre round fired from more then a kilometre away, your head is mist before you even hear the gunshot.

TheArsenal
2011-11-20, 02:18 PM
I think Avada Kedavra is considered unforgivable because it can ONLY be used for killing.

Thats rubbish. So what? I get not using spells to kill but what makes avada Kedabra so special? A quick death VS BURNING TO DEATH!


It actually wasn't like that. The candies were supposed to, at most, make you think the person looked cuter than they normally were. That love potion had been expired for several months, and so its effects had become a lot more potent than they ever were intended to be.

....And? So what! That can still result in so much wrong happening!

And wasn't Voldemort concieved BECAUSE of shenanigains like that!


Probably killing the unsuspecting ones. For one, they aren't going to be suspecting Voldemort or death eaters, or anything like that. For another, Voldemort is pretty much immortal anyway.

That reminds me of a Robot Chicken Sketch about Wherewolves.

But why was he attacking unsuspecting ones again?

Whatever.

Piont is that they could easily destroy his entire army (Except for death eaters but mages could deal with that)

Forum Explorer
2011-11-20, 02:19 PM
That's when you use the Kincaid solution: a high calibre round fired from more then a kilometre away, your head is mist before you even hear the gunshot.

Even close range dumping something like thirty shots at a wizard who is trying to cast a spell will almost certainly kill him.

Besides that I think its word of God that a swat team is deadlier than Voldemort.

TheArsenal
2011-11-20, 02:21 PM
Even close range dumping something like thirty shots at a wizard who is trying to cast a spell will almost certainly kill him.

Besides that I think its word of God that a swat team is deadlier than Voldemort.

Which is kinda awesome all things considered.

When I was little I thought that the Good mages where hiding the evil from the muggles.

But now I realise that its not like that.

The magic world is hiding from the muggles with essentialy rapid fire avada Kadabras.

Mystic Muse
2011-11-20, 02:32 PM
Thats rubbish. So what? I get not using spells to kill but what makes avada Kedabra so special? A quick death VS BURNING TO DEATH! Probably the fact that the only wizards who know the spell are highly powerful wizards, and the badguys. You use what you have, and if the only thing you have is a flamethrower, you use that instead of complaining that you don't have something better suited to the job.

Though, there seem to be a lot of worse spells in the HP universe than Avada Keddavra that should be illegal too. How the **** was Sectumsempra not on the list of unforgivable curses?



....And? So what! That can still result in so much wrong happening!

And wasn't Voldemort conceived BECAUSE of shenanigans like that! Yes, he was. I'm not saying I like the existence of the love potions, I'm just saying that calling the standard love potion a date-rape drug seems like it's going a little far. At least, if I recall correctly how they're supposed to work.

There are also a lot of real, legal substances that can result in so much wrong happening. We're just as guilty of having substances with potentially horrible side effects as the Harry Potter universe is.



That reminds me of a Robot Chicken Sketch about Wherewolves.

But why was he attacking unsuspecting ones again?
Because he hates muggles. He's racist, and he wants them all dead or enslaved.



Piont is that they could easily destroy his entire army (Except for death eaters but mages could deal with that)
Yes, but the entire point is to make the magic society STAY secret, and that's kind of hard to do when you tell people exists.

TheArsenal
2011-11-20, 02:42 PM
Probably the fact that the only wizards who know the spell are highly powerful wizards, and the badguys. You use what you have, and if the only thing you have is a flamethrower, you use that instead of complaining that you don't have something better suited to the job.

Im generally questioning the morals of letting children run around with Gun/ flamethrower/ Mind Control/Other dangerous stuff on a stick in general


Yes, he was. I'm not saying I like the existence of the love potions, I'm just saying that calling the standard love potion a date-rape drug seems like it's going a little far. At least, if I recall correctly how they're supposed to work.

Its a bit too far, but it could happen. There are people that would do this.

Buy a perfectly legal love potion and let it stay beyond its natural time and then horror.


There are also a lot of real, legal substances that can result in so much wrong happening. We're just as guilty of having substances with potentially horrible side effects as the Harry Potter universe is.


I probably don't know but...tell me. PM me if you must.


Because he hates muggles. He's racist, and he wants them all dead or enslaved.

But my question is why does he attack them. If they found out they would destroy him. He is just raising suspicion.

He KNOWS he cannot ensalve them, so why bother?

Emmerask
2011-11-20, 03:00 PM
I think the wording for the love potion incident was that it can strengthen over time that does not mean however that it must or that it can´t just for example kill a person if used when foul.

The muggle attacking would be pretty much for sport I guess.
Oh and creating more zombie things for the army ^^

And the not enslaving part... I guess it would have come to that part after harry has been killed and the consolidation of all the wizarding world.
If that would have been successful is another matter though but killing or enslaving all high ranking political/military/economic people would be a good start I guess.

TheArsenal
2011-11-20, 03:03 PM
Where where any zombies in harry potter?

Emmerask
2011-11-20, 03:04 PM
The inferious are pretty much zombie like ^^

Mystic Muse
2011-11-20, 03:05 PM
Where where any zombies in harry potter?

In the sixth book. I forget what they were called, but they were defending the Horcrux.

TheArsenal
2011-11-20, 03:09 PM
In the sixth book. I forget what they were called, but they were defending the Horcrux.

Well yes, but they where not infectious. They where a pretty elaborate and stupid defense mechanism.

He could have as easily dug up some corpses Or killed some mages.

Forum Explorer
2011-11-20, 03:16 PM
Well yes, but they where not infectious. They where a pretty elaborate and stupid defense mechanism.

He could have as easily dug up some corpses Or killed some mages.

The classic zombie weren't infectious at all and were just animated corpses


I would like to see a harry potter wizard who used and enjoyed all the things muggles do and just used his wand/magic as an all-purpose tool.

Emmerask
2011-11-20, 03:17 PM
Zombie does not automatically mean Romero's Zombies. :smallsmile:

Before that zombies meant corpses brought back to life by magical means and possibly remained under the control of the magician.

And then of course there is the whole Haitian Vodou Zombie thing
Which I think comes down to giving an alive person some special drugs that make them will-less. Correct me if I´m wrong there because I don´t know much at all about this subject ^^

/swordsaged

TheArsenal
2011-11-20, 03:57 PM
If they where not infectious there are no reasons for fielding them.

Jade Dragon
2011-11-20, 03:59 PM
If they where not infectious there are no reasons for fielding them.

Except, you know, to kill the civilians while the mages take out the armed muggles. Then the mages use the corpses to make more inferi.

SaintRidley
2011-11-20, 04:01 PM
Never underestimate the value of turning an enemy into an ally after they've died.

TheArsenal
2011-11-20, 04:06 PM
Except, you know, to kill the civilians while the mages take out the armed muggles. Then the mages use the corpses to make more inferi.

What are Inferi?

And yes I can. Killing a civilian that can attaact the attention of people that could glady drop abombs on your location, and have rapid fire avada cadabra spells to create slow moving mindless walking meat bags is rather stupid.

Forum Explorer
2011-11-20, 04:16 PM
If they where not infectious there are no reasons for fielding them.

Mobile Backscatchers and pet sitters. :smalltongue:

But yeah there is a reason zombies are a low level encounter in D&D :smallamused:

Nerd-o-rama
2011-11-20, 04:20 PM
Voldemort attacked Muggles because he was an insane racist (and even then, did it subtly enough not to draw the ire of the police, MI-5, etc.)

No one ran to get guns because they were in the United Kingdom, a country where hardened bank robbers say "screw it" and commit crimes with power tools because guns are so thoroughly outlawed and controlled. Plus, a wand and Avada Kedavra/Stupefy are almost as efficient, and do the job when the other side isn't using guns either.

Also, no one wanted to bring in Muggle authorities because they were well aware (in denial or not) that that would have destroyed the entire Wizarding society, and would have been a hell of a disruption in the Muggle one. The Minister briefs the Minister in Book 5, and then they stay out of each others' way.

No one used zombies because...well, they had trolls and giants, I guess.

Also, Sectumsempra is probably quite illegal, but didn't make it into the famous Unforgivable ban because it's still less than killing or mind-raping someone. Also, it was a relatively recent private invention and its creation and use was quite likely covered up by Dumbledore for the sake of having blackmail on protecting young Severus.


Harry Potter is only an okay book series (and did indeed go downhill somewhat in my opinion when it started getting serious), but sometimes people really look too hard for plot holes in it.

TheArsenal
2011-11-20, 04:35 PM
I don't LOOK for plotholes. I was actualy upset when I finished book 7.

It was a copout and a cheesey as a mozerala stick ending.

Its a fun read with some great fantasy for kids. The movies are fun an adventerous.

Just stop at book 3-4. Farther then that its just kida rubbish.

Jade Dragon
2011-11-20, 04:48 PM
What are Inferi?

The zombies! Inferious isn't the right word.

TheArsenal
2011-11-20, 04:52 PM
The zombies! Inferious isn't the right word.

The thing is that-

Zombies are very easy to kill and not very dangerous at all. Even if you cannot aim for the head.

Mostr inportantly they rot away after 3 weeks.

Jade Dragon
2011-11-20, 05:03 PM
The thing is that-

Zombies are very easy to kill and not very dangerous at all. Even if you cannot aim for the head.

Mostr inportantly they rot away after 3 weeks.

*sigh*

This isn't the exact same interpretation. Maybe whatever work of horror/fiction you have says that. The D&D version doesn't say anything about that. The Harry Potter version is that they're all controlled by the wizard that made them and follow a set of simple commands (in the case they're shown: attack any living thing that touches the water) if not actively being controlled by their creator. Inferi can be rather fast, and I believe it says in the book that Harry thought they had a grip of iron when one grabbed him.

TheArsenal
2011-11-20, 05:12 PM
Again.

Oh my god a rotting corpse slowly stumbling nearer to me.

I guess I should use the bleed spell (DUUUUUUUUR).

Blast it with fire

A bullet would make a corpse explode (As the innards are now just jelly).

They are scary, but only in large masses. An even then an undead hoarde of 100 is not as scary as 50/10 decently armed muggles/ wizards (which everybody in harry potter is).

Emmerask
2011-11-20, 05:43 PM
I don't LOOK for plotholes. I was actualy upset when I finished book 7.

It was a copout and a cheesey as a mozerala stick ending.


Actually I thought it was a passable ending for fantasy/scifi (the book version, the movie version was utter garbage), it actually explained quite a lot and was not completely random like other endings (hello pandemia saga, vampire earth, Dragon Crown War and many more with an okayish to awesome story but a complete let down ending).

Tavar
2011-11-20, 06:08 PM
Again.

Oh my god a rotting corpse slowly stumbling nearer to me.

I guess I should use the bleed spell (DUUUUUUUUR).

Blast it with fire

A bullet would make a corpse explode (As the innards are now just jelly).

They are scary, but only in large masses. An even then an undead hoarde of 100 is not as scary as 50/10 decently armed muggles/ wizards (which everybody in harry potter is).

This assumes that they are running according to physics, and that they are the basic, slow zombies.

Neither of these facts needs to be true, and in fact, neither of them appear to be true. If magic is really present and animating them, then they could very well be completely unaffected by most types of physical violence.

For example, in the Dresden Files, zombies gain power based on their age and sentience. So, while a zombie raised from the corpes of a cow one just killed is basically worthless, one raised from a civil war era soldier is much more powerful and resilient. Plus, unless they're the aforementioned fresh killed ones, they can move at least as fast as a normal human, and they don't get tired.

Xondoure
2011-11-20, 09:26 PM
Wizards are capable of making anti-muggle zones, teleporting, and causing massive area damage with the right spells. If it came to a war, the only reason they would lose is because dealing with magic seems to have a negative effect on your reasoning skills.

TheArsenal
2011-11-21, 01:29 AM
Eh whatever. These arguments could go on forever.

My point was more of that the HP world is not made for seriousnes.

In my opinion the book suffers from the following:

If you take it seriously, it both crumples apart, and has bathtubs full of unfortunate implications

Harry is annoying, and gets his entire life handed to him on a silver platter, whilst doing very little in return.

zingbat
2011-11-21, 08:28 AM
There are also a lot of real, legal substances that can result in so much wrong happening. We're just as guilty of having substances with potentially horrible side effects as the Harry Potter universe is.


Yes, but these substances are not normally sold at children's toy stores.

Mystic Muse
2011-11-21, 12:06 PM
Yes, but these substances are not normally sold at children's toy stores.

I'll grant you that.

Anyway, He's dropped it, so we should be getting back on topic.

DiscipleofBob
2011-11-21, 12:15 PM
I didn't mind Harry Potter up until the title character apparently hit puberty. I guess it was too much to hope that Harry Potter would actually be a role model for teenagers and not just the ball of whine and angst he becomes in the later books.

You know what? I'll admit I used to watch Sailor Moon and Dragonball Z back when the Toonami Midnight Run was still a thing and that was the only anime available. Sailor Moon I haven't seen in a long time so I don't know if I'd still tolerate it, but DBZ has to be one of my least favorite animes for me nowadays. Although DBZ Abridged makes it wonderful again.

Emmerask
2011-11-21, 12:25 PM
Fool you cannot match a ninjas speed!
Still liking db :smalltongue:

Nerd-o-rama
2011-11-21, 01:00 PM
I don't LOOK for plotholes. I was actualy upset when I finished book 7.

It was a copout and a cheesey as a mozerala stick ending.

I won't defend book 7 too hard (as it's just a laundry list of "things an editor should have caught but didn't because it's Harry Freaking Potter, just publish it already"), but I think the problem wasn't that it was a cop-out or a plot hole, but rather that Rowling tripped over herself trying to do something complex and added in some saccharine that wasn't needed to make the plot make sense.

The ending - Harry's survival included - makes perfect sense with the rules of the Elder Wand and Horcruxes established throughout the novel, and Harry is careful to patiently explain to Voldemort (and the reader) why he still cannot possibly win before the final spell exchange. You don't even need to bring Lily into it, so I just kind of ignored that part.

And the movies were universally terrible except maybe the first two.

Karoht
2011-11-21, 01:12 PM
I used to like the story of Final Fantasy 7.
Then time went on, I played/read better stories, and the FF7 fandom also happened.
Yeah.
Compair it to FF6 for a brief moment. No one I know is ashamed of admitting that they like that game to this day.

Nerd-o-rama
2011-11-21, 01:13 PM
I used to like the story of Final Fantasy 7.
Then time went on, I played/read better stories, and the FF7 fandom also happened.
Yeah.
Compair it to FF6 for a brief moment. No one I know is ashamed of admitting that they like that game to this day.

At least FFVII's story is better than the movie's...

EDIT: AC, Spirits Within, take your pick.

TheArsenal
2011-11-21, 01:15 PM
It was stupid because it was "Hmm, well do I kill harry or not....MAKE IT BOTH!"

Other things im embarased to say I liked is:

FernGully. Its a nice looking movie, but boy is it preachy.

The_Admiral
2011-11-21, 01:20 PM
Eragon isn't that bad. Spooksvile Is a series I am embarrassed to say I liked when I was ten. I re-read my books and the writing was atrocious.

Emmerask
2011-11-21, 03:30 PM
Well if we add terrible writing then there is
John Sinclair, though I do not know if it was ever published in the us.
They came in those 20 cent booklets and I have about 600+ in the cellar, but the writing is really really terrible and there are tons of mistakes on pretty much every second page.

Though I somehow don´t hate it, it was pretty much my first step into "fantasy" and still like it for that :smallbiggrin:

Axolotl
2011-11-21, 03:35 PM
I loved 300 when it came out, I mean beyond how most people liked it, I got it on DVD as soon as it was released and argued on the internet about how accurate it was and everything.

Then in 2010 I rewatched it as part of my per-Scott Pilgrim hype and was just crushed with dissapointment. Even the action didn't seem to hold up but mainly the sheer stupidity of the non-action scenes just leaped out at me in a way it didn't back in 2007.

Serpentine
2011-11-22, 03:08 AM
I loved 300 when it came out, I mean beyond how most people liked it, I got it on DVD as soon as it was released and argued on the internet about how accurate it was and everything.I really, really hope you don't mean historically accurate...

Feytalist
2011-11-22, 03:20 AM
When I saw 300 again recently, I was surprised at how unpolished it seemed. Disregarding the CGI and studio polishing for a moment, the sets seemed so... empty. Like you could see it was set in a warehouse or something. It was probably a design decision to keep with the feel of a comic book, but it just seemed really weird. Meh, whatever, I still like it.

Also, Advent Children is one of the best things that ever happened to film. Even now, six years later, it still looks heaps better than most other CG animation. The story was a good continuation to the overall series, I think. Suffice to say, I still like it, heh.

Knaight
2011-11-22, 03:30 AM
I really, really hope you don't mean historically accurate...
It's worth arguing about. Its just that one should probably take a position on its historical accuracy close to "there isn't any".

Serpentine
2011-11-22, 03:34 AM
Wouldn't really be much of an argument, though. More just a series of statements of facts.

Balain
2011-11-22, 04:13 AM
Piers Anthony- I read everything piers Anthony in junior and high school. Why oh why did I do that.

Mission earth - Again read them in high school, liked them at first but man I can't believe I liked it.

Dragonlance - Okay I really really loved Dragonlance when it came out. I still have found memories of reading it, the story was good, but I went back to read it and the writing wasn't as good as I remembered.

Harry Potter - Okay I never really liked them to start with, but my girlfriend at the time was a huge fan and a friend of mine also was a huge fan so I was talked into reading them, and really wanted to like and enjoy the books. I'm sure I will get death threats but Harry Potter sucks. I know the idea was a book for kids about 9ish and they read each book as they get older, but to me the whole series seemed like it was written by a 9 year old. Just cause a book is meant for a kid doesn't mean you should write like one. Everything was predictable, every book was exactly the same. I can at least understand kids liking the books I guess, but adults I don't get.

Wheel of time - okay I'm not sure about this one yet, but it's boarder line. I'm going to read the series again now that all the books are out, or will be out by the time I get to the last one.

Axolotl
2011-11-22, 06:33 AM
I really, really hope you don't mean historically accurate...Not so much historically accurate as culturally accurate. So while it certainly isn't what happened it's very much in line with how the Greeks themselves would have potrayed what happened. For example alot of people pointed out that the Spartans didn't fight wearing nearly naked, however in an awful lot of Greek sculptures potraying battles have all the fighters completely naked (except for a helmet of course) so it's not accurate to what happened but it is accurate to how the Greeks potrayed it.

Emmerask
2011-11-22, 07:41 AM
Harry Potter - Okay I never really liked them to start with, but my girlfriend at the time was a huge fan and a friend of mine also was a huge fan so I was talked into reading them, and really wanted to like and enjoy the books. I'm sure I will get death threats but Harry Potter sucks. I know the idea was a book for kids about 9ish and they read each book as they get older, but to me the whole series seemed like it was written by a 9 year old. Just cause a book is meant for a kid doesn't mean you should write like one. Everything was predictable, every book was exactly the same. I can at least understand kids liking the books I guess, but adults I don't get.


Hm yes parts where predictable but everything? surely you jest :smallwink:
As for the writing style it was mediocre as far as fantasy goes, not great but not bad. I´ve read far far worse... percy jackson that was truly awful or the indiana jones novels (still love them despite the god awful writing style)...

As for the kids part... I would argue that Hp as a whole is less of a kids book then lotr is with the topics brought up (torture etc)



Wheel of time - okay I'm not sure about this one yet, but it's boarder line. I'm going to read the series again now that all the books are out, or will be out by the time I get to the last one.

My main problem with wheel of time is that Robert Jordan seemed to really have issues with women... every single one in the books is such a giant ******* that its not even funny (pretty much little umbridges everywhere there) which makes every part in the story with them really really hard to read

Serpentine
2011-11-22, 08:38 AM
It's not just the women. The men are all whiny, entitled self-absorbed man-children. Everyone in those books - with the exception perhaps of two who were well on their way by the time I gave up on them - were horrible horrible people.
Not so much historically accurate as culturally accurate. So while it certainly isn't what happened it's very much in line with how the Greeks themselves would have potrayed what happened. For example alot of people pointed out that the Spartans didn't fight wearing nearly naked, however in an awful lot of Greek sculptures potraying battles have all the fighters completely naked (except for a helmet of course) so it's not accurate to what happened but it is accurate to how the Greeks potrayed it.Okay... I'll grant that at least that's an interesting way of looking at it. On the other hand: Spartans accusing Athenians of being boy-lovers? That's a laugh.

Karoht
2011-11-22, 11:25 AM
@300 and Immortals 'accuracy'
I won't argue historical or cultural accuracy.
What I will argue was artistic 'truthy-ness'
Art wise, it was remarkably believable.

At first I was underwhelmed by Immortals. I was waiting for those striking pieces that you saw in 300. Then I realized that 300 only had bits and pieces of it, while Immortals had it going on in just about every frame, either with the characters or background. 300 had more impressive art because of it's graphic novel roots, while Immortals had more consistant art because of it's screenplay roots.

My issue with 300 were the parts with Gorgo, as it was not in the graphic novel. But, for something that the writers came up with as a deviation from the source, it could have been much worse. It was a clever angle, gave the film a secondary message, even gave Leonidas some additional depth by developing their relationship just a little bit more, acting was good, but something about it just annoyed the hell out of most people I went to see the film with.

I'm not ashamed of enjoying either of those films. I'm capable of watching something based upon a historical event without getting riled up about inconsistancies.

On film I am ashamed of enjoying is Kingdom of Heaven. Ridley Scott directed it, it was remarkably accurate in quite a few places that mattered, and took creative license in a few places that largely didn't. Yes, the main character is one of those creative elements rather than historical, but the movie isn't entirely centered on him.
So why am I ashamed of it? It managed to take a historical event, hollywood it up a bit, and still make a nearly 3 hour long movie that was boring as hell to watch. Great nugget of history, good message delivered at the end without being preachy about it, good message regarding the main character if you get the subtle suggestion, but just boring to watch.
Also, it stars Orlando Bloom, which some would call reason enough to hate the film on it's on. Not me, but others would.

Kris on a Stick
2011-11-22, 11:40 AM
It's not just the women. The men are all whiny, entitled self-absorbed man-children. Everyone in those books - with the exception perhaps of two who were well on their way by the time I gave up on them - were horrible horrible people.

They get better after Sanderson takes over. They really really do.
...
Well, Rand gets worse, but then, that's saidin for you.
Obviously I am not including Towers of Midnight, wherein he becomes the friggin' Messiah.

Oh. And Elayne is still an idiot. But everyone else is better. (Even Faile! Bet you thought that would never happen!)

Edit: Oh! And Cadsuane! Cadsuane is still the worst person ever! But everyone else is better! Really!

Zen Monkey
2011-11-22, 12:16 PM
I'd suggest that anything written by Ayn Rand belongs on the list. Write politics, write fiction, but heavy-handed political fiction is rarely good. 1984 would be an exception, not the rule.

TheArsenal
2011-11-22, 12:27 PM
Because 1984 was sort of an example of what could happen. It wasn't taking itselfs seriously.

But Ayan Rand comes off more "I want more money!".

Bioshock was a Great parody.

Jade Dragon
2011-11-22, 12:29 PM
percy jackson that was truly awful

WHY is it awful? I asked that about three pages ago and never got a response! :smallannoyed:

The Glyphstone
2011-11-22, 01:02 PM
Does anyone remember the Help, I'm Trapped In... books? I loved them, but talk about beating a series gimmick into the ground.

DiscipleofBob
2011-11-22, 01:04 PM
WHY is it awful? I asked that about three pages ago and never got a response! :smallannoyed:

I thought the book was fine. A little younger reading level than I was used to when I read it, but I enjoyed it. Unlike that PoS movie made by someone whose only experience with the franchise was knowing someone who maybe skimmed the book once.

Emmerask
2011-11-22, 03:59 PM
WHY is it awful? I asked that about three pages ago and never got a response! :smallannoyed:

The story itself was not awful, but the writing style was in my opinion, many repetitions bad grammar etc. The story was interesting enough for me though to actually read the whole thing and be entertained :smallwink:

Oh and I agree that the movie was abysmal

Whiffet
2011-11-22, 06:13 PM
Does anyone remember the Help, I'm Trapped In... books? I loved them, but talk about beating a series gimmick into the ground.

Oh, yes, I remember those. :smallbiggrin: Completely ridiculous, but that's why I got a kick out of them.

Gnoman
2011-11-22, 08:13 PM
Does anyone remember the Help, I'm Trapped In... books? I loved them, but talk about beating a series gimmick into the ground.

My Gym Teacher's Body was pretty decent, but the others were not great, even the early ones. My Sister's Body, from what I remember, was one of the worst, in pretty much every way.

Velaryon
2011-11-22, 09:05 PM
I have not reread the Shannara books in a long time, but I suspect I would not enjoy them as much as I once did. They were my introduction to fantasy, so I didn't know how cliche they were. I wouldn't go as far as to say I hate to admit I used to like them, but I don't hold them in the esteem I did when I was in school.

I am, however, embarrassed to admit that for a brief time, I used to like Dragonball Z. What first turned me off of it was how it seemed to go for years at a time repeating the same 8-10 episodes without giving us anything new, but I also hated the long recaps and previews that ate up lots of show time. Since then I've also grown to despise the characters, storytelling, and plot. It's even so bad that for a time, my enjoyment of Chrono Trigger (one of my favorite video games of all time) was diminished simply because the characters are drawn in the same art style.

Also, my hatred for DBZ turned me off of anime entirely for many, many years. It's only within the last couple years that I've made a conscious effort not to judge the entire style by one of (IMO) its worst examples.

Ormur
2011-11-22, 09:12 PM
Dilbert, I used to collect the books and quote them all the time. It's mostly because Scott Adams is apparently a huge prick. In retrospect the humour is also mass-produced and reflects the creator's questionable outlook.

I'm not nearly as embarrassed about children's books and fantasies of questionable literary merit I may have enjoyed.

dgnslyr
2011-11-22, 10:12 PM
Okay... I'll grant that at least that's an interesting way of looking at it. On the other hand: Spartans accusing Athenians of being boy-lovers? That's a laugh.

Of course they'd accuse Athenians of being boy-lovers. Everybody knows a true spartan is a man-lover. Obviously the Athenians are too timid for the love a real man. I don't actually know how much of the whole "Spartans are incredibly gay" thing is true. This kind of stuff, I see on cracked, so I take it with a grain of salt.

Dienekes
2011-11-22, 10:48 PM
Of course they'd accuse Athenians of being boy-lovers. Everybody knows a true spartan is a man-lover. Obviously the Athenians are too timid for the love a real man. I don't actually know how much of the whole "Spartans are incredibly gay" thing is true. This kind of stuff, I see on cracked, so I take it with a grain of salt.

Older Spartans took a younger male and acted as their personal instructor, friend, and father figure. From that point it gets a bit iffy. The Spartan's themselves are known to have criticized the Thebans for their army of gay lovers claiming that it puts emphasis on physical romance where it should instead focus on strength, ability, and coordination. However many accounts of the Spartans from outside sources portray the relationship in a similarly sexual fashion. The Spartans themselves wrote very little down, their Laws of Lycurgus, for example were never supposed to be written down since all Spartans should have it memorized. This unfortunately means a lot of what we have on them is recorded by their enemies, which can lead to a problem of bias.

General scholarship seems to believe the pairing wasn't inherently sexual but depending on the pair in question could easily swing that way. Personally I think this is dancing around a bit and would probably put my money on the pairs being lovers.

However amusingly your joke about man-lovers is actually kind of correct. The age the Spartan was paired with a veteran they were legally considered men. Being a boy-lover would have been considered quite an accusation and insult through much of Greece.

Gnoman
2011-11-22, 10:56 PM
Likewise, it was common practice in other city-states to have very close pairings between a teacher and his student. Thus, "boy-lover" could easily be interpreted to mean "one who corrupts the youth with wimpy philosophy when he should be learning to be a real man and fight."

Knaight
2011-11-22, 11:54 PM
They get better after Sanderson takes over. They really really do.
That would be because Sanderson is a good author. It's a shame his talents were wasted on Wheel of Time for as long as they were really.

Serpentine
2011-11-23, 12:13 AM
Of course they'd accuse Athenians of being boy-lovers. Everybody knows a true spartan is a man-lover. Obviously the Athenians are too timid for the love a real man. I don't actually know how much of the whole "Spartans are incredibly gay" thing is true. This kind of stuff, I see on cracked, so I take it with a grain of salt.Not so much "incredibly gay", as "at least as much into pederasty as those Athenians".
However amusingly your joke about man-lovers is actually kind of correct. The age the Spartan was paired with a veteran they were legally considered men. Being a boy-lover would have been considered quite an accusation and insult through much of Greece.Not quite... It was totally acceptable for an older man to be in a sexual relationship with a "youth" (I had trouble with this word, in my studies, because a "youth" could cover anything from 12 to 25-odd). What was not acceptable - and therefore a valid target for ridicule - was getting too serious about the relationship, especially at the expense of your hetero obligations, carrying it on for "too long", or the older partner "acting the female" for the younger. Even in those cases, for the most part it was really just teasing and mockery rather than "quite an accusation".
Basically, the important part in ancient Greek sexuality was not the sex of your partner, but about power. If an adult male citizen sacrificed, or was seen to sacrifice, his natural, rightful power to another (e.g. by "playing the woman" in sex), that is the problem, not the sex of the other.

Moreover, the height of beauty was considered to be a virile, pretty young man just on the cusp of puberty. It was considered both beautiful and manly, and sexual attraction to it was acceptable. I think people here are getting modern stereotypes of homosexuality confused with ancient philosophies... Merely loving a young man was not in any way effeminate, and the young man himself would not be considered a "sissy", but the older man's protege. If he continued to play the "feminine" role after he would be considered truly a man - and therefore expected to start being the one doing the penetrating - then such accusations might arise, but not before.

Candle Jack
2011-11-23, 12:27 AM
I confess, I think the OLD Thundercats cartoon is pretty bad. I used to love it as a kid, but now I watch it as an adult and think "Wow, this sucks." I like the theme song and the story arc where Lion-O goes through the Anointment Trials, but a lot of the stand-alone episodes are painful.

Unfortunately, I have nothing to add about homosexuality in ancient Greece.

Dienekes
2011-11-23, 12:29 AM
Not so much "incredibly gay", as "at least as much into pederasty as those Athenians".Not quite... It was totally acceptable for an older man to be in a sexual relationship with a "youth" (I had trouble with this word, in my studies, because a "youth" could cover anything from 12 to 25-odd). What was not acceptable - and therefore a valid target for ridicule - was getting too serious about the relationship, especially at the expense of your hetero obligations, carrying it on for "too long", or the older partner "acting the female" for the younger. Even in those cases, for the most part it was really just teasing and mockery rather than "quite an accusation".
Basically, the important part in ancient Greek sexuality was not the sex of your partner, but about power. If an adult male citizen sacrificed, or was seen to sacrifice, his natural, rightful power to another (e.g. by "playing the woman" in sex), that is the problem, not the sex of the other.

You're right, but I suppose I should be a bit clearer on our terms. The age of consent or whatever you want to call it (I sure don't speak ancient Greek to know their terms). When I say boys I meant very, very, very young. Far before pubescence. If memory serves an Athenian politician was thrown out of the city for that offense, but don't quote me on it.

Serpentine
2011-11-23, 01:05 AM
Yeah, no. I think it did come up a bit - Satyricon, for example, may have a scene involving "true" pedophilia (again, depending on the usage of "youth") - but it was "around pubescence" that was the really desirable point.

Starwulf
2011-11-23, 02:35 AM
It's even so bad that for a time, my enjoyment of Chrono Trigger (one of my favorite video games of all time) was diminished simply because the characters are drawn in the same art style.



I'll tell ya something, I'm quite honestly sick and tired of Akira Toriyama's absurd fascination with Trunks. Pick up ANY copy of Dragon Quest that's been redone for the DS(I imagine the originals are the same way, but I'm going with what I know), then tell me whose face you consistently see the most. It's trunks, always trunks, just re-done in slightly different ways. It's gotten so bad, that the newest one out, Dragon Quest VI, I checked out the box art at Toys'R'Us, and I think all but one of the characters on the front bears a high level of similarity to Trunks, even the characters that are supposed to be girls. I'm thoroughly disgusted, and tired, of it. He needs to get out of his damn rut and draw up some new freaking character art, or I'm never going to be able to touch Dragon Quest games ever again. And I LOVE Dragon Ball Z(especially the remake, Kai, since it's taken out a good deal of the filler, shortening up the series substantially(or at least it feels like it has).

Feytalist
2011-11-23, 03:15 AM
I'd suggest that anything written by Ayn Rand belongs on the list. Write politics, write fiction, but heavy-handed political fiction is rarely good. 1984 would be an exception, not the rule.

I did mention Ayn Rand a few pages back. Like I said, I'm a bit ashamed that I'm still reading it, but she is quite a good descriptive writer. The Fountainhead dialed the econo-political rhetoric back a bit in that regard. But still, Atlas Shrugged is not bad, as a novel. I find myself a bit irritated at the main characters' unfailing "hero-ness", though.

1984 is just plain good, though.

Abies
2011-11-23, 03:18 AM
The Shannara books by Terry Brooks, I thought he was great when I was kid, but I realize what a hack he was now. Sorry if this is late entry to this response, there were many pages to muddle through.

Karoht
2011-11-23, 09:14 AM
Dilbert, I used to collect the books and quote them all the time. It's mostly because Scott Adams is apparently a huge prick. In retrospect the humour is also mass-produced and reflects the creator's questionable outlook.

I'm not nearly as embarrassed about children's books and fantasies of questionable literary merit I may have enjoyed.Interesting. You are the first person I've actually met who dislikes Dilbert.

The Glyphstone
2011-11-23, 09:37 AM
The Shannara books by Terry Brooks, I thought he was great when I was kid, but I realize what a hack he was now. Sorry if this is late entry to this response, there were many pages to muddle through.

The Shannara books are good, the first time you read them. Then you realize that it's the exact same story told, like, seven times, with only some name changes.

Fri
2011-11-23, 09:44 AM
The Shannara books are good, the first time you read them. Then you realize that it's the exact same story told, like, seven times, with only some name changes.

And even the first book is LOTR retold :smallbiggrin:

The Glyphstone
2011-11-23, 10:17 AM
And even the first book is LOTR retold :smallbiggrin:

Hey, once it's LOTR WITH AN AIRSHIP (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RecycledINSPACE). That counts as original, right?:smallbiggrin:

Worguron
2011-11-23, 10:51 AM
And even the first book is LOTR retold :smallbiggrin:

Even Terry himself says that Sword was poor writing, and he looks back on it as his worst stuff. If you look past Sword, I quite enjoy the Shannara books still.

As for things I hate to admit having liked, Dragonlance is near the top of the list, but Sword of Truth takes the cake. Like several people, I actually enjoyed the first book or two of Sword of Truth, and then I started disliking it more and more. In Faith of the Fallen, I thought that he might be redeeming himself, and kept reading, but things took an even steeper nosedive after that. . . But I kept reading (why, oh why, did I keep reading?).

I finished the series and vowed to never again read anything set in Sword of Truth's world. So, when Goodkind released the Law of Nines or whatever it was called, and someone bought it for me, I was cautious. When the main character's last name was revealed, I threw the book away from me and never finished it.

Nerd-o-rama
2011-11-23, 11:41 AM
Everything was predictable, every book was exactly the same. I can at least understand kids liking the books I guess, but adults I don't get.

My greatest disappointment in Harry Potter is that the one book that broke formula was a) the last one and b) also so overloaded with extranea and boring slogs of prose that it was (in my assessment) the second worst. Nothing in the series is as dull as Half-Blood Price, though.

I also have the wonderful advantage of reading so fast I ride right past Rowling's flagrant foreshadowing and hint-dropping of the Inevitable Last Five Chapters Plot Twist, so that all the incredibly obvious climax reveals manage to still be pleasant surprises to me. I can see why more careful readers would find them even more predictable than I do, though.


Not so much historically accurate as culturally accurate. So while it certainly isn't what happened it's very much in line with how the Greeks themselves would have potrayed what happened. For example alot of people pointed out that the Spartans didn't fight wearing nearly naked, however in an awful lot of Greek sculptures potraying battles have all the fighters completely naked (except for a helmet of course) so it's not accurate to what happened but it is accurate to how the Greeks potrayed it.

That was, in fact, the stated intent of the graphic novel's style, which is one thing the movie adapted reasonably well.


Interesting. You are the first person I've actually met who dislikes Dilbert.

Personally, I dislike Scott Adams. Dilbert's relatively good for a comic strip. Relatively.

Karoht
2011-11-23, 12:27 PM
Personally, I dislike Scott Adams. Dilbert's relatively good for a comic strip. Relatively.Huh. I've never seen reason do dislike Adams personally. So I'll ask, what's the beef?

All I know about him is that he worked in corporate culture, hated it, made lots of observations, and turned it into a comic.
Or is there something more glaring that I am missing.

Winter_Wolf
2011-11-23, 12:50 PM
Interesting. You are the first person I've actually met who dislikes Dilbert.

Count me on the dislike Dilbert side. I read it today, and it just struck me how incredibly unlikeableDilbert is. Not just unlikeable, but I can't even sympathize anymore. Before, I could see the humor in it; now Dilbert just disgusts me, like all his misfortune is self-imposed because he's essentially spineless.

Karoht
2011-11-23, 01:15 PM
Count me on the dislike Dilbert side. I read it today, and it just struck me how incredibly unlikeableDilbert is. Not just unlikeable, but I can't even sympathize anymore. Before, I could see the humor in it; now Dilbert just disgusts me, like all his misfortune is self-imposed because he's essentially spineless.I think that's why he is empathisable, because that is in fact a realistic position to be stuck in. But hey, just my opinion.

Nerd-o-rama
2011-11-23, 02:40 PM
Huh. I've never seen reason do dislike Adams personally. So I'll ask, what's the beef?

All I know about him is that he worked in corporate culture, hated it, made lots of observations, and turned it into a comic.
Or is there something more glaring that I am missing.

He's made a few comments on his blog that are offensive enough that I don't plan on summarizing or linking to them on this forum. Apparently, he was trolling, but that doesn't exactly make it any better.

Karoht
2011-11-23, 04:52 PM
He's made a few comments on his blog that are offensive enough that I don't plan on summarizing or linking to them on this forum. Apparently, he was trolling, but that doesn't exactly make it any better.Trolling his audience (readers of his comic), trolling a minority group or those impacted by a critical issue (no example), trolling everyone (teh intarwebz), trolling corporate culture, trolling his critics? The first two I can't forgive, the third is a bit more forgivable, the last two are very forgivable.

EDIT:
I only asked here because I didn't want to give him site traffic.
I just wiki'd the fellow. Oh. Yeah. Don't bother answering.

Knaight
2011-11-23, 10:04 PM
I only asked here because I didn't want to give him site traffic.
I just wiki'd the fellow. Oh. Yeah. Don't bother answering.

Yeah. Pretty much.

H Birchgrove
2011-11-24, 12:45 PM
OK, until yesterday I couldn't think of an example of something that I used to like but hate today. Then I remembered that I re-watched the first Star Trek movie a few months ago, and I finally realised why even Star Trek fans hate it. When I was a teen, I apprecieted the poor man's Arthur C. Clarke aspects of it, but now... Well, I can't say I hate it, but it was tedious and boring at times. If I didn't love the main characters so much (and felt so much nostalgia over the film) I might have turned the TV off. But I miss The Wrath of Khan.

It did make me realise that bald women can be attractive, though. :smallredface:


Because 1984 was sort of an example of what could happen. It wasn't taking itselfs seriously.
Yes it did. Also, Orwell meant it as a comment on the current state of the world when he wrote it (1948).


But Ayan Rand comes off more "I want more money!".

Bioshock was a Great parody.

It does seem like a great computer game.

TheArsenal
2011-11-24, 01:01 PM
Yes it did. Also, Orwell meant it as a comment on the current state of the world when he wrote it (1948).

That it was a commentary, not directly connected to real life, allowing for more subtle "Your not hitting me over the head with the message" type thing.



It does seem like a great computer game.

Because it points out that not everybody is Atlas. And that with nobody to regulate Atlas, whats to stop atlas from selling drugs?

Ormur
2011-11-24, 07:07 PM
Interesting. You are the first person I've actually met who dislikes Dilbert.

I see you've discovered why Scott Adams is so disliked. It didn't bother me that there was no sympathetic character in the comics. I enjoyed them for a long time and even if the creator is a horrible person that doesn't have to spoil the creation. However once I saw that he was a troll with nasty opinions (and engaged in sock-puppetry to boot) I realized a lot of the misanthropy/misogyny and contempt coloured his comics. Even though he self-admittedly draws what sells not primarily what he likes the comics aren't just a cynical view of corporate culture but a contemptuous view of almost everything. It seemed more childish than irreverent in light of his persona.

It pretty much spoiled the comics for me, but I wouldn't fault anyone that has a chuckle over them.

Zale
2011-11-24, 10:16 PM
Whoever linked to Eragon Sporkings, thank you.

You have given to me a great deal of entertainment.

H Birchgrove
2011-11-25, 12:54 AM
That it was a commentary, not directly connected to real life, allowing for more subtle "Your not hitting me over the head with the message" type thing.
OK, it sounded like you meant it was some type of Douglas Adams styled SF parody. You know, light-hearted and funny.


Because it points out that not everybody is Atlas. And that with nobody to regulate Atlas, whats to stop atlas from selling drugs?
Indeed.

McStabbington
2011-11-25, 02:28 AM
Because it points out that not everybody is Atlas. And that with nobody to regulate Atlas, whats to stop atlas from selling drugs?

While I lack the skill to competently defend Rand's work, I was always under the assumption that you would know a real Atlas by the fact that he'd be too preoccupied with creating stuff to peddle dope. That isn't to say there isn't a flaw in the logic (that only people who perfectly embody your ideology follow your ideology, when people cannot perfectly embody an ideology suggests a bit of a workability problem), but I'm not sure that's the flaw.

If we're going for youthful ideologies, I have to say that I fell away from my youthful passion for John Stuart Mill's utilitarianism pretty hard. I can still remember exactly what did it: another video game, this one by the name of Baldur's Gate II. I had the darnedest time figuring out why my character's alignment flipped to neutral evil, until I realized that it was because my careful weighing the happiness gained by saving the Tree of Life from Irenicus didn't change the fact that I'd murdered a genie that hadn't threatened me, hadn't harmed me and offered me a completely non-violent alternative all so that I could get a really cool sword. For the record, Blackrazor is still a really cool sword, but it's not worth the price of murdering a peaceful sentient. Not surprisingly, I gravitated far more towards Aristotelian and Kantian ethics afterwards, with a dash of Adam Smith thrown in for good measure.

It also goes to show just how much of an impact a really well-scripted video game can have.

TheArsenal
2011-11-25, 02:37 AM
While I lack the skill to competently defend Rand's work, I was always under the assumption that you would know a real Atlas by the fact that he'd be too preoccupied with creating stuff to peddle dope.


Thats another problem: Truly good Atlases are rare. And especialy with huge corporations getting away with selling woodchips as muffins NOW, imagine what they would d without any government control.

Axolotl
2011-11-25, 05:00 AM
While I lack the skill to competently defend Rand's work, I was always under the assumption that you would know a real Atlas by the fact that he'd be too preoccupied with creating stuff to peddle dope.Not really, Rand's view is based on a Philosophy of selfishness, if selling drugs is what will benefit Atlas the most then he's perfectly justified in selling drugs.

Feytalist
2011-11-25, 06:04 AM
Not really, Rand's view is based on a Philosophy of selfishness, if selling drugs is what will benefit Atlas the most then he's perfectly justified in selling drugs.

That's as maybe. Rand's characters are based on, as you say, a philosophy of selfishness (self-enrichment might be a more appropriate word), but her characters are quite moral in how go about it. That's the way I've always interpreted it, anyway. The selfishness manifests itself more as a "what's mine is mine, and I earned it, and no-one can take it away from me" than anything else, I think.

TheDarkDM
2011-11-25, 06:15 AM
I'm surprised Eragon has been mentioned so many times without stating the fact that the first one is almost entirely Star Wars with the Force replaced by dragons. After I realized that, my opinion dropped from mild disinterest to an active dislike for the series (though I will admit that said hate is mostly fueled by its continued popularity).

I'll also jump aboard the Wheel of Time bandwagon, and add in that in addition to having horrible people as his main characters (except for Mat) Robert Jordan seemed incapable of focusing on them. That series would probably be half as long as it is if he'd maintained focus and not buried us beneath a tide of secondary, tertiary, and quaternary characters who had no overall impact in the fate of the world.

TheArsenal
2011-11-25, 06:34 AM
The selfishness manifests itself more as a "what's mine is mine, and I earned it, and no-one can take it away from me" than anything else, I think.

Its one thing that bugs me about philosophies:

If you take them on face value they come off stupid and "Interpreting" them turns them out to be something obvious that don't realy need a philosophy behind.

But lets stop on Rand before we get banned or something.

On Eragon: Pretty much.

Forum Explorer
2011-11-25, 06:47 AM
On Eragon: I remember saying it was just like Star Wars to a friend of mine who proceeded to explain that Star Wars itself was just using an already classic formula and that if I really wanted to I could likely find plenty more examples of books that shared the same structure.