Starting something doesn't matter when someone else takes it and drives it into the fucking ground. Let's say Harry Potter was based on a short childrens book, say like 10 pages of bullshit rhyming. Would you say that JK Rowling doesn't deserve the credit for making that one of the largest franchises in the history of books and cinema?

Obama doesn't sic the IRS on people, there has been no connecting made to him and the IRS scandal.

No the PR system in this country is unlike any the world has ever seen. It's an amazing propaganda machine used to manufacture consent. You can't trust any media outlet without doing your own research, and doing it is really hard sometimes. Enough about Fox being right and stupid or MSNBC being left and stupid, this is about supporting the State which is what this machine does. It's about getting people to agree to the states plans in whatever they want to do. They are in the service of the state and that is why they should be dismantled.

The neanderthals decry their complete omission.
The scythians were peeved to only be in crowd shots.
Still no one appreciates the pale Visigoths, who appear a bit washed out on the big screen.
Most of china is assured that jk rowling thinks mongolian means retarded.

Tolkiens pacing was terrible

I'll dispute that. Story pacing is highly dependant on the reader's level of immersion, and Tolkien was attempting a deeply immersive story where the 'pacing' was largely irrelevant. Many people are quite jaded in this regard, and if the plot isn't moving along at a brisk pace they lose interest. That isn't necessarily the fault of the author, but a matter of a lack of tolerance/patience on the reader. No work of literature can satisfy every reader in that regard - so the end result of whether a book is properly paced is highly individualistic. You have writers on both extremes. Some move so fast that the reader feels like the story is choppy and shallow. Then you have guys like Jordan who spend so much time on so much background that the plot is almost utterly lost. I think Tolkien strikes a masterful middle-ground where he provides depth of background and detail, while not having so much that the average reader feels the plot is moving too slowly. Again, that isn't universal because everyone is different - but the fact that LOTR has endured the test of time and remained a classic proves that it is an assessment that applies to 'most' people.

and some of the characters (looking at you, Tom Bombadil) add nothing to the story.

Depends on what you mean by nothing. The Old Forest, Bombadil, and the Barrow Downs are chapters that some people don't get. If the hobbits had just gone straight to Bree then a lot of people would be happier. It can be argued, but Bombadil gives some background to Middle Earth that Tolkien felt was important. For him (JRR) the work was a literary exercise in establishing what he felt were 'lost' Anglo-Saxon mythology. Iarwin Ben-Adar was part of that world for him, and a part that he felt mattered. He is referenced in the Council of Elrond, and here and there in other parts of LOTR. He may fill no vital plot function, but he certainly adds to the story (not to mention background on the Northern Kingdom, and the Westernesse blades).

The first half of book 6 is essentially "Sam and Frodo keep walking to mount doom", but it really drags.

I felt quite the opposite. I thought that the chapters of Sam & Frodo walking to Mt. Doom were rather a breakneck pace compared to what was happening. But at that point JRR is breaking down both Frodo and Sam physically and spiritually, so it can't just be a rapid "Poof! We're at Mt Doom now!" thing. It had to be a hot, blistering, difficult slog. For it to only be 2 chapters was actually pretty breif I thought. Escaping Cirith Ungol took a chapter - then two chapters were them walking and Mt. Doom itself. All in all I thought it went pretty fast.

It all depends on what folks like, really. Some people can't stand it when Tolkien takes 2 pages here and there to describe the landscape of the Woody End, or a couple pages there to talk about some bit of Rohan's history, or whatever. Some people love it. I personally felt that JK Rowling's pacing blew chunks because she spent tons of time focusing on bullcrap character junk (mostly Harry whining). But some readers just eat that stuff up, so I have to allow that my personal tastes cloud my judgement on Rowling's pacing. It's a matter of taste. What seems irrelevant to you may be pure gold to someone else.

Jackson and Walsh's story is better structured

Don't get me started on Jackson & Walsh. I liked the LOTR movies generally, but these two ham-hands did some pretty awful writing considering the pure perfection of the source material. One example: Aragorn's perfect speech, "We shall make such a chase as will be accounted a marvel among the three kindreds - elves, dwarves, and men. Forth, the Three Hunters!" was changed to the god-awful, "Let's hunt some orc!" I could literally go on for hours listing scripting crime after crime. Jackson/Walsh were NOT either masterful writers, or pacers. When they stuck to the story and didn't jam thier fumble-witted fingers into the pie it was great. The more they took "creative license", the worse it got.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'portal, turret, cave johnson, bullets, jk rowling' to 'portal, turret, cave johnson, bullets' - edited by jwray

Tags for this video have been changed from 'portal, turret, cave, johnson, bullets' to 'portal, turret, cave johnson, bullets, jk rowling' - edited by xxovercastxx

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Portal, Valve, Aperture Science, jk rowling' to 'Portal, Valve, Aperture Science, J K Simmons' - edited by Ornthoron

>> ^rogueWRX:

Okay, I give. Why the jk rowling tag?


I think he meant J.K. Simmons, the actor doing the voiceover.

Okay, I give. Why the jk rowling tag?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Portal, Valve, Aperture Science' to 'Portal, Valve, Aperture Science, jk rowling' - edited by xxovercastxx

I'll watch movies that are sad stories about kids, but I won't normally watch them twice. Video games are a different type of entertainment for me where I need to put in physical and mental effort into the story to make it progress. By adding that extra involvement I become much more emotionally entwined with a game than I ever would in a book or movie.

I'm not saying that I don't like conflict or stories with trails and tribulations in general, it is more that some subjects when presented a certain way make me uncomfortable so I'll choose other forms of entertainment instead. It's akin to people not liking horror flicks because they don't like to be scared.

Grave of the fireflies is a good example of a movie that I think is really good, but I don't have any inclination to see again. While being very well done and putting a very realistic light on war, it is very sad and I don't search out entertainment that makes me sad.

No worries on the attack bit, I don't mind explaining myself when I was just being sincere.
>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^visionep:
Very well done, but like Heavy Rain I won't be playing this game.
I'd rather not explore those stories where I might interject my love and caring for my children with a digital character that is abused by the writers.

Do you not watch any films or read any books then? Or is it only digital fictional characters that you refuse to give emotional feeling to? It sounds as though you think you're being evilly manipulated. They've only done what fictional storytelling has done since forever.
"Abuse" of fictional characters is what leads to tragedy in a story, it gives a story a purpose and there's tragedy in (i'll be bold and say it) every decent story. Harry Potter's parents were murdered, he wants revenge. JK Rowling did not manipulate you to feel care for Harry so that you'd buy the book. Without his parents being murdered, there was no reason to be interested about his particular story of revenge and growth.
Would you really like to.. i dunno, read about some hobbits that find a magical ring which turns them invisible, so they win at hide and seek and live happily ever after? That's just a toddler's book.
How do you feel its different in game form? Genuine question, not an attack. Edit: well, probably a little bit attacking, you caught me off guard with that comment!

I'll watch movies that are sad stories about kids, but I won't normally watch them twice. Video games are a different type of entertainment for me where I need to put in physical and mental effort into the story to make it progress. By adding that extra involvement I become much more emotionally entwined with a game than I ever would in a book or movie.

I'm not saying that I don't like conflict or stories with trails and tribulations in general, it is more that some subjects when presented a certain way make me uncomfortable so I'll choose other forms of entertainment instead. It's akin to people not liking horror flicks because they don't like to be scared.

Grave of the fireflies is a good example of a movie that I think is really good, but I don't have any inclination to see again. While being very well done and putting a very realistic light on war, it is very sad and I don't search out entertainment that makes me sad.

No worries on the attack bit, I don't mind explaining myself when I was just being sincere.

Edit: (whoops, hit profile reply instead of 'quote', I'm going to post this on the video comments too)

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
>> ^visionep:

Very well done, but like Heavy Rain I won't be playing this game.
I'd rather not explore those stories where I might interject my love and caring for my children with a digital character that is abused by the writers.


Do you not watch any films or read any books then? Or is it only digital fictional characters that you refuse to give emotional feeling to? It sounds as though you think you're being evilly manipulated. They've only done what fictional storytelling has done since forever.

"Abuse" of fictional characters is what leads to tragedy in a story, it gives a story a purpose and there's tragedy in (i'll be bold and say it) every decent story. Harry Potter's parents were murdered, he wants revenge. JK Rowling did not manipulate you to feel care for Harry so that you'd buy the book. Without his parents being murdered, there was no reason to be interested about his particular story of revenge and growth.

Would you really like to.. i dunno, read about some hobbits that find a magical ring which turns them invisible, so they win at hide and seek and live happily ever after? That's just a toddler's book.

How do you feel its different in game form? Genuine question, not an attack. Edit: well, probably a little bit attacking, you caught me off guard with that comment!

>> ^visionep:

Very well done, but like Heavy Rain I won't be playing this game.
I'd rather not explore those stories where I might interject my love and caring for my children with a digital character that is abused by the writers.


Do you not watch any films or read any books then? Or is it only digital fictional characters that you refuse to give emotional feeling to? It sounds as though you think you're being evilly manipulated. They've only done what fictional storytelling has done since forever.

"Abuse" of fictional characters is what leads to tragedy in a story, it gives a story a purpose and there's tragedy in (i'll be bold and say it) every decent story. Harry Potter's parents were murdered, he wants revenge. JK Rowling did not manipulate you to feel care for Harry so that you'd buy the book. Without his parents being murdered, there was no reason to be interested about his particular story of revenge and growth.

Would you really like to.. i dunno, read about some hobbits that find a magical ring which turns them invisible, so they win at hide and seek and live happily ever after? That's just a toddler's book.

How do you feel its different in game form? Genuine question, not an attack. Edit: well, probably a little bit attacking, you caught me off guard with that comment!

Uhh how about *dark and possibly * eia? as I cant see this guy reproducing anytime soon. Unless he manages to rape JK Rowling...uhhh better double *dark on that note.

1- 1984, Orwell
2- Animal Farm, orwell
3- War of the Worlds, Wells
4- The Stranger, Camus
5- Hamlet, Shakespeare

I've read most of these books in the past year or so, but they're the first batch of books in a while that i just haven't been able to put down.

also: the harry potter series, JK Rowling, the thief lord, inkheart and inkspell, all Cornelia funke, and lastly War and Peace, Tolstoy. yea, i went there.

Higher quality source: http://www.videosift.com/video/JK-Rowlings-commencement-speech-at-Harvard

http://vimeo.com/1711302