To Aezeal: of course, you can continue to repeat youself. It's pretty effective way of discussion, actually, if cheap.
But anyway that doesn't make truth of nonsense. And I ask you another time: what you can state as the "greatness" in question? As for con-man - that particular one is certainly not criminal. He's a fool, just as I said.
Quote:
JimMorrison:
So, you are relating the writed of Nightwatch to..... Harry Potter? Ouch man, just ouch.
|
They occupy the same niche anyway.
Meaning they owe as much to advertising. As for book itself, I actually related it to old Polotta's Bureau 13. Though this isn't the only book this guy has looted for ideas... And by the way - movies I hadn't seen, due to the fact that I don't like the books author (there are 5-6 of books now, by the way, and counting
).
About both problems and great gain of translation I can only agree.
Quote:
Ballbarian:
If considering oneself a "man of books" means limiting one's reading to works of literary art (however you might define art) and belittling the work of others, then I will never be more than the common, dead brained, pitiful fool that you have described.
|
Well, you don't look like the part to me. Good masking?
And I DO NOT consider myself a "man of books" - actually a good way to get deadbrained in my book. For one thing, I do not qualify by old standarts. And another thing is I just don't think that reading itself makes a man better which was the point.
As for "different style" - you either missed the point OR try to use the common line of "different is beautiful, small is beautyful, etc., etc." And I see it's already advertised enough, thanks. So I reiterate. The point was not about "different style", but about lack thereof. And I do NOT define the art. I just prefer to not take or PASS trash for quality. And may I hope that other party do not do this, either. Especially the second part. Of course, modern "critics" tradition just loves to do it. And with enough word equilibristics can even be quite successful in the task. Do you want to make their work for free?
Or will you agree to the obvious fact that there are books (for example) which are worth reading and those which are not?