OT-Black Company

[JimMorrison]

So, you are relating the writed of Nightwatch to..... Harry Potter? Ouch man, just ouch.

There were some interesting things portrayed in those films. Not immensely thought provoking for someone who likes to spend much time deep in thought, but still not mindless, either. Though I do have to say, I mostly just found it very weird. But again, most of that comes from translation. I can only imagine that typically the people hired to subtitle movies, are a level of skill lower than those people who translate entire novels, who are generally a level of skill lower than they need to be in order to accurately portray the beauty of the original writing.

It's a tricky equation, where generally the way a book is written, is as important as what it is about. One is incomplete without the other, and in the process of translation, it's as if taking an oil painting, and redoing it as a water color. The brushstrokes are different, the colors are different, and the overall feel is going to simply be different, even if what it portays is still the same.

Ultimately, I think this is what is so great about foreign movies, games, music, etc. The only part that needs good translating is the dialogue, as long as the content is portrayed accurately in the more visual and/or interactive form, then it sidesteps the issues of language.

[Ballbarian]

Wrana said:
However, what I don't agree with is that reading *something* is necessarily better than reading nothing. Some reading can quite surely deaden the reader's brain just as TV can. And he remains thinking that he's (or she, as the case often is) a "man of books". Which can be quite pityful...
Considering earlier and later reading I think we agree of - though I think that to recommend some reading should be done with caution as trash can either make the person in question drop reading completely or make him/her trash reader only - a pity in both cases.

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

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.

Sorry if that comes across sounding flamey as that is not my intention. It has just always struck me as incredibly wrong when someone puts down a different style as being trashy and those who appreciate that style as pitiful or otherwise deserving only sympathetic dismissal as poor ignorant fools.

All of that said, I wanted to point out that I really appreciate all of the great suggestions for reading in this thread from Wrana and others. Many of the books that I have enjoyed through the years were suggested by friends and family.

[Wrana]

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.

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.

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?

[Aezeal]

No your way of discussion isn't cheap lol... ask balb about that

PS no dissing harry potter.. I'd not call the books good in many ways but they where fun to read (ways in which it was good: mostly character development which was much better than in most fantasy books)

[Endoperez]

It isn't hard to be better than most fantasy books, though.

[Aezeal]

well I mostly see only those who get published in the netherlands, I read them english though.. but still I guess that is quite a selection already (for example.. never seen the books this thread started about )