Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Literature, Music, Art & Entertainment => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on November 07, 2019, 12:18:38 PM
-
I think it's a bit of a poncy notion but the list itself isn't bad.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/494P41NCbVYHlY319VwGbxp/explore-the-list-of-100-novels-that-shaped-our-world
-
It's not often I come across one of these lists where I've actually read some of the entries, and even rarer that I've read them by choice rather them being part of my school English curriculum.
It's nice to see Neil Gaiman and Alan Moore's storytelling starting to get some recognition, as well.
O.
-
I think it's a bit of a poncy notion but the list itself isn't bad.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/494P41NCbVYHlY319VwGbxp/explore-the-list-of-100-novels-that-shaped-our-world
I've read a few of these, the Pratchett, O'Brien, Lewis, Tolkien sets, plus M.M. Kaye, etc.
I waws quite chuffwed to see "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie" there, but I'd question Buchan. If I could I'd have added Rankin's Rebus set to the crime and punishment section, and Aldiss' Heliconia series to the adventure category.
-
Yep, it's not an up itself list. Slightly surprised by the choice of novels for Attwood and Dickens
-
And just noticed the choice for Rushdie - mmm
-
Wow that is a good list. I've read quite a few of them, seeing the titles and names of authors took me back which was pleasurable.
The film of 'Half of a Yellow Sun' – Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, was on TV a few days ago. Thandie Newman starred.
-
'The Lord of the Rings' is a single novel, not a trilogy. Given that some of the entries are indeed trilogies, or larger series of novels, the total is more than 100, and it's much too heavily weighted to the last 100 years.
-
I'd have expected to see D H Lawrence's 'Sons and Lovers'.
-
'The Lord of the Rings' is a single novel, not a trilogy. Given that some of the entries are indeed trilogies, or larger series of novels, the total is more than 100, and it's much too heavily weighted to the last 100 years.
It's divided into three books that you can (or could) buy separately. It is a trilogy.
Anyway, I've read 13 or parts of 13 of these. But I would dispute that any more than a couple have shaped the World.
-
It's divided into three books that you can (or could) buy separately. It is a trilogy.
No, it isn't. I've got a two-volume edition of 'War and Peace', and each volume of that was available separately, but it is nevertheless only one novel. None of the three books of LotR stand alone as a complete story.
-
No, it isn't.
Yes it is.
There are three books:
The Fellowship of the Ring
The Two Towers
The Return of the King.
This is how the Lord of the Rings was first published.
As a Christian, you should be able to understand how something can be one thing and three things at the same time.
-
And here we have a companion series. But in a very specific view.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000b8mh
-
Yes it is.
There are three books:
The Fellowship of the Ring
The Two Towers
The Return of the King.
This is how the Lord of the Rings was first published.
As a Christian, you should be able to understand how something can be one thing and three things at the same time.
Very funny. They are three parts of a single novel, and do not form complete narratives on their own.
https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/petty-service-announcement-the-lord-of-the-rings-is-not-a-trilogy
"There wasn’t enough paper in England to print it in its entirety.
Literally.
After World War II, Britain faced paper shortages that limited the amount of books that book publishers could produce in a year. Unlike most modern movie studios, Unwin wasn’t about to double down on an extensive and expensive production without some tangible results first. The solution was to publish in the novel in three parts over the course of a year or so—The Fellowship of the Ring in July of 1954, The Two Towers in November of 1954, and The Return of the King in October of 1955.
Voila: a single novel, just delivered in three volumes for economic reasons."
-
Very funny. They are three parts of a single novel, and do not form complete narratives on their own.
Neither does the Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy or the Harry Potter series.
https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/petty-service-announcement-the-lord-of-the-rings-is-not-a-trilogy
"There wasn’t enough paper in England to print it in its entirety.
Literally.
And yet you can't deny the fact that there are three books.
-
Neither does the Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy or the Harry Potter series.
Yes, they do: they are complete novels.And yet you can't deny the fact that there are three books.
But they don't form a single, complete narrative on their own.
-
Yes, they do: they are complete novels.But they don't form a single, complete narrative on their own.
You haven't read the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy then. The first book segues directly into the second book. The Harry Potter Series has an overarching story arc.
In neither series is it really possible to fully understand what's going on unless you reads the books in order.
-
Yes, I have read THGTTG - all of the books, each of which is a separate novel, complete in itself, even if there is an overarching hyernarrative. I haven't read the Potters, but I understand that the same applies to them. The three parts of LOTR, on the other hand, do not form complete narratives on their own.
Now go away. You're boring me.
-
Now go away. You're boring me.
I accept your admission of defeat.
-
I accept your admission of defeat.
I think you're deliberately trying to piss me off. You haven't come up with an answer to my last argument, or indeed any of the previous ones, and obviously don't know what a novel is.
-
You haven't come up with an answer to my last argument, or indeed any of the previous ones, and obviously don't know what a novel is.
I had every indication that you had decided to throw in the towel, so there wasn't a need to counter your last argument.