Insert Orson Welles (Charles Foster Kane) clapping image here.
Or perhaps I actually read them and have come to a reasoned opinion that does not require that I insult people who have a reasoned but differing opinion.
Right, right, all opinions are equally valid to morons.
I said it was okay to differ. If you can’t see the difference, then I’m not sure that it is in your best interests to be bringing up the subject of morons.
Since you want an “intelligent” critique of your earlier statement, here’s one.
Admitting that your previous comments don’t qualify as intelligent? :-)
Edgar Rice Burroughs was a genre-setting pioneer who has given us one of the 20th Century’s most unique, memorable and timeless characters, Tarzan.
He also gave us John Carter of Mars and Barsoom, a character and a world which inspired everything from Star Wars to Avatar. Before Edgar Rice Burroughs, no one was writing this kind of stuff, and pretty much every science-fiction book or movie of the 20th Century liberally uses core concepts, ideas and themes that he originated.
That’s incorrect - he was not the first. He was the most successful and his legacy is the most important, though. They are fun, if dated, novels, if you don’t mind the Victorian mindset and all that entails (a little more blatant in Tarzan).
If you enjoy science-fiction or fantasy, you owe Edgar Rice Burroughs a debt of gratitude, because short of Jules Verne, I can’t think of a more important father of the genre.
HG Wells, by rather a broad margin in my esimation. And that doesn’t change that I think Collins is a better writer than Burroughs, even given the 100 year time frame distance.
The Hunger Games, on the other hand, is a book that originates nothing, mashing together concepts, ideas and even characters explored far more competently in Battle Royale, The Running Man, 1984, Clockwork Orange, The Lottery, etc.
Actually, it was from a far older source, Greek mythology. Specifically, the Theseus legends. And my recommendation of that series over Burroughs Barsoom is not it’s originality, but that it is less formulaic, with more complete and human characters, that it recognizes war for what it is rather than glorifies it (and consider that they are “young adult” (teens) books). She doesn’t sugar-coat anything, presents characters with difficult and uncomfortable choices, and yet maintains a swift pace, not over-writing or burdening the story.
Burroughs is: put White Male in novel situation (jungle, Mars, Venus, Hollow Earth, etc.), have him step on Princess’ foot, series of adventures that are based on fantasy approach to science, where boy get’s girl, loses girl, get’s her back, step’s on her foot some more, and finally gets her because he is a Virile He-Man who can slaughter everyone in his path. Repeat for the next book. Repeat again for the following. If that gets old, introduce new characters and have them repeat the same. It’s fun, and given the territory he was exploring, got to do all sorts of imaginative and novel things, but it is not sophisticated writing. One is light heroic, the other is essentially, tragedy. I appreciate both for what they are, but if someone asked which one I’d recommend over the other for their own inherent value, it would be Collin’s books.
It brings absolutely nothing new to the table, and I would describe the book’s author, charitably, as being a readable hack with a good ear for the internal monologues of hysterical, boy-obsessed teenage girls and good taste in which existing movies and books she’s going to rip-off.
The character isn’t boy obsessed.
Saying that Suzanne Collins’s books are “better” than “anything” Edgar Rice Burroughs is absurd. It’s not a matter of opinion by any measure…
Okay, you’re opinion sucks. Happy now?
…because Burroughs’ works have helped define everything in the genre that came after them. Originality, vision, timelessness… these things count. And while I have no idea if the Hunger Games will turn out to be timeless despite itself, it is undeniable that the series fails when it comes to the first two criterion.
No they don’t define everything in science fiction, unless you want to count planetary romance as the entirety of science fiction.
Finally, I would conclude by noting that I enjoyed the Hunger Games for what it is, so this isn’t about hating a popular phenomenon. It’s about utter contempt for a statement so personally myopic and oblivious of literary context that it might as well have been uttered by the first segment of the Human Centipede sewn to Suzanne Collins’s anus.
Shrug. If you wish to continue shooting yourself in the foot, that’s your problem, not mine.
Is Dr.Crypt confusing Suzanne Collins and Stephenie Meyer?
Anyway, having read Burroughs, I’d agree with Corsair. Seminal stuff, absolutely. And fun adventure fiction, for what it is. But dated, all kinds of problematic, and yes, repetitive.
Eh. He’s the guy who did this. I think taking his opinions with a grain of salt and then moving on would be best.
Of Crypt’s manifold crimes, spoiling the ending of Serenity is the one that must never be forgotten and renders his opinions irrelevant?
Sometimes QT3 confuses the fucking shit out of me.
So how is the view from up on that soapbox?
Methinks you misunderstood the original statement. He didn’t say Hunger Games was more important as a literary work. He didn’t say Hunger Games was more original. He didn’t say Hunger Games was more memorable. He didn’t even say they were written any better.
He said he liked them better. Period.
It was easy to remember and find at 6:30 a.m.
Seriously though, the way Whedon wove in the fact that the whole of Firefly and Serenity were a fever dream Xander was having…just amazing, a true pro.
Why does originality matter, particularly when the target audience has never seen Arnold Schwarzenegger movies or read gorey Japanse novels?
And “criteria” is the plural of “criterion,” not the other way around.
I have a little trouble with someone favorably comparing the preteen author of the week with a guy again in print after a 100 years…
Being a pre-teen author doesn’t actually automatically dismiss you as a good writer. What it does is allow haugthy people to assume superior stances which frankly isn’t very pretty.
Most of you guys on this forum adore writers who write about lost pirates, treasure, adventure and the like for kids. I think some perspective is in order.
Not automatically, but if you play the percentages…
Edit: stupid snark which was unnessary
Read both and get back to me. And Collins is aiming at a teen audience, not a pre-teen, with The Hunger Games (the rule of thumb is the target audience is the age of the protagonist, in this case 16-17, high school age, which coincidentally is the age I was at when I read the Barsoom series). Quite frankly, the more adult and challenging books are from Collins, not Burroughs.
I’m not sure about your target age metric, I generally understand that for modern YA / children’s material, it’s designed to be aspirational, so usually the protagonist is a year or 2 older than the audience. I think this is relatively recent, in the old days protagonists were usually the age of the audience. I also could be totally wrong. I know it’s true for women’s magazine cover models though.
It doesn’t really affect your overall point though.
Target audience isn’t an exclusive thing - and for all I know it has shifted recently. But that is the rule of thumb last I heard - I’ll check with my YA expert at the main library (who is also a big SF fan, and who I turned to to see if The Hunger Games was worth bothering with or just another Twilight Saga type thing that I wouldn’t be interested in). And certainly with a series if you maintain a consistent style, even as the character ages, you are still writing for the initial age audience - Percy Jackson as opposed to Harry Potter. Riordan doesn’t change his style at all from first book to last, while Rowling aims her later books at an older audience - though in theory the same initial readers who have grown older along with the series.
Disney Studios Chairman Rich Ross just resigned. While John Carter’s epic failure didn’t single-handedly derail his Disney career, (Mars Needs Moms) it did put the nails in its coffin. I guess a $200 million write-down will do that.
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/20/rich-ross-disney-studio-chairman-quits/
John Carter’s drama doesn’t end.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-disney-redbox-netflix-20120608,0,6490461.story
A feud that flared up this week over the DVD release of “John Carter” has demonstrated the growing tension between rental giants Redbox and Netflix and Hollywood movie studios desperate to prop up their shrinking home entertainment businesses.
Heh - I’m very tempted now to rush out and be sure to pick up both this and Journey 2 at Redbox right away. A vote with my wallet, so to speak. Not sure it would really serve to do much, but… kudos to redbox/netflix for finding a way around it.
Disney isn’t being too bright here. I believe people will drop $1.20 at redbox over other options. Those that just HAVE TO SEE the movie right away, in absence of redbox/netflix as an option, will not opt for a $20 dvd though. They’ll wait, or they’ll find it by other means. Most folks will blame redbox/netflix initially, but as more and more realize the goings-on, the ire will shift to where it belongs…
Well, after the box office performance, Disney obviously knows there’s enormous pent-up demand for a big-budget John Carter of Mars film, so…