25 Classic Books That Have Been Banned

[Steve Hayes]

On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 23:54:39 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt

Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries.

What was the source of this information? Banned where and by who? What
does it even mean by "banned"?
Someone may have found "A Clockwork Orange" in a grade school (K-5 or 6)
or even middle school and said it was inappropriate and I think they
would be right, for the most part.

Bingo.
When these are tracked down, generally it turns out it was
way back in the days when "Banned in Boston!" was a selling
point, and Boston actually banned books. Other times, when
a grammar school library declines to stock a book generally
inappropriate for pre-teens (A Clockwork Orange is arguably
in this category, as is Lolita) it's hyped as a "Banned book."
I don't count it as a "Ban" unless it's currently legally
prohibited from being sold to adults. I'm not sure I know
of any books that meet that standard, in the US, anyway.
Unless it's a book of kiddie porn with pictures, maybe,
if someone's actually trying to market such a thing.

Exaxtly.

In South Africa, back in the days of apartheid, there was a
Publications Control Board that really did ban books. If you bought,
sold or has such a book in your posession you were committing an
offence and could be prosecuted.

I don't think you can be prosecuted in the USA for possessing a book
that some obscure school library has declined to stock, and to call
such a book "banned" is unnecessary hype.

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 04:05:51 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 23:54:39 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt

Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries.

What was the source of this information? Banned where and by who? What
does it even mean by "banned"?
Someone may have found "A Clockwork Orange" in a grade school (K-5 or 6)
or even middle school and said it was inappropriate and I think they
would be right, for the most part.

Bingo.
When these are tracked down, generally it turns out it was
way back in the days when "Banned in Boston!" was a selling
point, and Boston actually banned books. Other times, when
a grammar school library declines to stock a book generally
inappropriate for pre-teens (A Clockwork Orange is arguably
in this category, as is Lolita) it's hyped as a "Banned book."
I don't count it as a "Ban" unless it's currently legally
prohibited from being sold to adults. I'm not sure I know
of any books that meet that standard, in the US, anyway.
Unless it's a book of kiddie porn with pictures, maybe,
if someone's actually trying to market such a thing.

Exaxtly.
In South Africa, back in the days of apartheid, there was a
Publications Control Board that really did ban books. If you bought,
sold or has such a book in your posession you were committing an
offence and could be prosecuted.
I don't think you can be prosecuted in the USA for possessing a book
that some obscure school library has declined to stock, and to call
such a book "banned" is unnecessary hype.

And it's only not in the library -- the kids can buy a copy and read
it if they want.

I do seem to have noticed, however, that "banned" is being used on
both sides of the issue. With satisfaction on one, and with hysteria
on the other.

Of course, Trump could change that with the stroke of a pen on an
Executive Order. Or at least try to do so. This is why I am just
sitting back, relaxing, and enjoying the increasingly weird Trump The
Sequel show.

[The Horny Goat]

On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 08:44:42 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
And it's only not in the library -- the kids can buy a copy and read
it if they want.
I do seem to have noticed, however, that "banned" is being used on
both sides of the issue. With satisfaction on one, and with hysteria
on the other.
Of course, Trump could change that with the stroke of a pen on an
Executive Order. Or at least try to do so. This is why I am just
sitting back, relaxing, and enjoying the increasingly weird Trump The
Sequel show.

Of course - I read all sorts of things in my childhood that probably
weren't written for kids (which refers to reading level rather than
content) - for instance my junior high library had all sorts of books
from the US Atomic Energy Agency which were probably aimed at
university undergraduates - can't say I understood it all but can
honestly say I knew the names of all the chemical elements and their
atomic weights and numbers as a 13 year old. I had already read Isaac
Asimov's books on chemistry and physics by then so knew I'd find these
more advanced books interesting.

Obviously this is a far cry from pre-teens reading hard core porn. Not
that John Hershey's Hiroshima was suitable for pre-teens (but again
been there read that and managed to be a somewhat well balanced adult)

[Steve Hayes]

OTOH, the Harry Potter films tell the same stories as the books,
even the later ones, where way more than half the book doesn't make
it into the film. They are very focused.

Harry Potter is one case where I enjoyed the films (except the last
one), but perhaps this is related to how I reacted to the books. The
first book was excellent, the second was not too bad, but after that
they were a boring exercise in self-plagiarism. I never got to the end
of the fourth volume.

I agree, and the same applies to the movies.

I enjoyed the first three, and have reread the books several times,
and rewatched the movies using now-obsolete DVD technology.

But the later ones I could do without.

The problem isn't that changes are made -- changes are always made
when a book is filmed. The problem is that the changes make no sense
at all until you realize that PJ treated the book as a series of
Action Sequences separated by boring things like character
development or plot.

I didn't at all like the war theme at the end of the final film. It felt
as if the directors had switched over to Hollywood-style shoot-em-ups
and car crashes.

A new American edition of the Narnia books is due to appear in a
couple of months, and the cover illustrations suggest that the US
publishers have placed them all in the "sword and sorcery" genre. Most
of the covers show the children brandishing drawn swords, which seems,
to me at least, as if they are tring to sell them as a series of
"Action sequences separated by boring things like character
development or plot."

Perhaps that is because cinema lends itself more to action scenes, but
I once read a book whose author stated in the preface that it was all
action, with all the boring books left out. It was one of the most
boring books I have ever read ("Temple", by Matthew Reilly).

[Richard Heathfield]

Post by Steve Hayes
and rewatched the movies using now-obsolete DVD technology.

Presumably you prefer Blu-Ray?

Or do you just hope that the Internet will never tire of hosting
your favourite films?

(Like Usenet hoped that Google would never tire of being its
somewhat lackadaisical archive.)

https://xkcd.com/1454/

[Steve Hayes]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 05:50:40 +0000, Richard Heathfield

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Steve Hayes
and rewatched the movies using now-obsolete DVD technology.

Presumably you prefer Blu-Ray?

No.

Post by Richard Heathfield
Or do you just hope that the Internet will never tire of hosting
your favourite films?

No.

[Richard Heathfield]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 05:50:40 +0000, Richard Heathfield

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Steve Hayes
and rewatched the movies using now-obsolete DVD technology.

Presumably you prefer Blu-Ray?

No.

Post by Richard Heathfield
Or do you just hope that the Internet will never tire of hosting
your favourite films?

No.

Ha! :-)

So there is a third option of which I are remain higgorant. Care
to reveal?

Guess #3 - you are storing them on eg pluggable-innable SSD drives?

[Steve Hayes]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:26:00 +0000, Richard Heathfield

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 05:50:40 +0000, Richard Heathfield

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Steve Hayes
and rewatched the movies using now-obsolete DVD technology.

Presumably you prefer Blu-Ray?

No.

Post by Richard Heathfield
Or do you just hope that the Internet will never tire of hosting
your favourite films?

No.

Ha! :-)
So there is a third option of which I are remain higgorant. Care
to reveal?
Guess #3 - you are storing them on eg pluggable-innable SSD drives?

No, I'm watching them on DVDs, even though the technology is now
obsolete. I can watch the Harry Potter movies because they were
available on DVD. but I can't watch more recent movies, because all
the shops that sold DVDs have now closed.


\

[Richard Heathfield]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:26:00 +0000, Richard Heathfield

<snip>

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Richard Heathfield
So there is a third option of which I are remain higgorant. Care
to reveal?
Guess #3 - you are storing them on eg pluggable-innable SSD drives?

No, I'm watching them on DVDs, even though the technology is now
obsolete.

I don't think it is. I think there's still a market for people
who want to have the film on their shelf, not just `out there'.

Post by Steve Hayes
I can watch the Harry Potter movies because they were
available on DVD. but I can't watch more recent movies, because all
the shops that sold DVDs have now closed.

Fortunately for me, all the movies I want to see are available on
DVD, and many of them are on Blu Ray.

I was given the complete Harry Potter on DVD, but I gave them
away as soon as I could find a good home for them. I prefer
Unseen University.

[jerryfriedman]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:52:08 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
..

Post by Richard Heathfield
I was given the complete Harry Potter on DVD, but I gave them
away as soon as I could find a good home for them. I prefer
Unseen University.

So do I, but I prefer far more the School for Wizards
on Roke.

--
Jerry Friedman

--

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Steve Hayes
No, I'm watching them on DVDs, even though the technology is now
obsolete.

I don't think it is. I think there's still a market for people
who want to have the film on their shelf, not just `out there'.

I think that it's fair to call dvds obsolete. A couple of hours ago I
wanted to give the webaddress on some shops where you can buy dvds - but
they almost entirely had BluRays. I presume that the few dvds were the
last of their stock.

[Richard Heathfield]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Steve Hayes
No, I'm watching them on DVDs, even though the technology is now
obsolete.

I don't think it is. I think there's still a market for people
who want to have the film on their shelf, not just `out there'.

I think that it's fair to call dvds obsolete.

Then we need a definition.

By Wiktionary's definition - "No longer in use; gone into disuse;
disused or neglected (often in favour of something newer)." -
DVDs are not obsolete because I'm still using them, so is Steve
Hayes, and so are a number of acquaintances in "real life".
Besides, DVDs have only been around for ten minutes, so it's a
bit early to be chucking them away. (I would estimate my
collection's purchase price to be of the order of exp(8.5), so
it's not an investment I plan lightly to discard.)

I accept that Wiktionary's definition is descriptive, not
prescriptive, but I'd be curious to see your counterdefinition.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
I think that it's fair to call dvds obsolete.

Then we need a definition.
By Wiktionary's definition - "No longer in use; gone into disuse;
disused or neglected (often in favour of something newer)." -
DVDs are not obsolete because I'm still using them, so is Steve
Hayes, and so are a number of acquaintances in "real life".
Besides, DVDs have only been around for ten minutes, so it's a
bit early to be chucking them away. (I would estimate my
collection's purchase price to be of the order of exp(8.5), so
it's not an investment I plan lightly to discard.)

I have a collection of prewritten cdroms and dvds, and I have a
collection of unwritten cdroms and dvds.

Post by Richard Heathfield
I accept that Wiktionary's definition is descriptive, not
prescriptive, but I'd be curious to see your counterdefinition.

I haven't considered a definition.

[Paul S Person]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 16:37:32 +0100, Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Steve Hayes
No, I'm watching them on DVDs, even though the technology is now
obsolete.

I don't think it is. I think there's still a market for people
who want to have the film on their shelf, not just `out there'.

I think that it's fair to call dvds obsolete. A couple of hours ago I
wanted to give the webaddress on some shops where you can buy dvds - but
they almost entirely had BluRays. I presume that the few dvds were the
last of their stock.

While it is true that the heady days when I bought DVDs in "sticks" of
10 from Amazon or buy.com (buying 3 or 4 in turn over the course of a
month or so) are long gone, and even the days when I bought a stick or
two at the end of one year/start of the next, it is also true that my
last order (Jan 25) of 7 discs, 5 were DVDs, and only 2 were BDs. One
BD (Argento's /The Five Days/) was from Ebay; the other BD and all 5
DVDs were from Amazon.

So unless the market collapsed since late January, DVDs are readily
available online.

Note: I found the eBay DVD by using Bing to search for it. Such
searches can be very effective: in the past, there have been items /on
Amazon/ that I found that way (well, it would have been Google I used
at the time, I suppose) which searching on Amazon itself could not
find. Or would not find, whichever applies.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:52:08 +0000, Richard Heathfield

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:26:00 +0000, Richard Heathfield

<snip>

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Richard Heathfield
So there is a third option of which I are remain higgorant. Care
to reveal?
Guess #3 - you are storing them on eg pluggable-innable SSD drives?

No, I'm watching them on DVDs, even though the technology is now
obsolete.

I don't think it is. I think there's still a market for people
who want to have the film on their shelf, not just `out there'.

I've got hundreds of CDs, hundreds of DVDs, hundreds of Blu Ray.
And I borrowed hundreds of discs from Netflix, but I've never
'streamed' from any service.

Home discs: Reproduction is better; availability will not disappear
when contracts run out.

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Steve Hayes
I can watch the Harry Potter movies because they were
available on DVD. but I can't watch more recent movies, because all
the shops that sold DVDs have now closed.

The local chain that specialized in DVD and Blu Ray is still open.
They make some money on new vinyl, but especially on GAMEs.
Google confirms, Games are a bigger industry than cinema, in billions
of dollars (discs are like $60, not $20).

Post by Richard Heathfield
Fortunately for me, all the movies I want to see are available on
DVD, and many of them are on Blu Ray.

The reason that DVD-only shops must close is that so many
new movies (and TV series) are bought up for streaming and
are never released on disc. CDs led that transition, I think.
I still stop by the shop (when on my way to buy tea, a few doors
away) and there are a few CDs being released -- but more likely
Zappa or Greatful Dead, mining their archives, than new music.


If I had holes in my collections, it might be cheap to fill them
because they still have the stock they built. A whole lot of movies
are available at $5 (or less, esp. for DVD).

Post by Richard Heathfield
I was given the complete Harry Potter on DVD, but I gave them
away as soon as I could find a good home for them. I prefer
Unseen University.

I read the whole series of Potter books, and enjoyed them. Once
through. I see at IMDb that I've never rated Sorcerer's Stone,
so I'm pretty sure I skipped that whole movie experience beyond
random clips.

[D]

Post by Rich Ulrich
The reason that DVD-only shops must close is that so many
new movies (and TV series) are bought up for streaming and
are never released on disc. CDs led that transition, I think.
I still stop by the shop (when on my way to buy tea, a few doors
away) and there are a few CDs being released -- but more likely
Zappa or Greatful Dead, mining their archives, than new music.

I think there is a small, but growing movement that appreciates CD/LP/Casette.
It's not big business of course, but the trend is growing. I think that is a
very good thing that people realize that it is better to own your media and
books, than being tethered to a service that sucks money out of your wallet.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by D
I think there is a small, but growing movement that appreciates CD/LP/Casette.
It's not big business of course, but the trend is growing. I think that is a
very good thing that people realize that it is better to own your media and
books, than being tethered to a service that sucks money out of your wallet.

For a while there was a big move toward the LP, in part because of the large
space for a nice album cover and in part because it's difficult to do abusive
mastering practices on LP.

Then folks started doing abusive mastering work on LP and wound up with LPs
that aren't any louder, just worse-sounding, and I think to some extent this
is killing the market for some of the newer releases.

I do still do cut five or six LPs a year. Haven't cut a 45 in decades.
--scott

[D]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by D
I think there is a small, but growing movement that appreciates CD/LP/Casette.
It's not big business of course, but the trend is growing. I think that is a
very good thing that people realize that it is better to own your media and
books, than being tethered to a service that sucks money out of your wallet.

For a while there was a big move toward the LP, in part because of the large
space for a nice album cover and in part because it's difficult to do abusive
mastering practices on LP.
Then folks started doing abusive mastering work on LP and wound up with LPs
that aren't any louder, just worse-sounding, and I think to some extent this
is killing the market for some of the newer releases.
I do still do cut five or six LPs a year. Haven't cut a 45 in decades.
--scott

This is the truth! I have heard that they just transfer the same digital
recording to LP, so as you say, no difference from streaming, just worse
quality and durability.

I imagine that with hipster then moving in (not advanced audiophiles) the
prices go up, and the trend expires.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by D
I think there is a small, but growing movement that appreciates CD/LP/Casette.
It's not big business of course, but the trend is growing. I think that is a
very good thing that people realize that it is better to own your media and
books, than being tethered to a service that sucks money out of your wallet.

Exactly. I can see no point in subscribing to a streaming service (and
wouldn't know how to make it work anyway, nor could I afford it). So I
make do with the CDs and DVDs I bought long ago.

All the movies I've seen since 2021, either shown on TV or because we
have them on DVD. It's not worth paying monthly for that.

5-Jun-2021, Saturday Ronin.
21-Jul-2021, Wednesday Escape from Pretoria
31-Jul-2021, Saturday Escape to Victory.
16-Apr-2022, Saturday Pan's Labyrinth
23-Jul-2022, Saturday The Darkest Hour
20-Oct-2022, Thursday Man of God
13-Mar-2023, Monday Four weddings and a funeral
25-Dec-2024, Wednesday Dead Poets Society

[D]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by D
I think there is a small, but growing movement that appreciates CD/LP/Casette.
It's not big business of course, but the trend is growing. I think that is a
very good thing that people realize that it is better to own your media and
books, than being tethered to a service that sucks money out of your wallet.

Exactly. I can see no point in subscribing to a streaming service (and
wouldn't know how to make it work anyway, nor could I afford it). So I
make do with the CDs and DVDs I bought long ago.

You are a wise man!

Post by Steve Hayes
All the movies I've seen since 2021, either shown on TV or because we
have them on DVD. It's not worth paying monthly for that.
5-Jun-2021, Saturday Ronin.
21-Jul-2021, Wednesday Escape from Pretoria
31-Jul-2021, Saturday Escape to Victory.
16-Apr-2022, Saturday Pan's Labyrinth
23-Jul-2022, Saturday The Darkest Hour
20-Oct-2022, Thursday Man of God
13-Mar-2023, Monday Four weddings and a funeral
25-Dec-2024, Wednesday Dead Poets Society

I could watch Pan and Dead poets society again out of thise. I enjoyed
both movies. Dead poets more than Pans labyrinth.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by D

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by D
I think there is a small, but growing movement that appreciates CD/LP/Casette.
It's not big business of course, but the trend is growing. I think that is a
very good thing that people realize that it is better to own your media and
books, than being tethered to a service that sucks money out of your wallet.

Exactly. I can see no point in subscribing to a streaming service (and
wouldn't know how to make it work anyway, nor could I afford it). So I
make do with the CDs and DVDs I bought long ago.

You are a wise man!

Post by Steve Hayes
All the movies I've seen since 2021, either shown on TV or because we
have them on DVD. It's not worth paying monthly for that.
5-Jun-2021, Saturday Ronin.
21-Jul-2021, Wednesday Escape from Pretoria
31-Jul-2021, Saturday Escape to Victory.
16-Apr-2022, Saturday Pan's Labyrinth
23-Jul-2022, Saturday The Darkest Hour
20-Oct-2022, Thursday Man of God
13-Mar-2023, Monday Four weddings and a funeral
25-Dec-2024, Wednesday Dead Poets Society

I could watch Pan and Dead poets society again out of thise. I enjoyed
both movies. Dead poets more than Pans labyrinth.

I agree, though I have a slight preference for "Pan's Labyrinth".

But the thing is that paying a monthly subscription to watch one movie
a year, which is all we have watched over the last couple of years, is
really a waste of money. If the facility was available, we might
return to the practice of the previous years, and watch 3 during the
year, but it still wouldn't be worth it.

[D]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by D

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by D
I think there is a small, but growing movement that appreciates CD/LP/Casette.
It's not big business of course, but the trend is growing. I think that is a
very good thing that people realize that it is better to own your media and
books, than being tethered to a service that sucks money out of your wallet.

Exactly. I can see no point in subscribing to a streaming service (and
wouldn't know how to make it work anyway, nor could I afford it). So I
make do with the CDs and DVDs I bought long ago.

You are a wise man!

Post by Steve Hayes
All the movies I've seen since 2021, either shown on TV or because we
have them on DVD. It's not worth paying monthly for that.
5-Jun-2021, Saturday Ronin.
21-Jul-2021, Wednesday Escape from Pretoria
31-Jul-2021, Saturday Escape to Victory.
16-Apr-2022, Saturday Pan's Labyrinth
23-Jul-2022, Saturday The Darkest Hour
20-Oct-2022, Thursday Man of God
13-Mar-2023, Monday Four weddings and a funeral
25-Dec-2024, Wednesday Dead Poets Society

I could watch Pan and Dead poets society again out of thise. I enjoyed
both movies. Dead poets more than Pans labyrinth.

I agree, though I have a slight preference for "Pan's Labyrinth".
But the thing is that paying a monthly subscription to watch one movie
a year, which is all we have watched over the last couple of years, is
really a waste of money. If the facility was available, we might
return to the practice of the previous years, and watch 3 during the
year, but it still wouldn't be worth it.

This is the truth! You are much better off buying used DVD:s or torrenting
them off some torrent site.

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 03:43:41 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by D
I could watch Pan and Dead poets society again out of thise. I enjoyed
both movies. Dead poets more than Pans labyrinth.

I agree, though I have a slight preference for "Pan's Labyrinth".
But the thing is that paying a monthly subscription to watch one movie
a year, which is all we have watched over the last couple of years, is
really a waste of money. If the facility was available, we might
return to the practice of the previous years, and watch 3 during the
year, but it still wouldn't be worth it.

I would agree with that.

I do subscribe to Netflix, but I feel that I need to stream at least
10 films a month to make it worth while. I subscribe to Prime and, as
far as movies are concerned, find the same thing. Although Prime does
have other advantages.

In both cases, I did this because my list of "films I want to see"
included so many that were on Netflix or on Prime but only for
subscribers that it was worthwhile at the time. So far, so good,
although, while many of the films are definitely worth watching,
quality does vary.

But I really like movies. Always have, and hopefully always will.

There are commercial-driven streaming sites that have no direct cost.
While the commercials can be tedious, the movies are still the movies
they always were.

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by jerryfriedman
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:52:08 +0000, Richard Heathfield
The local chain that specialized in DVD and Blu Ray is still open.
They make some money on new vinyl, but especially on GAMEs.
Google confirms, Games are a bigger industry than cinema, in billions
of dollars (discs are like $60, not $20).

Post by Richard Heathfield
Fortunately for me, all the movies I want to see are available on
DVD, and many of them are on Blu Ray.

The reason that DVD-only shops must close is that so many
new movies (and TV series) are bought up for streaming and
are never released on disc. CDs led that transition, I think.
I still stop by the shop (when on my way to buy tea, a few doors
away) and there are a few CDs being released -- but more likely
Zappa or Greatful Dead, mining their archives, than new music.

I've found antique stores and flea markets to be good sources
for DVDs and Blu-rays that are out of stock with most retailers.

Amazon has really gone down hill in that area recently; many
older titles that I look for are either out of stock or only
available used from third party sellers.

[D]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by jerryfriedman
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:52:08 +0000, Richard Heathfield
The local chain that specialized in DVD and Blu Ray is still open.
They make some money on new vinyl, but especially on GAMEs.
Google confirms, Games are a bigger industry than cinema, in billions
of dollars (discs are like $60, not $20).

Post by Richard Heathfield
Fortunately for me, all the movies I want to see are available on
DVD, and many of them are on Blu Ray.

The reason that DVD-only shops must close is that so many
new movies (and TV series) are bought up for streaming and
are never released on disc. CDs led that transition, I think.
I still stop by the shop (when on my way to buy tea, a few doors
away) and there are a few CDs being released -- but more likely
Zappa or Greatful Dead, mining their archives, than new music.

I've found antique stores and flea markets to be good sources
for DVDs and Blu-rays that are out of stock with most retailers.

This is the truth! It is scientifically proven!

Post by Scott Lurndal
Amazon has really gone down hill in that area recently; many
older titles that I look for are either out of stock or only
available used from third party sellers.

[JNugent]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by jerryfriedman
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:52:08 +0000, Richard Heathfield
The local chain that specialized in DVD and Blu Ray is still open.
They make some money on new vinyl, but especially on GAMEs.
Google confirms, Games are a bigger industry than cinema, in billions
of dollars (discs are like $60, not $20).

Post by Richard Heathfield
Fortunately for me, all the movies I want to see are available on
DVD, and many of them are on Blu Ray.

The reason that DVD-only shops must close is that so many
new movies (and TV series) are bought up for streaming and
are never released on disc. CDs led that transition, I think.
I still stop by the shop (when on my way to buy tea, a few doors
away) and there are a few CDs being released -- but more likely
Zappa or Greatful Dead, mining their archives, than new music.

I've found antique stores and flea markets to be good sources
for DVDs and Blu-rays that are out of stock with most retailers.
Amazon has really gone down hill in that area recently; many
older titles that I look for are either out of stock or only
available used from third party sellers.

A UK-specific problem is that Network Video went out of business a
couple of years ago. Their main schtick was box-sets of British programmes.

This thread reminded me of a series I wanted to watch again: "Edward and
Mrs Simpson" from about 1980.

I checked Amazon UK and found a copy of the relevant box set for £2 and
about £1.70 in postage, from mega-seller of used CDs and DVDs: Music
Magpie. It's now on its way.

[Paul S Person]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by jerryfriedman
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:52:08 +0000, Richard Heathfield
The local chain that specialized in DVD and Blu Ray is still open.
They make some money on new vinyl, but especially on GAMEs.
Google confirms, Games are a bigger industry than cinema, in billions
of dollars (discs are like $60, not $20).

Post by Richard Heathfield
Fortunately for me, all the movies I want to see are available on
DVD, and many of them are on Blu Ray.

The reason that DVD-only shops must close is that so many
new movies (and TV series) are bought up for streaming and
are never released on disc. CDs led that transition, I think.
I still stop by the shop (when on my way to buy tea, a few doors
away) and there are a few CDs being released -- but more likely
Zappa or Greatful Dead, mining their archives, than new music.

I've found antique stores and flea markets to be good sources
for DVDs and Blu-rays that are out of stock with most retailers.
Amazon has really gone down hill in that area recently; many
older titles that I look for are either out of stock or only
available used from third party sellers.

I have bought used DVDs (and maybe a CD or two, not to mention the
occasional printed book) on rare occasions when there was no option,
but they all played fine. Some had broken cases, but I bought empty
cases [1] so that wasn't a problem. Some had minor problems with the
sleeves. And, of course, some undeniably new items had similar
problems -- they were being sold at an attractive price because they
were deemed unsuitable to be sold in physical retail stores.

I have also received, as new, DVDs that didn't appear to actually be
new, just re-wrapped in shrink wrap. But what does that matter? The
larger Amazon Vendors use boilerplate descriptions that apparently
apply to their stock in general and not the item being purchased in
particular. The DVD played fine and the cost was reasonable, at that
is what matters.

[1] Three types for DVDs: the ubiquitous one, the old folded cardboard
in a frame (I bought the frames), and the clear large CD style so
beloved of el-cheapo DVD publishers. And I have about a gazillion
empty CD-R/DVD+R cases, each patiently waiting to be used should a CD
case need replacement.

[WolfFan]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:26:00 +0000, Richard Heathfield

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 05:50:40 +0000, Richard Heathfield

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Steve Hayes
and rewatched the movies using now-obsolete DVD technology.

Presumably you prefer Blu-Ray?

No.

Post by Richard Heathfield
Or do you just hope that the Internet will never tire of hosting
your favourite films?

No.

Ha! :-)
So there is a third option of which I are remain higgorant. Care
to reveal?
Guess #3 - you are storing them on eg pluggable-innable SSD drives?

No, I'm watching them on DVDs, even though the technology is now
obsolete. I can watch the Harry Potter movies because they were
available on DVD. but I can't watch more recent movies, because all
the shops that sold DVDs have now closed.
\

Hmm. DVDs are still available from sources like Amazon... You’re in South
Africa, right? [checks] amazon.co.za lists a lot of DVDs. Someone seems to
really like John Wayne.

If you can’t get the movies you like, and if they’re available elsewhere
(Amazon, Best Buy, Walmart, Target...) may I propose a swap? We get you the
movies if you take Elon back. Please.

[D]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:26:00 +0000, Richard Heathfield

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 05:50:40 +0000, Richard Heathfield

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Steve Hayes
and rewatched the movies using now-obsolete DVD technology.

Presumably you prefer Blu-Ray?

No.

Post by Richard Heathfield
Or do you just hope that the Internet will never tire of hosting
your favourite films?

No.

Ha! :-)
So there is a third option of which I are remain higgorant. Care
to reveal?
Guess #3 - you are storing them on eg pluggable-innable SSD drives?

No, I'm watching them on DVDs, even though the technology is now
obsolete. I can watch the Harry Potter movies because they were
available on DVD. but I can't watch more recent movies, because all
the shops that sold DVDs have now closed.
\

Hmm. DVDs are still available from sources like Amazon... You’re in South
Africa, right? [checks] amazon.co.za lists a lot of DVDs. Someone seems to
really like John Wayne.
If you can’t get the movies you like, and if they’re available elsewhere
(Amazon, Best Buy, Walmart, Target...) may I propose a swap? We get you the
movies if you take Elon back. Please.

Also check local shops that sell used CDs/LPs and such things. Sometimes
they have a couple of boxes with DVDs practically giving them away. You
can also score some nice deals by checking web sites selling used stuff,
there you can find loads of people just giving away their DVDs.

[Paul S Person]

<snippo, contention is that DVDs are obsolete, something I am sure
every true video elitest believes with all their heart and all their
soul>

Post by D

Hmm. DVDs are still available from sources like Amazon... You’re in South
Africa, right? [checks] amazon.co.za lists a lot of DVDs. Someone seems to
really like John Wayne.
If you can’t get the movies you like, and if they’re available elsewhere
(Amazon, Best Buy, Walmart, Target...) may I propose a swap? We get you the
movies if you take Elon back. Please.

Also check local shops that sell used CDs/LPs and such things. Sometimes
they have a couple of boxes with DVDs practically giving them away. You
can also score some nice deals by checking web sites selling used stuff,
there you can find loads of people just giving away their DVDs.

I believe I once bought a used book for $0.01. Plus $4.99 Shipping &
Handling. Did it really cost $4.99 to ship it to me? Or would part of
that be better regarded as being for the item itself? When doing my
search I would regularly add the S&H into the purchase price and use
that to decide which offer to take.

[D]

Post by Paul S Person
<snippo, contention is that DVDs are obsolete, something I am sure
every true video elitest believes with all their heart and all their
soul>

Post by D

Hmm. DVDs are still available from sources like Amazon... You¢re in South
Africa, right? [checks] amazon.co.za lists a lot of DVDs. Someone seems to
really like John Wayne.
If you can¢t get the movies you like, and if they¢re available elsewhere
(Amazon, Best Buy, Walmart, Target...) may I propose a swap? We get you the
movies if you take Elon back. Please.

Also check local shops that sell used CDs/LPs and such things. Sometimes
they have a couple of boxes with DVDs practically giving them away. You
can also score some nice deals by checking web sites selling used stuff,
there you can find loads of people just giving away their DVDs.

I believe I once bought a used book for $0.01. Plus $4.99 Shipping &
Handling. Did it really cost $4.99 to ship it to me? Or would part of
that be better regarded as being for the item itself? When doing my
search I would regularly add the S&H into the purchase price and use
that to decide which offer to take.

This is the truth! I sometimes buy used books and use the same method.

[D]

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Steve Hayes
and rewatched the movies using now-obsolete DVD technology.

Presumably you prefer Blu-Ray?
Or do you just hope that the Internet will never tire of hosting your
favourite films?

This is the truth! Having to stream all your books, videos and music is
also the wet dream of all media companies. Instead of buying it and owning
it forever, you will forever be a slave to streaming services at a monthly
cost.

Maybe it could be argued that the media houses will store our favourites
for us, and that we can pirate those movies based off their streaming.

Post by Richard Heathfield
(Like Usenet hoped that Google would never tire of being its somewhat
lackadaisical archive.)
https://xkcd.com/1454/

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Steve Hayes

OTOH, the Harry Potter films tell the same stories as the books,
even the later ones, where way more than half the book doesn't make
it into the film. They are very focused.

Harry Potter is one case where I enjoyed the films (except the last
one), but perhaps this is related to how I reacted to the books. The
first book was excellent, the second was not too bad, but after that
they were a boring exercise in self-plagiarism. I never got to the end
of the fourth volume.

I agree, and the same applies to the movies.

Hmm. I don't agree. The second book was basically a clone of the
first. After that, they started to get more complicated as the
kids started to grow up and understand more about the realities of
their world. Ie: the lavish hall feasts are not conjured magically,
they are prepared by, basically, slaves, the wizarding world is not
a shiny happy place, but is full of bad people etc. Perhaps the
best extended example of this is the development of Hagrid who moves
from beloved mentor to deeply flawed friend as the kids gradually realize
just how bad his judgement is. By the last book, even Harry's trust in
Dumbledore is examined and tested.

On the whole I think the movies caught this by moving on from the shiny
Chris Colombus beginnings to edgier directors later in the sequence.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Steve Hayes

OTOH, the Harry Potter films tell the same stories as the books,
even the later ones, where way more than half the book doesn't make
it into the film. They are very focused.

Harry Potter is one case where I enjoyed the films (except the last
one), but perhaps this is related to how I reacted to the books. The
first book was excellent, the second was not too bad, but after that
they were a boring exercise in self-plagiarism. I never got to the end
of the fourth volume.

I agree, and the same applies to the movies.

Hmm. I don't agree. The second book was basically a clone of the
first. After that, they started to get more complicated as the
kids started to grow up and understand more about the realities of
their world. Ie: the lavish hall feasts are not conjured magically,
they are prepared by, basically, slaves, the wizarding world is not
a shiny happy place, but is full of bad people etc. Perhaps the
best extended example of this is the development of Hagrid who moves
from beloved mentor to deeply flawed friend as the kids gradually realize
just how bad his judgement is. By the last book, even Harry's trust in
Dumbledore is examined and tested.
On the whole I think the movies caught this by moving on from the shiny
Chris Colombus beginnings to edgier directors later in the sequence.

Interesting perspective. Perhaps I need to re-read the whole lot from
the beginning.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Steve Hayes

OTOH, the Harry Potter films tell the same stories as the books,
even the later ones, where way more than half the book doesn't make
it into the film. They are very focused.

Harry Potter is one case where I enjoyed the films (except the last
one), but perhaps this is related to how I reacted to the books. The
first book was excellent, the second was not too bad, but after that
they were a boring exercise in self-plagiarism. I never got to the end
of the fourth volume.

I agree, and the same applies to the movies.

Hmm. I don't agree. The second book was basically a clone of the
first. After that, they started to get more complicated as the
kids started to grow up and understand more about the realities of
their world. Ie: the lavish hall feasts are not conjured magically,
they are prepared by, basically, slaves, the wizarding world is not
a shiny happy place, but is full of bad people etc. Perhaps the
best extended example of this is the development of Hagrid who moves
from beloved mentor to deeply flawed friend as the kids gradually realize
just how bad his judgement is. By the last book, even Harry's trust in
Dumbledore is examined and tested.
On the whole I think the movies caught this by moving on from the shiny
Chris Colombus beginnings to edgier directors later in the sequence.

Interesting perspective. Perhaps I need to re-read the whole lot from
the beginning.

Me too.

Lynn

[Paul S Person]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 01:19:17 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Steve Hayes

OTOH, the Harry Potter films tell the same stories as the books,
even the later ones, where way more than half the book doesn't make
it into the film. They are very focused.

Harry Potter is one case where I enjoyed the films (except the last
one), but perhaps this is related to how I reacted to the books. The
first book was excellent, the second was not too bad, but after that
they were a boring exercise in self-plagiarism. I never got to the end
of the fourth volume.

I agree, and the same applies to the movies.

Hmm. I don't agree. The second book was basically a clone of the
first. After that, they started to get more complicated as the
kids started to grow up and understand more about the realities of
their world. Ie: the lavish hall feasts are not conjured magically,
they are prepared by, basically, slaves, the wizarding world is not
a shiny happy place, but is full of bad people etc. Perhaps the
best extended example of this is the development of Hagrid who moves
from beloved mentor to deeply flawed friend as the kids gradually realize
just how bad his judgement is. By the last book, even Harry's trust in
Dumbledore is examined and tested.
On the whole I think the movies caught this by moving on from the shiny
Chris Colombus beginnings to edgier directors later in the sequence.

Interesting perspective. Perhaps I need to re-read the whole lot from
the beginning.

Me too.
Lynn

If you stopped after (say) the first three, you should be aware that
the author /warned/ parents that the serious was going to get more and
more ... serious ... as time went on.

As it did -- people who, while not major characters in the series, are
very much part of the story started dying in Book 4, and major
characters in Book 5. And the last two books are even darker.

The books also get considerably longer, which means the films omiNt a
lot more of their contents. The entire ELF sequence is missing. We
never see Neville with his parents. One of the things Rowling did was,
consulting her Secret Master Plot, advise the filmmakers on what could
be cut and what would be needed to make what would come later have a
foundation.

OTOH, the very long section recounting Our Heroes' Trek across Britain
in Book 7 is shortened to a pastiche of scenes with a relevant
soundtrack in the film. This was a definite improvement.

[Steve Hayes]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:44:32 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 01:19:17 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Steve Hayes

OTOH, the Harry Potter films tell the same stories as the books,
even the later ones, where way more than half the book doesn't make
it into the film. They are very focused.

Harry Potter is one case where I enjoyed the films (except the last
one), but perhaps this is related to how I reacted to the books. The
first book was excellent, the second was not too bad, but after that
they were a boring exercise in self-plagiarism. I never got to the end
of the fourth volume.

I agree, and the same applies to the movies.

Hmm. I don't agree. The second book was basically a clone of the
first. After that, they started to get more complicated as the
kids started to grow up and understand more about the realities of
their world. Ie: the lavish hall feasts are not conjured magically,
they are prepared by, basically, slaves, the wizarding world is not
a shiny happy place, but is full of bad people etc. Perhaps the
best extended example of this is the development of Hagrid who moves
from beloved mentor to deeply flawed friend as the kids gradually realize
just how bad his judgement is. By the last book, even Harry's trust in
Dumbledore is examined and tested.
On the whole I think the movies caught this by moving on from the shiny
Chris Colombus beginnings to edgier directors later in the sequence.

Interesting perspective. Perhaps I need to re-read the whole lot from
the beginning.

Me too.
Lynn

If you stopped after (say) the first three, you should be aware that
the author /warned/ parents that the serious was going to get more and
more ... serious ... as time went on.

I have read them all, but in rereading, I prefer reading the first
three. I see the point that the wizarding world is not just a happy
shining place but that there are bad people in it, but that is evident
in the first three books too, though the children, being younger, have
a tendency to draw sharper lines, seeing people as either all good or
all bad -- eg Hagrid Good, Snape Bad, and as they grow older come to
see that both good and evil can be present in the same person.

Post by Paul S Person
As it did -- people who, while not major characters in the series, are
very much part of the story started dying in Book 4, and major
characters in Book 5. And the last two books are even darker.

... and even longer.

Post by Paul S Person
The books also get considerably longer, which means the films omiNt a
lot more of their contents. The entire ELF sequence is missing. We
never see Neville with his parents. One of the things Rowling did was,
consulting her Secret Master Plot, advise the filmmakers on what could
be cut and what would be needed to make what would come later have a
foundation.

It's not just that it makes them more difficult to film, but for me,
at least, it made them less interesting to read. I have nothin against
long books *in principle* if they are actually telling a story. But
some are just too verbose. I tried reading George R.R. Martins
seemingly endless series, and have up halfway through the second book.
There's enough political wheeling and dealing and backstabbing in the
quotidian world (there, I used that word) without having to read about
it in fiction.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 05:02:30 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
I have nothin against
long books *in principle* if they are actually telling a story. But
some are just too verbose. I tried reading George R.R. Martins
seemingly endless series, and have up halfway through the second book.

I think I got through more than two, but ...

Post by Steve Hayes
There's enough political wheeling and dealing and backstabbing in the
quotidian world (there, I used that word) without having to read about
it in fiction.

Yes, exactly.

I watched a few episodes of the TV series before it reminded me
how seriously the books had turned me off. The sex and bare boobs
were not enough to keep me.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Rich Ulrich
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 05:02:30 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
I have nothin against
long books *in principle* if they are actually telling a story. But
some are just too verbose. I tried reading George R.R. Martins
seemingly endless series, and have up halfway through the second book.

I think I got through more than two, but ...

Post by Steve Hayes
There's enough political wheeling and dealing and backstabbing in the
quotidian world (there, I used that word) without having to read about
it in fiction.

Yes, exactly.
I watched a few episodes of the TV series before it reminded me
how seriously the books had turned me off. The sex and bare boobs
were not enough to keep me.

I thought they were brilliant up to the last one, which spent a lot of
effort avoiding making things we wanted to see happen.

Of course it's all moot now. I certainly couldn't recommend anyone start
reading the series.

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Rich Ulrich
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 05:02:30 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
I have nothin against
long books *in principle* if they are actually telling a story. But
some are just too verbose. I tried reading George R.R. Martins
seemingly endless series, and have up halfway through the second book.

I think I got through more than two, but ...

I couldn't even finish _A Game of Thrones_. I did quite enjoy
most of Jordan's Wheel of Time (Crossroads of time, however, was a failed
experiment).

Never could finish a Tolkien, either.

[D]

Post by Steve Hayes
It's not just that it makes them more difficult to film, but for me,
at least, it made them less interesting to read. I have nothin against
long books *in principle* if they are actually telling a story. But
some are just too verbose. I tried reading George R.R. Martins
seemingly endless series, and have up halfway through the second book.
There's enough political wheeling and dealing and backstabbing in the
quotidian world (there, I used that word) without having to read about
it in fiction.

I agree! This is a sickness with modern authors, and one of my biggest gripes
with Stephenson and Martin as you say. I want a story, something happening! I do
not want 100s of pages of environmental descriptions, or bad poetry, or
irrelevant stuff. So I usually skip that and only read the dialogue when it
comes to authors of that type. Then I do not buy more of their books.

That is why I like the golden age of science fiction! In those days, authors
were able to write stories in less than 300 pages, and they wrote good stories!
At most they published more books instead.

I often wonder about this modern fashion of tapping out 1000+ pages of bricks?
It is very strange.

[Richard Heathfield]

Post by D

Post by Steve Hayes
It's not just that it makes them more difficult to film, but
for me,
at least, it made them less interesting to read. I have nothin against
long books *in principle* if they are actually telling a story. But
some are just too verbose. I tried reading George R.R. Martins
seemingly endless series, and have up halfway through the
second book.
There's enough political wheeling and dealing and backstabbing in the
quotidian world (there, I used that word) without having to
read about
it in fiction.

I agree! This is a sickness with modern authors, and one of my
biggest gripes
with Stephenson and Martin as you say. I want a story, something happening! I do
not want 100s of pages of environmental descriptions, or bad
poetry, or
irrelevant stuff. So I usually skip that and only read the
dialogue when it
comes to authors of that type. Then I do not buy more of their
books.
That is why I like the golden age of science fiction! In those
days, authors
were able to write stories in less than 300 pages, and they wrote good stories!
At most they published more books instead.
I often wonder about this modern fashion of tapping out 1000+
pages of bricks?
It is very strange.

Reading sucks, doesn't it?

I bring you your perfect novel.

A Tale
------

by Anon.

Once upon a time, there were good people and bad people. The bad
people did bad things. The good people stopped them from doing
bad things. The bad people said sorry and became good people and
many died of boredom. All the good people who were left lived
happily ever after, until they too died of boredom.

The End.

£19.99 from all good booksellers.

[D]

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by D

Post by Steve Hayes
It's not just that it makes them more difficult to film, but for me,
at least, it made them less interesting to read. I have nothin against
long books *in principle* if they are actually telling a story. But
some are just too verbose. I tried reading George R.R. Martins
seemingly endless series, and have up halfway through the second book.
There's enough political wheeling and dealing and backstabbing in the
quotidian world (there, I used that word) without having to read about
it in fiction.

I agree! This is a sickness with modern authors, and one of my biggest gripes
with Stephenson and Martin as you say. I want a story, something happening! I do
not want 100s of pages of environmental descriptions, or bad poetry, or
irrelevant stuff. So I usually skip that and only read the dialogue when it
comes to authors of that type. Then I do not buy more of their books.
That is why I like the golden age of science fiction! In those days, authors
were able to write stories in less than 300 pages, and they wrote good stories!
At most they published more books instead.
I often wonder about this modern fashion of tapping out 1000+ pages of bricks?
It is very strange.

Reading sucks, doesn't it?

Incorrect statement. Read again, and comment wisely.

Post by Richard Heathfield
I bring you your perfect novel.
A Tale
------
by Anon.
Once upon a time, there were good people and bad people. The bad people did
bad things. The good people stopped them from doing bad things. The bad
people said sorry and became good people and many died of boredom. All the
good people who were left lived happily ever after, until they too died of
boredom.
The End.
£19.99 from all good booksellers.

[Richard Heathfield]

Post by D

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by D

Post by Steve Hayes
It's not just that it makes them more difficult to film, but for me,
at least, it made them less interesting to read. I have
nothin against
long books *in principle* if they are actually telling a
story. But
some are just too verbose. I tried reading George R.R. Martins
seemingly endless series, and have up halfway through the
second book.
There's enough political wheeling and dealing and
backstabbing in the
quotidian world (there, I used that word) without having to
read about
it in fiction.

I agree! This is a sickness with modern authors, and one of my biggest gripes
with Stephenson and Martin as you say. I want a story,
something happening! I do
not want 100s of pages of environmental descriptions, or bad
poetry, or
irrelevant stuff. So I usually skip that and only read the
dialogue when it
comes to authors of that type. Then I do not buy more of their books.
That is why I like the golden age of science fiction! In those days, authors
were able to write stories in less than 300 pages, and they
wrote good stories!
At most they published more books instead.
I often wonder about this modern fashion of tapping out 1000+ pages of bricks?
It is very strange.

Reading sucks, doesn't it?

Incorrect statement.

<shrug> Do you take all irony literally?

[D]

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by D

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by D

Post by Steve Hayes
It's not just that it makes them more difficult to film, but for me,
at least, it made them less interesting to read. I have nothin against
long books *in principle* if they are actually telling a story. But
some are just too verbose. I tried reading George R.R. Martins
seemingly endless series, and have up halfway through the second book.
There's enough political wheeling and dealing and backstabbing in the
quotidian world (there, I used that word) without having to read about
it in fiction.

I agree! This is a sickness with modern authors, and one of my biggest gripes
with Stephenson and Martin as you say. I want a story, something happening! I do
not want 100s of pages of environmental descriptions, or bad poetry, or
irrelevant stuff. So I usually skip that and only read the dialogue when it
comes to authors of that type. Then I do not buy more of their books.
That is why I like the golden age of science fiction! In those days, authors
were able to write stories in less than 300 pages, and they wrote good stories!
At most they published more books instead.
I often wonder about this modern fashion of tapping out 1000+ pages of bricks?
It is very strange.

Reading sucks, doesn't it?

Incorrect statement.

<shrug> Do you take all irony literally?

Yes! This is a correct statement.

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 09:25:10 +0000, Richard Heathfield

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by D
I agree! This is a sickness with modern authors, and one of my biggest gripes
with Stephenson and Martin as you say. I want a story, something happening! I do
not want 100s of pages of environmental descriptions, or bad
poetry, or
irrelevant stuff. So I usually skip that and only read the
dialogue when it
comes to authors of that type. Then I do not buy more of their books.
That is why I like the golden age of science fiction! In those days, authors
were able to write stories in less than 300 pages, and they wrote good stories!
At most they published more books instead.
I often wonder about this modern fashion of tapping out 1000+
pages of bricks?
It is very strange.

Reading sucks, doesn't it?
I bring you your perfect novel.
A Tale
------
by Anon.
Once upon a time, there were good people and bad people. The bad
people did bad things. The good people stopped them from doing
bad things. The bad people said sorry and became good people and
many died of boredom. All the good people who were left lived
happily ever after, until they too died of boredom.
The End.

A well, I have to recognise that formula in at least one of the
children's books I wrote.

By George R.R. Martin seems to use a different formula.

There were good people and bad people. The bad people did bad things
and the good people did bad things back to them. And the bad people
did more bad things and the good people did more bad things and the
bad people became good and did more bad things and the good people
became bad and did more bad things and so on ad infinitum.

It's just slice of life stuff in a slightly different setting.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by D

Post by Steve Hayes
It's not just that it makes them more difficult to film, but for
me, at least, it made them less interesting to read. I have nothin
against long books *in principle* if they are actually telling a
story. But some are just too verbose. I tried reading George R.R.
Martins seemingly endless series, and have up halfway through the
second book. There's enough political wheeling and dealing and
backstabbing in the quotidian world (there, I used that word)
without having to read about it in fiction.

I agree! This is a sickness with modern authors, and one of my
biggest gripes with Stephenson and Martin as you say. I want a story,
something happening! I do not want 100s of pages of environmental
descriptions, or bad poetry, or irrelevant stuff. So I usually skip
that and only read the dialogue when it comes to authors of that
type. Then I do not buy more of their books.

I don't think this is entirely the authors' fault. I have the impression
that the publishers are creating pressure to include lots of padding.
They've moved away from selling quality, towards selling books by the
yard. Unfortunately the readers are losing out, because the padding
ruins the story.

If you look at the output of a prolific writer, you'll almost always
find a point where they stopped writing short novels and turned to
producing doorstops instead; and the change always seems to be abrupt.

I have not yet read anything by Peter Hamilton, because I haven't found
a book short enough to be worth buying.

[D]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by D
I agree! This is a sickness with modern authors, and one of my
biggest gripes with Stephenson and Martin as you say. I want a story,
something happening! I do not want 100s of pages of environmental
descriptions, or bad poetry, or irrelevant stuff. So I usually skip
that and only read the dialogue when it comes to authors of that
type. Then I do not buy more of their books.

I don't think this is entirely the authors' fault. I have the impression
that the publishers are creating pressure to include lots of padding.
They've moved away from selling quality, towards selling books by the
yard. Unfortunately the readers are losing out, because the padding
ruins the story.

This is the truth! I have heard rumours that in american educational literature,
the payment is based on quantity and not quality, hence the door stops you get
in most subjects with lots of padding, and cream and cherry on top.

Post by Peter Moylan
If you look at the output of a prolific writer, you'll almost always
find a point where they stopped writing short novels and turned to
producing doorstops instead; and the change always seems to be abrupt.

This is the truth! I like Hemingways short stories, his long ones I find boring.
I have also, like you say, noted an increase in book volume over time. It is
very sad. Could it also be that as the author becomes more famous, the editor
dares to cut less? After all, the concept works, so let's not rock the boat.

Post by Peter Moylan
I have not yet read anything by Peter Hamilton, because I haven't found
a book short enough to be worth buying.

Haha... yes, I remember the Peter Hamilton books in the science fiction
bookstore. Like you, they are way too heavy for me to handle. ;)

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by D
Haha... yes, I remember the Peter Hamilton books in the science fiction
bookstore. Like you, they are way too heavy for me to handle. ;)

Why would you handle Peter Moylan?

[Titus G]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by D
Haha... yes, I remember the Peter Hamilton books in the science fiction
bookstore. Like you, they are way too heavy for me to handle. ;)

Why would you handle Peter Moylan?

To help him find his seat at the opera.

[lar3ryca]

Post by D

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by D
I agree! This is a sickness with modern authors, and one of my
biggest gripes with Stephenson and Martin as you say. I want a story,
something happening! I do not want 100s of pages of environmental
descriptions, or bad poetry, or irrelevant stuff. So I usually skip
that and only read the dialogue when it comes to authors of that
type. Then I do not buy more of their books.

I don't think this is entirely the authors' fault. I have the impression
that the publishers are creating pressure to include lots of padding.
They've moved away from selling quality, towards selling books by the
yard. Unfortunately the readers are losing out, because the padding
ruins the story.

This is the truth! I have heard rumours that in american educational literature,
the payment is based on quantity and not quality, hence the door stops you get
in most subjects with lots of padding, and cream and cherry on top.

Post by Peter Moylan
If you look at the output of a prolific writer, you'll almost always
find a point where they stopped writing short novels and turned to
producing doorstops instead; and the change always seems to be abrupt.

This is the truth! I like Hemingways short stories, his long ones I find boring.

I managed to get through one Hemingway novel, and halfway through
another. I have not read anything by him since. I can't even remember
their titles.

Post by D
I have also, like you say, noted an increase in book volume over time. It is
very sad. Could it also be that as the author becomes more famous, the editor
dares to cut less? After all, the concept works, so let's not rock the boat.

Post by Peter Moylan
I have not yet read anything by Peter Hamilton, because I haven't found
a book short enough to be worth buying.

Haha... yes, I remember the Peter Hamilton books in the science fiction
bookstore. Like you, they are way too heavy for me to handle. ;)

[D]

Post by D

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by D
I agree! This is a sickness with modern authors, and one of my
biggest gripes with Stephenson and Martin as you say. I want a story,
something happening! I do not want 100s of pages of environmental
descriptions, or bad poetry, or irrelevant stuff. So I usually skip
that and only read the dialogue when it comes to authors of that
type. Then I do not buy more of their books.

I don't think this is entirely the authors' fault. I have the impression
that the publishers are creating pressure to include lots of padding.
They've moved away from selling quality, towards selling books by the
yard. Unfortunately the readers are losing out, because the padding
ruins the story.

This is the truth! I have heard rumours that in american educational literature,
the payment is based on quantity and not quality, hence the door stops you get
in most subjects with lots of padding, and cream and cherry on top.

Post by Peter Moylan
If you look at the output of a prolific writer, you'll almost always
find a point where they stopped writing short novels and turned to
producing doorstops instead; and the change always seems to be abrupt.

This is the truth! I like Hemingways short stories, his long ones I find boring.

I managed to get through one Hemingway novel, and halfway through another. I
have not read anything by him since. I can't even remember their titles.

I recommend Men without women, and the classic, The old man and the sea. I
find both excellent!

Post by D
I have also, like you say, noted an increase in book volume over time. It is
very sad. Could it also be that as the author becomes more famous, the editor
dares to cut less? After all, the concept works, so let's not rock the boat.

Post by Peter Moylan
I have not yet read anything by Peter Hamilton, because I haven't found
a book short enough to be worth buying.

Haha... yes, I remember the Peter Hamilton books in the science fiction
bookstore. Like you, they are way too heavy for me to handle. ;)

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Peter Moylan
If you look at the output of a prolific writer, you'll almost always
find a point where they stopped writing short novels and turned to
producing doorstops instead; and the change always seems to be abrupt.

This is frequently true.

Two obvious counterexamples, though: Asimov, who never started producing
doorstops and continued writing short original stuff. And Elron, who
started out producing doorstops but found short stories easier to sell
until he created a new market for his doorstops.
--scott

[William Hyde]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Peter Moylan
If you look at the output of a prolific writer, you'll almost always
find a point where they stopped writing short novels and turned to
producing doorstops instead; and the change always seems to be abrupt.

This is frequently true.
Two obvious counterexamples, though: Asimov, who never started producing
doorstops and continued writing short original stuff.

It's been a long time since anyone could make a living selling SF short
stories. The last I recall was Avram Davidson, who found it saved money
to live in Belize for a time. At no point does he seem to have lived
much better than I did as a graduate student, even though he did write a
few novels.

When contemplating a date, Rex Stout used to write a short story for two
and a half cents per word. That covered transport, a nice dinner for
two, and theatre or opera tickets. Late in Davidson's career, it
wouldn't even cover the limo. Sixty years later, the rate was three
cents per word.

A young Piers Anthony commented somewhere (ADV?) that once he was
established he could always get a novel published, as there are many
publishers. But the market for SF short stories was small, so if a
story was rejected there might not be another market (at least at the
top rate) for it.

Ellison sold stories to some high-paying markets, but I suspect that it
was the TV money that kept him afloat.


William Hyde

[D]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Peter Moylan
If you look at the output of a prolific writer, you'll almost always
find a point where they stopped writing short novels and turned to
producing doorstops instead; and the change always seems to be abrupt.

This is frequently true.
Two obvious counterexamples, though: Asimov, who never started producing
doorstops and continued writing short original stuff. And Elron, who
started out producing doorstops but found short stories easier to sell
until he created a new market for his doorstops.
--scott

Did he write for elves, humans or both?

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by D

Post by Scott Dorsey
Two obvious counterexamples, though: Asimov, who never started producing
doorstops and continued writing short original stuff. And Elron, who
started out producing doorstops but found short stories easier to sell
until he created a new market for his doorstops.

Did he write for elves, humans or both?

At the end he wrote for people who were buying his books with no intention
of reading them. I guess you could say he wrote for neither elves nor humans
but only for money.
--scott

[D]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by D

Post by Scott Dorsey
Two obvious counterexamples, though: Asimov, who never started producing
doorstops and continued writing short original stuff. And Elron, who
started out producing doorstops but found short stories easier to sell
until he created a new market for his doorstops.

Did he write for elves, humans or both?

At the end he wrote for people who were buying his books with no intention
of reading them. I guess you could say he wrote for neither elves nor humans
but only for money.
--scott

Touché!

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Peter Moylan
If you look at the output of a prolific writer, you'll almost always
find a point where they stopped writing short novels and turned to
producing doorstops instead; and the change always seems to be abrupt.

This is frequently true.
Two obvious counterexamples, though: Asimov, who never started producing
doorstops and continued writing short original stuff. And Elron, who
started out producing doorstops but found short stories easier to sell
until he created a new market for his doorstops.

Foundation? Foundation and Empire?

But yes, in sf particularly, I generally like short stories much
better than long ones.

And my favourites among the longer ones would probably freak out most
hardcore sf fans:

Lewis, C.S. 1989. The Cosmic Trilogy.
Miller, Walter M. 1993 [1959] A canticle for Leibowitz.
Niffenegger, Audrey. 2005. The time traveler's wife.
Wyndham, John. 1951. The Day of the Triffids.
Huxley, Aldous. 1994 [1932] Brave new world.
Orwell, George. 1984.
James, P.D. 1992. The children of men.
McCarthy, Cormac. 2009. The road.
Willis, Connie. 1992. Doomsday Book.
Wyndham, John. 1961. The Midwich Cuckoos.
King, Stephen. 2011. 11.22.63.
Stewart, George R. 1977. Earth abides.
Wyndham, John. 1960. The kraken wakes.
Vonnegut, Kurt. 1965. Cat's cradle.
Adams, Douglas. The hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy.

But none of those are doorstoppers, except, perhaps, "The Cosmic
Trilogy" which is 3 books in one binding and they can be bought
separately.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Scott Dorsey
Two obvious counterexamples, though: Asimov, who never started producing
doorstops and continued writing short original stuff. And Elron, who
started out producing doorstops but found short stories easier to sell
until he created a new market for his doorstops.

Foundation? Foundation and Empire?

The three volumes in the Foundation Trilogy were the biggest things he ever
wrote, a giant epic... and a tiny fraction of the size of so many modern
novels.

The four extras I'd rather not even think about. But they are still barely
exceeding 400 pages.

Post by Steve Hayes
But yes, in sf particularly, I generally like short stories much
better than long ones.
And my favourites among the longer ones would probably freak out most

Why not the Starchild Trilogy? It changed how I thought about many things.
--scott

[Silvano]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Scott Dorsey
Two obvious counterexamples, though: Asimov, who never started producing
doorstops and continued writing short original stuff. And Elron, who
started out producing doorstops but found short stories easier to sell
until he created a new market for his doorstops.

Foundation? Foundation and Empire?

The three volumes in the Foundation Trilogy were the biggest things he ever
wrote, a giant epic... and a tiny fraction of the size of so many modern
novels.
The four extras I'd rather not even think about. But they are still barely
exceeding 400 pages.

Post by Steve Hayes
But yes, in sf particularly, I generally like short stories much
better than long ones.
And my favourites among the longer ones would probably freak out most

Why not the Starchild Trilogy? It changed how I thought about many things.
--scott

What about dropping AUE from your crosspostings?
As an alternative, I'll block this thread for me on AUE.

[D]

Post by Silvano

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Scott Dorsey
Two obvious counterexamples, though: Asimov, who never started producing
doorstops and continued writing short original stuff. And Elron, who
started out producing doorstops but found short stories easier to sell
until he created a new market for his doorstops.

Foundation? Foundation and Empire?

The three volumes in the Foundation Trilogy were the biggest things he ever
wrote, a giant epic... and a tiny fraction of the size of so many modern
novels.
The four extras I'd rather not even think about. But they are still barely
exceeding 400 pages.

Post by Steve Hayes
But yes, in sf particularly, I generally like short stories much
better than long ones.
And my favourites among the longer ones would probably freak out most

Why not the Starchild Trilogy? It changed how I thought about many things.
--scott

What about dropping AUE from your crosspostings?
As an alternative, I'll block this thread for me on AUE.

You are not learning how to use english from this thread? I would think
that it could be an excellent example of using english!

[D]

Post by Scott Dorsey
Why not the Starchild Trilogy? It changed how I thought about many things.
--scott

What is this? Did I miss a jewel?

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by D

Post by Scott Dorsey
Why not the Starchild Trilogy? It changed how I thought about many things.
--scott

What is this? Did I miss a jewel?

Pohl & Williamson:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starchild_Trilogy

I recall liking it, but nothing else whatsoever.

[D]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by D

Post by Scott Dorsey
Why not the Starchild Trilogy? It changed how I thought about many things.
--scott

What is this? Did I miss a jewel?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starchild_Trilogy
I recall liking it, but nothing else whatsoever.

Thank you will check out!

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by D

Post by Scott Dorsey
Why not the Starchild Trilogy? It changed how I thought about many things.

What is this? Did I miss a jewel?

Fred Pohl and Jack Williamson. Classic and amazing space opera, but
at the same time very inovative. Probably the first Cyberpunk work
ever written, with the first and maybe the best example of jacking in.

I liked it so much I bought Gateway. Which was also great and kind of
terrifying but in a different way.
--scott

[D]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by D

Post by Scott Dorsey
Why not the Starchild Trilogy? It changed how I thought about many things.

What is this? Did I miss a jewel?

Fred Pohl and Jack Williamson. Classic and amazing space opera, but
at the same time very inovative. Probably the first Cyberpunk work
ever written, with the first and maybe the best example of jacking in.
I liked it so much I bought Gateway. Which was also great and kind of
terrifying but in a different way.
--scott

Will most definitely check out. I like cyberpunk!

[Chris Elvidge]

Post by D

Post by Scott Dorsey
Why not the Starchild Trilogy? It changed how I thought about many things.
--scott

What is this? Did I miss a jewel?

Check for Frederik Pohl on Pirate Bay

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Steve Hayes
And my favourites among the longer ones would probably freak out most

Why not the Starchild Trilogy? It changed how I thought about many things.
--scott

I'll check it out on GoodReads, maybe read some reviews.

[Chris Elvidge]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Steve Hayes
And my favourites among the longer ones would probably freak out most

Why not the Starchild Trilogy? It changed how I thought about many things.
--scott

I'll check it out on GoodReads, maybe read some reviews.

Check for Frederik Pohl on Pirate Bay

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Peter Moylan
If you look at the output of a prolific writer, you'll almost
always find a point where they stopped writing short novels and
turned to producing doorstops instead; and the change always seems
to be abrupt.

This is frequently true.
Two obvious counterexamples, though: Asimov, who never started
producing doorstops and continued writing short original stuff. And
Elron, who started out producing doorstops but found short stories
easier to sell until he created a new market for his doorstops.

Asimov is not completely blameless. In the Foundation trilogy, the first
three volumes are of traditional size, but all the sequels are thick.

[Christian Weisgerber]

Post by Peter Moylan
Asimov is not completely blameless. In the Foundation trilogy, the first
three volumes are of traditional size, but all the sequels are thick.

It's almost as if the increase in novel lengths coincided with the
introduction of word processing...

Of course back in the 19th century, when writers were paid by the
word, excessive length wasn't unknown.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Peter Moylan
Asimov is not completely blameless. In the Foundation trilogy, the first
three volumes are of traditional size, but all the sequels are thick.

It's almost as if the increase in novel lengths coincided with the
introduction of word processing...
Of course back in the 19th century, when writers were paid by the
word, excessive length wasn't unknown.
--

I think that

a) the "Foundation" stories were paid by the word

and

b) the fact that they make up three 1950s-1970s novel sized volumes
is packaging. The series (to that point) had no novels in it.

[William Hyde]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Peter Moylan
Asimov is not completely blameless. In the Foundation trilogy, the first
three volumes are of traditional size, but all the sequels are thick.

It's almost as if the increase in novel lengths coincided with the
introduction of word processing...
Of course back in the 19th century, when writers were paid by the
word, excessive length wasn't unknown.
--

I think tha
a) the "Foundation" stories were paid by the word

Yes. The early stories were sold to Astounding at one cent per word.
Some may have gained the 1/8 cent per word bonus Campbell handed out for
stories he particularly liked. By the time of the late stories the word
rate may have jumped to two cents. I'm not sure when the three cent per
word standard was adopted. Late 40s or early 50s.

William Hyde

[Paul S Person]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:58:41 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Peter Moylan
Asimov is not completely blameless. In the Foundation trilogy, the first
three volumes are of traditional size, but all the sequels are thick.

It's almost as if the increase in novel lengths coincided with the
introduction of word processing...
Of course back in the 19th century, when writers were paid by the
word, excessive length wasn't unknown.

I recently read a relatively (considering when Dumas lived)
recently-discovered Dumas novel set in the time of Napoleon. It
appears to have been Dumas' last novel. It only existed as a serial in
a newspaper. Many if not all of Dumas' novels began that way, but were
then consolidated and edited into books. Apparently, Dumas died before
he could do that to this one. Or even finish it.

The first part is a sequel to two other novels (/The Companions of
Jehu/ being one of them) and it spends a lot of time recapping that
story and includes long quotes from other authors on historical
points. This very much gives it the flavor of Dumas' being paid by the
word.

The second part, though, is a very good action/adventure story about
suppressing bandits in the mainland part of the Two Sicilies. If Dumas
was being paid by the word, then the publisher definitely got his
money's worth. It had to be finished by the discoverer/editor, but
that is one chapter at the end, and it is a long story which is fun to
read. An appendix shows how the next section would have gone had it
been written.

[Titus G]

Post by Peter Moylan
I have not yet read anything by Peter Hamilton, because I haven't found
a book short enough to be worth buying.

I recommend Great North Road. Brilliant. Just the right length.

[Richard Heathfield]

Post by Titus G

Post by Peter Moylan
I have not yet read anything by Peter Hamilton, because I haven't found
a book short enough to be worth buying.

I recommend Great North Road. Brilliant. Just the right length.

420-odd miles is a touch long for me. I prefer the M5, at a much
more manageable 160 miles.

[Titus G]

Post by Titus G

Post by Peter Moylan
I have not yet read anything by Peter Hamilton, because I haven't found
a book short enough to be worth buying.

I recommend Great North Road. Brilliant. Just the right length.

420-odd miles is a touch long for me. I prefer the M5, at a much more
manageable 160 miles.

:-) I would rather stay home and read a book.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by D

Post by Steve Hayes
It's not just that it makes them more difficult to film, but for
me, at least, it made them less interesting to read. I have nothin
against long books *in principle* if they are actually telling a
story. But some are just too verbose. I tried reading George R.R.
Martins seemingly endless series, and have up halfway through the
second book. There's enough political wheeling and dealing and
backstabbing in the quotidian world (there, I used that word)
without having to read about it in fiction.

I agree! This is a sickness with modern authors, and one of my
biggest gripes with Stephenson and Martin as you say. I want a story,
something happening! I do not want 100s of pages of environmental
descriptions, or bad poetry, or irrelevant stuff. So I usually skip
that and only read the dialogue when it comes to authors of that
type. Then I do not buy more of their books.

I don't think this is entirely the authors' fault. I have the impression
that the publishers are creating pressure to include lots of padding.
They've moved away from selling quality, towards selling books by the
yard. Unfortunately the readers are losing out, because the padding
ruins the story.

Yes, I think there is a lot of pressure from publishers on authors to
include stuff that they think will sell the book. In the 1980s it was
the obligatory fuck, which had nothing to do with the plot. A few
authors, obviously sick of this pressure, seem to have made it look as
extraneous to the plot as possible, as if there was an invisible
message to the reader saying "You may skip this bit if you like, it
has nothing to do with the plot, but the publisher insisted on having
it."

The trouble with the fashion for long novels is that I like to read in
bed, and the book gets too heavy to hold. And when I get bored with
the padding I tend to fall asleep. One such novel, which I took back
to the library before I had finished it, was "Jonathan Strange and Mr
Norrell". I just got tired of holding it. It did have some good points
-- the footnotes were more interesting than the story.

Post by Peter Moylan
If you look at the output of a prolific writer, you'll almost always
find a point where they stopped writing short novels and turned to
producing doorstops instead; and the change always seems to be abrupt.
I have not yet read anything by Peter Hamilton, because I haven't found
a book short enough to be worth buying.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 08:52:12 +0200
Steve Hayes <***@telkomsa.net> wrote:

[]

Post by Steve Hayes
The trouble with the fashion for long novels is that I like to read in
bed, and the book gets too heavy to hold. And when I get bored with
the padding I tend to fall asleep. One such novel, which I took back
to the library before I had finished it, was "Jonathan Strange and Mr
Norrell". I just got tired of holding it. It did have some good points
-- the footnotes were more interesting than the story.

I found it an interesting exercise to start with, but rapidly realised I
didn't really care to find out What Happened.

[]

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Peter Moylan
If you look at the output of a prolific writer, you'll almost always
find a point where they stopped writing short novels and turned to
producing doorstops instead; and the change always seems to be abrupt.

In the case of the Harry Potter series, however, it was gradual. Each
book is longer and has more padding than the last. It's one reason I
prefer the first three.

I agree with what Ted said about the kids growing older and seeing
more nuances in character and environment, but it was the length and
the padding that put me off.

[Paul S Person]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 08:57:38 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter Moylan
If you look at the output of a prolific writer, you'll almost always
find a point where they stopped writing short novels and turned to
producing doorstops instead; and the change always seems to be abrupt.

In the case of the Harry Potter series, however, it was gradual. Each
book is longer and has more padding than the last. It's one reason I
prefer the first three.
I agree with what Ted said about the kids growing older and seeing
more nuances in character and environment, but it was the length and
the padding that put me off.

Looking at the spines of the American (Scholastic) paperbacks, that
does not appear to be the case.

The widest is #5.
#4 and #7 appear to be very similar
#6 appears to be a bit less than #5.

It is true that #3 is wider than #1 or #2, but #4 is where they
/really/ get wide.

I should note that, in the books, there is, from the discovery of the
Prophecy onwards, a deliberate attempt to make it unclear if it is
Harry or Neville who is the One. The films don't really do that,
although Neville is certainly present in them.

[Chris Elvidge]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:44:32 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 01:19:17 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Steve Hayes

OTOH, the Harry Potter films tell the same stories as the books,
even the later ones, where way more than half the book doesn't make
it into the film. They are very focused.

Harry Potter is one case where I enjoyed the films (except the last
one), but perhaps this is related to how I reacted to the books. The
first book was excellent, the second was not too bad, but after that
they were a boring exercise in self-plagiarism. I never got to the end
of the fourth volume.

I agree, and the same applies to the movies.

Hmm. I don't agree. The second book was basically a clone of the
first. After that, they started to get more complicated as the
kids started to grow up and understand more about the realities of
their world. Ie: the lavish hall feasts are not conjured magically,
they are prepared by, basically, slaves, the wizarding world is not
a shiny happy place, but is full of bad people etc. Perhaps the
best extended example of this is the development of Hagrid who moves
from beloved mentor to deeply flawed friend as the kids gradually realize
just how bad his judgement is. By the last book, even Harry's trust in
Dumbledore is examined and tested.
On the whole I think the movies caught this by moving on from the shiny
Chris Colombus beginnings to edgier directors later in the sequence.

Interesting perspective. Perhaps I need to re-read the whole lot from
the beginning.

Me too.
Lynn

If you stopped after (say) the first three, you should be aware that
the author /warned/ parents that the serious was going to get more and
more ... serious ... as time went on.

I have read them all, but in rereading, I prefer reading the first
three. I see the point that the wizarding world is not just a happy
shining place but that there are bad people in it, but that is evident
in the first three books too, though the children, being younger, have
a tendency to draw sharper lines, seeing people as either all good or
all bad -- eg Hagrid Good, Snape Bad, and as they grow older come to
see that both good and evil can be present in the same person.

Post by Paul S Person
As it did -- people who, while not major characters in the series, are
very much part of the story started dying in Book 4, and major
characters in Book 5. And the last two books are even darker.

... and even longer.

Post by Paul S Person
The books also get considerably longer, which means the films omiNt a
lot more of their contents. The entire ELF sequence is missing. We
never see Neville with his parents. One of the things Rowling did was,
consulting her Secret Master Plot, advise the filmmakers on what could
be cut and what would be needed to make what would come later have a
foundation.

It's not just that it makes them more difficult to film, but for me,
at least, it made them less interesting to read. I have nothin against
long books *in principle* if they are actually telling a story. But
some are just too verbose. I tried reading George R.R. Martins
seemingly endless series, and have up halfway through the second book.
There's enough political wheeling and dealing and backstabbing in the
quotidian world (there, I used that word) without having to read about
it in fiction.

Seemingly endless series - try Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time" or Terry
Goodkind's "Sword of Truth".

I've read both, some years ago now.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 01:19:17 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Steve Hayes

OTOH, the Harry Potter films tell the same stories as the books,
even the later ones, where way more than half the book doesn't make
it into the film. They are very focused.

Harry Potter is one case where I enjoyed the films (except the last
one), but perhaps this is related to how I reacted to the books. The
first book was excellent, the second was not too bad, but after that
they were a boring exercise in self-plagiarism. I never got to the end
of the fourth volume.

I agree, and the same applies to the movies.

Hmm. I don't agree. The second book was basically a clone of the
first. After that, they started to get more complicated as the
kids started to grow up and understand more about the realities of
their world. Ie: the lavish hall feasts are not conjured magically,
they are prepared by, basically, slaves, the wizarding world is not
a shiny happy place, but is full of bad people etc. Perhaps the
best extended example of this is the development of Hagrid who moves
from beloved mentor to deeply flawed friend as the kids gradually realize
just how bad his judgement is. By the last book, even Harry's trust in
Dumbledore is examined and tested.
On the whole I think the movies caught this by moving on from the shiny
Chris Colombus beginnings to edgier directors later in the sequence.

Interesting perspective. Perhaps I need to re-read the whole lot from
the beginning.

Me too.
Lynn

If you stopped after (say) the first three, you should be aware that
the author /warned/ parents that the serious was going to get more and
more ... serious ... as time went on.
As it did -- people who, while not major characters in the series, are
very much part of the story started dying in Book 4, and major
characters in Book 5. And the last two books are even darker.
The books also get considerably longer, which means the films omiNt a
lot more of their contents. The entire ELF sequence is missing. We
never see Neville with his parents. One of the things Rowling did was,
consulting her Secret Master Plot, advise the filmmakers on what could
be cut and what would be needed to make what would come later have a
foundation.
OTOH, the very long section recounting Our Heroes' Trek across Britain
in Book 7 is shortened to a pastiche of scenes with a relevant
soundtrack in the film. This was a definite improvement.

I ripped through all seven books back in 2010 or so. Been a while. I
do not remember any kitchen slaves in the dungeon.

Lynn

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 01:19:17 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Steve Hayes

OTOH, the Harry Potter films tell the same stories as the books,
even the later ones, where way more than half the book doesn't make
it into the film. They are very focused.

Harry Potter is one case where I enjoyed the films (except the last
one), but perhaps this is related to how I reacted to the books. The
first book was excellent, the second was not too bad, but after that
they were a boring exercise in self-plagiarism. I never got to the end
of the fourth volume.

I agree, and the same applies to the movies.

Hmm. I don't agree. The second book was basically a clone of the
first. After that, they started to get more complicated as the
kids started to grow up and understand more about the realities of
their world. Ie: the lavish hall feasts are not conjured magically,
they are prepared by, basically, slaves, the wizarding world is not
a shiny happy place, but is full of bad people etc. Perhaps the
best extended example of this is the development of Hagrid who moves
from beloved mentor to deeply flawed friend as the kids gradually realize
just how bad his judgement is. By the last book, even Harry's trust in
Dumbledore is examined and tested.
On the whole I think the movies caught this by moving on from the shiny
Chris Colombus beginnings to edgier directors later in the sequence.

Interesting perspective. Perhaps I need to re-read the whole lot from
the beginning.

Me too.
Lynn

If you stopped after (say) the first three, you should be aware that
the author /warned/ parents that the serious was going to get more and
more ... serious ... as time went on.
As it did -- people who, while not major characters in the series, are
very much part of the story started dying in Book 4, and major
characters in Book 5. And the last two books are even darker.
The books also get considerably longer, which means the films omiNt a
lot more of their contents. The entire ELF sequence is missing. We
never see Neville with his parents. One of the things Rowling did was,
consulting her Secret Master Plot, advise the filmmakers on what could
be cut and what would be needed to make what would come later have a
foundation.
OTOH, the very long section recounting Our Heroes' Trek across Britain
in Book 7 is shortened to a pastiche of scenes with a relevant
soundtrack in the film. This was a definite improvement.

I ripped through all seven books back in 2010 or so. Been a while. I
do not remember any kitchen slaves in the dungeon.
Lynn

That's what House Elves are: slaves. Hermione even starts a liberation
society and the others treat her like "Oh, that's so cute!"

[Paul S Person]

<snippo, Harry Potter books/films>

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person
If you stopped after (say) the first three, you should be aware that
the author /warned/ parents that the serious was going to get more and
more ... serious ... as time went on.
As it did -- people who, while not major characters in the series, are
very much part of the story started dying in Book 4, and major
characters in Book 5. And the last two books are even darker.
The books also get considerably longer, which means the films omiNt a
lot more of their contents. The entire ELF sequence is missing. We
never see Neville with his parents. One of the things Rowling did was,
consulting her Secret Master Plot, advise the filmmakers on what could
be cut and what would be needed to make what would come later have a
foundation.
OTOH, the very long section recounting Our Heroes' Trek across Britain
in Book 7 is shortened to a pastiche of scenes with a relevant
soundtrack in the film. This was a definite improvement.

I ripped through all seven books back in 2010 or so. Been a while. I
do not remember any kitchen slaves in the dungeon.

That's what House Elves are: slaves. Hermione even starts a liberation
society and the others treat her like "Oh, that's so cute!"

The ELF.

[Paul S Person]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 22:08:19 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 01:19:17 -0600, Lynn McGuire

<snippo -- HP films / books>

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Hmm. I don't agree. The second book was basically a clone of the
first. After that, they started to get more complicated as the
kids started to grow up and understand more about the realities of
their world. Ie: the lavish hall feasts are not conjured magically,
they are prepared by, basically, slaves, the wizarding world is not
a shiny happy place, but is full of bad people etc. Perhaps the
best extended example of this is the development of Hagrid who moves
from beloved mentor to deeply flawed friend as the kids gradually realize
just how bad his judgement is. By the last book, even Harry's trust in
Dumbledore is examined and tested.

<snippo>

Post by Lynn McGuire
I ripped through all seven books back in 2010 or so. Been a while. I
do not remember any kitchen slaves in the dungeon.

As has been pointed out, the House Elves were slaves. Except Dobby,
whom Harry Potter freed at the end of the second book.

That is what the ELF was about: Hermione's efforts to free all of
them. Whether they liked it or not.

Nt to be too snarky, but if someone rips through the books and doesn't
notice the topic which occupies a good chunk of one of the books and
then is never heard from again, well, perhaps ripping through the
books was not the best idea since sliced bread.

[lar3ryca]

Post by Steve Hayes

OTOH, the Harry Potter films tell the same stories as the books,
even the later ones, where way more than half the book doesn't make
it into the film. They are very focused.

Harry Potter is one case where I enjoyed the films (except the last
one), but perhaps this is related to how I reacted to the books. The
first book was excellent, the second was not too bad, but after that
they were a boring exercise in self-plagiarism. I never got to the end
of the fourth volume.

I agree, and the same applies to the movies.
I enjoyed the first three, and have reread the books several times,
and rewatched the movies using now-obsolete DVD technology.
But the later ones I could do without.

I watched some of them. Can't remember which ones. I thoroughly enjoyed
them, especially the humourous bits.. Whomping Willow, Diagon Alley, etc.

Post by Steve Hayes

The problem isn't that changes are made -- changes are always made
when a book is filmed. The problem is that the changes make no sense
at all until you realize that PJ treated the book as a series of
Action Sequences separated by boring things like character
development or plot.

I didn't at all like the war theme at the end of the final film. It felt
as if the directors had switched over to Hollywood-style shoot-em-ups
and car crashes.

A new American edition of the Narnia books is due to appear in a
couple of months, and the cover illustrations suggest that the US
publishers have placed them all in the "sword and sorcery" genre. Most
of the covers show the children brandishing drawn swords, which seems,
to me at least, as if they are tring to sell them as a series of
"Action sequences separated by boring things like character
development or plot."
Perhaps that is because cinema lends itself more to action scenes, but
I once read a book whose author stated in the preface that it was all
action, with all the boring books left out. It was one of the most
boring books I have ever read ("Temple", by Matthew Reilly).