4 ms·

You raise an interesting point. Do you think that the story must be "mythic"? When I was young, I kind of got where "Peter" of "Ender's Game" was coming from.

by ci5er 8y ago

You raise an interesting point. Do you think that the story must be "mythic"? When I was young, I kind of got where "Peter" of "Ender's Game" was coming from. And I kind of felt that Darth Vader in "The Empire Strikes Back" was having some sort of conflicted issue. But I never felt that from the bullies in the books like "Little House on the Prairie". Maybe I'm a SciFi geek (and that may well be the answer), or maybe we only feel empathy for bad people when the play is writ large? What say you?

darkerside 8y ago
Hmm, that's an interesting point. I wasn't thinking of Holden as a classic villain per se. I don't know about LHOP, but could be they were just flat and poorly written characters? (Not to offend any fans, not every character must be fully developed!). I guess that's all it is. Holden was not a great guy, but he was developed and at least somewhat complex (although I've seen a fair amount of reduction in this thread). That goes a long way to making a character relatable. Yes, Peter's an absolute dick, but he has reasons for being one that make sense to him, if not everybody else. FTR, much more controversial than saying Holden was a whiny kid, I found Frodo Baggins to be largely insufferable, but that didn't stop me from enjoying LOTR.
- ci5er 8y ago
  > FTR, much more controversial than saying Holden was a whiny kid, I found Frodo Baggins to be largely insufferable, but that didn't stop me from enjoying LOTR. Fair enough. I also found Frodo to be (largely) insufferable, and I also enjoyed LOTR. I just never "got" Catcher in the Rye, the way I expected that I was expected to. EDIT: And maybe this is a sign of my immaturity ... that I expect myself to "get" novels that resonate with other people with different life experiences and different brains. I have a similar (personal internal) response when I share a novel that resonates with me with a super smart friend, and they shrug and say, "and"? ... Maybe I'm just not built to understand novels in the same way what most people are (and that's ok...)
  - labster 8y ago
    I don't think you're that weird. I judge visual art by the amount of emotional effect it has on me. A well-written novel can be a way of teaching the unteachable, giving you a deep truth. But maybe you already know that truth? Death Note fell flat for me because its core philosophical questions were already solved in my mind. Or maybe your solution is different? Atlas Shrugged is deep enough, but the opposite of a deep truth is another deep truth. Or you're just not ready to hear that story yet; the nostalgia level in My Antonia made no sense at all to me as a modernist teenager.
    - darkerside 8y ago
      Could be the opposite too. They say a book won't teach you anything you don't already know. I don't think that's literally true, but I do think it's easy to miss what you don't realize is there, and it's why books reward rereading as you age and mature.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  But if you take out Frodo, there's still a large chunk of LOTR to enjoy. But if you find Holden insufferable, there's not much of Catcher left.
  - darkerside 8y ago
    Fair point

by ci5er 8y ago

darkerside 8y ago

Hmm, that's an interesting point. I wasn't thinking of Holden as a classic villain per se. I don't know about LHOP, but could be they were just flat and poorly written characters? (Not to offend any fans, not every character must be fully developed!). I guess that's all it is. Holden was not a great guy, but he was developed and at least somewhat complex (although I've seen a fair amount of reduction in this thread). That goes a long way to making a character relatable. Yes, Peter's an absolute dick, but he has reasons for being one that make sense to him, if not everybody else. FTR, much more controversial than saying Holden was a whiny kid, I found Frodo Baggins to be largely insufferable, but that didn't stop me from enjoying LOTR.

ci5er 8y ago
> FTR, much more controversial than saying Holden was a whiny kid, I found Frodo Baggins to be largely insufferable, but that didn't stop me from enjoying LOTR. Fair enough. I also found Frodo to be (largely) insufferable, and I also enjoyed LOTR. I just never "got" Catcher in the Rye, the way I expected that I was expected to. EDIT: And maybe this is a sign of my immaturity ... that I expect myself to "get" novels that resonate with other people with different life experiences and different brains. I have a similar (personal internal) response when I share a novel that resonates with me with a super smart friend, and they shrug and say, "and"? ... Maybe I'm just not built to understand novels in the same way what most people are (and that's ok...)
- labster 8y ago
  I don't think you're that weird. I judge visual art by the amount of emotional effect it has on me. A well-written novel can be a way of teaching the unteachable, giving you a deep truth. But maybe you already know that truth? Death Note fell flat for me because its core philosophical questions were already solved in my mind. Or maybe your solution is different? Atlas Shrugged is deep enough, but the opposite of a deep truth is another deep truth. Or you're just not ready to hear that story yet; the nostalgia level in My Antonia made no sense at all to me as a modernist teenager.
  - darkerside 8y ago
    Could be the opposite too. They say a book won't teach you anything you don't already know. I don't think that's literally true, but I do think it's easy to miss what you don't realize is there, and it's why books reward rereading as you age and mature.
AnimalMuppet 8y ago
But if you take out Frodo, there's still a large chunk of LOTR to enjoy. But if you find Holden insufferable, there's not much of Catcher left.
- darkerside 8y ago
  Fair point