polishgenius

In their effect on the heroes they feel pretty much like a Nazgul prelude (which is what I meant by adjusting the threat - the bookends of the Bombadil sequence go from the grumpy-tree style folksy stuff in the Hobbit spirit that had been going on so far to a more soul-wearing, creepy threat. And as Helena says there's also the Dead Marshes and the Armies of the Dead, Tolkien loved his creepy dead stuff.

Obviously the way he talks is gonna infuriate some (most) people but the whole Tom Bombadil scene is a piece of genius for how it marks the last real interlude of whimsy and transitions the hobbits from facing silly (though real) threats to threats more in line with what Sauron will bring via the barrow-wights, all while also imparting information about the nature of the Ring and kitting the Hobbits out for their quest. Tolkien's use of rest stops to demarkate how serious things are getting throughout Fellowship in general is pretty great. He never really manages that again later in the book quite as smoothly.

Pfft. Single volume Malazan please, preferably with all of ICE's books included.

This is the thing really. While it's a terrible essay and the extent of Moorcock's criticism unfair, not everything he says about LotR is wrong. It's just that he skates over what could be interesting criticisms of the baked-in classism and a deeper engagement with some potentially fair points about how Tolkien's nostalgia for the green shire isn't based on genuine environmentalism but a simple fear of the modern (though in Epic Pooh itself Moorcock's framing of that argument is as pointlessly reductive as the position he's arguing against, what with him sneering at people who prefer to holiday in sunny countries). And he does that skating in order to give more space to petty criticisms of the writing and laughable misrepresentations of the 'happy' ending and what Tolkien really meant by escapism. In fact it's also pretty clear that not only has Moorcock not properly read LotR, he also hasn't properly read On Fairy-Stories, The fragment quoted from the essay is used to argue that Tolkien is saying pretty much the exact opposite of what that essay is actually about, especially when talking about escapism. When Tolkien says fairy stories are escapist, he is already countering the definition of escapism that Moorcock later used to try to slate him: Tolkien also at no point suggests that, even though he believes the happy ending is a necessary part of a true fairy story, sadness and loss shouldn't be present even at that ending. And hell, he isn't even talking about LotR there - all the essay is about is defining fairy stories as a narrative form, one that lotr by his own definition only parlty fits. There's lots of valid ways to criticise LotR and Tolkien, but constantly just referring back to Moorcock to do so just suggests a person doesn't really understand what they are at all.

That really isn't what the majority his problem with LotR was, which means that not only did you not understand Lord of the Rings, but you don't understand Epic Pooh either.

Imagine thinkin that Epic Pooh means anything. It's not even that all of its criticism of the politics embedded in LotR at some level are unfair, but it's a cowardly piece of work that, rather than actually seeking to highlight and refute those politics in any real way (which would have required really reading the book) it just tries to pick out fragments to prove he was a bad writer. I strongly suspect he actually came up with it with the Hobbit in mind (given his accusations of constant tweeness could be better levelled there and it is an essay otherwise aimed entirely at children's books anyway) but decided LotR was more relevant and splashy to criticise, regardless of whether his points (Tolkien doesn't engage with death, ffs what is that for a take) made sense.

I'm sorta with Vaughn tbh. Yes, GRRM writes friendships, but for me only really Jon and Sam struck home. It was one thing I thought the early parts of the show improved on. But I think my main problem with aSoIaF in terms of emotion is that by the last few books it felt like he was including shocking moments just to shock. Ned was stunning, Red Wedding made me put the book down for a bit, but after that most of the big shock moments felt a bit hollow.

I feel like there's similarities in that both are lower-key-magic (at least to an extent) series focusing more on politics and character development, but the manner in which they go about it is vastly different. I'm with Wert- if I was recommending more fantasy to a post-asoiaf newcomer to the genre I probably wouldn't send them to Hobb unless they had some specific tastes I knew about. I'd rec Abraham or Abercrombie first. But other people clearly have other experiences so who the fuck knows.

I find that the Sarantine Mosaic, as a whole, has a lot of Kay's best scenes in it but is just a little off with the overall structure, with the connective tissue between those scenes being a little thin compared to Al-Rassan or Under Heaven.

I don't post in here very often but if I had to listen to this, you lot do too. Sorry.

As a word it's spiffing.

I don't follow this much at all or read the kind of authors that get them (really should do more but yeah) but my dad's quite chuffed coz he knows Tokarczuk and tranlated her debut short story into English back when she was publishing pieces in Czas Kultury.

It's funny, before this discussion started (and it obviously had crossed my mind about Tigana that it resembles Poland a fair bit) I was gonna post that for all that I'll look forward to reading another Renneisance-era Italy novel from him I'd love to see Kay do something based on Poland- not just the partitions, there's absolutely shitloads of moments and people throughout Poland's history that correlate with exactly the kind of themes and characters Kay likes to write about. The Piast dynasty for example is full of it- from Boleslaw the Brave's early unification, Boleslaw III's ill-thought-out decision to try to keep things unified by, er, splitting Poland among his sons WELL DONE BOLESLAW, and Kazimierz the Great's re-establishment (and generally being exactly the sort of Justinian-like modernisation/legacy figure he likes). And the political makeup of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth would be a great set-up for his trademark conversational back-and-forths and politicking, and then does lead to that theme of lost glory in the partitions. Or, not directly Poland, but something centered around the 1683 Battle of Vienna would fit a lot of his Jaddites-against-Asharites fascination.

I should get back to reading The Buried Giant. It was interesting, but oh my goodness it meanders a lot. Never Let Me Go is astonishing. The Remains of the Day, on the other hand, I didn't get on with at all. By the way Myshkin as a fan what book of Rushdie's is best to start? I tried Midnight's Children and pretty much hated it. The humour displayed there drove me up the wall, so anything with a different ambience in that regard would be nice.

I'd be really surprised if they didn't try something to directly compete with Bakeoff. This Mary Berry show, a continuation of soething she's already done, really has no bearing on that.

Candice is by a clear distance the best overall baker of the group, so her winning wouldn't exactly be a shock. Andrew's upped his game in the last few weeks though.

It's a bit awkward for the editors when they have Sue shouting 'half an hour left, bakers, half an hour' and then seconds later a shot of Selasi with a big digital timer counting down at 36 minutes.

Is she the sole/main judge on the Oz version then? Coz that would be a bit silly.

You're thinking of The Professionals. Regular Masterchef is judged by Gregg along with John Torode.

I love the BBC and really appreciate having it, and it absolutely needs to be protected in terms of freedom of programming and having a decent budget. But it shouldn't get to play by different rules in regards to show ownership. If they'd come up with, or bought outright the rights to (like they did with Top Gear), GBBO then sure, but they don't and forcing Love productions and/or all the presenters to stay with the BBC would be a bad thing. It wasn't a hostile takeover, it was a company that owns a product taking said product elsewhere. The idea that they shouldn't be allowed to do this is a pretty dangerous one imo. It's not as if they invested in it out of their goodness of their hearts, either. They thought it could be successful. Now they don't think it's successful enough to meet Love's valuation. It's a business decision from both sides. It's sad, for people who have grown to like the show, and I'm all for meeting the apparent disastrous failure of the move with smirks especially if the BBC come up with a credible alternative, but treating it as some villainy... well, I just don't see it. But my point about loyalty in this instance was specifically referring to Paul and the other presenters. (Crew might have been the wrong word, I didn't mean specifically the people working the cameras etc but, well, Love Productions as a group essentially). You say 'the BBC attracted the presenters' and all of that, but that's pure speculation and it's not as if the others are uniquely BBC (well, Mary to an extent but Mel and Sue have just as much history with Channel 4 as the BBC, looking at their past, if not more before GBBO came along).

She's a lot closer to being an actual chef than Gregg Wallace.

Ehh. I don't know much about him but realistically you're looking at loyalty to the show crew versus loyalty to the Beeb here. Presumably money helped but as much as I like the BBC and as much I'd have liked them all to leave for the BBC's inevitable successor attempt I'm not sure why one is more worthy than the other (apart from you being able to watch one, of course). Anyway,

That is what a Babka is but it's still very definitely a cake. Usually made at Easter. Looks like this. A quick read around suggests there's a Jewish variant that's closer to what the bakers were making but it still seems to be considered a cake not a bread. I'm also not surprised that they had time problems because when my mum made them it would take absolutely ages.

It worries me that two separate people, asked to bake a chocolate bread, went for attempting to make a Babka without actually knowing what one is (for starters, like Paul immediately pointed out, not a bread).