The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by Gideon
The bottom line is that C.S. Lewis and his works aren't just popular. If we were comparing this to music, your syllogism is that Lewis and his works are akin to Britney Spears and her albums -- highly popular but devoid of any real talent or ability. The cold truth to the matter is that they are more like Led Zeppelin -- not only obscenely popular but well regarded for quality. Pullman's works will likely be totally forgotten in another decade. Lewis's? Never.

Of course. But I'm not arguing the 'classic' nature of the work, but rather the quality. IMO, HMS is better than the Chronicles (and, like Sid66 noted, more adult).

Originally posted by Gideon
This is basically an indirect admission on your part that you're a gigantic emo kid.

Well... not really, actually. I'm just a sucker for dark, pessimistic work.

And I worship serial killers. But that's besides the point.

Originally posted by Gideon
Seriously, when the hell is "dark pessimism" a sign of greatness or high quality? You, sir, are in need of serious emotherapy.

*Cuts wrists*

What was that?

Originally posted by Gideon
The fact that you're an atheist has nothing to do with that?

It does. Just like a religious person can enjoy the Chronicles more.

Originally posted by Gideon
Seriously, I'm all for realism and opposition to blind religious doctrines and zealots, but you've made yourself look like an atheist emo kid who has issues with the very concept of religion.

ORGANIZED religion, please. I don't have a problem with people who believe in God. If you didn't notice, HMS is far more about the human abusing of the concept of God and how such faith can lead to extremism.

And did I really make myself look like that? Why, I'm talented.

Originally posted by Gideon
With respect, MC, we have as many nutjob, retarded atheists in this world as we do nutjob, retarded Christians.

Very much true, but nutjob, retarded Christians have caused far more harm than nutjob, retarded atheists. I'm sure that, even as a Christian, you can agree with that.

Allow me to be the first to tell you that none of that was funny. You tried to sound intellectual, I made you look like an idiot. Indulging in self deprecating humor isn't going to save face for you. Next time, don't base literary reviews or comparisons from the perspective of an intolerant emo kid.

Umm... okay...

(Seriously, how is enjoying 'dark' work have anything to do with emo-ness?)

Very much true, but nutjob, retarded Christians have caused far more harm than nutjob, retarded atheists. I'm sure that, even as a Christian, you can agree with that.

indeed, but nutjob, retarded christians have caused far more good than nutjob, retarded atheists.

As for your not liking it because its not dark enough? that's not a sign of quality, just a sign of style. A darker style is more popular these days, but a lighter style can consist of just as much or more quality.

CS Lewis wrote his books to appeal to the children of the 50's, (who were probably smarter and more well educated than you) so that they would have uplifting positive pulp fiction, instead of negative pulp fiction. If you don't like them, that's fine, but don't go saying they have "no quality", because they are not presented in the modern gothic style that most popular pulp fiction works are.

CS Lewis' work is a classic and epic tale, not puny pulp-fiction meant to satisfy your mind and make you go "wow". Its almost saying that since "paradise lost" isn't dark enough it doesn't have quality and because of its christian overtones you hate it. Its not meant for the weak minded to rave about on forumboards, but for the intelligent to appreciate. and the movies don't do the books justice, so if you are judging by the movies, go **** yourself.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
indeed, but nutjob, retarded christians have caused far more good than nutjob, retarded atheists.

No. Good, benevolent Christians have caused far more good than nutjob, retarded atheists.

Or rather, there were those people who did good for the world who just happened to be religious; they had no religious motive for their actions.

And really... are you honestly trying to say that the Catholic Church caused more good than bad in history?

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
As for your not liking it because its not dark enough? that's not a sign of quality, just a sign of style. A darker style is more popular these days, but a lighter style can consist of just as much or more quality.

Yes it can- if it's well-executed enough. I appreciate a good 'feel-good' or lighthearted story. But not only is HMS darker than The Chronicles (I personally enjoy dark work), its darkness is better executed and manages to make the story more entertaining, and more adult.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
CS Lewis wrote his books to appeal to the children of the 50's, (who were probably smarter and more well educated than you)

Ah, yes. The glory days of god-fearing America, anti-homosexual PSA's, and that wonderful Cold War. Such a magnificent time. Not like these days, when corrupt, immoral people like myself spread their atheist lies and poison our very society.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
so that they would have uplifting positive pulp fiction, instead of negative pulp fiction.

True that. Nothing wrong with positive pulp fiction. Problem is, HMS is not 'negative'. It's a depiction of humanity's evil and abusing of power, but it shows hope in the form of rebellion and the ability of one person to stand up for his rights. Truly an infinitely more daring work of art than the risk-free Chronicles.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
If you don't like them, that's fine, but don't go saying they have "no quality", because they are not presented in the modern gothic style that most popular pulp fiction works are.

I like dark work. That's personal taste. I feel that a good part of the Chronicles is suitably entertaining; I, however, have a problem with some of its messages, themes, and tone (a far too 'good' approach to violence, for example).

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
CS Lewis' work is a classic and epic tale, not puny pulp-fiction meant to satisfy your mind and make you go "wow".

Because HMS is totally puny pulp fiction.

Look, I get it that you're hyper-religious and therefore cannot enjoy something with heavily atheistic qualities. The same applies for me in reverse, in certain cases. But don't go and right off HMS as 'puny', or imply that the Chronicles is a somehow smarter work. In fact, HMS deals with more abstract, unconventional themes, and it also depicts much of the evil in humanity in a relevant and interesting manner. It's far more thought-provoking than the Chronicles.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Its almost saying that since "paradise lost" isn't dark enough it doesn't have quality and because of its christian overtones you hate it.

I actually have never read 'Paradise Lost'.

'Darker' is not necessarily a better trait- but I happen to enjoy darkness if it is well-executed enough. Especially during our darker times. So, when Phillip Pullman's HMS pulls off its darkness wonderfully (with themes that I have personally noted in real life and find relevant to my ideology) and has overtones that I can relate to, it's no wonder I like it more than the Chronicles.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Its not meant for the weak minded to rave about on forumboards, but for the intelligent to appreciate.

I know you love telling yourself that, but the Chronicles being a work with heavily religious overtones doesn't make it 'intelligent'. It's a rather conventional book for children, unlike HMS. Y'see, HMS rebels against norms held by society and happens to hold themes that are EXTREMELY uncommon in 'children's novella'; therefore, it's a work done more for strong-minded individuals rather than typical 'go with the flow' guys.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
[Band the movies don't do the books justice, so if you are judging by the movies, go **** yourself. [/B]

My, you're the one bitching all day long about how our debates devolved into rants filled with insults and 'flaming'. You're the one whole told me to have 'civilized, intelligent debate' a while ago (and then proceeded to ignore my rebuttal. Gee, I wonder why?). And now you're telling me to **** myself.

Come to the conclusion yourself.

I think both of you are being a little stupid, actually.

On the one hand, I recognize more than most the atrocities and errors committed by my fellow Christians; the Catholic Church is, historically, the most corrupt institution on the face of the planet -- having arranged assassinations, murders, to full scale religious wars against those it disliked. The Church nor any religious denomination of any religion has any business directly shaping political or government doctrine and it is something of an epidemic even here in the United States (though it is far worse elsewhere).

On the other hand, to the more pertinent case, C.S. Lewis is literary royalty, among the most revered and well liked authors in the whole of literature. Pullman is not. Is he close? No. Will he ever likely be? No. You can claim that it's because of popularity, but that's irrelevant; there are cases in this world where popularity does count for something and does yield high quality material. I refer you again to the likes of Led Zeppelin, Queen, Journey in music, J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis in literature, so on and so forth. Obscure isn't synonymous with uber.

As far as my emo-laden insults, your reasons for your support of His Dark Materials went to the extent of "it's dark and pessimistic." Allow me to be clear: darkness and pessimism are two things this world does not need more of. As someone who is a fan of villains and anti-heroes, I don't enjoy them because "they're dark." Alan Shore is one of my favorite protagonists; he's a highly unethical attorney. His vices make him human and add flaws to his character, but serve to accentuate his virtues even more: he has a deep moral code and is passionate about that which he believes in. He's simply Machiavellian in the means by which he promotes them.

But your words were tantamount to "LOLZ NARNIA HAS JOY SO IT BLOWS LOL! DARKESS RULES!" which I find to be a statement of what is so very wrong with this world and find it to be extremely retarded.

If that's not what you meant, my advice would be to word things a little bit better.

Yes it can- if it's well-executed enough. I appreciate a good 'feel-good' or lighthearted story. But not only is HMS darker than The Chronicles (I personally enjoy dark work), its darkness is better executed and manages to make the story more entertaining, and more adult.

Ah, yes. The glory days of god-fearing America, anti-homosexual PSA's, and that wonderful Cold War. Such a magnificent time. Not like these days, when corrupt, immoral people like myself spread their atheist lies and poison our very society.

True that. Nothing wrong with positive pulp fiction. Problem is, HMS is not 'negative'. It's a depiction of humanity's evil and abusing of power, but it shows hope in the form of rebellion and the ability of one person to stand up for his rights. Truly an infinitely more daring work of art than the risk-free Chronicles.

(a far too 'good' approach to violence, for example).

Because HMS is totally puny pulp fiction.

Look, I get it that you're hyper-religious and therefore cannot enjoy something with heavily atheistic qualities.

The same applies for me in reverse, in certain cases. But don't go and right off HMS as 'puny', or imply that the Chronicles is a somehow smarter work. In fact, HMS deals with more abstract, unconventional themes, and it also depicts much of the evil in humanity in a relevant and interesting manner. It's far more thought-provoking than the Chronicles.

I actually have never read 'Paradise Lost'.

'Darker' is not necessarily a better trait- but I happen to enjoy darkness if it is well-executed enough. Especially during our darker times. So, when Phillip Pullman's HMS pulls off its darkness wonderfully (with themes that I have personally noted in real life and find relevant to my ideology) and has overtones that I can relate to, it's no wonder I like it more than the Chronicles.

I know you love telling yourself that, but the Chronicles being a work with heavily religious overtones doesn't make it 'intelligent'.

It's a rather conventional book for children, unlike HMS.

To say its conventional when comparing it to its mimickers would be false. Your arguement is a joke, your ejaculation that you don't like narnia because another work is darker and because it is darker it seems more "adult" is idiocy.

Y'see, HMS rebels against norms held by society and happens to hold themes that are EXTREMELY uncommon in 'children's novella'; therefore, it's a work done more for strong-minded individuals rather than typical 'go with the flow' guys.

My, you're the one bitching all day long about how our debates devolved into rants filled with insults and 'flaming'. You're the one whole told me to have 'civilized, intelligent debate' a while ago (and then proceeded to ignore my rebuttal. Gee, I wonder why?). And now you're telling me to **** myself.

Come to the conclusion yourself. [/B]

As for supporting the nutjob christians? no i do not. The actions of the catholic church is one of the biggest embarrassments to all followers of Christ. I didn't say they did more good than they did harm, either, just that they did some good.

Well, folks, this discussion is officially over. HDM and Narnia and Lewis are all well and good, but an era has ended tonight. Boston Legal's series finale was... beyond words. I'll miss that show so much. Alan Shore, you are a god.

An era has ended tonight. The departure of (one of) the greatest TV show(s) ever has left a gap in my schedule that no activity will every truly fill. Alan Shore is a God. He fired the Chinese.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
An era has ended tonight. The departure of (one of) the greatest TV show(s) ever has left a gap in my schedule that no activity will every truly fill. Alan Shore is a God. He fired the Chinese.

Amen. I was thankful for that episode for a plethora of reasons.

The first of which was the return of Paul Lewiston. Rene never gets enough acclaim for that particular role; Lewiston's straight-laced, stern approach grounded the firm to reality. Ironically, he was the one who summoned Shirley back to CP&S in season one; it was amazing to see the two of them butt heads:

Shirley: I'll take this to court!
Paul: I'll wave at you from the other side.

Shirley: The nays have it.
Paul: Shirley, there are many ways to go out. On your ass isn't one of the better ones.

The second of which was the sheer badassery of Alan Shore. It was recognized by everyone that Alan Shore is the firm's most brilliant and capable lawyer; his skills surpass Denny's, Shirley's, Carl's, Jerry's, Katie's, and Paul's. Even the Chinese considered it as much, after Alan fired them. Jerry musing how the practice of law will never be the same after Alan; Paul saying how the last thing the Chinese want to do is lose Alan.

Alan Shore. Is. A. God. Period. The end.

Lastly, the hints of a spin-off. DEK, I love you.

Shirley: The nays have it.
Paul: Shirley, there are many ways to go out. On your ass isn't one of the better ones.

Carl: You might consider the same thing, Paul.

It finally solidified Carl's position as one of the "good guys."

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Carl: You might consider the same thing, Paul.

It finally solidified Carl's position as one of the "good guys."

I don't think it's fair to draw lines. Really, Shirley displayed herself to be a remarkable bigot when it came to both the Chinese and the Jews in this megasode. Paul was a gift of a character, and he was one of the good guys. There is a reason that, in prior seasons, all of the characters deferred to him; he had a detached, sensible wisdom about him.

Hell, he went to bat for both Denny and Alan today. That's what I love about Paul. And he really got to kick some ass today. He defeated Shirley in court and tossed out some really good lines.

Even though Paul's not one of the named partners, he's clearly the firm's workhorse and most influential member.

I.... want.... BURN NOTICE!!!!!

Even though Paul's not one of the named partners, he's clearly the firm's workhorse and most influential member.

I wondered at that. For a long time I just defaulted him into the position of "Poole" because he was (seemingly) more important in-universe than Denny OR Shirley.

(The real Poole is a dick. I didn't like his character at all during the Turkey-day episode.)

I've always wondered why Alan never made Partner. Wouldn't that be a way to reign him in? Heck, if BRAD made partner, shouldn't Alan?

There's a season two episode that deals with Paul's importance at the firm when he assumes custody of his granddaughter and his presence is temporarily diminished. Subsequently, the elevators, air/heat unit, and utilities stop working and major clients begin to get nervous -- one of whom is an old friend of Denny's who flat out tells Denny that he deals "with Paul," prompting Denny to offer Paul a named position on the door. Paul refuses and says all he wanted was respect.

Shirley sums it up: "The only reason you, me, Alan and everyone else get to go to court and shout objection is Paul! You bring in the money, Denny, but Paul puts it to work."

Long story short, in many ways, Paul = CP&S. He's the managing partner and is far more powerful than the likes of Sack, and clearly on par or surpassing Shirley and Denny.

The reason Alan wasn't a partner is also dealt with in season two. They don't trust him, even though they know his legal skills surpass theirs.

I'm going to bed. RIP BL! You'll be missed!

Ha! I've never watched BL, so I don't feel sad now! And I can still get

Several small things I have to say now:

1. I do not like the Chronicles because it's 'darker'. It's well-executed darkness is actually one of the reasons it is enjoyable not all of them; a dark tale can be immensely entertaining. I ultimately, however, like Materials so much because of the immensely thought-provoking, "deep" themes that I find hugely applicable to real life, despite being in the guise of fantasy.

2. 50's were a better time than now? WTF are you smoking? The 50's were racist, bigoted, and embraced black and white ideals to a sickening extent. Technology was far worse, computers didn't exist, etc... saying that the 50's better is an example of the philosophy I hate of "Old > New".

3. Your argument seems to fall back on the point that the Chronicles are 'classic' and Materials is 'pulp fiction'. Classic is something timeless that can stand the test of time; however, I'm not arguing their respective positions in history (that'd be dumb), but their actually literary merit. Here, in my opinion, His Dark Materials is better. The Chronicles is unarguably more 'classic', though.

Several small things I have to say now:

1. I do not like the Chronicles because it's 'darker'. It's well-executed darkness is actually one of the reasons it is enjoyable not all of them; a dark tale can be immensely entertaining. I ultimately, however, like Materials so much because of the immensely thought-provoking, "deep" themes that I find hugely applicable to real life, despite being in the guise of fantasy.

2. 50's were a better time than now? WTF are you smoking? The 50's were racist, bigoted, and embraced black and white ideals to a sickening extent. Technology was far worse, computers didn't exist, etc... saying that the 50's better is an example of the philosophy I hate of "Old > New".

Truth: HDM is quality writing, and is very entertaining to you as an individual.
Truth: Chronicles of Narnia is a timeless and beloved classic which manages (and has managed for 50+ years) to suck people of all ages into its world.

Truth: you have actually read HDM, which makes you something of an authority.
Truth: you have not read "chronicles of narnia", which makes your judgement biased and personal.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
uh-huh. Ya.

Yeah.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Yes, there was racism. and? Something is always wrong, someone is always suffering, you are never going to have a time when someone is not.

Yes. But less people are suffering now; we live at an imperfect world, obviously, but certainly better than the 50's.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
You are entitled to your opinion, but trying to pass off your opinion as fact is wrong.

Why would I attempt to pass it off as 'fact'? I simply believe in it, very strongly. Unless I post actual facts, read everything I post as an 'opinion', even if it doesn't have 'in my opinion...' behind it.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Truth: HDM is quality writing, and is very entertaining to you as an individual.

Yes.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Truth: Chronicles of Narnia is a timeless and beloved classic which manages (and has managed for 50+ years) to suck people of all ages into its world.

Yes. But please note that most people are only familiar with the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe; it's the only book in the series to truly attain a 'timeless classic' status. The others are far more obscure.

Also, in a 'big read' poll done by BBC, people voted for their favorite books; one would think that the Chronicles would be well ahead of HDM. One would be wrong. As can be seen here, HDM was voted the number three most popular book in the UK (the entire series, not just an individual book). The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (note: only that book, not the entirety of the Chronicles) lags behind at number 9.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Truth: you have actually read HDM, which makes you something of an authority.

Yes.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Truth: you have not read "chronicles of narnia", which makes your judgement biased and personal.

False. I've actually read Narnia.

you're still wrong.

I apologize on misjudging you, however. It seemed like you had not read the books.