From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

On 21 Aug 2025 17:48:24 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
wrote:

Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote or quoted:

Bob Dylan's early productions included
many borrowed lyrics and tunes, so I've read.

Even later on Dylan put out albums with songs he didn't write himself.
In the 90s there was "Good as I Been to You":

It's not clear to me from what you wrote, but I suspect that
you are saying Dylan did not claim credit for any of these. I
don't think he could get away with claiming "Froggie Went
a Courtin'" as his own and get residuals for every reproduction.

On the other hand, I should have written with more clarity,
to say, his early SONG CREDITs included many borrowed
and adapted lyrics and tunes.

Google tells me that 600+ songs are credited to him. I thought
the total would be more, because I thought he had 400+
before he was 30.

Jim Jones
Blackjack Davey
Canadee-i-o
Sittin' on Top of the World
Little Maggie
Hard Times
Step It Up and Go
Tomorrow Night
Arthur McBride
You're Gonna Quit Me
Diamond Joe
Froggie Went a Courtin'

and "World Gone Wrong":

Love Henry
Ragged & Dirty
Blood in My Eyes
Broke Down Engine
Delia
Stack a Lee
Two Soldiers
Jack-A-Roe
Lone Pilgrim

(I really like both of those very much!),
and just 10 years ago "Shadows in the Night":

I'm a Fool to Want You
The Night We Called It a Day
Stay with Me
Autumn Leaves
Why Try to Change Me Now
Some Enchanted Evening
Full Moon and Empty Arms
Where Are You?
What'll I Do
That Lucky Old Sun

--
Rich Ulrich
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote or quoted:

It's not clear to me from what you wrote, but I suspect that
you are saying Dylan did not claim credit for any of these. I
don't think he could get away with claiming "Froggie Went
a Courtin'" as his own and get residuals for every reproduction.

If you're looking for something to hold against him about
those songs, you might still turn something up. Wikipedia
says regarding "Good As I Been To You":

|the original album notes incorrectly credit all song
|arrangements to Bob Dylan.

and

|the original album notes incorrectly identify "Tomorrow
|Night" as public domain. It was written in 1939 by Sam Coslow
|and Will Grosz.

On the other hand, I should have written with more clarity,
to say, his early SONG CREDITs included many borrowed
and adapted lyrics and tunes.

Back then Dylan was playing in folk clubs, probably with a
lot of regulars in the audience. Some of them already knew
the lyrics to tons of songs, so if he picked up a line here or
there, it was maybe with the thought that everyone realized it
wasn't his, even if he never mentioned it.

The line between drawing inspiration and straight plagiarism is
pretty blurry.

I once came across a German song where a few verses reminded me of
a well-known Dylan tune. Here's an example in English translation:

|I saw a young ass with a silver nose which pursued two fleet hares,
|and a lime-tree that was very large, on which hot cakes were growing.
|I saw a lean old goat which carried about a hundred cart-loads of
|fat on his body, and sixty loads of salt.
|I saw a plough ploughing without horse or cow, and a child of
|one year threw four millstones from Ratisbon to Treves,
|
"The Story of Schlauraffen Land" from Grimm's Household Tales


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

On 22 Aug 2025 08:49:20 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
wrote:

Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote or quoted:

It's not clear to me from what you wrote, but I suspect that
you are saying Dylan did not claim credit for any of these. I
don't think he could get away with claiming "Froggie Went
a Courtin'" as his own and get residuals for every reproduction.

If you're looking for something to hold against him about
those songs, you might still turn something up. Wikipedia
says regarding "Good As I Been To You":

|the original album notes incorrectly credit all song
|arrangements to Bob Dylan.

and

|the original album notes incorrectly identify "Tomorrow
|Night" as public domain. It was written in 1939 by Sam Coslow
|and Will Grosz.

On the other hand, I should have written with more clarity,
to say, his early SONG CREDITs included many borrowed
and adapted lyrics and tunes.

Back then Dylan was playing in folk clubs, probably with a
lot of regulars in the audience. Some of them already knew
the lyrics to tons of songs, so if he picked up a line here or
there, it was maybe with the thought that everyone realized it
wasn't his, even if he never mentioned it.

The line between drawing inspiration and straight plagiarism is
pretty blurry.

I am not hostile to Dylan. I'm a bit bemused by the anti-capitalist
icon earning something in range of hundreds of millions of dollars
by selling the rights to his 'adaptations.'

I also am reminded of the TV show 'Glee' -- They found that they
could use a whole bunch of songs for FREE because whatever
they featured got an immediate boost in popularity and an
increase in income from residuals. (Now I wonder if show writers
were ever offered bribes from owners of song rights.)

I once came across a German song where a few verses reminded me of
a well-known Dylan tune. Here's an example in English translation:

|I saw a young ass with a silver nose which pursued two fleet hares,
|and a lime-tree that was very large, on which hot cakes were growing.
|I saw a lean old goat which carried about a hundred cart-loads of
|fat on his body, and sixty loads of salt.
|I saw a plough ploughing without horse or cow, and a child of
|one year threw four millstones from Ratisbon to Treves,
|
"The Story of Schlauraffen Land" from Grimm's Household Tales

I'm not surprised. Hmm. I figure that such a precedent would make
it difficult if the Dylan rights-owners tried to sue someone who
borrowed the same sort of formulation.
--
Rich Ulrich
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote or quoted:

I am not hostile to Dylan. I'm a bit bemused by the anti-capitalist
icon earning something in range of hundreds of millions of dollars
by selling the rights to his 'adaptations.'

Capitalism, for many people, is somewhat related to the
exploitation of workers by owners of production tools. Dylan
literally travels around the world in his "Never-Ending Tour"
and does the main work (writing and singing) himself.

|Everything worth doing takes time. You have to write a
|hundred bad songs before you write one good one. And you have
|to sacrifice a lot of things that you might not be prepared for.
Bob Dylan, 2016.

And I don't think Dylan ever claimed to be "(an )anti-capitalist".

I'm not surprised. Hmm. I figure that such a precedent would make
it difficult if the Dylan rights-owners tried to sue someone who
borrowed the same sort of formulation.

I think he understands this. I think you are generally free to use
general patterns from other works in your own, like writing another
blues song with many similarities to other blues written before.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote or quoted:

And I don't think Dylan ever claimed to be "(an )anti-capitalist".

Although, he wrote,

|You know, capitalism is above the law
|It say, "It don't count 'less it sells"
"Union Sundown" (1983) - Bob Dylan.

, and earlier,

|They complained in the East
|They are paying too high
|They say that your ore ain't worth digging
|That it's much cheaper down
|In the South American towns
|Where the miners work almost for nothing
"North Country Blues" (1963) - Bob Dylan.

Both songs actually deal with workplaces moved out of the US:

|Well, you know, lots of people complainin' that there is no work
|I say, "Why you say that for
|When nothin' you got is U.S.rComade?"
|They donrCOt make nothin' here no more
"Union Sundown" (1983) - Bob Dylan.

So, from this one could conclude that Dylan is not against capitalism
in general but against jobs moved outside of the US. Who was that
other guy who wants to bring jobs back to the US again?


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

In article <f44hak1v32qf2va4agag3jb71mc468fi30@4ax.com>,
Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:

I am not hostile to Dylan. I'm a bit bemused by the anti-capitalist
icon earning something in range of hundreds of millions of dollars
by selling the rights to his 'adaptations.'

My view is that Dylan senior is a good songwriter but has an
unlistenable singing voice. (Very much like the late Leonard Cohen in
that regard.) His son seems to be rather better at the singing part,
albeit in a different genre.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can, wollman@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015) --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 17:18:13 -0000 (UTC),
wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) wrote:

In article <f44hak1v32qf2va4agag3jb71mc468fi30@4ax.com>,
Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:

I am not hostile to Dylan. I'm a bit bemused by the anti-capitalist
icon earning something in range of hundreds of millions of dollars
by selling the rights to his 'adaptations.'

My view is that Dylan senior is a good songwriter but has an
unlistenable singing voice.

I almost agree, but 'unlistenable' needs to be qualified with
something like, 'yet capable of hynotic attraction in a performance.'

I was introduced to a Bob Dylan album, heard many times against
my will, in a dorm during my first semester at college (1964). Most
of 8 suitemates objected to hearing the one LP. But I felt
something - nostalgia? - that made me splurge on a Dyllan album
of my own, just a few months after leaving that exposure. I
became a fan, and my roommate and I went to our first concert
to hear Dylan. (First half was acoustic; then he brought out
The Band.)

The one other time I experienced a reversal like that was a
couple of years later, after I graduated and left behind my
unwilling exposure to Captain Beefheart's 'Safe as Milk'. I
became a fan. Well, 'Trout Mask Replica' (1969) left me
unsettled, even after listening to it a dozen times. Then I
understood it much better after my ears got educated by
'Lick My Decals off Baby.'

(Very much like the late Leonard Cohen in
that regard.) His son seems to be rather better at the singing part,
albeit in a different genre.

But you have to admit that Leonard Cohen also has fans.
It is performance, not the ability to sing.

What is a good singing voice? I can name a few performers
who have "good singing" as part of their reputation, but it
is not what I focus on.

Good singers admire certain singers. Good guitar players
admire certain guitar players. Their favorites don't match
mine. For guitar, I love Jerry Garcia and Frank Zappa, and
am bored by Eric Clapton.
--
Rich Ulrich

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

Den 22.08.2025 kl. 20.22 skrev Rich Ulrich:

Good singers admire certain singers. Good guitar players
admire certain guitar players. Their favorites don't match
mine. For guitar, I love Jerry Garcia and Frank Zappa, and
am bored by Eric Clapton.

I never get tired of Disraeli Gears. Try to give it a(nother) chance.
But I am not too fond of what Clapton has done since.

Jimi Hendrix is my number one, but Jerry Garcia and Frank Zappa are
close. I enjoy the relaxed attitude of the Grateful Dead. Frank Zappa is *much* more varied than the others, also when only guitar-playing is considered.

But I don't hear that nuch music anymore because of my tinnitus.
--
Bertel, Kolt, Danmark

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote or quoted:

Good singers admire certain singers. Good guitar players
admire certain guitar players. Their favorites don't match
mine. For guitar, I love Jerry Garcia and Frank Zappa, and
am bored by Eric Clapton.

Well, Zappa - "Rolling Stone" actually puts him right there at #5.

|Oct 13, 2023 -+ The 250 Greatest Guitarists of All Time -+
|Elmore James -+ PJ Harvey -+ Curtis Mayfield -+ The Edge -+ Frank
|Zappa -+ Steve Cropper -+ Johnny Ramone -+ Jonny ...

For me, "The Deathless Horsie" is incredible. Not just the guitar,
the whole arrangement and composition are on another level.

Thing is, I'm just a listener, not a player, so I can't and
honestly don't want to split apart how much is pure technical
control and how much is melody, arrangement, lyrics, or
overall composition. It all lands as one whole thing.

Now, about Cohen and Dylan rCo I think they're the greatest when
it comes to singing. With Cohen though, I only connect with his
early stuff, like "Songs of Leonard Cohen", "Songs from a Room",
"Songs of Love and Hate", "New Skin for the Old Ceremony".
I really don't get why people rave about the later songs like
"Hallelujah", even though a line like "First We Take Manhattan,
then we take Berlin" is still a killer piece of writing.

So maybe it's kind of like how some people are into blue
cheese and others just cannot stand it. And the ones on one
side just cannot wrap their heads around the fact that the
others really feel that way.

And yeah, kind of funny that Cohen and Janis Joplin ended up
together, since her voice back then was the complete opposite
of his. I happen to love the way both of them sang.

(That sort of holding back in the early singing of Cohen, I also
hear that in Nico.)


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

On Friday, Bertel Lund Hansen queried:

Den 22.08.2025 kl. 20.22 skrev Rich Ulrich:

Good singers admire certain singers. Good guitar players
admire certain guitar players. Their favorites don't match
mine. For guitar, I love Jerry Garcia and Frank Zappa, and
am bored by Eric Clapton.

I never get tired of Disraeli Gears. Try to give it a(nother) chance. But I am not too fond of what Clapton has done since.

Jimi Hendrix is my number one, but Jerry Garcia and Frank Zappa are close. I enjoy the relaxed attitude of the Grateful Dead. Frank Zappa is *much* more varied than the others, also when only guitar-playing is considered.

But I don't hear that nuch music anymore because of my tinnitus.

I take two meaning from that, but for one of them I would write

"But I don't listen to much music anymore, because of my tinnitus."

(Me, personally, I am lucky, tinnitus in only one ear most of the time,
and I can often ignore it, and the other ear is fine with classical
music with the amp that goes to 2 or 3.)

(I was at a tribute band concert last night that was doing Rod Stewart,
and no problem with the mostly-acoustic version of Have I Told You.)

/dps
--
Who, me? And what lacuna?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

Den 22.08.2025 kl. 22.16 skrev Snidely:

But I don't hear that nuch music anymore because of my tinnitus.

I take two meaning from that, but for one of them I would write

"But I don't listen to much music anymore, because of my tinnitus."

"Listen" is what I meant.

(Me, personally, I am lucky, tinnitus in only one ear most of the time,
and I can often ignore it, and the other ear is fine with classical
music with the amp that goes to 2 or 3.)

I can sort of ignore it, but it's always present. Some years ago I could forget it completely. Not anymore. I've got a high, sharp tone plus a
low rumble that sounds like a truck in my garden with the motor running
- sometimes quiet, sometimes unquiet (not loud).
--
Bertel, Kolt, Danmark

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

On 2025-08-22 11:18, Garrett Wollman wrote:

In article <f44hak1v32qf2va4agag3jb71mc468fi30@4ax.com>,
Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:

I am not hostile to Dylan. I'm a bit bemused by the anti-capitalist
icon earning something in range of hundreds of millions of dollars
by selling the rights to his 'adaptations.'

My view is that Dylan senior is a good songwriter but has an
unlistenable singing voice. (Very much like the late Leonard Cohen in
that regard.) His son seems to be rather better at the singing part,
albeit in a different genre.

Agreed.
Whenever /Like a Rolling Stone/ comes up on the radio, I like to sing
along with it.

EYaa
"I never learned how to sing,
but you bought my records anyway.
Didn't you?"
EYaa
--
rCLWhy do they call it rush hour when nothing moves?rCY
rCoRobin Williams

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

In article <4tbhakhihfccmksq1ov0j3hrsoqchv7b3i@4ax.com>,
Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:

What is a good singing voice? I can name a few performers
who have "good singing" as part of their reputation, but it
is not what I focus on.

I suppose you can distinguish between "technical virtuosity" and
"pleasant to listen to". Mariah Carey has astonishing range but I
don't particularly care for her choice of material.

Good singers admire certain singers. Good guitar players
admire certain guitar players. Their favorites don't match
mine. For guitar, I love Jerry Garcia and Frank Zappa, and
am bored by Eric Clapton.

For guitar, I'd have trouble choosing, because I don't play. For a
layman's view of techical virtuosity it would probably be somewhere
in the vicinity of Rod y Gab or Patty Larkin, but Mark Knopfler is
quite listenable. For Larkin and Knopfler, though, it's hard to
separate my impression of the instrument from the vocals, since they
do both.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can, wollman@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015) --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

On 23/08/25 03:18, Garrett Wollman wrote:

In article <f44hak1v32qf2va4agag3jb71mc468fi30@4ax.com>, Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:

I am not hostile to Dylan. I'm a bit bemused by the
anti-capitalist icon earning something in range of hundreds of
millions of dollars by selling the rights to his 'adaptations.'

My view is that Dylan senior is a good songwriter but has an
unlistenable singing voice. (Very much like the late Leonard Cohen
in that regard.) His son seems to be rather better at the singing
part, albeit in a different genre.

To that list you can add the Belgian Jaques Brel. Brilliant songwriter,
but his voice is only so-so.
--
Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

Den 22.08.2025 kl. 23.00 skrev Garrett Wollman:

I suppose you can distinguish between "technical virtuosity" and
"pleasant to listen to". Mariah Carey has astonishing range but I
don't particularly care for her choice of material.

Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston are both technically impressive but I
find them boring to listen to.

One of the most impressive, beautiful, moving performances I've heard is
with an X-Factor candidate before she was designed and coreographed to
death: Louisa Johnson, who actually won:

Go to time 1:55

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KEQ7q-32R0

For Larkin and Knopfler, though, it's hard to
separate my impression of the instrument from the vocals, since they
do both.

Mike Knopfler is a fine guitarist with his own sound.
--
Bertel, Kolt, Danmark

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

And yeah, kind of funny that Cohen and Janis Joplin ended up
together, since her voice back then was the complete opposite of
his. I happen to love the way both of them sang.

In "Chelsea Hotel" Cohen says "We are ugly, but we have the music".
Apparently that's what he thought the two of them had in common.
--
Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

On 18/08/2025 19:54, Rich Ulrich wrote:

Read a book instead of watching the movie? Those are two
different experiences.

I've heard it said that the pictures in your mind are far nicer that
those in the film.

Hmm, I'd hate to imagine what my version of Lawrence of Arabia would
look like. I somehow doubt that glib statement - usually made by authors
of books.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

Le 26/08/2025 |a 11:26, occam a |-crit :

On 18/08/2025 19:54, Rich Ulrich wrote:

Read a book instead of watching the movie? Those are two
different experiences.

I've heard it said that the pictures in your mind are far nicer that
those in the film.

Hmm, I'd hate to imagine what my version of Lawrence of Arabia would
look like. I somehow doubt that glib statement - usually made by authors
of books.

They are different experiences. Lean's film is an classic, but I gave up
on 'Seven Pillars'. 'The Mint' is interesting in a different way.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

On 26/08/2025 11:26, occam wrote:

On 18/08/2025 19:54, Rich Ulrich wrote:

Read a book instead of watching the movie? Those are two
different experiences.

I've heard it said that the pictures in your mind are far nicer that
those in the film.

I think that's more often said of radio, and in my experience
there's some truth in it. HHGTG was far better on radio than it
was on TV.

(On the other hand, Jackson's LOTR beat Radio 4 hands down.)
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

Le 26/08/2025 |a 11:39, Richard Heathfield a |-crit :

On 26/08/2025 11:26, occam wrote:

I've heard it said that the pictures in your mind are far nicer that
those in the film.

I think that's more often said of radio, and in my experience there's
some truth in it. HHGTG was far better on radio than it was on TV. [...]

Yes, Beeblebrox's second head was much more convincing, among other things.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

On 26/08/2025 14:17, Hibou wrote:

Le 26/08/2025 |a 11:39, Richard Heathfield a |-crit :

On 26/08/2025 11:26, occam wrote:

I've heard it said that the pictures in your mind are far nicer that
those in the film.

I think that's more often said of radio, and in my experience there's
some truth in it. HHGTG was far better on radio than it was on TV. [...]

Yes, Beeblebrox's second head was much more convincing, among other things.

Thank you for revealing 'HHGTG' as Hitch Hiker's Guide. As for LOTR, I
find all versions - book, radio, Film - tedious in the extreme.

(This is one reason I will never visit NZ. I hear they are very proud of themselves for having allowed it to be filmed there.)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

Le 26/08/2025 |a 14:34, occam a |-crit :

On 26/08/2025 14:17, Hibou wrote:

Le 26/08/2025 |a 11:39, Richard Heathfield a |-crit :

On 26/08/2025 11:26, occam wrote:

I've heard it said that the pictures in your mind are far nicer that
those in the film.

I think that's more often said of radio, and in my experience there's
some truth in it. HHGTG was far better on radio than it was on TV. [...]

Yes, Beeblebrox's second head was much more convincing, among other things. >>

Thank you for revealing 'HHGTG' as Hitch Hiker's Guide. As for LOTR, I
find all versions - book, radio, Film - tedious in the extreme.

The one I didn't like was 'Bored of the Rings'. It bored me.

The film settled on pronouncing Sauron Sow-ron, which still seems
unnatural to me (rather un-English, in fact); in my head I had it as
Sore-on. I understand that Tolkien said it should be Sow-ron, but there
are recordings of him saying Sore-on.

Perhaps one day there'll be AI dubbing in the pronunciation of one's choice.

(This is one reason I will never visit NZ. I hear they are very proud of themselves for having allowed it to be filmed there.)

I feel there must be better reasons for favouring or taking against a
country.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

In article <jvo6ak1mm5lljsmrar228ldhmhudtr8rqj@4ax.com>,
Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:

Read a book instead of watching the movie? Those are two
different experiences.

When a novel is made into a screenplay, many things are left out.
Chief among these are narration and description. Narration is removed
for obvious reasons; description is removed because the director and
set and costume designers consider that to be their domain. All that
is normally left in a screenplay is the dialogue. Often readers are disappointed when a film does not match what they view as important
elements of the text, but which was stripped out of the screenplay and
left to the director's discretion.

This can be particularly jarring for adaptations of works that are
told in third-person omniscient or a first-person narrator's internal monologue. These elements will not survive the adaptation process,
and if the content is important to the story, it will have to be told
some other way. (While a voice-over is feasible, the film industry is generally averse to such things, preferring to tell stories visually.)

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can, wollman@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015) --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 12:26:03 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:

On 18/08/2025 19:54, Rich Ulrich wrote:

Read a book instead of watching the movie? Those are two
different experiences.

I've heard it said that the pictures in your mind are far nicer that
those in the film.

This made me think of Edgar Bergen, ventriloquist famed for
Charlie McCarthy and Mortimer Snerd. He became FAMOUS
on radio. From the Wiki article on him,

The popularity of a ventriloquist on radio, when one could see
neither the dummies nor his skill, surprised and puzzled many
critics, then and now.

Hmm, I'd hate to imagine what my version of Lawrence of Arabia would
look like. I somehow doubt that glib statement - usually made by authors
of books.

--
Rich Ulrich
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

Den 26.08.2025 kl. 16.05 skrev Hibou:

(This is one reason I will never visit NZ. I hear they are very proud of
themselves for having allowed it to be filmed there.)

I feel there must be better reasons for favouring or taking against a country.

There will be few countries available for people this sensitive.
--
Bertel, Kolt, Danmark

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

On 26/08/25 23:34, occam wrote:

Thank you for revealing 'HHGTG' as Hitch Hiker's Guide. As for LOTR,
I find all versions - book, radio, Film - tedious in the extreme.

I agree. I don't understand why it became so successful.

(This is one reason I will never visit NZ. I hear they are very proud
of themselves for having allowed it to be filmed there.)

A pleasant country, and worth visiting. My main disappointment was that
I was unable to find Footrot Flats.
--
Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 12:26:03 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:

On 18/08/2025 19:54, Rich Ulrich wrote:

Read a book instead of watching the movie? Those are two
different experiences.

I've heard it said that the pictures in your mind are far nicer that
those in the film.

Hmm, I'd hate to imagine what my version of Lawrence of Arabia would
look like. I somehow doubt that glib statement - usually made by authors
of books.

That would depend on the book and the film.

I saw the movie "Lawrence of Arabia" before reading "The Seven Pillars
of Wisdom" so the pictures in my head while reading the book were
influenced by the film.

But no one in our family has seen the movie of "Lord of the Rings",
mainly because we fear it may interfere with the pictures in our heads
when we read the book, which we have all read several times.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

On 27/08/2025 02:56, Steve Hayes wrote:

<snip>

But no one in our family has seen the movie of "Lord of the Rings",
mainly because we fear it may interfere with the pictures in our heads
when we read the book, which we have all read several times.

I didn't think it was possible to make a good job of the film.
Several tried and failed abysmally.

It's possible.

Peter Jackson succeeded magnificently.

From party to Gondor, it's a triumph.

Spoilers:

No Bombadil, no Old Forest to speak of, no barrow-wights, no
Scouring, but I really don't think you'll miss them.

The artwork is *astonishing*. If you liked the artwork from the
1992 Centenary Edition...same guy.

Aragorn IS Aragorn.

Hobbit and dwarf scaling are seamless.

I can't imagine a better Boromir.

(I will grant that I found Arwen a bit grating, but one cannot
expect a perfect match to one's internal cinema screening of the
book, and no doubt there are many who will praise her selection.)

Seriously, Steve... risk it! If you love the book, I really don't
think you'll regret it.

I cannot imagine that a truer telling will ever appear on the screen.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

Den 27.08.2025 kl. 03.56 skrev Steve Hayes:

But no one in our family has seen the movie of "Lord of the Rings",
mainly because we fear it may interfere with the pictures in our heads
when we read the book, which we have all read several times.

The general experience - and certainly mine - is that the movie's
pictures blend in fine with your mental images. This is the only time I
have had such an experience. Other times whatever I saw first was the
best experience.

But I have to add that when I saw the movie, it was decades since I had
read the book (in Danish).

Which reminds me of a puzzle I'll never be able to solve. I am at
present reading LOTR in three volumes each with 700 pages, and the print
is not large.

The Danish book was in one volume, and as I remember it, it couldn't
have had much more than maybe 800 pages. I fear that it was drastically shortened.
--
Bertel, Kolt, Danmark

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 11:21:23 -0400
Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:

On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 12:26:03 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:

On 18/08/2025 19:54, Rich Ulrich wrote:

Read a book instead of watching the movie? Those are two
different experiences.

I've heard it said that the pictures in your mind are far nicer that
those in the film.

This made me think of Edgar Bergen, ventriloquist famed for
Charlie McCarthy and Mortimer Snerd. He became FAMOUS
on radio. From the Wiki article on him,

The popularity of a ventriloquist on radio, when one could see
neither the dummies nor his skill, surprised and puzzled many
critics, then and now.

Were we talking about "Educating Archie"?
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

On 2025-08-27 00:44, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

Den 27.08.2025 kl. 03.56 skrev Steve Hayes:

But no one in our family has seen the movie of "Lord of the Rings",
mainly because we fear it may interfere with the pictures in our heads
when we read the book, which we have all read several times.

The general experience - and certainly mine - is that the movie's
pictures blend in fine with your mental images. This is the only time I
have had such an experience. Other times whatever I saw first was the
best experience.

But I have to add that when I saw the movie, it was decades since I had
read the book (in Danish).

Which reminds me of a puzzle I'll never be able to solve. I am at
present reading LOTR in three volumes each with 700 pages, and the print
is not large.

The Danish book was in one volume, and as I remember it, it couldn't
have had much more than maybe 800 pages. I fear that it was drastically shortened.

I started to read LOTR many years ago. I can't recall if I got through
more than one chapter, but it's definitely not mu cuppa.

I did enjoy National Lampoons's Readers Digest version.

"Two guys go on vacation and throw a ring into a volcano."
--
Dogs actually won the space race.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

On 2025-08-28 06:12:14 +0000, lar3ryca said:

On 2025-08-27 00:44, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

Den 27.08.2025 kl. 03.56 skrev Steve Hayes:

But no one in our family has seen the movie of "Lord of the Rings",
mainly because we fear it may interfere with the pictures in our heads
when we read the book, which we have all read several times.

The general experience - and certainly mine - is that the movie's
pictures blend in fine with your mental images. This is the only time I
have had such an experience. Other times whatever I saw first was the
best experience.

But I have to add that when I saw the movie, it was decades since I had
read the book (in Danish).

Which reminds me of a puzzle I'll never be able to solve. I am at
present reading LOTR in three volumes each with 700 pages, and the
print is not large.

The Danish book was in one volume, and as I remember it, it couldn't
have had much more than maybe 800 pages. I fear that it was drastically
shortened.

I started to read LOTR many years ago. I can't recall if I got through
more than one chapter, but it's definitely not mu cuppa.

I did enjoy National Lampoons's Readers Digest version.

"Two guys go on vacation and throw a ring into a volcano."

Woody Allen: I took a speed-reading course and read War and Peace in
twenty minutes. It involves Russia.
--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 38 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:

On 2025-08-27 00:44, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

Den 27.08.2025 kl. 03.56 skrev Steve Hayes:

But no one in our family has seen the movie of "Lord of the Rings",
mainly because we fear it may interfere with the pictures in our heads
when we read the book, which we have all read several times.

The general experience - and certainly mine - is that the movie's
pictures blend in fine with your mental images. This is the only time I have had such an experience. Other times whatever I saw first was the
best experience.

But I have to add that when I saw the movie, it was decades since I had read the book (in Danish).

Which reminds me of a puzzle I'll never be able to solve. I am at
present reading LOTR in three volumes each with 700 pages, and the print
is not large.

The Danish book was in one volume, and as I remember it, it couldn't
have had much more than maybe 800 pages. I fear that it was drastically shortened.

I started to read LOTR many years ago. I can't recall if I got through
more than one chapter, but it's definitely not mu cuppa.

I did enjoy National Lampoons's Readers Digest version.

"Two guys go on vacation and throw a ring into a volcano."

There is 'Bored of the Rings'. It predates all those other Lampoon
things, and it was an immediate succes.
Unlike most of the other Lampoon things it is still in print.
It is hilarious in places, but I think it should be taken in small
doses.
Many characters have names derived from famous American brands,
or have sexual conntations.
(like Dildo Bugger and Frito Bugger of Bug End)
Nothing to do with Readers Digest, afaik,

Jan





--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2