And I'm on a library computer because that problem with our dorm gateways hasn't been totally fixed yet. I had internet access at two. It vanished without warning at three. So I can't do prep research from my room. But the dogwoods are still pretty.
I was going to actually post about something. I can't remember what it was, though....
...the eyes of the heart-eyed boy icon flash faster than those of the heart-eyed girl icon. It's like being in the left-turn lane and looking at all the different blinker speeds.
Uhh. Got into a really cool discussion last night with a literature/film major about Tolkien. Went over stuff about The Silmarillion (which was actually intended as the sequel to The Hobbit, heh), the Unfinished tales, some minor details about the Istari, differences between the Istari and Sauron, similarities between the Istari, Sauron, and the Balrog (plural), brief laments about the lack of lore concerning the Blue Wizards (the two Istari who are mentioned only in an appendix, I think), his excitement over the Hobbit movie coming out directed by Guillermo del Toro (with Peter Jackson as exec producer), on and on and on.
Big thing he mentioned that stuck with me was that a lot of people fail to enjoy Tolkien, and often can't get through his writing, because his descriptions are very precise. To this end, he sacrifices conciseness, often telling the casual reader a lot more than they want to know—people are impatient and want to get back to the plot, which is why things like Harry Potter and Twilight sell so well—but if you pay close attention, Tolkien always tells you exactly what you need to know, and never more or less.
For some people it is enough to know that there is a forest around the characters. But with Tolkien, you'll be able to see the differences between the forest where lives Tom Bombadil and the forest where lives the ent, and even the forest of Huorns that ate all the fleeing Orcs after the Battle of Helm's Deep. (Yes. That was omitted from the movie. Half-awakened trees moved down to the mouth of the Helm's Deep gap and . . . Orcs went in, but never came out. The Hotel California of Middle Earth.)
I admire that kind of precision, and I think I subconsciously attempt to emulate it when I'm writing. I don't do it to nearly the same degree, I don't think, because while I'm writing I'm also thinking about pacing and what's happening while I'm narrating and when I need to get back to the action or plot or whatever, but I love to describe things. Maybe I'll move my planet description sketch over here sometime. Creating it was a lot of fun, and several times I remember just thinking "that would be cool to have" and figuring out a way to incorporate it into the scenery.
I also find my admiration a tad interesting, for while I love Tolkien, I cannot stand Dickens. I loathe the man's works. I understand, of course, that Dickens was being paid by the word, and in that light his accomplishments were pretty cool. But from a reader's perspective, and I know I've said this many times, reading Dickens for me is like struggling through waist-deep mire. You can't move fast, the bog is constantly pulling at you, and if you don't watch your footing, you'll more than likely step in a hole, get sucked in over your head, and never come up for air.
And yet I had someone compare my style to Dickens. Maybe that's the attempt at precision of description without care for length, but I know I take great pains not to get so involved in using words that I forget what I was writing and why I was writing it.
Blah blah blah time to research for this darned paper.
