Books

[VaBeach_Eagle]

On 9/27/2021 at 6:02 PM, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

Recommend good books.  Especially what I am looking for are books that will eventually be epic movies or TV shows.  I would have liked to know about A Song of Ice and Fire back in the 90s or whenever he wrote that.

I've really enjoyed the TV series "Outlander", which is based off a series of books. The TV series is currently in its 7th ( of 8 ) season. Should you read the books first or watch the show first? Hard to say, I watched the show before listening to any of the books and I think I prefer it that way. 

[sameaglesfan]

I'm currently in book 2 of what became the Silo series - excellent writing thus far.  Trilogy by Hugh Howey Wool, Shift, and Dust.  Highly recommended - also great first season on the show IMO

[homerpat]

Just finished sixth book in Red Rising series. I cannot give this series high enough praise. I read probably 50-60 books a year and this is my favorite series of all time. Have reread series 5 times.

Anyway Light Bringer is a phenomenal penultimate book for the series. The one character has claimed the spot of biggest piece of ish villain ever. Cannot wait for his ultimate dismantling in the final book. He easily surpasses Joffrey and Ramsay in the horrific garbage of a human category. Def recommend picking the series up. Fast paced, action packed with crazy twists and great battle scenes. Def not meant for kids. 

[dawkins4prez]

On 7/16/2023 at 5:18 PM, VaBeach_Eagle said:

I've really enjoyed the TV series "Outlander", which is based off a series of books. The TV series is currently in its 7th ( of 8 ) season. Should you read the books first or watch the show first? Hard to say, I watched the show before listening to any of the books and I think I prefer it that way. 

You mean the BBCish sci fi with an absurd rape fetish?  That Outlander?  Most ridiculous show i've ever seen.  KLAAR.  HE MADE LUV TO ME KLAAR!!  IN THE DUNJON, OHHH THE BUGGERY KLAAR!!!

[wholesale_Melvin]

5 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

You mean the BBCish sci fi with an absurd rape fetish?  That Outlander?  Most ridiculous show i've ever seen.  KLAAR.  HE MADE LUV TO ME KLAAR!!  IN THE DUNJON, OHHH THE BUGGERY KLAAR!!!

wth hell happened to you when you visited penhurst ????

[dawkins4prez]

7 minutes ago, wholesale_Melvin said:

wth hell happened to you when you visited penhurst ????

I'm wrong?  They do more rapes per season than GoT and you could do a drinking game on the times they mention BUGGERY!!!  that scene at the end of S.1 where the dude gets "made love to' by candlelight...in a dungeon...with a dead dude 6 feet away....good lord, its a lot to unpack.

[VaBeach_Eagle]

9 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

You mean the BBCish sci fi with an absurd rape fetish?  That Outlander?  Most ridiculous show i've ever seen.  KLAAR.  HE MADE LUV TO ME KLAAR!!  IN THE DUNJON, OHHH THE BUGGERY KLAAR!!!

The rapes and graphic sex scenes can be a bit much for a TV show but they've toned that down a bit now that they're into the American Revolution era. Set all of that aside though, and I think it's a good show. It's lasted 7 seasons and has already been picked up for it's 8th and final season. So like it or dislike it, it's been a commercial success. 

To each their own, though. 

[dawkins4prez]

1 minute ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

The rapes and graphic sex scenes can be a bit much for a TV show but they've toned that down a bit now that they're into the American Revolution era. Set all of that aside though, and I think it's a good show. It's lasted 7 seasons and has already been picked up for it's 8th and final season. So like it or dislike it, it's been a commercial success. 

To each their own, though. 

Yeah strip all that saucy titillating rape away and you have pretty engaging historical show about an irish country boy from the 18th century who acts like he's from the 1940's and a chick from the 1940's who acts like she's from the 90's.  I agree that despite all that it's oddly addictive, I did get about mid way through s.2 before finally dumping it.

[VaBeach_Eagle]

8 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

They do more rapes per season than GoT

That's one of the biggest complaints that I've read about the show, and those complaints come from fans of the show.

Maybe they (the producers) wanted all of that to set the stage for the story, maybe that's a close to accurate depiction of life in the 18th century (thought I doubt it was that prevalent), but it could have (and I believe should have) been more implied rather than graphically shown. Especially the bit at the end of the first season. The graphic display wasn't necessary at all.

Here's a bit from an article about that topic:

Quote

What I find frustrating is not necessarily this particular instance of sexual violence in the show, but the entire franchise’s over reliance on rape as a plot device.

For those unfamiliar with the series, here’s a breakdown of major incidents of sexual violence in the show by season (or at least the incidents I can remember off the top of my head):

Season 1: Claire is nearly raped by Black Jack immediately upon travelling back in time. Jamie’s sister, Jenny, is attacked by Black Jack. Claire is nearly raped again by Black Jack after being taken prisoner at Fort William. Jamie beats Claire for disobeying his orders (not explicitly sexual violence per say but very shady). Claire is nearly raped by a English soldier deserter in the glade. Jamie is brutally, repeatedly raped by Black Jack in Wentworth Prison.

Season 2: Fergus is sexually abused by Black Jack Randall. Mary Hawkins is raped. Claire is forced to have sex with King Louis XV as a condition of Jaime’s release from prison.

Season 3: Jamie is blackmailed into sex by Geneva Dunsany. A British exciseman attempts to rape Claire after she travels back in time again. Young Ian is raped by Geillis Duncan.

Season 4: Brianna is raped by Stephen Bonnet.

Season 5: Claire is gang raped by Lionel Brown and his men.

https://medium.com/@brookefortune/on-outlander-and-sexual-assault-49cfc5fbe9bc

So while I disagree with you about your overall assessment of the show, I completely agree with you about the use of Rape as an over used story device. 

Look at the above list. Claire, Jamie, Jenny, Brianna, Young Ian and Fergus are all from the same family (Fergus was kind of informally adopted by Jamie and Claire in France, so I count him as part of their family). You could also count Mary Hawkins as part of Claire's future (in-law) family, as she's an ancestor of her future husband, as is Black Jack Randall.

But just focusing on the other six characters, that's six people from the same family all raped over the course of 5 seasons. To say that that's excessive would be an understatement. 

I don't know if there's that many sexual assaults in the books or not, but to use it THAT many times in the TV show, I think does show a bit of laziness on the part of the writers. Writers should be able to create villains in other ways and not rely so heavily on rape. 

As for the use/mention of 'buggery', there was a good bit of that in GoT, too. lol

[dawkins4prez]

26 minutes ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

That's one of the biggest complaints that I've read about the show, and those complaints come from fans of the show.

Maybe they (the producers) wanted all of that to set the stage for the story, maybe that's a close to accurate depiction of life in the 18th century (thought I doubt it was that prevalent), but it could have (and I believe should have) been more implied rather than graphically shown. Especially the bit at the end of the first season. The graphic display wasn't necessary at all.

Here's a bit from an article about that topic:

So while I disagree with you about your overall assessment of the show, I completely agree with you about the use of Rape as an over used story device. 

Look at the above list. Claire, Jamie, Jenny, Brianna, Young Ian and Fergus are all from the same family (Fergus was kind of informally adopted by Jamie and Claire in France, so I count him as part of their family). You could also count Mary Hawkins as part of Claire's future (in-law) family, as she's an ancestor of her future husband, as is Black Jack Randall.

But just focusing on the other six characters, that's six people from the same family all raped over the course of 5 seasons. To say that that's excessive would be an understatement. 

I don't know if there's that many sexual assaults in the books or not, but to use it THAT many times in the TV show, I think does show a bit of laziness on the part of the writers. Writers should be able to create villains in other ways and not rely so heavily on rape. 

As for the use/mention of 'buggery', there was a good bit of that in GoT, too. lol

 My drinking game for GoT was hoors & Dwarves.  Either word was a shot.

 

But agreed the repeated use of rape as plot device on a show that appears geared towards housewives is what's so jarring.  In GoT the raping was more of a setting tone setter in a show geared for manchilds, in Outlander there never seemed to be a point in the show where there wasn't story arc around somebody getting raped and its aftermath.

[VaBeach_Eagle]

22 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

Yeah strip all that saucy titillating rape away and you have pretty engaging historical show about an irish country boy from the 18th century who acts like he's from the 1940's and a chick from the 1940's who acts like she's from the 90's.  I agree that despite all that it's oddly addictive, I did get about mid way through s.2 before finally dumping it.

Like you said, it's a sci-fi show about time travel mixed with real history and some fictionalized 'real' history. For any non-documentary entertainment, you have to turn off those deeply analytical parts of your brain and logic, so that you can either enjoy, or not enjoy what you're watching.  

For instance (put into a spoiler in case you've never seen Breaking Bad):

Spoiler

Imagine a respectable family man/High School chemistry teacher (whose brother-in-law is semi-high up in the DEA) being diagnosed with terminal lung cancer and over the course of the next 24 months he undergoes chemo and a pneumonectomy (removal of one lung) all while becoming the greatest meth cook in history.

Along the way he's both directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of between 200 to 300 people all while amassing somewhere in the neighborhood of $80 Million while also decimating a large branch of the Mexican drug Cartel... AND killing a beloved local fast food franchise owner in the process. 

Now granted, that's far more plausible than traveling back in time from 1945 to 1743, but it still requires turning off 'logic' for 45 minutes per episode if you want to enjoy what you're watching lol. 

[wholesale_Melvin]

dawk4, were you this enraged about 50 shades of grey ?

[dawkins4prez]

5 hours ago, wholesale_Melvin said:

dawk4, were you this enraged about 50 shades of grey ?

Offended by strong sexual content?  You're funny.  No, Outlander is just super awkward and bad strong sexual content.  Like half a season of some 18th century Irish dude processing his butt rape and simultaneously juggling the concept of Time Travel and fanning the flames of the French Revolution is like I said.... a lot.

[VaBeach_Eagle]

2 hours ago, dawkins4prez said:

Offended by strong sexual content?  You're funny.  No, Outlander is just super awkward and bad strong sexual content.  Like half a season of some 18th century Irish dude processing his butt rape and simultaneously juggling the concept of Time Travel and fanning the flames of the French Revolution is like I said.... a lot.

Small point of correction... he's Scottish, not Irish. 

Keep in mind that the male rape stuff was at the end of the first season. They're currently in the 7th season and are currently fighting in the American Revolution. So overall, that male rape was just a small part of the overall story. But as I said above, there's multiple more rapes to come, which really weren't needed in the series. 

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm taking care of my 87 years old mother (she's had multiple strokes and has lung cancer). I try to find things for her to watch that she'll enjoy. I knew that she'd like Outlander, but at the first hint of nudity/sex, she'd lose all interest. So I got all of the episodes and went episode by episode and edited out all of the nudity/sex scenes. I left enough of those scenes in that you knew what was going to happen, but it happened 'off screen'. By doing that, she loved the series. One episode in season 5 was way too violent and I knew she'd hate it. So I explained to her what happens in the episode and just skipped to the end where some important things happen.

If you liked the overall concept for the series, I'd suggest that you should go back to it, maybe starting at when they get back to Scotland around the middle of season 2 (episode 6 or 7, I forget exactly).  Set aside the male rape stuff and let if fade away. They spend time in season 2 for him to deal with the trauma, but they eventually let it go.

There's some pretty good stories after they leave France, but that is only IF you like the overall concept. If you don't, then going back to it would be pointless. 

[wholesale_Melvin]

8 hours ago, dawkins4prez said:

Offended by strong sexual content?  You're funny.  No, Outlander is just super awkward and bad strong sexual content.  Like half a season of some 18th century Irish dude processing his butt rape and simultaneously juggling the concept of Time Travel and fanning the flames of the French Revolution is like I said.... a lot.

solution: 

highly advised you don't read the end of It . 

[dawkins4prez]

6 hours ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

Small point of correction... he's Scottish, not Irish. 

Keep in mind that the male rape stuff was at the end of the first season. They're currently in the 7th season and are currently fighting in the American Revolution. So overall, that male rape was just a small part of the overall story. But as I said above, there's multiple more rapes to come, which really weren't needed in the series. 

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm taking care of my 87 years old mother (she's had multiple strokes and has lung cancer). I try to find things for her to watch that she'll enjoy. I knew that she'd like Outlander, but at the first hint of nudity/sex, she'd lose all interest. So I got all of the episodes and went episode by episode and edited out all of the nudity/sex scenes. I left enough of those scenes in that you knew what was going to happen, but it happened 'off screen'. By doing that, she loved the series. One episode in season 5 was way too violent and I knew she'd hate it. So I explained to her what happens in the episode and just skipped to the end where some important things happen.

If you liked the overall concept for the series, I'd suggest that you should go back to it, maybe starting at when they get back to Scotland around the middle of season 2 (episode 6 or 7, I forget exactly).  Set aside the male rape stuff and let if fade away. They spend time in season 2 for him to deal with the trauma, but they eventually let it go.

There's some pretty good stories after they leave France, but that is only IF you like the overall concept. If you don't, then going back to it would be pointless. 

Nah it was way more than that one scene.  The recurring rapey plot devices were bizarre but the script itself got incrementally silly.  Claire curing everything under the sun with alt medicine, the France plot that even the show's biggest fans hated, anachronisms galore,   It's a silly show, but hey my mom loves it and that's great of you to do that for yours.

[VaBeach_Eagle]

5 hours ago, dawkins4prez said:

... It's a silly show, but hey my mom loves it and that's great of you to do that for yours.

I tried to do the same with Game of Thrones, but accidentally missed a sex scene in episode 1 and she didn't want to see any more after that. If Lung Cancer wasn't a focus in Breaking Bad, I'd see if she'd like it, too. But her having lung cancer, I don't think she'd want to see it. 

[homerpat]

There’s an Outlander thread somewhere