Rationalization said:
Bruin said:
Someone doesn't know how to read.
To make your universe believable, you need reasons and you need explanations at least. If you don't have that, it's assumed your world is earth-like. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
What the author of Ranger's Apprentice did was ignore the fact that by sheer strength alone, a grown man would overpower a boy in a fight. On top of that, you're talking about barbarians who make a living off of the swing of their swords and axes. People who know how to fight. Yet, apparently they're beaten by a bunch of kids.
Don't buy that.
"Misanthropy is a generalized dislike, distrust, disgust, contempt and hatred of the human species, "
Halt exhibits at least a few of those traits. Misanthropy is also something people consider cool these days as well. If not misanthropy, the author still went for "generic mysterious ranger" with Halt, which I think is even worse, as writing about true misanthropy can be entertaining at the least. But when the character that's said to be anti-social and feared by common people takes an annoying 14 year old as an apprentice I draw the line. Halt breaks his own character bounds and in short, it doesn't make fucking sense.
I can't argue about the 14 year old versus barbarian fight because I do not know the context nor the quote. Weapons, terrain, training, intelligence heightened by a fantasy universe can allow a very large margin of leeway.
Simple answer here is--Generally, a boy would not last long nor would probably succeed in a fight with men who kill for a living. Or a fucking werewolf knockoff.
Little background, Halt sacrifices a lot for the sake of a kingdom shockingly populated by people. Dislike? No, distrust? Of course, but then everyone is a misanthrope. Disgust? Nope. Contempt nor hatred. Unless Halt's misanthropy extends more to himself than the rest of humanity I would say still no. Misanthropy is cool to people? In any fantasy universe some like villains some like heroes. Misanthropy is no more cool now then it has ever been. Generic mysterious ranger, granted at the beginning of the series. But I could argue generic so and so about anybody of any book if I don't read enough.
I'll concede misanthropy to you--I was being lazy and didn't explain exactly what I meant and took the easy way out and used a word that covered most of the definition of Halt but not all. I apologize for not being spot on.
Misanthropy is cool now because kids nowadays seem to think anti-sociableness is cool. My personal belief is that this stems from House, being teenagers and modern music being all angsty and "So fucking angry about something but I don't know fucking what!!!". People jump on the bandwagon without actually knowing what they're doing. This goes for everybody. If somebody exhibits traits that are considered "cool" or somehow desirable, others will try to mimic those traits. It's why we have fads. Moreover, characters who exhibit anti-social traits that people today seem to see as cool or witty can generally be related with. But, like real people, those characters rarely suffer the drawbacks of true sociopathy or misanthropy. Mostly because they made it up.
Only, I did read the book enough. You could have taken the Ithilien rangers or Dunedain and they would appear the same as Flanagan's rangers. Except better shots and not as devoid of any actual character personality. The biggest difference between the Dunedain and the Rangers in Ranger's Apprentice is that when Tolkien made the rangers, they were something unique.
This isn't unique, this is something I've seen in twelve other fantasy books before--all of which had more interesting and more original traits to the rangers than this.
More background: Rangers are feared in general, Halt is a renowned ranger. Ranger's are also naturally anti-social as they have to be in the shadows, people know you too well and your advantage is lost. He takes the annoying kid because of his potential. I really think you have Halt made out to be someone completely different then he is.
A renowned ranger amongst rangers, if I can correct that. Saying he's a renowned ranger who is supposed to be quiet, sneaky and anti-social defeats the purpose.
Halt is just one example. I could rail on this story for ages if I really wanted to. Like how the army size and the amount of peasants in each fief doesn't make any goddamn sense. Or how the "Fifty Fiefs" is both unfeasible and not very probable. The only place anything like that occurred was in Germany, and there wasn't nearly as many fiefs. The landmass is a pretty big rip off of Europe. The creatures can all be found in Runescape under different names. The ranger horses remind me a lot of the Night's Watch horses in A Song of Ice and Fire (although that may just be an actual breed of horse). None of the characters fucking die. None of the characters except Horace, Will, Halt and the love interests have any personality or any unique characteristics. The names of the lands and regions are almost directly taken from the real world. And the one that irked me the most: Vikings did not wear horned helmets. Those were a Roman thing they did to make fun of the Vikings and portray them as stupid barbarians. Every time I see one I want to take it off the wearer's head and stomp it into the ground.
All these things aside, I would rather argue semantics and say that in your first post you would no longer talk about the book. Honestly argueing over taste of any medium is pointless in the end. No one is going to change their larger opinion of I like or dislike this.
In my first post I'm pretty much on topic. I wanted to know what he could have possibly seen as good in the Ranger's Apprentice series--with as much sugar-coated and candy-laced words as I could manage so I don't get banned from another forum for being argumentative.
But yes, I still agree with you. I do tend to spout off my beliefs rather loudly and take pleasure in locking horns with people who think differently. It's all part of the joust.
