This is quite a long message, so I'll get this out of the way at the start, in case you've lost interest by the end. Did you get the messages I sent about Facebook? If not, to cut a long story short I can't get a broadband package that is compatible with my computer - my operating system is too old. This means I'm going to have to get a new computer, which could obviously take a while. I'm not going to rush it, but I did say I'd get Facebook, and I will. So don't get angry at me for not having Facebook yet.
Creating a mythology was Tolkein's point too - the difference is that Tolkein knew what he was doing. You can create all the funny creatures and pseudo-Asian philosophies you like, but that doesn't lift Star Wars above the level of a childish action movie, and the reason is because the way it's told - the dialogue and the acting, which Zara thinks don't matter - is so bad the movies have no credibility. Tolkein's books were much better written, the films were better acted, and both were inspired by a much deeper knowledge of the sort of mythology they were trying to imitate.
The point is that you can compare Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, because they both fit into the quest/good v. evil category. They both aim to create an entire world, but Tolkein does it more fully than Lucas. Also, Lord of the Rings is three books/movies of pretty uniformly good quality, whereas Star Wars was three films that were sort of watchable, with a further three unwatchable ones added as an afterthought when he realised how profitable the whole thing was.
I didn't actually say happiness was overrated. If I did say anything like that, I'll revise it to 'happiness in movies and books is overrated'. Of course I don't think happiness itself is overrated, but the world is not a happy place, and a book that tries to represent it as such by depicting everything coming good in the end is not being truthful to this, I think. The fact is that the world is an overwhelmingly sad place, and that there are much more likely to be dilemmas and problems than happy resolutions.
I think we were arguing about the endings of the Odyssey and the Aeneid last Friday. The Odyssey gives a happy ending - Odysseus returns home to his loving wife, he kills a whole bunch of suitors, but never mind, there are no consequences for that, because the gods stop their relatives from taking revenge. I think this is a bad ending because it is grossly simplistic. By having the gods stop the relatives taking revenge, it implies (actually, it explicates) that Odysseus was in the right and perfectly justified in massacring the suitors, and that he should suffer no consequences for it. It's made worse by the fact that the ending is brought about so awkwardly and abruptly. The Odyssey probably could have been at least two books shorter.
The Aeneid's ending is a sad ending. Aeneas gets to Italy, his destined home, but nobody wants him there and they try to kick him out. Aeneas fights a war he doesn't want to fight, loses a number of friends, and in the end wins. But to do so he has to kill Turnus, who turns out to be a sympathetic, human character, despite being the bad guy for the last four books. The poem ends with Aeneas murdering someone he was going to save in a fit of rage, with a description of Turnus' soul descending to the underworld. It's sad because it dwells on themes of destruction, loss, responsibility and justification, and it doesn't offer any simple answer. The duel between Turnus and Aeneas is told like the duel between Hector and Achilles in the Iliad, only here Aeneas plays the part of Achilles. He becomes like the person who destroyed his home, and he fails to take pity on someone in the situation he was in. By leaving out the reconciliation that Homer had - the returning of the body, the funeral etc. - Vergil leaves us with the problem of the justification of the Roman mission and the destruction it causes both to Aeneas and to the people around him. Maybe it is sad, but life is sad, and at least it has the honesty not to whitewash the problem.
A happy ending in a comedy is OK, but Star Wars and the Odyssey aren't comedies. Even then, a touch of sadness does elevate the whole thing. The Marriage of Figaro ends happily, with the Countess forgiving the Count for being unfaithful. But the simple fact that he says 'forgive me' and she says 'I will' doesn't change the fact that she'd earlier been singing about how she knew that the Count didn't really love her anymore. In other words, it's obvious that life for them is going to go on much as it always has. It's a happy ending, and the opera certainly makes you happy in the end, but it comes quite close to being tragic, and I think that makes it a better piece.
I've probably said more than needed to be said. My opinion is just that if you're going to write a book (and what I've said really applies to books more than movies) that says something meaningful about the world in which we live, you can't pretend that everything ends happily, because it hardly ever does. I know not everyone reads books because they're profound, but if I want simple entertainment I watch TV. If I'm going to read a book I'd like it to be a good book.
Sorry, that went way too far.
You think watching Pat Rafter was better than watching Roger Federer? Federer is a much better player. I suppose watching Rafael Nadal would be good too, but he hasn't been to the Australian Open for a while has he? I certainly haven't seen him on TV.
As for nothing happening in cricket, that's the whole point. I don't watch sport because I'm genuinely interested. I watch it because I'm bored, or I want something to relax in front of. I want something that I don't have to pay full attention to, so I can read a book or flick between channels or whatever. I like the leisureliness of cricket; the slow pace is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. The reason I chose it as my summer sport was because it meant being able to sit under a tree at Kings or Riverview for half a day doing nothing. It's all very relaxed. A much more civilised way to play sport that working your arse off on a tennis court.
