"he declaims well"

All of Brooks' writing is like this. He constantly tells rather than shows, and once he finds a word he likes for a character, you're stuck with it. As a teenaged reader, I had never heard the word "rawboned" (haha) before, but I learned to hate it really quickly.

Yeah, I like Allanon, but aside from some fightin' bits, he's a straight-up quest-giver with the added bonus of being kind of a dick.

I started with the Scions of Shannara tetralogy because I did not know the others existed - just liked the cover art - then backtracked. I'm also curious how they'll handle the big generational gaps between each story, although the very likely answer is "they won't."

I've read all the books (for some reason), and so I watched it, mostly - found it a little hard to maintain attention - and I thank you for pulling out the word "pretty" to sum up what I liked least. This show makes CW shows look weathered and beaten; I'm fine with taking a "hasn't got shit all over him" approach to…

You're so right with #1. I read it before Lord of the Rings and thought it was pretty good; years later, I re-read it after LotR and wondered how he didn't get called on this pseudo-plagiarising bullshit (according to a quick search of reviews online, HE DID NOT.).

You. I agree with YOU.

I'd say DC makes the better (non-Netflix) TV, but I don't see "movies for grown-ups" so much as "Movies for people who think 'adult content' means brooding and shadows."

It means it's going to look even lamer in comparison to Deadpool.

"Sir, this is a SOX Appeal. SOX."

Y'know, reading your comment, it occurs to me that I'd love to have seen them take a risk with a quieter take on Joker. I don't mean like a normal guy, but instead of trying to distance themselves on Ledger (admittedly a quiet turn itself) by turning it up to 11, it'd have been interesting to see a Joker whose very…

I think the talent is decent overall, there just doesn't seem to be that much of it. But yeah, we'll probably never see a level like those three (who also had the advantage of being contemporaries of Stewart) again.

No disagreement here. I don't even think those interviews are bad, they're just not terribly compelling to me.

Same here. Most actors and musicians, I don't care so much about what they're selling, and on The Daily Show that's the area where Trevor most shows his inexperience as an interviewer. Oddly, he does pretty well with journalists and politicians ("Some day, I will meet someone from Soweto, and I will give this to him"…

He seems really big on "voice," and I think he's trying to get out of the way so more people can share theirs. I'm thinking of his Fresh Air interview, where he talked about when he finally nailed his own voice on the show and how it was the first time his post-show call to Jon Stewart went well. And I get that: He's…

Yeah, I suppose my logic was kind of "They are both roundtables," but Bill DOES have people on who make overtures to being funny. Too many of Larry's guests seem to be people who have opinions, but not really on the subject at hand.

I like Larry but can't stand the roundtable. He seems to be trying for a Bill Maher model, but the majority of his guests don't seem to have a lot to say beyond general jokiness (aside from the one expert he'll have on).

As long as it's still an iteration of "Dog on Fire," I'll allow it. But watch yourself, Daily Show.

I like him in the way I like thinking back to life in college. He was that harmless dipshit we all had who hung out on the quad and at parties with his acoustic guitar covering Dave Matthews until some girls came over.

My wife and I still reflexively respond to "What were you thinking?" with "I was thinking BOB MAHLEY!!" Which makes for some weird professional interactions.