my only dig with this was the decision to make him look like he's been forgoing baths during his 300 year absence, when he shows up in the book he's so unlike the reader's expectations (essentially this depiction is how he's *set up* to appear) that its a neat bait-and-switch
Yeah, me too, but I think that's the whole point, he's supposed to be a very mysterious figure and giving more details about him would decrease his shadowy aura.
I don't want to know his full backstory but if there was a book filled with short stories about the legends of John Uskglass, AKA The Raven King, I would be so happy. I suppose something like "A Child's History of the Raven King"
Some info. Uskglass is Brythonic (pre-Saxon Briton) for river blue. Not much, a humble name of the land, something a slave would have. He ruled the Old North, Hen Oggledd. It seems he mastered and manipulated his way to dominating fairies via mastering madness itself. However, the games he plays with his fairy adversaries are probably long and elaborate. The book covers just a small fraction, a vertical thin slice of what an average day is like with him.
Your imagination is limitless compared to the pages of a book! You decide what adventures he took and what mischief he created by changing the words on the Charlatan's body 😊❤
@@bookofspirit And Lascelles doesn't turn to crumbly china. The book was also better at making it clear that Strange was absolutely romantically and sexually interested in Miss Greysteel - the young woman in Venice. So when Strange first comes to Lost Hope and sees Arabella, Lady Pole really skewers him. She says, "did you come to save Arabella", and he is forced to admit "no". He was doing nothing about what had been done to Arabella and had completely moved on.
@@greenman6141 to be fair, he wasn’t there to save Arabella because he had no idea she was there or alive. He had mourned her for months at that point. Lady Pole backed him into a corner with that question and wouldn’t even discuss how he could help her. I actually appreciated the change from the books where she was in on the plan, I feel like her having some agency and purpose while trapped in Lost Hope was a welcome change. I’ve read the book 11 times and don’t remember a single reference to him being sexually interested in Flora, though maybe the seeds of romance had been planted. He is much closer to Dr Greysteel, who mourns his madness and calls him a “dear friend”. Once he finds out his wife is alive, he goes all in to save her. I did much prefer Lacelles’ original fate. It was so fitting, death by hubris and his hatred of Childermass! However, the show didn’t have as much time or budget to enter a whole new setting like that. When it comes down to it, it didn’t really matter how he died, just that he did. I was bummed that they changed how Strange lures Drawlight into the tower of darkness- LOVE that scene in the book- but the sequence they came up with was still fun.
@@bookofspirit I liked a whole lot about the series. But books are always better. Well, no, that's not quite true. GOOD books are always better. They're works of art. One doesn't improve upon or even match a piece of real art by somehow re-doing it in another form. A painting of, say, Middlemarch. Or a film of The Wreck of the Medusa...or a Girl with a Pearl Earring. Infernal. Satanically stupid. But mediocre books are often rather improved by being turned into a good series or film. There's less to be lost, and lousy stuff can be cut. A good beach reading, doorstop novel with a rollicking plot can be great television. Take, say Stephen King and John Grisham, two prolific writers, whose works have often been adapted to film. I have absolutely nothing against the stuff they write, and, indeed, I rather like and admire them as people. They support themselves and their families by writing. Which I think is great. I would NEVER be able to do that. But neither really writes Literature. Nor do they pretend to - another thing which I like and admire about them. It means that their novels and short stories are often really good for turning into films or series. What is lost isn't too important. The prose for example. There isn't an important authorial style which is lost. That's one of the reasons that I always think it's funny when people turn Henry James novels into films. The point of James really ISN"T the plot. The plots are pretty much always the same: Money corrupts people.
![BnS 2.6 - Music [ The Raven King / 촉마왕 ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/au5rI2Pwhro/mqdefault.jpg)
my only dig with this was the decision to make him look like he's been forgoing baths during his 300 year absence, when he shows up in the book he's so unlike the reader's expectations (essentially this depiction is how he's *set up* to appear) that its a neat bait-and-switch
I would like to know so much more about Raven King
The book and the series gives us so little information
Yeah, me too, but I think that's the whole point, he's supposed to be a very mysterious figure and giving more details about him would decrease his shadowy aura.
Read the Ladies of Grace Adieu, same author. It doesn't give much more but it's something.
I don't want to know his full backstory but if there was a book filled with short stories about the legends of John Uskglass, AKA The Raven King, I would be so happy.
I suppose something like "A Child's History of the Raven King"
Some info.
Uskglass is Brythonic (pre-Saxon Briton) for river blue. Not much, a humble name of the land, something a slave would have. He ruled the Old North, Hen Oggledd. It seems he mastered and manipulated his way to dominating fairies via mastering madness itself. However, the games he plays with his fairy adversaries are probably long and elaborate. The book covers just a small fraction, a vertical thin slice of what an average day is like with him.
Your imagination is limitless compared to the pages of a book! You decide what adventures he took and what mischief he created by changing the words on the Charlatan's body 😊❤
So the girl from The Ring does have a brother.
And he's a badass
@@changer_of_ways_999 Totally.
That score tho
BRAN !
John Uskglass is my favourite character of the book.
They should have used the ending from the book.
It made sense, unlike the TV one. What a strange and stupid decision.
Yes. The Raven king does not appear in the library.
@@bookofspirit And Lascelles doesn't turn to crumbly china.
The book was also better at making it clear that Strange was absolutely romantically and sexually interested in Miss Greysteel - the young woman in Venice.
So when Strange first comes to Lost Hope and sees Arabella, Lady Pole really skewers him. She says, "did you come to save Arabella", and he is forced to admit "no".
He was doing nothing about what had been done to Arabella and had completely moved on.
@@greenman6141 to be fair, he wasn’t there to save Arabella because he had no idea she was there or alive. He had mourned her for months at that point. Lady Pole backed him into a corner with that question and wouldn’t even discuss how he could help her. I actually appreciated the change from the books where she was in on the plan, I feel like her having some agency and purpose while trapped in Lost Hope was a welcome change.
I’ve read the book 11 times and don’t remember a single reference to him being sexually interested in Flora, though maybe the seeds of romance had been planted. He is much closer to Dr Greysteel, who mourns his madness and calls him a “dear friend”.
Once he finds out his wife is alive, he goes all in to save her.
I did much prefer Lacelles’ original fate. It was so fitting, death by hubris and his hatred of Childermass! However, the show didn’t have as much time or budget to enter a whole new setting like that. When it comes down to it, it didn’t really matter how he died, just that he did.
I was bummed that they changed how Strange lures Drawlight into the tower of darkness- LOVE that scene in the book- but the sequence they came up with was still fun.
@@greenman6141 True.
Though this adaptation is much appreciated, the book had an intrinsic charm to it!
@@bookofspirit I liked a whole lot about the series. But books are always better.
Well, no, that's not quite true. GOOD books are always better. They're works of art. One doesn't improve upon or even match a piece of real art by somehow re-doing it in another form. A painting of, say, Middlemarch. Or a film of The Wreck of the Medusa...or a Girl with a Pearl Earring.
Infernal. Satanically stupid.
But mediocre books are often rather improved by being turned into a good series or film. There's less to be lost, and lousy stuff can be cut. A good beach reading, doorstop novel with a rollicking plot can be great television.
Take, say Stephen King and John Grisham, two prolific writers, whose works have often been adapted to film. I have absolutely nothing against the stuff they write, and, indeed, I rather like and admire them as people. They support themselves and their families by writing. Which I think is great. I would NEVER be able to do that.
But neither really writes Literature. Nor do they pretend to - another thing which I like and admire about them.
It means that their novels and short stories are often really good for turning into films or series. What is lost isn't too important. The prose for example. There isn't an important authorial style which is lost.
That's one of the reasons that I always think it's funny when people turn Henry James novels into films. The point of James really ISN"T the plot. The plots are pretty much always the same: Money corrupts people.
Raven King look a like Peter Steele from Type O negative