|
|
Post by MaKS on Sept 3, 2006 10:41:40 GMT -5
It seems "stalker" and "pathfinder" were often thought as the same concept, if not (when translated) the same term at all...
|
|
|
|
Post by Pauk on Sept 3, 2006 10:52:08 GMT -5
Oh, my friend  He is STALKER. No evidence for any other names. Leather Stocking and all the other Indian names and insulting names Writer calls him: just Writer's style. Writer does not know Stalker, even Professor, who has had some conversations with him, knows him only as Stalker. Hau. |
|
|
|
Post by MaKS on Sept 3, 2006 10:58:47 GMT -5
Why, names themselves are excessive on the first place... When in need, take them all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pauk on Sept 3, 2006 11:09:08 GMT -5
Because when you take all, you take none.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Ferret on Sept 4, 2006 9:28:40 GMT -5
Because when you take all, you take none. When you take nothing, you can turn it into something. |
|
|
|
Post by The Ferret on Sept 13, 2006 15:47:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by MaKS on Sept 13, 2006 16:13:36 GMT -5
He was so popular, J. F. Cooper. He'd been in almost every home, together with Hemingway, Bulgakov, Dumas-pere and Lenin... Children was reading his books as alternative to hard sci-fi instead of western "fantasy", obviously inappropriate for a soviet citizen, man of bright future. ^^
|
|
|
|
Post by The Ferret on Sept 13, 2006 16:22:22 GMT -5
Why did the Writer pick this name to refer to the Stalker? Of course, our man bears many traits in common with the animal... but not with an Indian character... maybe because the Stalker plays the Indian one against the "cowboys" of the AT Police?
|
|
|
|
Post by MaKS on Sept 13, 2006 16:44:35 GMT -5
I tend to agree with Malishas here... It's a common place for the scriptwriters, the director, the viewers... for everyone. Writer just said they're like children playing indeans, without nothing real happening.
It's possible to interpret it this way: neither Chingachgook nor Leatherstocking are negative characters. Thay're good heroes of children books. It probably shows the Writer had no bad feelings towards Stalker, even when getting at him... The Writer always was angry mostly about himself , as it seems to me, not anybody else.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Ferret on Sept 13, 2006 19:15:35 GMT -5
It's possible to interpret it this way: neither Chingachgook nor Leatherstocking are negative characters. Thay're good heroes of children books. It probably shows the Writer had no bad feelings towards Stalker, even when getting at him... The Writer always was angry mostly about himself , as it seems to me, not anybody else. Great interpretation... I like this perspective the better. |
|
|
|
Post by Pauk on Sept 15, 2006 7:28:34 GMT -5
Writer uses these names right after the arrival ('I imagined him otherwise'). That's his romantic writer-like attitude, and the line between him and Professor is clear, when the latter tells Writer some of Stalker's biography facts - pure reality, pain and crime.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Ferret on Sept 16, 2006 13:51:59 GMT -5
Writer uses these names right after the arrival ('I imagined him otherwise'). That's his romantic writer-like attitude, and the line between him and Professor is clear, when the latter tells Writer some of Stalker's biography facts - pure reality, pain and crime. I understand this point of view, being an artist myself. |
|
He is STALKER. No evidence for any other names. Leather Stocking and all the other Indian names and insulting names Writer calls him: just Writer's style. Writer does not know Stalker, even Professor, who has had some conversations with him, knows him only as Stalker. Hau.
