Dragon Age: Origins PC Gamer preview out, tidbits...

[buccaroobonzai]

But most importantly, Tolkien's work carries little in terms of thought-provoking. Deep down, it's kind of like Geoff Johns' comics: Well-written and detailed, but still not truly high in artistic and philosophical value. You see, the whole thing that puts Avellone vastly above Tolkien is how masterful his writing in PS:T was in varying style, vividness of language, originality of content and most of all, the fact that PS:T is indeed though-provoking at every corner and almost like a unique spiritual journey for each player. Now, what are Tolkien's petty and simplistic metaphors and traditional plot compared to what Avellone has done is PS:T or KotOR2 where he deals with subjects and concepts far beyond those Tolkien ever touched upon, with superior finesse of writing and characterization?

There are several books studying the philosophy of The Lord of the Rings. Simplyfying Tolkien is a mistake,there are several dozen books researching his writing, one must take into account before making any informed intelligent and plausible opinions. It is too easy to form personal opinions like we all do on subjects without having adequate knowledge nor grasping the full scope of the work.

The Philosophy of Tolkien: The Worldview Behind The Lord of the Rings by Peter Kreeft
http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-To...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234447872&sr=8-2

Tolkien's Ordinary Virtues : Exploring the Spiritual Themes of the Lord of the Rings by Mark Eddy Smith
http://www.amazon.com/Tolkiens-Ordi...=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234447872&sr=8-3

Following Gandalf: Epic Battles and Moral Victory in The Lord of the Rings
by Matthew T. Dickerson
http://www.amazon.com/Following-Gan..._m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0G7XJTHVDXH0NZ2AEXEX

The Gospel According to Tolkien: Visions of the Kingdom in Middle-Earth (Paperback)
by Ralph Wood
http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-According-Tolkien-Visions-Middle-Earth/dp/0664226108/ref=pd_sim_b_4

The Lord of the Rings and Philosophy: One Book to Rule Them All (Popular Culture and Philosophy) by Gregory Bassham http://www.amazon.com/Lord-Rings-Ph...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234447872&sr=8-1

There are many more than these as well....

Chris Avellone is an excellent game writer, but that has nothing to with whether Tolkien is or not, and they cannot be compared on the same playing field. Tolkien's work and medium is far different the Avellone's,even though they may appear very similar.

 

[buccaroobonzai]

Instead of the whole fabricated "deep" meaning of nature, corruption and industrialization in LotR is actually nothing special nor truly deep. It's simply representation of Tolkien's conservative "good ol' days" world view. There is nothing that isn't uncommon with the Romantic movement that came before. The more interesting element to ponder would be the racist/alarmist subtext of LotR, seeing how all the evil in the world comes from consorting with the EVIL in the East, and how all EVIL cultures are variations of Russian, Middle-Eastern, and German peoples. There is no deep meaning behind his story of the corruption of Numenor or the fading of the world. Rather, it's just a reflection of his own Christian and conservative sensibilities. Claims of nature-love being an important part are also nothing but fabricated. You see, Tolkien's use of a river instead of great balls of magic energy is as simple as that such depiction of magic didn't truly exist before 20th century pop culture. What Tolkien did with elves was nothing less than create naturalist ubermenschen who fade away because of all the evil in the world, not some profound statement of love of nature. As for Tolkien being a deep meditation on difficulty of choice... HA! How is it difficult when it's straight out said that all evil is evil, simple as that, and trying to use it in any way will lead to shit going down? There never was any real pondering between alternative ways to deal with the Ring (beyond asking for others to bear it, who refuse easily), as it was always pointed out everywhere that evil is evil, good is good. It would have been far more interesting if Boromir would have taken the ring AND used it to save the day instead of the black and white "dilemmas" that otherwise happened. There never was any thought given to utilitarian propositions, as they were immediately knocked away by proclaiming the Ring pure evil that can only be destroyed, and how all actions that try to use evil for greater good ultimately lead to only evil. Tolkien's thoughts deal only in absolutes, there is no room for any thoughts to be pondered. There is only certainty that Tolkien's black and white is always certain.

You are stating your opinion as fact here. For anyone to take an opinion seriously you should at least have read the books that analyze the meaning and philosophy in them. Have you done the scholarly work to be able to form an intelligent opinion? If not your opinion is based mostly on what others have said, opions on Amazon, or magazine reviews, or gut instinct bwaha...Not very thoughtful. If you have done the scholarly research,more power to you,lets see you elaborate on why the works of all those books I mentioned are countered by your opinion.

Also, I have heard the same opinion by some people I know, that you mentioned, where Sauron's forces, and those under his banner from the east represented Slavic peoples and the forces of the West actually represented Germanic peoples. Though, this I heard was just opinions and I have not seen any published works to back that up. If there are any can you point us to them?

 

[Hümmelgümpf]

10 page limit reached. LOCKDOWN! :evil:

 

[kris]

For one thing, Tolkien's work is not truly original, as a lot of elements are directly lifted elsewhere as is.

It's a basic Heroic Journey + Epic Batal storyline where the heroes are so heroic that it's almost ridiculous and evil is the kind that's bastardly just for the sake of being a bastard.

seeing how all the evil in the world comes from consorting with the EVIL in the East, and how all EVIL cultures are variations of Russian, Middle-Eastern, and German peoples.

compared to almost every other fantasy we seen it is much more original.

That second part seems to imply you actually never read the books. Rohan if anything is more Nordic in origin and concept. You could even argue that they are cossacks. They are blonde aryan guys that came from the north, but are a horse people like many from the east. Gondor gives me more German vibes than anything. The only real connection you could find is how the people from the south resembles Arabs. Pretty natural that one.

 

[Brother None]

There are several books studying the philosophy of the Da Vince Code.

Ergo.

 

[Lesifoere]

There are several books studying the philosophy of the Da Vince Code.

Ergo.

There're also college courses devoted to Anne Rice, and many academic materials focused on analyzing Harry Potter.

 

[nomask7]

In the recent argument about the "Holocaust" history, no one managed to provide me or Squeeco with a single piece of evidence or convincing argument in support of the official victor's narrative of the "Holocaust":

that is pretty hard since you don't believe eye witnesses, have not seen the places in question and... Well I don't think you would admit they existed even if you stood in them while they were still used.

Sure there were camps, lots of them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Na ... tion_camps

There's just this funny detail that the vast majority of them were ordinary labour or concentration camps - not "death camps". According to the official Holocaust narrative (which keeps changing, thanks to "evil delusional deniers" whose revisionist arguments nevertheless force "real Holocaust experts" to revise the official story now and then), there were no "death camps" in German territory - only in Poland or some such former Soviet territory. Another funny detail is that in the Nuremberg Trials, Dachau - a camp situated in southern Germany - was established as a "death camp", whereas Wikipedia now informs us that, like other camps in Germany proper - it was a concentration camp, not an "extermination camp":

In total, over 200,000 prisoners from more than 30 countries were housed in Dachau of whom two-thirds were political prisoners and nearly one-third were Jews.[5] 25,613 prisoners are believed to have died in the camp and almost another 10,000 in its subcamps,[6] primarily from disease, malnutrition and suicide. In early 1945, there was a typhus epidemic in the camp followed by an evacuation, in which large numbers of the weaker prisoners died.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_concentration_camp

Oh gee, I wonder what happened to all those "eye witnesses" ... and what if, uh, what if the Auschwitz mythos is based on the accounts of similar "eye witnesses"?

Oh boy, I wonder whether the Soviets were ever tempted to use these camps for propaganda purposes, calling them "death camps" instead of concentration camps, and coming up with fantastic causes of death instead of ordinary ones like disease and malnutrition. I wonder whether Jews in the West ever took advantage of that. I also wonder whether the sudden criminalization of "Holocaust denial" in many European countries right after the fall of the Soviet Union had anything to do with the sudden influx of inconvenient evidence from old Soviet archives that were suddenly opened to historians.

And before you start with the "poor mistreated joos died anyway, whether from gas or disease" shtick, let me remind you that similar - if not greater - numbers would have died anyway had they stayed in the town factories or fought at the front along with other Germans.

 

[nomask7]

In before nomask starts spouting holocaust denial stupidity.

And it's stupidity because ... you've examined the arguments - as opposed to dutifully memorized a one-sided narrative and accepted it on fate?

In the recent argument about the "Holocaust" history, no one managed to provide me or Squeeco with a single piece of evidence or convincing argument in support of the official victor's narrative of the "Holocaust":

http://rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php ... sc&start=0

...whereas we provided plenty that contradicted it.

You're too delusional to be worth arguing with. Go jerk off to nazi propaganda, you stupid fuck.

You're unable to provide me with a single piece of evidence that hasn't already been discredited ages ago to support the veracity of your jooish fantasies - and I'm the delusional one. Yeah right!

 

[buccaroobonzai]

There are several books studying the philosophy of the Da Vince Code.

Ergo.

There're also college courses devoted to Anne Rice, and many academic materials focused on analyzing Harry Potter.

Haha, yes but the point is to actually read them so one can make informed comments and opinions instead of self-aggrandizing ones... :wink:

Wouldn't most people rather read the opinions of people who studied the works, spent months and years analyzing them, be they pro or con, instead of people who read through the books once quickly, then searched the internet for reviews that were congruent with their own?

 

[nomask7]

There, there, no need to get upset.

Now put on your tinfoil hat like a good nutter and go and take your dose of moron-feed from the cuntroversial bookshelves.

If you can't concede the fact that not everything taught in school is necessarily fact, you're the one who should be putting on his tinfoil hat. If you can concede it, then either shut the fuck up or examine the evidence, dumb herd animal fuck.

 

[Mareus]

I don't understand people who spit shit on Tolkien and his work. I agree there are many fantasy books which are both better written and deeper, but goddamn Tolkien is like a father of fantasy genre. He was the first to categorize the races. Yes there were fairy tales about elves and dwarves and trolls since forever, but Tolkien was the first to give them an identity, religion, culture and history. He took the the folk tales and fairy tales to a completely different level. He created new langauges which really have a grammar of it's own. Every name, every place, every word was put in his books for a reason. Even simple names like Bilbo Baggins, or Frodo, or Samwise are used to describe the characters. For example, Hobbit was derived from hole builder -> hole-built -> hobbit. That is genius right there! I need not even mention a completely new mythology and philosophy about the creation of the universe. The beginning of Silmarillion is one of the most beautiful creation myths ever written.

Now, I don't know about you guys, but for me Tolkien is a genius. Anyone can write a fantasy book nowdays, but back then his work was something that went beyond imagination and tales our grand fathers used to tell us as a bedtime story.

 

[Deleted Member 10432]

There, there, no need to get upset.

Now put on your tinfoil hat like a good nutter and go and take your dose of moron-feed from the cuntroversial bookshelves.

If you can't concede the fact that not everything taught in school is necessarily fact, you're the one who should be putting on his tinfoil hat. If you can concede it, then either shut the fuck up or examine the evidence, dumb herd animal fuck.

In point of fact, I made no claims either way, you moronic little twat, but since you bring it up, no - I'm no fan of idiotic, counterfactual gibberish taught in or out of schools. Which is why I have no time for glorious fuckwits like you.

dumb shit fuck cunt bollocks cunt herd fuck shit fuck.

 

[Smarts]

Now, you could instead tell me how noble Aragorn developed during his journey beyond "oh well, I'll be king"

When the story begins, Aragorn is looking towards being King, but is mostly Gandalf's servant. He's got no problem with this, but that's basically what he is - Gandalf decides on the best uses of his skills. He hunts Gollum on the wizard's say-so, he waits for and helps the Hobbits on the wizard's say-so. Like many people, he's come to see Gandalf as the fount of all wisdom.

This state of affairs continues, but when Gandalf is no longer in the party, Aragorn gets a sobering introduction to the world of leadership in tense corcumstances. He makes the decision to go with Frodo to Mordor, even though this would mean he would not be able to rally his people - because he's still trying to salvage Gandalf's plan. When the Fellowship breaks, though, so does Gandalf's plan - and he's free to think for himself. Putting aside everything, he does what he thinks is right - he goes after Merry and Pip.

From there, he starts to come out of Gandalf's shadow a bit and start asserting his own authority. He challenges the Rohirrim he meets on the way, and wins their respect. Even though he meets up with Gandalf again, things have changed - Aragorn has started to see himself as his own man, and he starts adding his own contributions to the grand strategy, doing things even Gandalf thought unwise or hadn't thought of at all, such as using the Palantir or summoning the Army of the Dead. At the Black Gate, everyone despairs when they hear of Frodo's fate, including Gandalf - everyone except Aragorn, who is determined to fight to the last no matter what.

So that's Aragorn's development - going from wizard's pupil to leader of men.

 

[Gragt]

[...] Tolkien is like a father of fantasy genre.

Fantasy kinda existed before but I see what you mean and I agree. The problem is that he is seen mostly as the exemple to follow if you do fantasy, while it should be more like the guy who started the trend, made it popular and whose mistakes should be avoided.

 

[Lesifoere]

but goddamn Tolkien is like a father of fantasy genre.

Nope. He just made it popular. There's plenty of fantasy that predated him by a long and mighty shot. And hey, they were better fantasy, too. Popular and most-copied doesn't automatically equal the best, you know. I'd sooner re-read A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court before LOTR any time. Titus Groan predated Lord of the Rings and is far, far more fascinating (if much denser).

He was the first to categorize the races. Yes there were fairy tales about elves and dwarves and trolls since forever, but Tolkien was the first to give them an identity, religion, culture and history

His trolls have a culture, religion and history beyond "they turn to stone in sunlight"?

Every name, every place, every word was put in his books for a reason. Even simple names like Bilbo Baggins, or Frodo, or Samwise are used to describe the characters.

I tend to find meaningful names that describe characters' traits and shit like that rather precious. I laugh at modern fantasy writers who do it; I laugh at teenybopper writers who do it, so I don't think of the practice that highly, in Tolkien or otherwise. Also, "Teleporno" is a hilarious name no matter how you look at it.

For example, Hobbit was derived from hole builder -> hole-built -> hobbit. That is genius right there!

No? One of his students just handed a paper that began something like "in a hole there lived a hobbit."

 

[Qwinn]

His trolls have a culture, religion and history beyond "they turn to stone in sunlight"?

Um, yes. They are to ents what orcs were to elves. Morgoth took ents and corrupted and twisted them into trolls. Are you sure you've actually read LotR? And you'll notice that in all the time since, I've not really seen trolls get much more developed than even that much, other than "they regenerate".

And talk about cherry picking, sheesh. I'm sure that if you told us what your utter favoritest fantasy novel was, I could find at least one race or subgroup in it that wasn't all that fleshed out.

And I'd consider A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court to be light science fiction more than fantasy lit.

Qwinn

EDIT: BTW, The Hobbit was published 9 years before the publication of Titus Groan.

 

[Smarts]

No? One of his students just handed a paper that began something like "in a hole there lived a hobbit."

Continuing the 'It's easy to check Wikipaedia before you post' angle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobbit

'However, Tolkien claims that he started writing The Hobbit after suddenly, without premeditation, writing on a blank piece of paper: "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit".'

(emphasis mine)

I can see where the confusion might have come from, as he wrote it on a blank piece of paper while marking exam papers. But still.

 

[Qwinn]

And in the "that doesn't really qualify as 'fantasy' either" category. From a review -favorable- toward Titus Groan:

Perhaps much of the reason that the Gormenghast Trilogy (up until a recent series of reprints and a TV miniseries revived interest in it) has been more obscure to today's fantasy readership than Tolkien is due to its unconventional narrative, plus its unrelenting darkness. In a genre that repeatedly delivers the message "Good Will Triumph Over Evil," this is a grim and grotesque tale indeed. There is nothing in Titus Groan in the way of a clear-cut hero, no brave Conan, no crafty Frodo out to save the world from the forces of evil, neatly encapsulated in the figure of a dark lord in his dark fortress or some similar silliness. In truth there are really no conventional "fantasy elements" in the tale at all, no magic, no elves or other mythic beasts; only the mythic setting earns the trilogy the label "fantasy" at all. Virtually all of the players in Titus Groan seem corrupted, drained of life and goodness in some way. In fact, Titus Groan can in many ways be seen not merely as a nightmarish fable, but as a sinister allegory of our own modern society.

I suspect -this- is the real problem some people have with Tolkien. They can't find any pleasure at all in tales of heroism or nobility. Those who bemoan LotR always seem to go for this kind of work instead. Only "sinister allegories of our own modern society", where pretty much everybody sucks, turns them on or seems "realistic" to them. It's the natural result of years of indoctrination in applied misanthropy.

Qwinn

 

[Lesifoere]

They are to ents what orcs were to elves. Morgoth took ents and corrupted and twisted them into trolls. Are you sure you've actually read LotR?

That's what you consider a culture, religion and history? You're easy to please.

And talk about cherry picking, sheesh. I'm sure that if you told us what your utter favoritest fantasy novel was, I could find at least one race or subgroup in it that wasn't all that fleshed out.

Dear Mareus was jumping up and down about the marvelous depth of culture, religion and history Tolkien apparently gives everything. Sorry, take it up with your fellow Tolkien fan being not too bright. My favoritest fantasy writers don't necessarily have extensive appendices written about every corner of Nowhere, Insignificant in their world (for that matter, neither does Tolkien), but then they don't need to. Most of them, if anything, seem to understand that their world-building notes and their narratives should be firmly separate.

And I'd consider A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court to be light science fiction more than fantasy lit.

"I was hit on the head and suddenly transported back through time" is... a very loose definition of science, even if the Boss introduces technology to Arthur's court. Also, protesting that the Gormenghast books are not fantasy because they don't have elves and magic is dumb: it takes place in a secondary world, as in a fictional setting. By default, that makes it fantasy, unless you want to stretch the definition of magical realism to include it (but even then, it'd be just that: a stretch).

I suspect -this- is the real problem some people have with Tolkien. They can't find any pleasure at all in tales of heroism or nobility. Those who bemoan LotR always seem to go for this kind of work instead. Only "sinister allegories of our own modern society", where pretty much everybody sucks, turns them on or seems "realistic" to them. It's the natural result of years of indoctrination in applied misanthropy.

Ah, I see. So people who don't like Bioware games must be indoctrinated misanthropes too, and so are people who think Paolini's Eragon is a piece of shit. It's not like those things have any other flaws; after all, they are also about heroism, nobility, and good triumphing over evil.

 

[Qwinn]

Alright then. Please, give us some examples of books that -do- make a point of celebrating heroism and nobility that you -don't- think are shit.

I'm gonna ask you to be honest here, even if it doesn't help your argument here. Would you say that novels you think are excellent and are "dark" and an "allegory of the evils of modern society" outnumber those that you think are excellent and -aren't- "dark" or politically correct social commentary? If they do, by what ratio? 5 to 1? 10 to 1? 100 to 1?

Cause, c'mon, seriously, you -explicitly- gave a lack of condemning Western Civilization as one of your main reasons for disliking Tolkien, remember? Too much respect for "dead white males" and all that?

Qwinn

 

[AlanC9]

My favoritest fantasy writers don't necessarily have extensive appendices written about every corner of Nowhere, Insignificant in their world (for that matter, neither does Tolkien), but then they don't need to.l.

Care to name a couple?

 

[Shannow]

My favoritest fantasy writers don't necessarily have extensive appendices written about every corner of Nowhere, Insignificant in their world (for that matter, neither does Tolkien), but then they don't need to.l.

Care to name a couple?

LOL, first they go with the old "You have to put 10 years of study into Tolkien. Simply reading his books is not enough to form an informed opinion." And now they try the old "You say that my favourite writer sucks? Well, your favourite writer sucks too. (Whats his name?)"

Not enough strawmen and ad hominem for my taste. Some more please. And more popcorn. This thread definately needs more popcorn.

 

[Wyrmlord]

For example, Hobbit was derived from hole builder -> hole-built -> hobbit. That is genius right there!

This is the key to understanding Mareus.

 

[Mareus]

but goddamn Tolkien is like a father of fantasy genre.

Nope. He just made it popular. There's plenty of fantasy that predated him by a long and mighty shot. And hey, they were better fantasy, too. Popular and most-copied doesn't automatically equal the best, you know. I'd sooner re-read A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court before LOTR any time. Titus Groan predated Lord of the Rings and is far, far more fascinating (if much denser).

And again another codexian which has a reading problem. I did write Tolkien was not the first, and now that you mention it neither were the books you mentioned, and those books could hardly be compared with Tolkien. In fact there was never a single writer in the world that did something completely original. I feel rather sad I have to explain that.

]He was the first to categorize the races. Yes there were fairy tales about elves and dwarves and trolls since forever, but Tolkien was the first to give them an identity, religion, culture and history.

His trolls have a culture, religion and history beyond "they turn to stone in sunlight"?

You obviously haven't read anything from Tolkien or otherwise you would know what I am talking about. Tolkien spent his entire life writing Silmarillion, and the lore in that book is just amazing. It's like Lotr bible, with it's own mythology and creation myths. And Tolkien WAS THE FIRST to try something like that so that makes it even more worthy of admiration. Of course he drew his inspiration from norse mythology and folk tales, etc. but he pushed fantasy to a completely different level.

Every name, every place, every word was put in his books for a reason. Even simple names like Bilbo Baggins, or Frodo, or Samwise are used to describe the characters.

I tend to find meaningful names that describe characters' traits and shit like that rather precious. I laugh at modern fantasy writers who do it; I laugh at teenybopper writers who do it, so I don't think of the practice that highly, in Tolkien or otherwise. Also, "Teleporno" is a hilarious name no matter how you look at it.

I agree a lot of fantasy writers just don't get it with the fantasy names, but Tolkien got it. It is sad you think names Tolkien used are laughable, because even our names in our world carry a certain meaning, so why would it be funny in a fantasy world?

For example, Hobbit was derived from hole builder -> hole-built -> hobbit. That is genius right there!

No? One of his students just handed a paper that began something like "in a hole there lived a hobbit."

Err... nope, Tolkien started writing Hobbit with those words on a blank piece of paper. Hobbit was derived from hole builder. Apperantly he got inspiration from some Babbit book, or something. I have read a book that explains the whole geneology of names and races Tolkien created, so shut the fuck up about things you obviously don't get.

 

[Lesifoere]

and those books could hardly be compared with Tolkien.

I shall relish using the same defense Tolkien fans have been abusing: that's your subjective opinion, not fact.

Tolkien spent his entire life writing Silmarillion, and the lore in that book is just amazing. It's like Lotr bible, with it's own mythology and creation myths.

See, there you go again: opinions. I'm afraid I've read LOTR and the Silm during my "well people drool over this so much, so there must be something decent in it" phase. Fact is, while I found the Silmarillion more interesting than LOTR, I still didn't think it awe-inspiring or exciting. When I started reading Germanic texts, I got even less impressed and more "wow, this was written centuries before but by fuck, Tolkien manages to be so much more boring, how does the man manage?"

It is sad you think names Tolkien used are laughable, because even our names in our world carry a certain meaning, so why would it be funny in a fantasy world?

"Teleporno." Sorry, no.