Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

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

Lesifoere

Liturgist
Joined
Oct 26, 2007
Messages
4,071
Oh, in other word you're a gibbering fantard. Sorry, your opinion is subliterate and under-educated.

Really, can you understand that your opinion is not law, that you don't really sound particularly well-read, and it's possible for someone to dislike Tolkien without demanding that all fantasy be written in a "literal and specific" manner?
 

hiver

Guest
You can dislike Tolkien as many people do but saying he has no writing style at all and that his works are written badly is just stupid. As is your inability to understand simple things like me not being interested or inspired to give you any better answers then i did.

Frankly your posts dont require any because they come down as stating your opinion based on nothing as some sort of supreme fact.
 

Lesifoere

Liturgist
Joined
Oct 26, 2007
Messages
4,071
Okay, so you're to Tolkien what Volourn is to Bioware. Good to know.

hiver said:
Frankly your posts dont require any because they come down as stating your opinion based on nothing as some sort of supreme fact.

What, like--

His genius is not only evident in creating a believable world but also in his style of writing.

Tolkiens style of writing has that special very hard to reach simplicity of perfection. Ive never read any writers that can manage to paint a vivid picture of places, characters (yes characters!) and events as he can, in just a sentence or two.

(and yes i have read about his "opinions" of Tolkien which are superficial and misguided and simply wrong)

?
 

hiver

Guest
No, like:
There's none of that in Tolkien; he just churns out a lot of words, and it's funny that you insist he can "paint a vivid picture" in a sentence or two when he does anything but--he force-feeds pages of that stuff down the reader's throat. Oh sure, his prose is transparent as anything, but it's as dull, join-the-dot flat as they come. Simple style? He has no style.
:lol:
 

santino27

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
2,783
My team has the sexiest and deadliest waifus you can recruit.
Azrael the cat said:
- I'm sick to death of idiots trashing the witch / villagers choice because they were too clueless to work out everything that was going on. Yes the villagers are corrupt, sexist, racist etc. But the witch is a murdering, thieving, manipulative evil swine....or at least there is a lot of evidence that she might be - most of the humans' accusations about her are borne out if you find all the evidence during the chapter, and quite a bit of the stuff that the humans 'may' have done isn't clear. They're as evil as each other.

I agree with your point, but I thought the witch / villagers choice was lame for just that reason. Everyone sucked. Everyone was an asshole. Yeah... one option let me fuck the witch and get a card that looked absolutely nothing like her in game, but... so what?

I don't need or want anything to be black and white, but I don't much enjoy a world where pretty much EVERYTHING is black either.

To me, the neutral ending is the only sensible one if you have even half a brain... and even that is unsatisfying.

I was very disappointed by the game in general though, (much like KotoR2, which so many Codexers seem enamored with), so maybe it just wasn't for me.

Edit: Oh and now Lesifoere and hiver can go back to their positively enthralling 'debate.'
 

Lesifoere

Liturgist
Joined
Oct 26, 2007
Messages
4,071
I'm pretty sure you can have sex with Abigail but then side with the villagers anyway. Good times. And it's not as if you can't get your "there's always a choice to help the nicest people that ever were nice" jollies elsewhere--Bioware is beckoning; go suck its sexual organ of choice.
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
34,360
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Everything might've been black but there's still the choice of picking the lesser evil. Which of the two is the lesser evil, you ask? That's down to the perception of the player. Which is a good thing.
 

ArcturusXIV

Cipher
Joined
Mar 13, 2003
Messages
1,894
Location
Innsmouth
Okay, I've found some linkage for the errors in Tolkien's original printing of The Hobbit:

There were also some distinctive variations between the four. The first impression contained a number of errors, most notably on the rear flap of the dustjacket, where there is a handwritten correction to the mis-spelt ‘Dodgeson’. This was corrected for the second impression.

Tolkien bibliographer Wayne Hammond identified 16 typos within the text, including incorrect and missing letters, missing words and incorrect punctuation marks. Among the worst examples are ‘above stream’ instead of ‘above the stream’ on p210; ‘leas’ instead of ‘least’ on p216; ‘you imagination’ instead of ‘your imagination’ on p229 and ‘nay breakfast’ instead of ‘any breakfast’ on p248. Examples of punctuation errors include reversed double quotation marks on p183, and ‘dwarves good feeling’ instead of ‘dwarves’ good feeling’ on p205. These were all corrected in subsequent editions.

Taken from: http://www.abebooks.co.uk/docs/RareBooks/Hobbit.shtml

And I'm sorry about the use of the word linguist. Poor choice of words. Tolkien was great with creating his own languages, but I hardly see him as an artist in terms of prose. That is what I was trying to say. His prose is dull, flat, uninspired. You can read it as an epic, sure, and since Tolkien was influenced by everything from the Edda to Celtic folk tales, you wouldn't be far off. However, LOTR had a more personal feel to it than common mythology, and in that sense, it doesn't get the job done. Prose requires a real artist, someone who lovingly crafts words together to form a sting of orgasmic synergy. A real writer will use devices like assonance, rhyming, meter, to get the job done. It's not just a matter of transcribing a tale, it is a matter of making the delivery as beautiful as possible. Tolkien is flat in this regard. And I won't even mention some of the logical fallacies in his word, such as why they don't leave the ring with Tom near the beginning of the book. :)

Mieville is okay, but I'm not a huge fan, because he gets overly word. Not that being overly descriptive is a bad thing, but when you can eliminate two or more words from a sentence and achieve the same effect, that is the mark of a true writer... If you want to read some fantasy with amazing prose, I recommend Lord Dunsany. He can describe an entire world in just a few sentences, and breathe life into it seemingly without effort. Also, Mervyn Peake of Gormenghast fame was a MUCH better prose-artist than Tolkien, and was writing mostly around the same time, and in the same genre (though less magical and more gothic).
 

Radisshu

Prophet
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
5,623
AzraelCC said:
Quote:
Bah, high elves fail everywhere. Except in Eberron.

The Valenar are bad-ass motherfuckers who were former slaves of giants and are now a tribal society of warriors. Their main goal is to kick as much ass as possible to honor their ancestors.
The elves of Aerenal wants to conquer the world through necromancy. Living dead elves walk their Aztec-like cities.

Hah! What faggotry. Discusting shitty rippoffs of the real thing.

Ripoffs of what? The elves of LOTR or the original Celtic myths?


Original celtic myths? Moar liek norse.
 

ArcturusXIV

Cipher
Joined
Mar 13, 2003
Messages
1,894
Location
Innsmouth
Radisshu said:
AzraelCC said:
Quote:
Bah, high elves fail everywhere. Except in Eberron.

The Valenar are bad-ass motherfuckers who were former slaves of giants and are now a tribal society of warriors. Their main goal is to kick as much ass as possible to honor their ancestors.
The elves of Aerenal wants to conquer the world through necromancy. Living dead elves walk their Aztec-like cities.

Hah! What faggotry. Discusting shitty rippoffs of the real thing.

Ripoffs of what? The elves of LOTR or the original Celtic myths?


Original celtic myths? Moar liek norse.

Tolkien drew from a large number of sources. Yes, primarily Norse, but he also had a celtic influence with some of his character (Tom Bombadil or however the name is spelled for instance).
 

Radisshu

Prophet
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
5,623
ArcturusXIV said:
Radisshu said:
AzraelCC said:
Quote:
Bah, high elves fail everywhere. Except in Eberron.

The Valenar are bad-ass motherfuckers who were former slaves of giants and are now a tribal society of warriors. Their main goal is to kick as much ass as possible to honor their ancestors.
The elves of Aerenal wants to conquer the world through necromancy. Living dead elves walk their Aztec-like cities.

Hah! What faggotry. Discusting shitty rippoffs of the real thing.

Ripoffs of what? The elves of LOTR or the original Celtic myths?


Original celtic myths? Moar liek norse.

Tolkien drew from a large number of sources. Yes, primarily Norse, but he also had a celtic influence with some of his character (Tom Bombadil or however the name is spelled for instance).

Yes, but I was talking specifically about his elves.

Though the mytological norse elves are/were very different from what is considered elven today.
 

Vaarna_Aarne

Notorious Internet Vandal
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
34,585
Location
Cell S-004
MCA Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2
ArcturusXIV said:
Radisshu said:
AzraelCC said:
Quote:
Bah, high elves fail everywhere. Except in Eberron.

The Valenar are bad-ass motherfuckers who were former slaves of giants and are now a tribal society of warriors. Their main goal is to kick as much ass as possible to honor their ancestors.
The elves of Aerenal wants to conquer the world through necromancy. Living dead elves walk their Aztec-like cities.

Hah! What faggotry. Discusting shitty rippoffs of the real thing.

Ripoffs of what? The elves of LOTR or the original Celtic myths?


Original celtic myths? Moar liek norse.

Tolkien drew from a large number of sources. Yes, primarily Norse, but he also had a celtic influence with some of his character (Tom Bombadil or however the name is spelled for instance).
TOP%200%20kalevala.JPG
 

hiver

Guest
16 typos within the text
16 typos? Wow... thats unbelievable for a book of that size. And were those made by Tolkien himself or by editors who printed it or by people who helped him type it?
Anyway i never heard of a writer whos finished texts are completely free of any typos and a lot of them use help when they need to type their manuscripts.

His prose is dull, flat, uninspired.
His prose is clear, imaginative, original, elegant and graceful. An "old school" style if you will.

It's not just a matter of transcribing a tale, it is a matter of making the delivery as beautiful as possible.
Which Tolkien did in every sense.

Here is a couple of links where criticism of his writing style is done in a much better manner then some random forum wanker claiming "its shite! Its shalow buahaha!"
http://wormtalk.blogspot.com/2007/04/ho ... le-at.html

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/tolkien_st ... drout.html

And here is one from Ursula Leguin
Rhythmic Patterning in The Lord of the Rings
By Ursula K. LeGuin


Since I had three children, I've read Tolkien's trilogy aloud three times. It's a wonderful book to read aloud or (consensus by the children) listen to. Even when the sentences are long, their flow is perfectly clear, and follows the breath; punctuation comes just where you need to pause; the cadences are graceful and inevitable. Like Charles Dickens and Virginia Woolf, Tolkien must have heard what he wrote. The narrative prose of such novelists is like poetry in that it wants the living voice to speak it, to find its full beauty and power, its subtle music, its rhythmic vitality.

Woolf's vigorous, highly characteristic sentence-rhythms are purely and exclusively prose: I don't think she ever uses a regular beat. Dickens and Tolkien both occasionally drop into metrics. Dickens's prose in moments of high emotional intensity tends to become iambic, and can even be scanned: "It is a far, far better thing that I do/than I have ever done . . ." The hoity-toity may sneer, but this iambic beat is tremendously effective-particularly when the metric regularity goes unnoticed as such. If Dickens recognized it, it didn't bother him. Like most really great artists, he'd use any trick that worked.

Woolf and Dickens wrote no poetry. Tolkien wrote a great deal, mostly narratives and "lays," often in forms taken from the subjects of his scholarly interest. His verse often shows extraordinary intricacy of meter, alliteration, and rhyme, yet is easy and fluent, sometimes excessively so. His prose narratives are frequently interspersed with poems, and once at least in the trilogy he quietly slips from prose into verse without signaling it typographically. Tom Bombadil, in The Fellowship of the Ring, speaks metrically. His name is a drumbeat, and his meter is made up of free, galloping dactyls and trochees, with tremendous forward impetus: Tum tata Tum tata, Tum ta Tum ta . . . . "You let them out again, Old Man Willow! What be you a-thinking of? You should not be waking. Eat earth! Dig deep! Drink water! Go to sleep! Bombadil is talking!" Usually Tom's speech is printed without line breaks, so unwary or careless silent readers may miss the beat until they see it as verse--as song, actually, for when his speech is printed as verse Tom is singing.

As Tom is a cheerfully archetypal fellow, profoundly in touch with, indeed representing, the great, natural rhythms of day and night, season, growth and death, it's appropriate that he should talk in rhythm, that his speech should sing itself. And, rather charmingly, it's an infectious beat; it echoes in Goldberry's speech, and Frodo picks it up. "Goldberry!" he cries as they are leaving, "My fair lady, clad all in silver green! We have never said farewell to her, nor seen her since that evening!"

If there are other metric passages in the trilogy, I've missed them. The speech of the elves and noble folk such as Aragorn has a dignified, often stately gait, but not a regular stress beat. I suspected King Theoden of iambics, but he only drops into them occasionally, as all measured English speech does. The narrative moves in balanced cadences in passages of epic action, with a majestic sweep reminiscent of epic poetry, but it remains pure prose. Tolkien's ear was too good and too highly trained in prosody to let him drop into meter unknowingly.

Stress units-metric feet-are the smallest elements of rhythm in literature, and in prose probably the only quantifiable ones. A while ago I got interested in the ratio of stresses to syllables in prose, and did some counting.

In poetry, the normal ratio is about 50 percent: that is, by and large, in poetry, one syllable out of two has a beat on it: Tum ta Tum ta ta Tum Tum ta, etc .... In narrative, that ratio goes down to one beat in two to four: to Tum tatty Tum ta Tum tatatty, etc .... In discursive and technical writing, only every fourth or fifth syllable may get a beat; textbook prose tends to hobble along clogged by a superfluity of egregiously unnecessary and understressed polysyllables.

Tolkien's prose runs to the normal narrative ratio of one stress every two to four syllables. In passages of intense action and feeling the ratio gets pretty close to 50 percent, like poetry; but only Tom's speech can be scanned.

Stress beat in prose is fairly easy to identify and count, though I doubt any two readers of a prose passage would mark the stresses in exactly the same places. Other elements of rhythm in narrative are less physical and far more difficult to quantify, having to do not with an audible repetition, but with the pattern of the narrative itself. These elements are longer, larger, and very much more elusive.

Rhythm is repetition. Poetry can repeat anything-a stress-pattern, a phoneme, a rhyme, a word, a line, a stanza. Its formality gives it endless liberty to establish rhythmic structure.

What is repeatable in narrative prose? In oral narrative, which generally maintains many formal elements, rhythmic structure may be established by the repetition of certain key words, and by grouping events into similar, accumulative semi-repetitions: think of "The Three Bears" or the "Three Little Pigs." European story uses triads; Native American story is more likely to do things in fours. Each repetition both builds the foundation of the climatic event, and advances the story.

Story moves, and normally it moves forward. Silent reading doesn't need repetitive cues to keep the teller and the hearers oriented, and people can read much faster than they speak. So people accustomed to silent reading generally expect narrative to move along pretty steadily, without formalities and repetitions. Increasingly during the twentieth century readers have been encouraged to look at a story as a road we're driving, well paved and graded and without detours, on which we go as fast as we possibly can, with no changes of pace and certainly no stops, till we get to-well-to the end, and stop.

"There and Back Again": in Bilbo's title for The Hobbit, Tolkien has already told us the larger shape of his narrative, the direction of his road.

The rhythm that shapes and directs his narrative is noticeable, was noticeable to me, because it is very strong and very simple, as simple as a rhythm can be: two beats. Stress, release. Inbreath, outbreath. A heartbeat. A walking gait. But on so vast a scale, so capable of endlessly complex and subtle variation, that it carries the whole enormous narrative straight through from beginning to end, from There to Back Again, without faltering. The fact is, we walk from the Shire to the Mountain of Doom with Frodo and Sam. One, two, left, right, on foot, all the way. And back.

What are the elements that establish this long-distance walking pace? Which elements recur, are repeated with variations, to form the rhythms of prose? Those that I am aware of are: Words and phrases. Images. Actions. Moods. Themes.

Words and phrases, repeated, are easy to identify. But Tolkien is not, after all, telling his story aloud; writing prose for silent, and sophisticated, readers, he doesn't use key words and stock phrases as storytellers do. Such repetitions would be tedious and faux-naive. I have not located any "refrains" in the trilogy.

As for imagery, actions, moods, and themes, I find myself unable to separate them usefully. In a profoundly conceived, craftily written novel such as The Lord of the Rings, all these elements work together indissolubly, simultaneously. When I tried to analyze them out, I just unraveled the tapestry and was left with a lot of threads, but no picture. So I settled for bunching them all together. I noted every repetition of any image, action, mood, or theme, without trying to identify it as anything other than a repetition.

I was working from my impression that a dark event in the story was likely to be followed by a brighter one (or vice versa); that when the characters had exerted terrible effort, they then got to have a rest; that each action brought a reaction, never predictable in nature, because Tolkien's imagination is inexhaustible, but more or less predictable in kind, like day following night, and winter after fall.

This "trochaie" alternation of stress and relief is of course a basic device of narrative, from folk tales to War and Peace; but Tolkien's reliance on it is striking. It is one of the things that makes his narrative technique unusual for the mid-twentieth century. Unrelieved psychological or emotional stress or tension, and a narrative pace racing without a break from start to climax, characterize much of the fiction of the time. To readers with such expectations, Tolkien's plodding stress/relief pattern seemed, and seems, simplistic, primitive. To others, it may seem a remarkably simple, subtle technique of keeping the reader going on a long and ceaselessly rewarding journey.

I wanted to see if I could locate the devices by which Tolkien establishes this master rhythm in the trilogy; but the idea of working with the whole immense saga was terrifying. Perhaps some day I or a braver reader can identify the larger patterns of repetition and alternation throughout the narrative. I narrowed my scope to one chapter, the eighth of Volume I, "Fog on the Barrow Downs": some fourteen pages, chosen almost arbitrarily. I did want there to be some traveling in the selection, journey being such a large component of the story. I went through the chapter noting every major image, event, and feeling-tone, in particular noting recurrences or strong similarity of words, phrases, scenes, actions, feelings, and images. Very soon, sooner than I expected, repetitions began to emerge, including a positive/negative binary pattern of alternation or reversal.

A real writer will use devices like assonance, rhyming, meter, to get the job done.
And that doesnt guarantee anything. A work written with all of those can be pure shit in the end.
And Tolkien chose his writing style to be what it is intentionally.

And I won't even mention some of the logical fallacies in his word, such as why they don't leave the ring with Tom near the beginning of the book. Smile
If those examples will be like this one then its better if you dont.
Im surprised you mention this one as it was explained by Tom himself and during the council where others had that same idea.
But even if you hand wave all of that away for some reason there is still the fact that strength of Sauron is simply to great for combined forces of all humans and all elves and dwarfs remaining in the Middle Earth and that destroying the Ring is the only way of defeating him.

Giving the Ring to Tom Bombadil would be the stupidest thing you can do since then Sauron can conquer Gondor at leisure, destroy the rest of humans, elves and dwarfs one at the time and then attack Tom with all his power and all armies. Or just go against him immediately since no one will bother with protecting Tom and helping him except few elves, maybe.
 

Serus

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
6,945
Location
Small but great planet of Potatohole
ArcturusXIV said:
Okay, I've found some linkage for the errors in Tolkien's original printing of The Hobbit:

There were also some distinctive variations between the four. The first impression contained a number of errors, most notably on the rear flap of the dustjacket, where there is a handwritten correction to the mis-spelt ‘Dodgeson’. This was corrected for the second impression.

Tolkien bibliographer Wayne Hammond identified 16 typos within the text, including incorrect and missing letters, missing words and incorrect punctuation marks. Among the worst examples are ‘above stream’ instead of ‘above the stream’ on p210; ‘leas’ instead of ‘least’ on p216; ‘you imagination’ instead of ‘your imagination’ on p229 and ‘nay breakfast’ instead of ‘any breakfast’ on p248. Examples of punctuation errors include reversed double quotation marks on p183, and ‘dwarves good feeling’ instead of ‘dwarves’ good feeling’ on p205. These were all corrected in subsequent editions.

Taken from: http://www.abebooks.co.uk/docs/RareBooks/Hobbit.shtml

And I'm sorry about the use of the word linguist. Poor choice of words. Tolkien was great with creating his own languages, but I hardly see him as an artist in terms of prose. That is what I was trying to say. His prose is dull, flat, uninspired. You can read it as an epic, sure, and since Tolkien was influenced by everything from the Edda to Celtic folk tales, you wouldn't be far off. However, LOTR had a more personal feel to it than common mythology, and in that sense, it doesn't get the job done. Prose requires a real artist, someone who lovingly crafts words together to form a sting of orgasmic synergy. A real writer will use devices like assonance, rhyming, meter, to get the job done. It's not just a matter of transcribing a tale, it is a matter of making the delivery as beautiful as possible. Tolkien is flat in this regard. And I won't even mention some of the logical fallacies in his word, such as why they don't leave the ring with Tom near the beginning of the book. :)

Mieville is okay, but I'm not a huge fan, because he gets overly word. Not that being overly descriptive is a bad thing, but when you can eliminate two or more words from a sentence and achieve the same effect, that is the mark of a true writer... If you want to read some fantasy with amazing prose, I recommend Lord Dunsany. He can describe an entire world in just a few sentences, and breathe life into it seemingly without effort. Also, Mervyn Peake of Gormenghast fame was a MUCH better prose-artist than Tolkien, and was writing mostly around the same time, and in the same genre (though less magical and more gothic).

You are joking, right ?
"16 typos", ""leas" instead of "least"" - teh horror ! Tolkien was obviously iliterate because he made 16 fucking TYPOS !
 

Lesifoere

Liturgist
Joined
Oct 26, 2007
Messages
4,071
Wormtalk and Slugspeak said:
My point was to illustrate that people of good will can disagree about the specific merits of the individual passages and that this disagreement demonstrates that... 2) those who like Tolkien do not mindlessly defend his every aesthetic choice (as do, by the way, many critics of the "greats," who will explain away even a typographical error as a point of genius; see my "spoiled eel" post), but actually practice analysis and criticism.

Irony, hiver. Irony.
 

Infernaeus

Novice
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
31
Location
Zanzibar Land
Lesifoere said:
Irony, hiver. Irony.

Though a lot of this is going to come down to personal preference, he rebutted you quite well. I see you are conveniently ignoring everything but your little bit of insight there.

EDIT: I can see why though. All that this is:

Tolkien is boring and sucks!
No he is a good writer and crafts good prose!
No he doesn't, I hate his writing style!
Oh yeah well I love it!

EDIT2:

And I won't even mention some of the logical fallacies in his word, such as why they don't leave the ring with Tom near the beginning of the book. Smile

Are you serious? You didn't even properly use the word fallacy and you call someone else poorly-read? Nevermind that statement being the product of ignorance of Tolkien's lore. I wouldn't even fault you for the last one had you not just opened the door like that and said "Look at me! I say things without proper knowledge of what I am talking about!"
 

hiver

Guest
Fuck...You wouldnt know irony if it was an elephant that fell on you.
You didnt show one single analysis or argumentative criticism of any single piece of LOTR merely stated your very stupid opinions as fact .
-edit- there was no need for me to defend anything so far except to call you stupid because of it.

For some sort of literally fascist you really fail at making even the simplest strawmans.
 

Lesifoere

Liturgist
Joined
Oct 26, 2007
Messages
4,071
hiver said:
Fuck...You wouldnt know irony if it was an elephant that fell on you.
You didnt show one single analysis or argumentative criticism of any single piece of LOTR merely stated your very stupid opinions as fact.

Why should I? Your posts boil down to screeching "TOLKIEN IS GOD BLARG BLAGRSGHSH" repeatedly like a little child whose mommy just pulled her nipple away. When you are ready to defend Tolkien like an adult, then I'll be happy to oblige in kind (and please, do it with your own words, not leaning on the crutches of people much more learned and better-read than you are--all it really does it show how little you're able to come up with anything but expletive-laden stupidity). Until then, it's like trying to have reasonable discourse with Volourn: pointless, and not something I'm keen to waste time on.

For some sort of literal fascist you really fail at making even the simplest strawmans.

Do you, ah, know what a straw man is?

By the way, the word you're looking for is "literary", not "literal." They're two distinctly different things.
 

Gragt

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
1,864,860
Location
Dans Ton Cul
Serpent in the Staglands Divinity: Original Sin
So what? Another one contesting that Tolkien's writing is byzantine and that Middle Earth is full of deus ex machinae waiting to be sprung by the bland protagonists? What else is new?
 

Infernaeus

Novice
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
31
Location
Zanzibar Land
Lesifoere said:
Why should I? Your posts boil down to screeching "TOLKIEN IS GOD BLARG BLAGRSGHSH" repeatedly like a little child whose mommy just pulled her nipple away. When you are ready to defend Tolkien like an adult, then I'll be happy to oblige in kind (and please, do it with your own words, not leaning on the crutches of people much more learned and better-read than you are--all it really does it show how little you're able to come up with anything but expletive-laden stupidity). Until then, it's like trying to have reasonable discourse with Volourn: pointless, and not something I'm keen to waste time on.

All of your posts have boiled down to screeching "TOLKIEN IS BLAND AND WORDY AND HIS PROSE IS AWFUL HE IS OVERRATED AND SHIT" repeatedly like someone who is very angry with a long-dead writer. When you are ready to attack Tolkien like an adult, then perhaps this conversation can evolve beyond these sad little exchanges of foolishness.

Do you, ah, know what a straw man is?

By the way, the word you're looking for is "literary", not "literal." They're two distinctly different things.

EDIT: Ah, my mistake madame. But your failure to provide any weight to your arguments still stand.
 

Lesifoere

Liturgist
Joined
Oct 26, 2007
Messages
4,071
Are you aware that I'm not the person who said something about "logical fallacies" in Tolkien? Yes? You shouldn't let that rage cloud your sight so much.
 

hiver

Guest
Christ your stupid.

There was no need for me to defend anything because your posts that started it all were badly written, shallow and empty of any kind of argument, logic or sense.
What fucking arguments can you expect if you present your thinking like that?

Do you, ah, know what a straw man is?
Yeah, but you obviously do not.

By the way, the word you're looking for is "literary", not "literal." They're two distinctly different things.
Weee, you scored a typo! :applause:
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom