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

[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.

 

[kris]

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.

 

[iGetOffToRPGCodex.net]

rofl @ people who think the holocaust actually happened and isn't a fabrication by the filthy Jews.

 

[Captain Obvious]

... Thinking in groups has never been something humans are good at. Yet that's the only sort of thinking most of them know how to do.

Have you ever taken an IQ test and felt that the number you got was too low?

If you did, it's probably because the jews designed the test.

 

[Xor]

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.

 

[Lesifoere]

Either that, or he was thrown out of troll school by headmaster Volourn and now sits next to andhaira, sharing half a rotten apple as a brain, under the the most decrepit bridge possible. Spends his time stealing our precious air, watching the sewage float by, at random intervals smashing his face on the keyboard generating his "posts" and waiting for some merciful person to put him out of his misery. But who'd voluntarily get near that stinking pile of feces? He'd prove the existence of satan if satan were a pathetic loser.

Okay then! I take it you're enraged about all the Tolkien shredding?

 

[1eyedking]

Yes, but the difference--an important one--is that elves in Tolkien and subsequent copy-pastes tend to faaaade and sail into the west while whining like little bitches and lamenting the loss of moonlit dances and the music of starlight (no really, even the elves in FR do this until 3E, down to the whole "we will retreat to an elven island to the west!" schtick).

I know this post is old, but did you know that 'sailing to the west' in Tolkien's novel was a metaphor for death? You know, elves' age coming to an end, gandalf's purpose for his resurrection fulfilled, Bilbo dying of old age, and Frodo from his Morgul blade wound?

The fact that other fantasy writers have misunderstood this for faggotry and whining shouldn't blemish Tolkien's original mythology; it fitted the theme of the book perfectly.

As a writer, Avellone kicks Tolkien's ass to the orbit and beyond.

You're really starting to get on my nerve. All you do in the Codex is waltz around making unsubstantiated claims without any form of back up; this isn't one of those retard imageboards, and for fuck's sake, use some common sense man: Tolkien was an English literature professor, and while Avellone is a (good) game designer, his literary work in no way can add up to Tolkien's impressive imagination, story-telling, metaphors, and sheer surrealism.

When I read LOTR, I see it less as "this was something written to be an action-packed novel" than something written to resemble - in structure and language - an "epic," written in the style of previous works from varying cultures (though I'd mention The Epic of Gilgamesh and The Illiad, I think primarily Tolkien was more likely drawing from Beowulf and other works of that age and location). I know I recall hearing that if it were up to him, he'd have written the whole thing in Elvish - he created that language to write the story in.

This forum is filled up to the brim with idiots. What the fuck has LotR got to do with classical epic poetry? It's about Christianity you bunch of dumbfucks. Learn to read, dickheads.

I know he was also somewhat inspired by Shakespeare - that is to say, he DISLIKED Shakespeare's work quite a lot, and thought that the 'Fear not, till Birnam wood / Do come to Dunsinane' (from Macbeth) being soldiers holding branches was a total cop-out, so you know - ents. Anyhow. When people say X is derivative of Tolkien, I kind of sigh a little, because he in turn DID pull from other sources to create Middle Earth. Fuck, even Shakespeare drew from classical and popular works.

There's a difference between inspiration and usurpation. Where do you think the Illiad and the Oddyssey drew their inspiration but from sailor's tales and stories? What about Herodotus' books of History, plagued with plagiarism and which in contrast makes Thucydides look like a modern historian? Melville's take on the greatness of the whale, but from the Bible itself? What about Islamic philosophy in the Divine Comedy?

Most of D&D lore is blatant tracing of Tolkien's work, further dumbed down by stereotypes and stats. It would actually be refreshing to have some true Tolkien fantasy in our games, and not D&D byproducts.

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.

Yeah, typewriters didn't come with spelling-correction features back then.

Enough stupidity-quoting for tonight.

 

[Shannow]

Either that, or he was thrown out of troll school by headmaster Volourn and now sits next to andhaira, sharing half a rotten apple as a brain, under the the most decrepit bridge possible. Spends his time stealing our precious air, watching the sewage float by, at random intervals smashing his face on the keyboard generating his "posts" and waiting for some merciful person to put him out of his misery. But who'd voluntarily get near that stinking pile of feces? He'd prove the existence of satan if satan were a pathetic loser.

Okay then! I take it you're enraged about all the Tolkien shredding?

Nope. Read the whole quote structure again and think whom I might mean with "he". (Little tip: I accept your internet persona as female.)
Seriously, Lesi. You're making me look bad. If you keep it up I'll never write the truth about people attacking you again.
And If you go back in this thread: I already wrote that I dislike Tolkien for being overly wordy, especially in his landscape descriptions. I also hate the whole concept of evil races, but that is a different matter.

 

[Lesifoere]

Sorry, sorry. I got confused by the quoting sequence and some people still refer to me as a he. Apologies? Porn?

 

[Smarts]

This forum is filled up to the brim with idiots. What the fuck has LotR got to do with classical epic poetry?.It's about Christianity you bunch of dumbfucks. Learn to read, dickheads.

It's not enough to learn to read. You also actually have to read things as well.

Even the basic wiki article on the Lord of the Rings would have done it:

'The Lord of the Rings developed as a personal exploration by Tolkien of his interests in philology, religion (particularly Roman Catholicism), fairy tales, Norse and general Germanic mythology, and also Celtic and Finnish mythology. Tolkien acknowledged, and external critics have verified the influences of William Morris and the Anglo-Saxon poem Beowulf.'

 

[1eyedking]

This forum is filled up to the brim with idiots. What the fuck has LotR got to do with classical epic poetry?.It's about Christianity you bunch of dumbfucks. Learn to read, dickheads.

It's not enough to learn to read. You also actually have to read things as well.

Even the basic wiki article on the Lord of the Rings would have done it:

'The Lord of the Rings developed as a personal exploration by Tolkien of his interests in philology, religion (particularly Roman Catholicism), fairy tales, Norse and general Germanic mythology, and also Celtic and Finnish mythology. Tolkien acknowledged, and external critics have verified the influences of William Morris and the Anglo-Saxon poem Beowulf.'

Yeah, influences, as much as myth goes, but what about the grand theme? Morality? Death? Godhood? Destiny? Crusade against evil? Fight against temptation? It's not enough to read things. You actually have to comprehend things as well.

 

[Qwinn]

Yeah, influences, as much as myth goes, but what about the grand theme? Morality? Death? Godhood? Destiny? Crusade against evil? Fight against temptation? It's not enough to read things. You actually have to comprehend things as well.

Well, all Annie talked about was style, not "grand themes" (although the epic poems in question -did- kinda touch on all those things as well). Any point you might've had here is kinda obliterated by your going omgwtfbbq over the freaking top in your attack on her for what was a perfectly defensible point. After all, your question: "What the fuck has LotR got to do with classical epic poetry?" is pretty idiotic in the face of Smarts's quote.

Qwinn

 

[1eyedking]

Well, all Annie talked about was style, not "grand themes". Any point you might've had here is kinda obliterated by your going omgwtfbbq over the freaking top in your attack on her for what was a perfectly defensible point. After all, your question: "What the fuck has LotR got to do with classical epic poetry?" is pretty idiotic in the face of Smarts's quote.

Qwinn

I was talking about style as well (which draws from the themes). It's still got nothing to do epic poetry.

 

[Shannow]

Sorry, sorry. I got confused by the quoting sequence and some people still refer to me as a he. Apologies? Porn?

KK. I re-read it and must admit that it was a little unclear. When I wrote it I thought it was as obvious as Tolkien's "sailing to the West" meant sailing to Valinor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valinor ). But then I assume Tolkien fans would know better than me.

Porn would be nice but then I'd think of this:
http://rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=29548

Thanks for the offer anyway.

EDIT: And before someone comes crying again "Yeah, influences, as much as myth goes" thus implying that non-christian influences in Tolkien's works are mere myth. Valinor != Heavan. Valinor = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%ADr_na_n%C3%93g
Why is it that those quickest to tell other what is right and what isn't in absolutes usually are the ones that are the most wrong?

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

As a writer, Avellone kicks Tolkien's ass to the orbit and beyond.

You're really starting to get on my nerve. All you do in the Codex is waltz around making unsubstantiated claims without any form of back up; this isn't one of those retard imageboards, and for fuck's sake, use some common sense man: Tolkien was an English literature professor, and while Avellone is a (good) game designer, his literary work in no way can add up to Tolkien's impressive imagination, story-telling, metaphors, and sheer surrealism.

Butthurt irrational fanboy detected.

For one thing, you should try and pay attention to what Lesi already wrote. The main thing about this is that Tolkien's story-telling technique does indeed lack any flavour and spirit, being mostly overtly long-winded descriptions of scenery with almost zero (on top of being shallow to begin with) character development or an impressive plot. And making metaphors like that of moving to the West and living there forever = going to HEAVAN is hardly anything impressive.

You could argue that placing Tolkien on a special position for creating Middle-Earth because of imagination and capability of surrealism isn't quite true. What would be true is that more importantly, he was rather persistant with his fantasy world. You should really keep in mind that much of Middle-Earth comes from combining elements from existing stories and mythology (such as Der Ring des Nibelungen).

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?

Also:

[codexia]Well fuck you too.[/codexia]

 

[Smarts]

Yeah, influences, as much as myth goes, but what about the grand theme? Morality? Death? Godhood? Destiny? Crusade against evil? Fight against temptation? It's not enough to read things. You actually have to comprehend things as well.

Alright; let's do this.

None of these things are uniquely Christian, and I disagree with quite a bit of it. Godhood and destiny aren't touched on in Lord of the Rings. God is notably absent except as a force Tolkien refers to as 'The Narrator', and Lord of the Rings sets the idea of predestined outcomes aside in favour of handling fate and free will not a a dichotomy but as two complementary forces - that's virtually the opposite of 'destiny'. That, and the notion of godhood - assuming the mantle of God - is totally incompatible with the Christian belief in one Almighty. Although it's easy to see LotR as a story about a crusade against evil, the handling of the Ring and its' effects is a lot more subtle than that - it's more about power and the effects of power on people's personal morality than it is about an externalised devil. In that respect, there are many parallels with Christian thought, with the journey of Frodo and Sam being very much like a story of Christian pilgrims, but the other half of the book - the War of the Ring - has a much more classical-epic feel to it. The notion of fighting on even without hope and the need to avoid despair, reinforced in the tale again and again, is straight out of norse/danish myth-thinking (Beowulf and his refusal to quit in the face of anything, the idea of Ragnarok etc).

 

[Liberal]

God is notably absent except as a force Tolkien refers to as 'The Narrator'

Eru Iluvatar?

 

[Lesifoere]

Even though I'm not a fan, I'll say that anyone who tries to refute that the Rohirrim comes straight out of Beowulf would... have to be really big on denial. The Golden Hall is practically a Heorot analogue. Turin Turambar draws from Kullervo of the Kalevala fame. So yes, Tolkien's work has very much to do with epic poetry and Germanic myth in particular. And I don't understand why anyone'd think morality, death, godhood, destiny and fight against temptation are uniquely Christian themes.

The entirety of Voluspa is about destiny and struggling against it--for those too lazy to consult wiki, it's the one where Odin speaks to a seeress and she gives a prophecy of Ragnarok; Greek mythology offers entire busloads of struggles against temptation (hi, Pandora, Cupid and Psyche); death is everywhere and so's morality.

Tolkien was an English literature professor, and while Avellone is a (good) game designer, his literary work in no way can add up to Tolkien's impressive imagination, story-telling, metaphors, and sheer surrealism.

What makes you think being an English lit professor makes you any good at creative writing? It familiarizes you with theories and research and criticism, yes; it trains you in a certain way of thinking about books, sure--certainly it sharpens your sensibilities to devices and politics and ideologies, and reading "for academic purposes" is different from just reading. But I assure you, nothing in the process trains you to write amazing prose, spin witty dialogue, or even craft good characters. Look through a few biographies and you will find that only a small percentage of canonized writers were actually students of literature, never mind professors. Most literary critics of today aren't particularly great at fiction, whether they graduated from Harvard, Oxford, or Community College of Buttfuck Nowhere.

And what surrealism? There's absolutely nothing surreal about Tolkien's ME-related writings--they're as mundane as you can get, both in tone and content. Do you know what "surrealism" means?

 

[Smarts]

Eru Iluvatar

... is notably absent from Lord of the Rings. QED. He gets a lot of mentions in the Silmarillion, but in Lord of the Rings? Not a one. Certainly none that refer to him in the context of being an Almighty God.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Speaking of Tolkien and his Christian influences, how about Hobbits and "the meek shall inherit the earth"?

 

[janjetina]

The main thing about this is that Tolkien's story-telling technique does indeed lack any flavour and spirit,

That's an opinion, not a fact or an argument.

being mostly overtly long-winded descriptions of scenery

Another opinion.

with almost zero (on top of being shallow to begin with) character development

Almost zero is a gross exaggeration.

or an impressive plot.

Surely you must be joking.

And making metaphors like that of moving to the West and living there forever = going to HEAVAN is hardly anything impressive.

Have you read the book you're trying to discuss?

You could argue that placing Tolkien on a special position for creating Middle-Earth because of imagination and capability of surrealism isn't quite true.

Then, by all means, do so.

You should really keep in mind that much of Middle-Earth comes from combining elements from existing stories and mythology (such as Der Ring des Nibelungen).

Tolkien drew his inspiration from many literature sources and from his life experience, and managed to create something new and original.

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.

Really? Since I'm lazy, I'll just quote hiver's well written post, that you conveniently neglected to read.

It may sound too simple or even pathetic to modern sensibilities but that line of Gandalf :

"And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom."

Is true on many levels and appropriate for this speculation.

With that in mind i could dare to single out a few things from his setting and "feeling" of it that i think are important cornerstones in the whole story.

Love and respect of the nature is one of the obvious ones. It plays a great role in his works, not one of scenery or background for acshun.
First of all it is a delicate creation of Valars and high God as ultimate manifestation of their combined powers.
Its further strengthened by creation of Elves as a first race and their connection and manner of relation to it.
Elves talk to the trees not because they are some funny treehuggers but because they see them as kindred living creatures - to the point that they teach some of them how to talk. Other elves who have great craftsman talents always use them to revere nature. Feanor created Silmarils so he could save the light of two great trees that gave light to the world before there was a sun and other elves who dealt with masonry shaped the stone with love and care for it so much so that Legolas can still feel it when the fellowship comes across remnants of their work.

And Lothlorien is one huge fusion of nature and elven respect, love and ability to live with it and use it without destroying it.

Then you have the example of Elrond using a river to defeat Nazguls - a clear example of connection to the nature instead of some sort of elemental (vomit) magic.
The examples go on and on and on.

Its also pretty clear what Tolkien feels about blind industrialization from his descriptions of Saruman and closing chapters in Shire.
He must have been ridiculed for it in those times of rampant industrialization hailed as the second coming even more then today.


Next easy to spot important feature is surely his meditations on entropy and easy short term solutions against harder, long term decisions.
What to do when faces with tough choices, how to act in the face of evil and fear.
Do you toss the Ring into the sea or give it to someone else then hide and hope for the best?
To do something when you are afraid or not?
Persist despite of it all?
Simply, do you surrender to greater force or fight desperately. And can you, by your actions create some meaning where there isnt one.

Fear and dealing with it is a great part of the story. from standing up to Nazguls who are fear incarnated to the king of Numenor who Sauron corrupted (and then many other Numenoreans) because of his fear of mortality and so caused the complete destruction of Numenor.

And how the war affects everyone included. Look what it did to elves that came across the sea. Even if it could be said they have "won" they lost too much. They even fought and killed each other and been betrayed and destroyed which must be very hard thing to experience when you are otherwise immortal.
There was no victory for them, only loss.

LOTR is epic? Yes, and not because of the action and huge battles and badass this and that. (which it has more then enough)

Its no secret Tolkien setting contains much more food for thought, i barely mentioned the Ring and whole "power corrupts" because i dont see it as separate from themes i mentioned above.

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?

Tolkien's work is very thought provoking. See the quote above.

Given the interactivity of a gaming medium, you can't really compare writing for a book with writing for a game.

 

[Qwinn]

Now, what are Tolkien's petty and simplistic metaphors and traditional plot

Do we have to go over again about how you can't really call something cliche just because everyone -else- afterwards copied it?

There was nothing about LotR that was "traditional" at the time he wrote it. It was influenced by eddas and so forth, sure, but it's hardly a copy of any of them, and there was no work quite like it before. Tolkien didn't rip off a traditional plot, he created a truly original work that reached so many people on so many levels that it -became- tradition.

Qwinn

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

The main thing about this is that Tolkien's story-telling technique does indeed lack any flavour and spirit,

That's an opinion, not a fact or an argument.

being mostly overtly long-winded descriptions of scenery

Another opinion.

with almost zero (on top of being shallow to begin with) character development

Almost zero is a gross exaggeration.

or an impressive plot.

Surely you must be joking.

And making metaphors like that of moving to the West and living there forever = going to HEAVAN is hardly anything impressive.

Have you read the book you're trying to discuss?

You could argue that placing Tolkien on a special position for creating Middle-Earth because of imagination and capability of surrealism isn't quite true.

Then, by all means, do so.

You should really keep in mind that much of Middle-Earth comes from combining elements from existing stories and mythology (such as Der Ring des Nibelungen).

Tolkien drew his inspiration from many literature sources and from his life experience, and managed to create something new and original.

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.

Really? Since I'm lazy, I'll just quote hiver's well written post, that you conveniently neglected to read.

It may sound too simple or even pathetic to modern sensibilities but that line of Gandalf :

"And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom."

Is true on many levels and appropriate for this speculation.

With that in mind i could dare to single out a few things from his setting and "feeling" of it that i think are important cornerstones in the whole story.

Love and respect of the nature is one of the obvious ones. It plays a great role in his works, not one of scenery or background for acshun.
First of all it is a delicate creation of Valars and high God as ultimate manifestation of their combined powers.
Its further strengthened by creation of Elves as a first race and their connection and manner of relation to it.
Elves talk to the trees not because they are some funny treehuggers but because they see them as kindred living creatures - to the point that they teach some of them how to talk. Other elves who have great craftsman talents always use them to revere nature. Feanor created Silmarils so he could save the light of two great trees that gave light to the world before there was a sun and other elves who dealt with masonry shaped the stone with love and care for it so much so that Legolas can still feel it when the fellowship comes across remnants of their work.

And Lothlorien is one huge fusion of nature and elven respect, love and ability to live with it and use it without destroying it.

Then you have the example of Elrond using a river to defeat Nazguls - a clear example of connection to the nature instead of some sort of elemental (vomit) magic.
The examples go on and on and on.

Its also pretty clear what Tolkien feels about blind industrialization from his descriptions of Saruman and closing chapters in Shire.
He must have been ridiculed for it in those times of rampant industrialization hailed as the second coming even more then today.


Next easy to spot important feature is surely his meditations on entropy and easy short term solutions against harder, long term decisions.
What to do when faces with tough choices, how to act in the face of evil and fear.
Do you toss the Ring into the sea or give it to someone else then hide and hope for the best?
To do something when you are afraid or not?
Persist despite of it all?
Simply, do you surrender to greater force or fight desperately. And can you, by your actions create some meaning where there isnt one.

Fear and dealing with it is a great part of the story. from standing up to Nazguls who are fear incarnated to the king of Numenor who Sauron corrupted (and then many other Numenoreans) because of his fear of mortality and so caused the complete destruction of Numenor.

And how the war affects everyone included. Look what it did to elves that came across the sea. Even if it could be said they have "won" they lost too much. They even fought and killed each other and been betrayed and destroyed which must be very hard thing to experience when you are otherwise immortal.
There was no victory for them, only loss.

LOTR is epic? Yes, and not because of the action and huge battles and badass this and that. (which it has more then enough)

Its no secret Tolkien setting contains much more food for thought, i barely mentioned the Ring and whole "power corrupts" because i dont see it as separate from themes i mentioned above.

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?

Tolkien's work is very thought provoking. See the quote above.

Given the interactivity of a gaming medium, you can't really compare writing for a book with writing for a game.

Except you look at it through thick fanboy glasses.

For one thing, Tolkien's work is not truly original, as a lot of elements are directly lifted elsewhere as is. For example, see what Lesi just pointed out about Kullervo transplanting. If he's actually just copying things elsewhere and pasting them together with his own alterations, he isn't truly original in the truest sense.

Now, you could instead tell me how noble Aragorn developed during his journey beyond "oh well, I'll be king" or worse yet, Gimli, Legolas (who only developed in a shallow and naive "you're not so bad, let's be friends" fashion) or Gandalf's "I get levels" malarky of a resurrection. For the most part, Tolkien handled character development like a bad GM: Just give the characters a position of power as a reward, as well as the works. Hardly any of them develop in any significant emotional fashion. And at the end of the day, everyone is basically "boy, what an adventure that was" "I totally lost a finger in it, terribad."

I would also like to hear that how exactly is Tolkien's plot of LotR in any respect interesting or original. 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. On an organizational scale as well. You see, it's more than slightly ridiculous to claim that a story that progresses the same way as thousands of other stories have done before is anything new or exciting. Good stays good, overwhelming evil is thwarted, the little hobbits save the day. Another thing is that the plot swamps itself on following the hero-stuff Aragorn and company do when Frodo and Sam are separated. It would have been far more interesting to follow just Frodo and Sam, as the predictable other half of the story is just a corrupted formerly great kingdom and another one that Aragorn and his crew single-handedly rally with their noble actions. And the use of a "Cavalry arrives!" plot device in each major battle (Gandalf, Dead Men and finally Gollum's finger-bite lunge).

As for Tolkien's writing skills, try reading what Lesi has written. Notice that most of Tolkien's writing consists of nothing but clinical descriptions of events and (especially) scenery with a Thesaurus as a muse. Tolkien was far more effective at realizing a world than actually writing about it, as he could create from his materials a vast world that's significance is that it was the first truly vast and purely fictional world where he'd worked out every detail of it. It isn't the imagination (as the content existed before elsewhere) or fantasy elements, but rather that Middle-Earth was meticulously mapped in all details. You could say that Tolkien was the first to truly create a full fictional world. But that doesn't help his talents as a writer. He strecthes descriptions on and on, sowing adjectives trigger-happy, ending up creating a heavy text that possesses far too much excess "fat." And yes, as Lesi already pointed out, his description of the Shire is Tolkien at his worst.

What you see there at hiver's text is actually nothing more than an obsessed fanboy inventing meaning in things where there isn't one (c wut I did thar). I like to call it the Star Wars Syndrome.

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.

 

[Shannow]

how all EVIL cultures are variations of Russian, Middle-Eastern, and German peoples.

I get the "swarthy men from the East" that were dressed up as Sarrazens in the movies (though I don't remember how they were described in the books, apart from being swarthy). But I must have missed the Russian and German references. Did orcs eat bratwürste and sauerkraut while the goblins were working on a utopian communist society?
I'm truly curious.

 

[Qwinn]

So, despite the fact that many pivotal characters (Saruman, Boromir, Denethor) -do- make the utilitatiran argument and -do- try to claim the Ring and stupidly use it against the guy who made it, your beef is that that wasn't actually the best solution? That that would somehow add depth?

Heh. Okie doke. Yeah, that would've been deep, alright.

Ya know something? Is there such a thing as "anti-fanboy"? Cause I think calling Gollum's "finger bite lunge" a 'standard "here comes the cavalry!" plot device' has gotta be a -way- bigger stretch in order to say anything, no matter how ridiculous, to tear this down, than anyone has said in trying to prop it up.

Qwinn