Can you give me a single reason on why Lord of the Rings is not worthless? Try to make a single argument on its value stand up. I am absolutely convinced that LotR is worthless and tells us NOTHING new.

Why does it have to tell you anything at all?
Why can it not be read or watched for entertainment?

:m: Peace.

Umm. Its not worthless cause its fun to read/watch/play/whatever. It is a form of entertainment not education.

Can you give me a single reason on why Lord of the Rings is not worthless?

umm, i like it. so to me it's not.

if for some reason you don't like it, well then don't read/watch it. that's fine with me.

and it does tell us something new. it tells us that hobbits are nice and friendly people:D

It teaches us nothing, but to me it was very well done in many, if not all, aspects of filmaking. Perhaps you could go into more depth....?

Awesome special effects! Awesome battle scenes, whats not to love?

Woo, go Zero

*mini wave in celebration of Zero*

They have tried many a time to prove LoTR worth to me, I think the cowards have given up lol

Thor when was the last time you saw LotR? Just out of curiousity.

Maybe if it's been awhile, you should give it another shot:)

Awesome battle scenes
NO! The battle of Helms Deep was horrible. I just cannot watch a cavalry charge suceed agaist a pike formation and not be extremely pissed off.

OMG someone ELSE noticed that too

i was like how STUPID do you get

pikes are there to STOP horse so you charged them

WELL DONE *sarcasm*

and no one gets impailed
AHHHHHH

now the REALLY way to do it is archers and catapults hurling small rocks to break the formation up

Archers huriling small rocks?? Should they just get a bow and arrow :p

hee hee

Awoo

Thor when was the last time you saw LotR? Just out of curiousity
I saw the film on Mothers Day (yes, I only went because of my mum!!) and I winced my way thro it. Then during the summer when I was working, they played the DVD (I don't know if it was legit or not lol) about 10 times....painful :bugeye:

I was talking about the book. And I still haven't seen one argument in favor of LotR.

And I haven't seen you explain why it has to tell you anything.

:m: Peace.

And what were you expecting it to tell you? :confused:

If it doesn't tell me anything, it is nothing more than a cheap, trashy, a dime-a-dozen fantasy novel that is based on an extremely common template. It could be mass produced based on that template, and make some changes to keep releasing "new" stories. It's just trash. What the fuck is the meaning behind the stupid good versus evil story plot? Nothing. Compare that with Animal Farm, 1984, The Stranger, Death of a Salesman, Les Miserables, or even Rama. LotR doesn't amount to shit.


Prove it to me why LotR isn't trash and stop beating around the bush. You just can't prove it, can you?

Thankfully, we don’t have to rely on your understanding of literature to determine a work’s “worthiness”. LoTR has inspired numerous imitations, sold over 80,000,000 copies around the world in something like 30 languages, and has been the subject of numerous theses, dissertations, songs, at least one symphony, and many books of literary criticism.

LoTR single-handedly changed the face of fantastic literature, and set the tone and setting for countless other books. One example is the description and use of elves. Prior to Tolkien, elves were the same thing a fairies or sprites -- small, tinkling, drink-dewdrops-from-rose petals sort of things. Check out some Victorian fairy tales for comparison. The one I'm thinking of, though not precisely considered a fairy tale, is the original Raggedy Ann book by Johnny Gruelle. The fairies bring Marcella’s new baby brother. It's very cute. Post Tolkien, elves are human sized, immortal, and terrible. Tolkien also invented Hobbits and Orcs. He may not have done so out of whole cloth -- but it was his contribution to the collective imagination to synthesize the various influences in just that way.

What does it have to say? In a nutshell? The book immortalizes a great synthesis of Norse heroism and Biblical morality. It carries moral messages promoting loyalty, determination, and the importance of striving against evil. It impresses upon us that that there are some laws so fundamental that we would willingly die rather than violate them.

:m: Peace.

it is nothing more than a cheap, trashy, a dime-a-dozen fantasy novel that is based on an extremely common template.
Wrong. It is not based on said template it IS the template that all fantasy is based on. No it dosent have any great moral lessons but who cares? Cant you just read something for fun and no other reason?

Asguard,

Woo Hoo! Im not the only one. The entire battle was completely screwed up but that cavalry charge was the worst. PIKES IMPALE HORSES FOR GODS SAKE!

thor i said CATAPULTS with little rocks

and yes i couldnt BELIVE not ONE horse got impaled

GRRRRRRRRRR

and the way they aporoched the siege

and that the arches were firing THROUGH the men on the walls
GOD

HELLO

FIRE UP

that battle made me cringe

and that NO ONE put an arrow threw aragon and glimly when they were climing the rope, i mean here you have one of the captans and EVERYONE would have KNOWN that when he was giving the orders and you just let him climb back up??????

NO ONE used siege engins

AHHHHH

i mean boiling pitch and a catapult and see what happens but NOO

Asguard, they've evolved with different techniques and types of warfare. Calm down. :)

And did you notice how the defenders didnt start shooting untill the orcs were right at the fort? The range on a longbow is freaking huge! Why the hell werent they shooting as soon as the orc army was in range?

And when the orcs put ladders up against the walls, the humans just LET THEM CLIMB UP!!!!! They should have been trying to knock down the ladders instead.

Of course why did the orcs even bother with a direct assult? The entire population of the country was in that tiny fort. How long could their supplies hold out?

I was actually quite enjoying that movie up until helms deep. That battle was so wrong.

Hmm, so LotR can only be read for enjoyment, correct? Therefore it is trash.

Compare LotR to Animal Farm, 1984, The Stranger, Death of a Salesman, Les Miserables, etc. LotR doesn't amount to shit. If a book does not tell me anything new, it is stupid.

The good versus evil template is one that is flawed; it thinks that the whole fucking world can be divided into good or evil. Goof, what is your notion of 'morality'? Just who would lay down that rule? Do you believe in absolute standards of good and evil? Do you think the world is that simple to be summarized that way by your brain, which is so pathetically tiny compared to the astronomical number of variables affectign this world?

Look Goof, LotR takes on that stupid approach. It thinks that there can be absolute standards of good and evil. It also has some explaining to do about itself; how come the majority of the 'good' are white skinned, and the majority of the 'evil' are dark skinned? And you're telling me LotR is not a fucking piece of literary shit? Wake the hell up.

Books to be read strictly for enjoyment are trash? What a sad little life you must lead.

You have apparently made up your mind as to your opinion, and to the fact that any
dissention should be dismissed. That is totally acceptable. However, as you can't discuss
your point of view without resorting to inflammatory comments, I can't be bothered.

:m: Peace.

Originally posted by Zero
Hmm, so LotR can only be read for enjoyment, correct? Therefore it is trash.

Compare LotR to Animal Farm, 1984, The Stranger, Death of a Salesman, Les Miserables, etc. LotR doesn't amount to shit. If a book does not tell me anything new, it is stupid.

The good versus evil template is one that is flawed; it thinks that the whole fucking world can be divided into good or evil. Goof, what is your notion of 'morality'? Just who would lay down that rule? Do you believe in absolute standards of good and evil? Do you think the world is that simple to be summarized that way by your brain, which is so pathetically tiny compared to the astronomical number of variables affectign this world?

Look Goof, LotR takes on that stupid approach. It thinks that there can be absolute standards of good and evil. It also has some explaining to do about itself; how come the majority of the 'good' are white skinned, and the majority of the 'evil' are dark skinned? And you're telling me LotR is not a fucking piece of literary shit? Wake the hell up.
Which of course is the reason that reader's polls consistitly rate LotR as the most popular book ever written. :rolleyes:

It was formed, but the Orcs were dazzled by Gandalf, so they lifted them up. I thought it was very noticeable? :bugeye:
But I thought people throwing little rocks at the Orcs was silly, too. And I was appalled at all the chances that Aragorn and Gimli could have been killed, but no such luck. It's impossible. And the thing with Aragorn falling off the cliff? How fake was that?

AND HOW LONG WERE MERRY AND PIPPIN RIDING ON TREEBEARD?!?! Imagine the splinters! Yeowch! lol

If a book does not tell me anything new, it is stupid. We are all plagiarists. Original thought is dead, and didn't invite us to the wake. You, me, we are all copies at some depth. Salute conformity.

Born unique, die a label.

Sorry for being so depressing. Cheers.

see that was ok when i watched it but then they lowered the pikes again so we are back to pike vs horse = impaled horse

It's a book of fiction. Fiction doesn't have to tell us anything. You either enjoy it or you don't.

Originally posted by Asguard
see that was ok when i watched it but then they lowered the pikes again so we are back to pike vs horse = impaled horse Maybe they were too low because the Orcs were frightened? Because at the angle of assault, the horses could be seen easily leaping over and charging the crowded Orcs. Speaking of angle, that slope was so freakin' steep, I thought we'd see an avanlanche instead of a calvary stampede.

It was formed, but the Orcs were dazzled by Gandalf, so they lifted them up. I thought it was very noticeable?
I think they sort of almost lifted their pikes but not nearly enough to matter by all logic that cavalry charge should have failed. And Gandalf didnt dazzle them, he just started the charge as the sun was rising and the light got in their eyes. Gandalf never uses magic. Frankly i dont think hes a wizard just a crazy old guy with odd taste in hats.

lol Neutrino :D I remember reading in the books, that Gandalf himself struck fear in the Orcs. Saruman used to be white, so the Orcs must've mistaken Gandalf as Saruman, just as Aragorn, Merry, Pippin, Legolas and Gimli did in Fangorn. It's been some time, but I thought Gandalf did use magic in the book? *shrug* And Gandalf can be very commanding when need be, as seen in the first movie when he frightened poor Bilbo out of his wits. (btw, that part was just we-ird.)

actully the greatest magic gandalf ever peforms is his fight against the balrog (one of his own species infact)

Balrog was Maia? No way, dude! That big ugly thing ... and Gandalf? Relatives? Man, talk about interspecies-relations! :D

Originally posted by %BlueSoulRobot%
Balrog was Maia? No way, dude! That big ugly thing ... and Gandalf? Relatives? Man, talk about interspecies-relations! :D

Hard to believe, huh? Oh those fallen angels.

yes

balrogs, wizards, saron ect are all Maia

and shelob or whatever the spiders name is, is the desendant of a high elf

Shelob? From a high elf? But how does the...where do the...what did the female have to...?! Fallen angels, indeed. Here it's just sheep, over there is all species. Yikes.

Wowza. :eek: :m:

the great enermy had a partial allie who turned herself into a spider

she eventually buggered off and there was a race of large spiders where she settled and selob is desended from them and her

Nah, Gandalf's just a fraud. He cant do anything but talk to a few animals. The only reason everybody listes to him is they see his pointy hat and assume he must be a wizard.
actully the greatest magic gandalf ever peforms is his fight against the balrog
What did he do? He smacked an extremely unstable bridge holding up a creature that must have weighed a couple tons. It would have colapsed even if he hadnt been there. ;)

in the book it was a word of power he used to bar it and the bridge that stood 1000 years or more is really sturdy

Originally posted by Asguard
the great enermy had a partial allie who turned herself into a spider

she eventually buggered off and there was a race of large spiders where she settled and selob is desended from them and her

Weren't the large spiders that Bilbo and the dwarves encountered in Mirkwood the offspring of Shelob?

Gandalf is da man.

Originally posted by Coldrake
It's a book of fiction. Fiction doesn't have to tell us anything. You either enjoy it or you don't.

Yes, you can enjoy it. But what is a bit of fleeting mental pleasure worth? It doesn't even last. Anything that doesn't make a lasting lesson or statement, or a profound effect on your mentality is nothing more than common Internet porn. It's pleasurable but it's not worth anything.

So far, I haven't found a single thing in favor of LotR. Any last challengers before LotR is declared trashy fiction?

Fiction can tell us a lot. Check out the Stranger. That, alone, says a heck of a lot more than LotR, and it's shorter. Possible proof of Camus being superior to pompous, tree-slaughtering, degenerate Tolkein?

Originally posted by Zero
It's pleasurable but it's not worth anything.

Unless you're attempting to reproduce, the same thing could be said of a simple orgasm.

So far, I haven't found a single thing in favor of LotR. Any last challengers before LotR is declared trashy fiction?

Oh, come on. You had already decided it was trash before you started this thread.

Fiction can tell us a lot. Check out the Stranger. That, alone, says a heck of a lot more than LotR, and it's shorter. Possible proof of Camus being superior to pompous, tree-slaughtering, degenerate Tolkein?

No doubt fiction can tell us a lot. But it doesn't have to. Fiction can release us some times, and that can mean something also. But fantasy isn't for everybody and obviously you don't care for Tolkien, apparently not as a writer or as a person. But if we all liked the same things then this board would die a quick death.;)

Yay! I win I win I win!!! *jumps around*

I'm guessing people read LotR more these days to escape the horrible reality. As for me, I read up on Hindu phil.

Originally posted by Zero
Check out the Stranger. That, alone, says a heck of a lot more than LotR...Really? What does it tell us?

:m: Peace.

What does it tell us? It tells us: "feck off!"

Originally posted by goofyfish
Really? What does it tell us?

:m: Peace.

It reveals aspects of the limitations of the legal system, the psychology of a 'normal' human being under extreme mental/physical stress, the things we all have in common but don't realize it...it shows a ton of stuff, unlike LotR.

It reveals aspects of the limitations of the legal system, the psychology of a 'normal' human being under extreme mental/physical stress, the things we all have in common but don't realize it...it shows a ton of stuff, unlike LotR.
But LOtR is so much more fun.;)

Originally posted by Zero
It reveals aspects of the limitations of the legal system, the psychology of a 'normal' human being under extreme mental/physical stress, the things we all have in common but don't realize it...Oh, yes, those are fresh ideas. :rolleyes:

You have, I believe, misread the book. The Stranger is actually a cautionary tale about an affectless psychopath. While you might to view Mersault as a nihilistic role-model, to me he was a monster whose example was to be avoided....it shows a ton of stuff...For instance?

:m: Peace.

Originally posted by Zero
Can you give me a single reason on why Lord of the Rings is not worthless? Try to make a single argument on its value stand up. I am absolutely convinced that LotR is worthless and tells us NOTHING new.

About the movies:

1) I enjoy that sort of thing, monsters and magic, swords and battles.

2) It's a breakthrough for that genre of film, as nobody has ever put so much into such films before.

3) The movies have prompted many people to read the books. Getting people interested in reading is a good thing.

4) It's almost worth seeing those movies just for the amazing scenery.

goofy i love you:p

the way you jerk the rug out from under everyone:p

heheheheh

Originally posted by goofyfish
Oh, yes, those are fresh ideas. :rolleyes:

You have, I believe, misread the book. The Stranger is actually a cautionary tale about an affectless psychopath. While you might to view Mersault as a nihilistic role-model, to me he was a monster whose example was to be avoided.For instance?

:m: Peace.

Fresh ideas for the historical time period. Like LotR is any fresher?? Give me a break. At least the problems of the legal system exists. Good or evil does NOT exist, it's just a fantasy that religious people make up to kid themselves and feel better. Hope that reality check does good to some people there.

And if you think there is only one way to read a book, you're stuck on LotR. The Stranger is open to much interpretation; another reason why it is far faaaaaar superior to LotR, while killing less trees per book.(Ha ha who's pulling the rug out now?)

Good or evil does NOT exist, it's just a fantasy that religious people make up to kid themselves and feel better. Hope that reality check does good to some people there.

Zero that's the biggest load of Balrog drool I've ever heard. Stories cannot exist unless there is a conflict between a protagonist and an antagonist, or, if you'd rather, good vs evil. There is no story, you just have happy people commenting about how great things are or sad people complaining about things sucking so much. Those two ideas are and always have been prevalent in our society. How can you possibly prove otherwise? I mean, come on...

Lord of the Rings is not fresh, it was written because JRR Tolkien wanted Europe to have a myth behind it, not just one nation. Have you read a single story from greek mythology? How deep are the plots? How deep are the characters? They're shallow. The concepts behind them are what makes them awesome, and the imagination that goes into them as well. The creativity in the Lord of the Rings has been completely unsurpassed as far as I'm concerned.

How exactly does LotR rise above the greek myths? Does it say anything more than, oh Frodo threw the Ring into the drink, oh good won over evil, etc? Does it?

Why would you consider good or evil to exist? Do you think there can be absolute good or absolute evil in this world? What are you, some fanatic or some religious fundamentalist? Either that or you're way younger than you make yourself out to be (Yep, I'm an old olllllld man :rolleyes: )

There are far too many variables in this world that set off events that they can't be cut down to good/evil, antagonist/protagonist. Binary thinking (aka Western thinking) is DEAD. Wake up. How's the rug pulled out from under you feel? :m:

Stories can not exist unless there is antagonist/protagonist? Just two sides, eh? How about Les Miserables? Crime and Punishment? The Last Leaf? Heck, the Little Prince? The Glass Bead Game (this one is by Herman Hesse)? Demian? Siddharta?

Oh, SURE, there must be an antagonist and protagonist, good and evil for a story to exist :rolleyes:

What the hell is your problem? Its just a book for gods sake! Alot of people like it is there something wrong with that? Cant people have different opinions than you? Just because you dont like a book is no reason to start a holy crusade against the people who do.

How exactly does LotR rise above the greek myths? Does it say anything more than, oh Frodo threw the Ring into the drink, oh good won over evil, etc? Does it?

Simple question, simple answer: LOTR has a great deal of more content, it goes into much more detail than any previous myth and can be easier to be understood because it is written in our language. Good did win over evil, there isn't much more to be said, because this conclusion can be found in many if not all of the works of literature ever written.

Why would you consider good or evil to exist? Do you think there can be absolute good or absolute evil in this world? What are you, some fanatic or some religious fundamentalist? Either that or you're way younger than you make yourself out to be (Yep, I'm an old olllllld man )

Zero, I'm fifteen years old, and I don't need an egotystical plaything to downgrade the intellectual strength my age has given me. I do not think there can be absolute good, but I do think there can be absolute evil. The best example is Adolph Hitler--who murdured fifty million people and never thought twice about it. There are others as well. In mythology, however, a perfect good and a perfect evil tends to be present, take Beowulf for example. He is the perfect hero, and the three creatures he kills are perfectly evil.

In more modern literature, the good vs evil has been translated into a protagonist vs an antagonist, one force can be a boy against a wave, it makes no difference. There is always a problem or a wish and always a challenge that keeps it from being solved. To deny this is lunacy. There's no law saying that there cannot be multiple protagonists or antagonists or things/people caught in the middle, you can have a million of each, I don't care. But you will never find a story with a concrete plot missing this most basic rule.

And, please, from now on refrain from resorting to personal attacks. I will do the same.

I'm talking about absolute good/evil in the real world, not mythology/myth literature.

Is it out there? LotR reflects nothing of this world. It is worthless.

Look at the other examples I have given. They reflect some aspect of the human world we live in.

Never find a story? What about the little prince/the last leaf?

Never find a story? What about the little prince/the last leaf?

Pick one to summarize. I'm sure we'll find an antagonist in there somewhere.

Is it out there? LotR reflects nothing of this world. It is worthless.

Officially, Tolkien chose not to make his story one big metaphor, but if you dig deep enough you can find enough parallels with our world and with his, specifically from world war 2. I don't really feel like listing them, because to me at least they are both plain and obvious. Hopefully you know what I'm talking about.

Just because a story reflects nothing of the world, anyway, does not mean it is worthless. When I look for a good story, I look for plot, writing, and a wow factor--that's it. The tale's bearing in the real world makes little difference to me.

Ok, so what you are looking for is a plot, the wow factor, and writing. LotR has a plot, the wow factor (to you) and writing (he's got nice wording). Ok. And you say you look for little of the real world.

So do you admit LotR reflects virtually nothing of the real world? And how do you know (now I am NOT a fascist please no anti Nazi leagues outside my bedroom) that the history of WW2 was not written by the winners? The winner of the war gets to write in te books, so the Allies would definitely try to portray the Axis forces as "Evil" in a propaganda attempt. Daresay that did work. We do think the Axis including Mussolini's goons, Nazis and etc were evil.

But were they really "evil" and the Allies always the paragons of "good"? Can you really make that comparison?

The Axis citizens did not all oppose their gov't's antics. Otherwise there would have been no possibility of making a war effort. Obviously some people thought it was right. And it's not like the Allied soldiers were virtuous angels swooping down from the cloud. I'm sure some of the Allied soldiers raped and killed citizenry like the rest of them. And I'm pretty sure the final bombing of Hiroshima that stopped it all wasn't an act of "good" like the destruction of frodo's Ring.

I do not think a comparison between WW2 and LotR novel can be made.


As for the story w/o antagonist, there was one story about this big face in a rock, and the townspeople searching for the one who resembled it...grr I forgot the title/author. Damn. Ok, then the Little Prince. The Last Leaf. Demian. Siddharta (last two by Herman Hesse). Steppenwolfe (same author).

Let's find the antagonists in those.

To doubt the evil behind the murders of over fifty million people is ludicrous, and to even suggest that it was not evil, or say that the people trying to kill the bastards behind it were even a hundredth as evil as they were is pure pure insanity. War crimes were undoubtedly committed by both sides, but the Nazis were about as evil as they get, my friend. I don't think there's been anything to compare to them. Hitler comes as close to absolute evil as a single person can go.

So do you admit LotR reflects virtually nothing of the real world?

No. Sorry, I never said that. Re-read my post:cool:

As for the story w/o antagonist, there was one story about this big face in a rock, and the townspeople searching for the one who resembled it...grr I forgot the title/author. Damn. Ok, then the Little Prince. The Last Leaf. Demian. Siddharta (last two by Herman Hesse). Steppenwolfe (same author).

The antagonist in the story that you mention is the fact that the search is not immediately conclusive. If there was no antagonist then the guy that resembled the face in the rock would be standing next to it shouting to everyone that he was the guy and that they didn't have to write a story about it.

Better luck next time.

i think he ment the rank and file grunt who are no different from the rank and file grunts ANYWHERE

To doubt the evil behind the murders of over fifty million people is ludicrous, and to even suggest that it was not evil, or say that the people trying to kill the bastards behind it were even a hundredth as evil as they were is pure pure insanity. War crimes were undoubtedly committed by both sides, but the Nazis were about as evil as they get, my friend. I don't think there's been anything to compare to them. Hitler comes as close to absolute evil as a single person can go.

You forget that a history of the war is written primarily by the winners, and that they get to choose who's "evil".

How about the murder of all the innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Doesn't that fit your description of "pure evil"? You're leaving an important element out.

Why exactly is Hitler the incarnation of absolute evil? How can such a thing even exist? "Absolute evil" is something the writers of the bible wrote to scare some sense into the readers.

You give no logical backing for claiming that the Axis were absolute evil. All you give are some random assertions that it is "pure pure insanity" to think differently than you regarding the Axis. Try again.

No. Sorry, I never said that. Re-read my post:cool:

You said that you do not look for reflections of the real world when you choose books. Re-read your own post.


The antagonist in the story that you mention is the fact that the search is not immediately conclusive. If there was no antagonist then the guy that resembled the face in the rock would be standing next to it shouting to everyone that he was the guy and that they didn't have to write a story about it.

an·tag·o·nist Audio pronunciation of antagonist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-tg-nst)
n.

1. One who opposes and contends against another; an adversary.
2. The principal character in opposition to the protagonist or hero of a narrative or drama.
3. Physiology. A muscle that counteracts the action of another muscle, the agonist.
4. Biochemistry. A chemical substance that interferes with the physiological action of another, especially by combining with and blocking its nerve receptor.

A fact itself can not be an antagonist. It must be a character who works against another. A fact does not work against a character.

As for the face in the rock story, the guys who claimed to resemble it did NOT interact with the main character in ANY way. They just happened to drop by, the townspeople hailed them and finally forgot them. The hero of the story, who is really the face in the rock, is just an observer for most of the story. At the end, he just thanks everyone (it's considered an honor) for thinking he's the face in the rock and end of story.

Better try next time for you, Polly. Try harder.

You forget that a history of the war is written primarily by the winners, and that they get to choose who's "evil".

Zero, I know there is a difference between propaganda and truth, and I also know that even if we did win WW2 that Hitler and the Nazis were evil. History books are written by the winners, good history books are written by observers. To me, Hitler is absolute evil, because to me, to murder even a single person for any reason is again insanity. This is the basic shared viewpoint of most of humanity's history, however that is not to say there are either holes in our history or exceptions. Find me a culture that does not at least discourage killing for no reason, Zero.

How about the murder of all the innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Doesn't that fit your description of "pure evil"? You're leaving an important element out.

I know little about this theater of the war, Zero. From what I heard, the Japanese had been brainwashed enough to fight to the last man once the US soldiers arrived on their island. If this is the case, then several times the people that died in the nuclear attacks would have died in the subsequent invasion. However, I do not know this for a fact, and if it is incorrect, and the Japanese were in a proveable process of surrender, then yes, to drop the bomb was unthinkably evil.

You give no logical backing for claiming that the Axis were absolute evil. All you give are some random assertions that it is "pure pure insanity" to think differently than you regarding the Axis. Try again.

Logicity tends to depend upon the viewpoint.

You said that you do not look for reflections of the real world when you choose books. Re-read your own post.

Thank you for re-reading. You are absolutely correct. But, you were the one that claimed that I said that LOTR had no reflection of the real world, which I never once did even suggest. You perverted my words into something else.

One who opposes and contends against another; an adversary.

Look closer: it does not say one person. One is a pronoun that can mean many things, from one force to one man.

2. The principal character in opposition to the protagonist or hero of a narrative or drama.

Where do you draw the line between character and force, eh? Read Percy Bysshe Shelley's Ode to the West Wind. Tell me the difference between a force of nature and a character there.

As for the face in the rock story, the guys who claimed to resemble it did NOT interact with the main character in ANY way. They just happened to drop by, the townspeople hailed them and finally forgot them. The hero of the story, who is really the face in the rock, is just an observer for most of the story. At the end, he just thanks everyone (it's considered an honor) for thinking he's the face in the rock and end of story.

Zero, you didn't give me a proper summary of the book to work with. Please provide a title.

"As Beren looked into her eyes
within shadows of her hair,
the trembling starlightof the skies
he saw there mirrored shimering.
Tinuviel the elven-fair
Immortal maiden elven wise,
above him cast her shadowy hair
and arms like silver glimmering."

- Excerpt from The song of Beren and Tinuviel

Holy Jesus!! Cactus Jack lives!! He lives!!

Zero, I know there is a difference between propaganda and truth, and I also know that even if we did win WW2 that Hitler and the Nazis were evil. History books are written by the winners, good history books are written by observers. To me, Hitler is absolute evil, because to me, to murder even a single person for any reason is again insanity. This is the basic shared viewpoint of most of humanity's history, however that is not to say there are either holes in our history or exceptions. Find me a culture that does not at least discourage killing for no reason, Zero.

IF it is evil to kill even a single person for any reason is insanity, I'm sure that the Allies are all insane.

My point is, WW2 was NOT a battle between good and evil. Hitler was evil......

......but the Allies were evil as well. One evil beating another and proclaiming itself to be 'good'. LotR is about good versus evil. Even if we assume "evil" to exist, how can you call a certain side "absolute good"? There is some element of evil in all. The clear-cut borderline between good/evil that is in LotR is a very hazy, murky, and fickle dividing line when it comes to the real world. When it chooses to manifest itself at all.

I know little about this theater of the war, Zero. From what I heard, the Japanese had been brainwashed enough to fight to the last man once the US soldiers arrived on their island. If this is the case, then several times the people that died in the nuclear attacks would have died in the subsequent invasion. However, I do not know this for a fact, and if it is incorrect, and the Japanese were in a proveable process of surrender, then yes, to drop the bomb was unthinkably evil.

Well, the bomb doesn't exactly divide itself into millions of mini seekers that ONLY kill civilians. A heck of a lot of, a fucking hell of a lot of civilians died from the Hiroshima blast. An even larger # of people slowly died and rotted away from the nuclear fallout.

Logicity tends to depend upon the viewpoint.

I saw no logical backing in the paragraph in question. Now you gave a reason: killing is insanity. Thanks, and no more thought to this q...until you make another paragraph like that :D

Thank you for re-reading. You are absolutely correct. But, you were the one that claimed that I said that LOTR had no reflection of the real world, which I never once did even suggest. You perverted my words into something else.

Many welcomes.

Perverted?! Must I take up a title like "Debaser of the Debased Words"? I made a valid extension of your words.

Look closer: it does not say one person. One is a pronoun that can mean many things, from one force to one man.

pron.

1. An indefinitely specified individual: She visited one of her cousins.
2. An unspecified individual; anyone: “The older one grows the more one likes indecency” (Virginia Woolf).

An individual might be a force if it were portrayed as a character, but the fact that the search is elusive can not be an individual.


Where do you draw the line between character and force, eh? Read Percy Bysshe Shelley's Ode to the West Wind. Tell me the difference between a force of nature and a character there.

I'll read it if I can find it somewhere...gimme a few days.
A force is just a principle of some sorts, or an obstacle that keeps impeding the progress of the main character according to some algorithm, whether the algorithm is revealed or not. A force becomes a character when it displays intelligence and creativity as opposed to, say, the sea just brushing Mr Higgs back as he tries to get to his boat. IT's all it does. Brush him back. If it starts, say, to communicate with Mr Higgs or show emotions ("the waves chuckled and roared at poor Higgs") it becomes a character.

In the story I mentioned, the 'fact that the search is elusive' is not a character. The absence of something (in this case, the guy who is the rock face) is not an object.

Zero, you didn't give me a proper summary of the book to work with. Please provide a title.

Dang it, that's the thing that bugs me. I can't remember. If only this rung a bell for someone around here...d'you know anyone who's a literary expert in sciflora?

IF it is evil to kill even a single person for any reason is insanity, I'm sure that the Allies are all insane.

Zero, they wouldn't have been fighting the war in the first place if Hitler hadn't started it. They killed because they had to.

My point is, WW2 was NOT a battle between good and evil. Hitler was evil......

......but the Allies were evil as well.

Not by a long shot. Each town that was liberated from Hitler rejoiced when the Americans or the British arrived, we would help them out as much as possible. It's not to say that our record is perfect, and that we were absolutely good, but I feel that if I had to choose a side to be on for its morals, I would pick the allies. The Russians were total assholes, I don't really consider them an "ally."

Even if we assume "evil" to exist, how can you call a certain side "absolute good"? There is some element of evil in all. The clear-cut borderline between good/evil that is in LotR is a very hazy, murky, and fickle dividing line when it comes to the real world. When it chooses to manifest itself at all.

Yes, the book was written to be a work of mythology, not a melodrama. I agree. Characters are bland because they don't have to be interesting for their to be a cool story that we can all relate to. The ideas behind the story, rather, are what makes it interesting and fun to read and cool. There's a pure-evil ring trying to ensare a pure-good hobbit, the orcs are trying to kill everyone, the elves are fleeing because they know that the war they're fighting is over. These ideas, and more, are what make up the story, there's just way more to it than good and evil, and
how defined each moral is.

Ode to the West Wind (http://www.daypoems.net/poems/562.html)

Alright, I'll pull this out as I remember it. Again, anyone who recognizes this story...please let me know title/author.

There's this little village out in the mountains. The people there are very pleasant, kind, and trusting. It's one of those places where you can leave your door open when you go out shopping and not give a damn, because it's such a pleasant, crime free place.

Along to one side of the village is this mountain, and one big side of it is solid rock. It resembles a big face if you look at it from your back porch. There's a local legend that one day there will come a person who's face resembles that face in the rock. The solid rock is part of the village heritage and people think of it as a friend.

Now, the main character is called Earnest (I think, don't sue me if he isn't). He longs to see the one who is fated to come. He's one of those rustic, Pleasantville types who go to church every Sunday, go to work on his farm, etc (don't remember his job). Whenever there's a rumor that the one has come, he joins the big crowd to see.

Three people, in succession, come and go. One is a politician. One is a former general/military hero. One is a rich banker (I think). Each time, people are excited and form a crowd around the new arrival. Each of the three give out this speech. At first, people think they do look like the Rock Face. But eventually, none of them turn out to look like the Rock Face. So people gradually forget about them and Earnest is the only one who remembers and dreams.

When Earnest gets old, he becomes a senior citizen of some small prestige. He gives out this talk about his life, (now my memory is very hazy here, this is approximately what he did), etc etc. When he's done he sits quietly with his friend. His friend suddenly turns to him and declares that Earnest is truly the one with the Rock's Face. All the people turn to him and it is really true this time. (I'm sure about this).

Yep, that's the story. Wish I remember the title or the author, but ach.

It sounds like a cool story, but it's my guess that the antagonist is simply the fact that he wasn't next to the rock when the story began. He and everyone else had to wait. Thus, there is a mystery, and one that is solved by overcoming the antagonist: time.

Now, are you as tired of this debate as I am?

Zero, they wouldn't have been fighting the war in the first place if Hitler hadn't started it. They killed because they had to.

It is utter insanity to kill for ANY reason. It's what you said. Then do you admit that it is legitimate to kill if there is a specific reason?

If so, then it gets into issues about what is "a good reason". We only think Hitler was evil because he was a threat to the rules of society that we live by. We think that the Allies were "good" (well, at least you do) because they upheld the rules of sociey that we set for ourselves and agreed to.

Not by a long shot. Each town that was liberated from Hitler rejoiced when the Americans or the British arrived, we would help them out as much as possible. It's not to say that our record is perfect, and that we were absolutely good, but I feel that if I had to choose a side to be on for its morals, I would pick the allies. The Russians were total assholes, I don't really consider them an "ally."

The best choice from two contenders is far from being "absolute good". There is no absolute good side in this world. It is a concept that only exists in LotR. So LotR and WW2 have nothing in common.

For one thing, In LotR, there is no mention of the political and economic costs of prepping for war. All they show is people automatically assuming that Sauron is "evil". They support the war effort without any of the protests we see right now. There are no refusals to participate in wars, like Nam. There is no nonviolence campaigns, there is no concern for the welfare of the civilians of the other side, heck there isn't even a reason for war except that Sauron is "evil".

For WW2, there was a specific reason to stop Hitler. He was a threat to democracy, a good political reason. In LotR, all they say is Sauron is evil.

Yes, the book was written to be a work of mythology, not a melodrama. I agree. Characters are bland because they don't have to be interesting for their to be a cool story that we can all relate to. The ideas behind the story, rather, are what makes it interesting and fun to read and cool. There's a pure-evil ring trying to ensare a pure-good hobbit, the orcs are trying to kill everyone, the elves are fleeing because they know that the war they're fighting is over. These ideas, and more, are what make up the story, there's just way more to it than good and evil, and
how defined each moral is.

Since when did mythology reflect the complexity of the real world?

And the elves all "know" that the war is over? There is no such thing as prophecy in modern politics. It must be some sort of absolute tyranny or absolute unity, to have that huge population of elves ALL agree on some decision and just leave their homes just like that. No political dissent? No factions? Heck, the assumption that there will be no enemy besides Sauron, and that where they go is a place of peace? They've got no logical reason behind their mass leaving. It is unrealistic, it shows no moral. All it shows is that Tolkein decided to have the elves leave because he's the one in charge of the story.

I'm reading the poem right now...it's a really good one. I like it.

Originally posted by Pollux V
It sounds like a cool story, but it's my guess that the antagonist is simply the fact that he wasn't next to the rock when the story began. He and everyone else had to wait. Thus, there is a mystery, and one that is solved by overcoming the antagonist: time.

Now, are you as tired of this debate as I am?

Nope, I love debates. I've been conditioned for them since my days duking it out in the Religion forums :D

Again, antagonist must be an individual! The "fact" has no intelligence, does not interact with the main character or any character, nor does it have any personality.

I want to fly, Zero. Right now. I want to grow feathers from my arms and fly. Why can I not do this?

It is a scientific fact that I will not sprout feathers from my arms.

The fact is keeping me from achieving my goal. The fact is an antagonist.

Excerpts from the poem
... Thou dirge

Of the dying year, to which this closing night
Will be the dome of a vast sepulchre,
Vaulted with all thy congregated might

Of vapours, from whose solid atmosphere
Black rain, and fire, and hail, will burst: O hear!

III

Thou who didst waken from his summer dreams
The blue Mediterranean, where he lay,
Lull'd by the coil of his crystalline streams,

Beside a pumice isle in Baiae's bay,
And saw in sleep old palaces and towers
Quivering within the wave's intenser day,

...

Thy voice, and suddenly grow gray with fear,
And tremble and despoil themselves: O hear!

...

One too like thee--tameless, and swift, and proud.



Make me thy lyre, even as the forest is:
What if my leaves are falling like its own?
The tumult of thy mighty harmonies

Will take from both a deep autumnal tone,
Sweet though in sadness. Be thou, Spirit fierce,
My spirit! Be thou me, impetuous one!

Drive my dead thoughts over the universe,
Like wither'd leaves, to quicken a new birth;
And, by the incantation of this verse,

Scatter, as from an unextinguish'd hearth
Ashes and sparks, my words among mankind!
Be through my lips to unawaken'd earth

The trumpet of a prophecy! O Wind,
If Winter comes, can Spring be far behind?

Well, from what I see of the poem by Percy Bysshe Shelley, the excerpts above show the Wind to have a distinct personality. S/he's impetuous, s/he dirges, s/he is tameless, swift and proud, etc. The Wind has got a personality, and is therefore a character.

Are you enjoying this debate as much as I am? I love doing this. The outcome of a debate, to me, is trivial. It's just the fact that I get insight into so many things that is so great.

Originally posted by Pollux V
I want to fly, Zero. Right now. I want to grow feathers from my arms and fly. Why can I not do this?

It is a scientific fact that I will not sprout feathers from my arms.

The fact is keeping me from achieving my goal. The fact is an antagonist.

No, an antagonist, according to the definition, is "One ... " and "One" is a pronoun that refers to an individual. A scientific fact is NOT an individual in the current context.

Also, it says "One who...". "Who" is not a word that is applied to a scientific fact. We do not say,

"The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is the one who continued to elude whatsupyall's grasp."

No, we do not refer to facts as "who" or as individuals.

I'm not enjoying the debate at all. You are unwilling to concede to any of my points, and I to yours. It's going nowhere.

Aww. I love doing this.

Any more points to make?

None that I have the inspiration to post.

Well, I'm still ready to duke it out some more. A hell of a lot more.

Is this a surrender? Anyone willing to challenge me?

"In that time were made those things that afterwards were most renowned of all works of elves. For Feanor, being come to his full might, was filled with a new thought, or it may be that some shadow of foreknowledge came to him of the doom that drew near; and he pondered how the light of the trees, the glory of the blessed realm , might be preserved imperishable. Then he began a long and secret labour, and he summoned all his lore, and his power, and his subtle skill; and at the end of all he made the Silmarils." - On Feanor and the Creation of the Silmarils

Pollux doesn't answer! I have prevailed!

Now unless someone else challenges me, I guess that's a sure sign that LotR is a stupid, unrealistic, cliched book.

So is that all you LotRers got? Pathetic.

Well i dont have any resons other than it has a good story and is fun to read, and that sood enough for me. Aparently thats not enough for you. But on thursday im planning on listening to a professor give a talk on why LOTR is the most popular book of the 20th century. I imagine he'll have a few good points but im sure you wont be convinced.

Let me in on those points. Note, he says why it is popular, not on why it is a work of art or why it is brilliant. Title says it all.

It would be interesting to see.

Anyhow, I claim victory over Polly. It was almost too easy.

Now unless someone else challenges me, I guess that's a sure sign that LotR is a stupid, unrealistic, cliched book.

Zero, you have an opinion. This negative opinion does not make this statement fact. I cannot shake an opinion by merely using letters and numbers, and I doubt that because of your baseless stubborness that anyone could convince you that The Lord of the Rings is a masterpiece of literature. In any case, I have no doubt that among readers of the book, the majority enjoyed doing so, it does happen to hold the title of Most Read Book of the 20th century, second to the Bible. Although you may have an unwavering opinion, it is one of the minority, and therefore defunct.

Zero, by stating that a "victory" over me was "too easy" you have thus concluded to me that you have nonexistent debating skills for this subject in particular.

Well then, duke it out with me and prove it. Don't just sit there. It makes me feel so sympathetic towards your loss.

Since when did "most read" mean "most brilliant"? Since when were the masses the best judges of literature :rolleyes:

Zero,

Well my history lecture ran long so ended up not able to go, but i do have a few points of my own.

Your constant calling LoTR "cliche" is wrong. It may look cliche now but only because it has been copied so many times. When it came out back in the 50s the fantasy genre didnt really exist. LotR was the casue of modern fantasy.
Since when were the masses the best judges of literature
The "masses" always have been and always will be the best and only judge of literature or any other art form. Art as a whole is a field with no absolutes at all, so the only way to tell the "good" from the "bad" is by people's opinions of it.

Fantasy genre?? There IS no separate "Genre". Calling fantasy a "genre" is glorification of something that blandly copies the good versus evil format. It's mythology. Mythology made up or compiled by people like Tolkein.

LotR was NOT a new piece of lit. It copied the good versus evil format that came from virtually any source you can think of. The bible, Zoroaster, myths, etc you name it. I call it cliched because it deserves that description. As for the idiots who imitated Tolkein, well, there is no term scornful enough to apply to them. Since when did LotR contain anything meaningful? It doesn't have anything meaningful, profound, or realistic. It's nothing. It's a synthetic product by stuffing Norse mythology with other myths from various places into a blender and cranking it out into three books. It contains NOTHING new. Try to prove that otherwise.

The masses are not judges of literature. The judges of literature are professional writers, professional critics, professors of English, etc. The public, on average, (especially in a country like the US where the illiteracy rate is very humbling) is not well read, nor does it have the knowledge/experience to even begin judging literature. The masses, judges of literature? It's a joke.

You present your arguments as fact, when they are instead merely opinions. That is the flaw behind this entire thread.

Zero,
The masses are not judges of literature. The judges of literature are professional writers, professional critics, professors of English
This is beautiful, i mean really it is. Are you a professional writer, professional critic, or english professor? If the answer is no, by your own logic you are not entitled to even have an opinion on LotR. You're just part of the "masses" you have so much contempt for. And guess what, the majority of professional writers, professional critics, and english professors actually like LotR. Even though i completely disagree with you about who is allowed to judge literature, the "qualified" judges prove your own point wrong.
Fantasy genre?? There IS no separate "Genre". Calling fantasy a "genre" is glorification of something that blandly copies the good versus evil format. It's mythology. Mythology made up or compiled by people like Tolkein.
Have you read any fantasy books? That statement makes me think you have absolutly no clue what you're even talking about.
Since when did LotR contain anything meaningful? It doesn't have anything meaningful, profound, or realistic. It's nothing. It's a synthetic product by stuffing Norse mythology with other myths from various places into a blender and cranking it out into three books.
It has a good plot in a very well designed universe with interesting (if somewhat shallow) charaters, and is fun to read. To me thats enough. I guess you need something more, but thats just your opinion (but are you even qualified to have one?).
The public, on average, (especially in a country like the US where the illiteracy rate is very humbling) is not well read, nor does it have the knowledge/experience to even begin judging literature. The masses, judges of literature? It's a joke.
Everyone who reads and is capable of forming an opinion is by definition a judge of literature. It takes no special knowledge to decide whether or not you like a book and why. LotR is the most popular book of the 20th century (even in the minds of critics), there must be something good about it.

Your own arrogance and total contempt for everybody who disagrees with you does not help prove your arguement.

This is beautiful, i mean really it is. Are you a professional writer, professional critic, or english professor? If the answer is no, by your own logic you are not entitled to even have an opinion on LotR. You're just part of the "masses" you have so much contempt for. And guess what, the majority of professional writers, professional critics, and english professors actually like LotR. Even though i completely disagree with you about who is allowed to judge literature, the "qualified" judges prove your own point wrong.

Neither are any of you, so we're talking here as layman to layman. Since when did the masses, with an illiteracy rate as high as it is in the US, possess any knowledge to even begin contemplating a judgement of literature?

If the masses like something, it is NOT literature. It just sells well.

Just because they LIKE something does not mean they think it's brilliant. Is it so hard to see that difference? You can LIKE sex but you might not find any profound philosophy in it. My dad LIKES science fiction novels but he doesn't consider them good literature. He just reads them because he likes them. I LIKE Lord of the Rings, but I don't consider it literature.

Have you read any fantasy books? That statement makes me think you have absolutly no clue what you're even talking about.

For one thing, I dig LotR for the same reason I dig comic books. I know it's not good lit, but it is entertaining. I also dig the Bazil Broketail series. Also the Sword of Shannara series. Loved those. Among zillions of other internet-based series fantasy.

It has a good plot in a very well designed universe with interesting (if somewhat shallow) charaters, and is fun to read. To me thats enough. I guess you need something more, but thats just your opinion (but are you even qualified to have one?).

The plot is decent enough to entertain. And he's done a good job of creating a universe. It is fun to read. But it will never be literature.

Check the character descriptions in LotR and things like Ivanhoe. Compare.

Everyone who reads and is capable of forming an opinion is by definition a judge of literature. It takes no special knowledge to decide whether or not you like a book and why. LotR is the most popular book of the 20th century (even in the minds of critics), there must be something good about it.

Then who distinguishes works like Les Miserables from LotR? Which would you consider to be true, authentic, profound literature? Would you place the two on the same level?

Your own arrogance and total contempt for everybody who disagrees with you does not help prove your argument.

I was feeling a tad snappish after a session of duking it out with Green_World. He’s a Muslim fanatic sciforums invader. Him after whatsupyall. Apologies if I sounded harsh. Not "everyone". Everyone who claims LotR is fine literature.

I was feeling a tad snappish after a session of duking it out with Green_World. He’s a Muslim fanatic sciforums invader. Him after whatsupyall. Apologies if I sounded harsh. Not "everyone". Everyone who claims LotR is fine literature.
No worries. I have read most of the green_world threads (i read alot more than i post) I imagine actualy trying to argue with him would make anybody irritable.:)
Neither are any of you, so we're talking here as layman to layman. Since when did the masses, with an illiteracy rate as high as it is in the US, possess any knowledge to even begin contemplating a judgement of literature?
First of all illiteracy rates in the US are irrelevent. The book is popular internationaly. Hell, Tolkien was British. And obviously I dont mean that illiterate people are qualified judges of lit. IMO anybody capable of reading, understanding, and being able to form an opinion of a book is a qualified judge of that book.
For one thing, I dig LotR for the same reason I dig comic books. I know it's not good lit, but it is entertaining. I also dig the Bazil Broketail series. Also the Sword of Shannara series. Loved those. Among zillions of other internet-based series fantasy.
Then why say that its worthless? Isnt the enjoyment you get from it wort something?
Then who distinguishes works like Les Miserables from LotR?
Anyone who's read both books.
Which would you consider to be true, authentic, profound literature? Would you place the two on the same level?
Well Les Miserables has much more social comentary in it, but in this case i think its mostly interesting from a historical standpoint. I agree that LotR dosent have any great philisophical insights, but i did enjoy reading it more. I really like both books i dont think id really say one is better than the other they're just very different.

Is LotR literature? Who knows? You say it isnt, I say it is. Art can only be judged by peoples opinion of it. There is no real answer.

Originally posted by Zero
Since when did the masses, with an illiteracy rate as high as it is in the US, possess any knowledge to even begin contemplating a judgement of literature?
If the masses like something, it is NOT literature. It just sells well.


Not sure of your point here. The illiteracy rate in the US is only 3%. Certainly that's not a figure to be proud of, it should be nil, but with a world % of about 17 to compare with, it isn't abnormally high.

I do agree with you, however. I don't think Tolkien was attempting to make a point or to impart any sort of wisdom, nor do I think he was attempting to create any sort of parallel or any other "good vs evil" struggle in history. From statements he made before his death, I'm not even sure Tolkien expected anyone to take his work that seriously. I think he would find it humorous that this debate would even be going on today. And I don't think it matters. While the Hobbit was written specifically for kids (his grandchildren, if I remember right), I think he wrote LoTR and the Silmarillion for his own entertainment more than for anyone else. I doubt he was even much concerned about making money.

So LotR is enjoyable. The satisfaction is worthwhile. But it's not literature. I might want to clarify the post there. LotR is worthless as literature, not plain worthless.

We can get satisfaction from comic books, a cup of coffee (if you like coffee that is), an orgasm, or a kiss. Or a bunch of flowers on V's Day.

The satisfaction gained from LotR can be found anywhere. LM, however, has unique historical perspectives, and it also happens to have a plot a heck of lot more complex than the rigid-straight "evil marches, good rises to meet it, a spectacular fight ensues, good prevails unless author plans to make sequel" story plot. The characters are described much more skillfully, and are much more deep and realistic.

Would you consider LotR to be literature along the same level as LM?? I do not think so.

Originally posted by Pollux V
You present your arguments as fact, when they are instead merely opinions. That is the flaw behind this entire thread.

Aww, someone's sore. Here, have an ice cream.

After reading this entire thread is has come clear to me Zero, that you are an arrogant, condesending, egotistical person. I mean, christ, people read the literature to pull away enjoyment. It is your opinion alone that stands that all literature should have an overall powerful, original, lasting feeling. And as said previously, most modern day professors believe this to be an exemplary piece of writing, whether you think it is or not carries very little weight in the scheme of things.

The thing that really upsets me is your attitude that since you can not be swayed in opinion, your OPINION is clearly the correct one. Oh, i'm sorry, it isn't! An opinion isn't fact! It is an idea or prefrence. Fine, only read writing that you feel is to your taste and let us alone with ours. Good versus evil is the obvious theme in it but that does not mean it is wrong. Good verus evil is a concept that has been debated since Homer and Soppocles. I'm no scholar or writer, merely a 14 year old trying to prove a point. But your own opinion is no more important then any of ours, and your constant bombardment of your own egotistical, unthoughtful views does not help prove your point to us, only to yourself and your own shallow mind.

So fine, have fun with your Les Miserables. I'll keep JRR Tolkien.

Welcome to SciFourms Vertigoll. Too bad your post wont accomplish anything. ;)
So fine, have fun with your Les Miserables. I'll keep JRR Tolkien.
Ill just say dont let Zero turn you off Les Mis. It is an excelent book, just not in the same way as LotR.

Thanks Neutrino. I wasn't trying to undermine Les Miserables, I was merely trying to point out that if Zero does not wish to even consider any of the ideas that were given, and given very well by individuals like Pollux, then don't even try to "debate" it. We have no reason to battle one who will not even give into consideration. Some of Zero's points are fine indeed, but that does not mean he is the "winner". It's not so much as a game as Zero believes it to be. A serious debate wouldn't make one a sore-winner and others sore-losers, because of the losing party was to give in, they would see what the "winner" was trying to say and understand that. But look what we have here, no one has given in. People have just grown tired of Zero and his constant babbling about his opinions.

Or at least, I think they have. And, after reading through 5 pages of thread, I certainly have.

Hey, who says I hate Tolkein? I dig LotR. I just don't think it's literature. It's good. But not literature.

Someone is feeling vindictive and defensive here, eh?:cool:

Oh look an LOTR thread.
Hey Mr Zero lets try this another way...
Do you consider the works of Shakespear to be literature?

No matter what you say, Zero shall not be convinced. He sticks to opinions, not facts.

Originally posted by Pollux V
"You present your arguments as fact, when they are instead merely opinions. That is the flaw behind this entire thread"


I agree with that entirely.

Aww some people are mad because they lost. Aww, how cute. Cute cute cuties. :cool:

So fucking adorable. Party on.

From dictionary.com
Literature
1.The body of written works of a language, period, or culture.
2. Imaginative or creative writing, especially of recognized artistic value: “Literature must be an analysis of experience and a synthesis of the findings into a unity” (Rebecca West).
3. The art or occupation of a literary writer.
4. The body of written work produced by scholars or researchers in a given field: medical literature.
5. Printed material: collected all the available literature on the subject.
1. It's written. It's a body or written work. About the culture of Middle Earth.
2. It's imaginative (fits within the definitions, again, given by dictionary.com). Many people recognise the artistic value,though I susopect you're not one, Zero. :)
3. Tolkien's occupation was a writer. Of literature.
4. It's a body of written work, in the given field of fantasy or whatever genre you wanna classify it under.
5. It's printed. In enormous volumes. :bugeye:

Aww some people are mad because they lost. Aww, how cute. Cute cute cuties

You have neither won nor convinced a single person who has replied to this thread. In accordance to these terms, you are the only loser, zero. You entered this arena empty handed and left the same way.

i realize this thread is nearly dead, buti want to put in my two bits anyway. Zero, i agree the good v. evil plot is boring, predictable and really really old. (in the sense of absolute good and evil, not in a protagonist v. antagonist) however, look at lotr again. most of the trilogy tails frodo baggins, a hobbit. a halfling who is given an undertaking that is dangerous, and that he will most likely not return from alive. hobbits are by nature creatures that stay home and never really go anywhere or see anything. this book is about stepping outside the roles society gives you. become more than what you're told you are. fight every shackle, every wieght placed upon you as if the fate of the world depended on it. when things are their worst, look around you; those are your friends. and when you want nothing more than to give up, to give in and die: they will be standing there to push you foreward, or pull you back if needs be. dont judge a book on a tired good v. evil plot that is there for those unable to see past it and who have to have a happy ending. the true value of any book is in the things we cannot describe when we're done reading it, in that satisfactory feeling that you understand something, even if you dont know what. and if lotr doesnt do that for you, then find a book that does, but dont try to have and informed discussion when you are unwilling to change your mind. dont start a thread telling ppl to prove something to you when you arent going to listen anyway.

oh and on the helms deep fight scene, why did none of those damn horses trip on that steep gravely slope? :p

Good input. As far as the Helm's Deep scene was directed, you got to realize that it is Fantasy. Hollywood. Thinking about it logically will only make it worse then it is. Look at it for it's qualities, it was a big battle to destroy the race of man. So what if they screwed all of the tactics up. ;0)

Well put, deathrose.

I didn't give a crap at how they were basically falling down a cliff. It just looked awesome. Hell, it was awesome.

Originally posted by Pollux V
You have neither won nor convinced a single person who has replied to this thread. In accordance to these terms, you are the only loser, zero. You entered this arena empty handed and left the same way.

Aww, cute cute Polly, he's so fucking mad because he lost a close battle with me. Isn't that nice and childish? I leave victorious.

Lord of the Rings sucks ASS!!

Zero,

By what standards have you won anything? All youve done is stated your opinions with out backing them up, and everybody has disagreed with you. Doesnt seem like any kind of victory to me.

im just going to restate this zero, as logic seems to escape you.
dont start a thread telling ppl to prove something to you when you arent going to listen anyway.

and i loved how the elves where the frist ones to greet the orcs when they burst through the wall, and it seems virtually none survived. poor elves. :(

Really Zero. What "victory" are you referring to Zero? It was an intellegent back and forth of ideas and opinions. Your not taking home a trophy or anything. You put down your opinion and thats that. Here's a baloon Zero.

Elves are awesome. Especially in the Fellowship of the Ring in that very first battle against the legions of Mordor, when they all swiped their longswords or polearms, whatever the were, I forget, at the same time. Maginificent!

Aww, I get a balloon as victory prize? Thanks.
*hangs ballon around ears and grins*

Lol

*pops balloon and runs away laughing*

Popping a little kids balloon.. That's mean. ;0)

I leave this board for a few months and look what happens? Chaos, total chaos!

Anyway, heres my thoughts...


I only just read LOTR a few months ago. I'm into similar books as Zero is (Orwell and Camus, but I quite like J G Ballard, Philip K Dick and Graham Greene too).

I was kind of reluctant to read LOTR because I wasnt particularly interested in reading a huge fantasy epic about dwarfs and wizards and the like. I preferred stories that were tight. Short and sweet. I was much more interested in reading J.D. Salinger than I was J R R Tolkien, and with the success the books had I figured that the LOTR books were probably overhyped junk-food.

However...

I read the books a few months ago, and I really enjoyed them, and I do think there are nuggets of wisdom in the books. Not necessarily a single unified message, but there are various themes and topics in the books which are hinted at here and there.
What I really enjoyed though was that the story itself was very well crafted. It was like listening to a piece of music with a great melody, and that for me was part of LOTRs strongpoints. Every book has its strength, its raison'd etre (excuse spelling). LOTR tells a good story, and thats the enjoyment I get from it. Not every book published has to be an existentialist essay.

For instance, I'm a fan of films like Donnie Darko and Gattaca, because they're interesting films with thought provoking ideas, but I also love Back to the Future because its a great adventure. Its a great story with great characters. I dont see why I should like Back to the Future less just because it happens to be great fun.

Now there is a great quote from 'Superman' (The Christopher Reeve movie).

Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman), in one point of the film says:

Some people in this world can read War and Peace and come away thinking its nothing more than an adventure novel, while other people can find the secret of the universe in the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper

Not bad for a comic book movie ;)

Well since no-one has replied to my post I guess that makes me the winner.

And the crowd goes wild...

1-nil, 1-nil, 1-nil

:D

How can you even BEGIN to insult Tolkien's world???

HOW???

I refuse to sink low enough as to answer your question. Middle-earth is my home.

Grrr. You are all evil. Every single bloody one of you, except maybe- MAYBE- for those of you on my side. MAYBE.

*Sob*.


Anyone who ISN'T insane and LIKES LOTR, go to Ultimate LOTR Resource. It's a good thread.

Bloody cheers.

HOW DARE YOU CALL IT WORTHLESS???

I really could sit here for bloody HOURS, really, and go on about how wonderful it all is, but I'll spare you.

Thank you, friends, for defending Middle-earth. Thank you.

What does it contribute? Why does it HAVE to? I think it teaches you a lot, about a new world and the like.

See, I'm only- what is it now, 14? 15?- somewhere in there- but even I know to just decided I don't LIKE something and then resort to personal attacks to try to make other people hate it too. It's fine that you have a problem with it, okay? But don't try and make the REST of us renounce our titles as the kind of people who actually explore and try to enjoy something before writing it off for sludge, okay?

Cheers to everyone who is actually trying.

And if you don't like it? Then you don't like it. So get over it. No one wants to listen to you complain about how sucky you think it is. Thanks.

:D

Originally posted by Zero


And the elves all "know" that the war is over? There is no such thing as prophecy in modern politics. It must be some sort of absolute tyranny or absolute unity, to have that huge population of elves ALL agree on some decision and just leave their homes just like that. No political dissent? No factions? Heck, the assumption that there will be no enemy besides Sauron, and that where they go is a place of peace? They've got no logical reason behind their mass leaving. It is unrealistic, it shows no moral. All it shows is that Tolkein decided to have the elves leave because he's the one in charge of the story.

[/B]

Ahem... obviously, Zero, you don't really know all that terribly much about the Elves.

Morgoth came from Valinor, the Undying Lands, their original home. He went to destroy/inslave/whatever Middle-earth. The Elves were forbidden by Valar to follow him, but they did, to save Middle-earth.
For directly disobeyed Valar, they were then exiled. They all were returning to Valinor because finally, they exile had been uplifted, and they were permitted to return, mostly because of the great evil come into the world that they could no longer prevent, and because the Elven homes, without the power of the Elven rings, would cease to exist.

Happy?

Good. Bloody cheers.

Originally posted by deathrose
oh and on the helms deep fight scene, why did none of those damn horses trip on that steep gravely slope? :p

sorry i can't just shut up and go away, really i am, but it's because they're the horses of Rohan.
if ya knew tolkien, you'd know that.
cheers.