Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Stunaep on December 12, 2003, 07:46:50 am
-
I mean, you don't have to be homosexual to have close relations between the same sex. No, really, you don't. Sam gets married in the end, remember. And Legolas and Gimli are just friends. Why is every second review I've read about ROTK about homosexuality. What's the problem? Are we really that ruined by today's culture?
Sure, Tolkien couldn't really write believable women, but Jackson pulls off what he has written excellently. And, it's not like you have a lot of women in a believable medieval (fantasy) world. If it were directed by Lucas, Legolas would have probably been a girl, and Gimli would have been a brotha'. Would you have preferred that?
-
When Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings society was not what it was today and the kinds of relationships present in LOTR are definately not exactly the same way relationships are now. Males aren't supposed to be good buddies anymore or something....except that the whole Gimli-Legolas relationship is perfectly along the lines of a typical male relationship as sociologists see it...especially with the heavy amounts of competition between the two (killing orcs in numbers as competition for instance or the sort of unofficial race at the beginning of Two Towers).
This isn't some crazy homosexual relationship that they are trying to put into the movie, thats completely out of place and I agree with you that its obviously our movie reviewer crowd that are just completely out of touch with the movies history, themes, and background.
I wouldn't be surprised if half of them haven't read the books and then the other half didn't understand it or appreciate its roots in Tolkiens life.
Sorry I don't take much stock into movie reviewers especially since they seem to be wrong about 75% of the time.
-
I appreciate James Berardinelli. He writes good stuff.
-
Who cares? I HATE LORD OF THE RINGS!
-
This sort of thing happens all the time with books all the time. I've lost count of the number of times that read some idiot's theory about Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson being lovers.
Never mind that Watson got married immediately after the second book. Never mind that there are a whole series of short stories that go on after his marriage and nevermind that Watson only moves back in with Holmes following the death of his wife.
Some people don't seem to be able to believe that two guys can have a close relationship without being gay. The only conclusion I can make is that either they've never had any really good friends or that they are secretly gay and therefore believe that everyone else must be too
-
Originally posted by Triple Ace
Who cares? I HATE LORD OF THE RINGS!
Yeah, well, don't step into the argument then. Thank you.
-
What did it do to you, Triple Ace? You allergic to reading or something?
I've already had one argument with a 'tard regarding the 'rubbish' ending of Fellowship today. I'm not in the mood for any more Tolkien bashing.
-
it's all middle school stuff, really. everyone is accused of being gay with their best friend. if two guys hang out with each other all the time, they must be gay :rolleyes: i've heard all sorts of stupid accusations. Gilligan and the Skipper, Legolas and Gimli, Watson and Holmes, Bulk and Skull... and it'll keep going as long as there are 12 year olds in sex ed.
-
Originally posted by IceFire
When Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings society was not what it was today and the [...]about 75% of the time.
two things:
- LotR is not supposed to happen in the 21th century, on Earth, but in some old age on middle earth.
- I have a few very good buddies, and I'm not gay or anything, and it's not frowned upon :doubt:. You live in a strange place :blah:
I know you didn't meant that regarding the movie, don't worry, but still, those concepts are there...
-
Sam and Frodo definitely shared a sausage or two I'm sure of it.
:D
Not really, but the way that their friendship is portrayed is a little flamboyant, I really must count the amount of time Sam looks fondly at Frodo, touches him in a fond way, or any other fondness that Sam shows.
-
Originally posted by 01010
Sam and Frodo definitely shared a sausage or two I'm sure of it.
:D
Not really, but the way that their friendship is portrayed is a little flamboyant, I really must count the amount of time Sam looks fondly at Frodo, touches him in a fond way, or any other fondness that Sam shows.
I guess that's coz Sam is fond of Frodo? :p
-
Yeah but I'm not talking about fond here, I'm talking FOND.
-
Originally posted by 01010
Sam and Frodo definitely shared a sausage or two I'm sure of it.
Nope. Frodo keeps putting out the fire cause it was attracts the ringwraiths (especially to Weathertop cause there are no inns in the area) :D
1010 : Back when Lord of the Rings was written homosexuality wasn't as overt as it is now so a guy could be flamboyant about his friendship with another guy without having to be worried about people thinking he was gay.
Carl : it's one thing when 12 year olds act that way, it's a completely different thing when people who are english professors or movie reviewers come out with the same crap.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
01010 : Back when Lord of the Rings was written homosexuality wasn't as overt as it is now so a guy could be flamboyant about his friendship with another guy without having to be worried about people thinking he was gay.
I know I know, I was just playing ;)
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
I mean, you don't have to be homosexual to have close relations between the same sex. No, really, you don't. Sam gets married in the end, remember. And Legolas and Gimli are just friends. Why is every second review I've read about ROTK about homosexuality. What's the problem? Are we really that ruined by today's culture?
Sure, Tolkien couldn't really write believable women, but Jackson pulls off what he has written excellently. And, it's not like you have a lot of women in a believable medieval (fantasy) world. If it were directed by Lucas, Legolas would have probably been a girl, and Gimli would have been a brotha'. Would you have preferred that?
You've been reading too much stuff from Landover Baptist (http://www.landoverbaptist.org)
-
you know what's interesting. I've seen the homosexuality bit in american reviews only. the US is really obsessed with the political correctness and stuff, which is possibly why the homosexual bit is standing out so much for them (and I'm not trying to ignite another political discussion, really, it just hit me). In estonia, for example, noone has ever suggested such a thing, aside from one article every three or four years or so, suggesting that D'Artagnan or Robin Hood or some such was gay.
Besides, I know quite a few gay people who are really intelligent and fun to hang around with. Really. And I'm deeply, deeply heterosexual.
-
Who are you trying to convince? We've all seen the pictures.
-
I was with a girl on that one.
-
Yes, and she, with every once of her body, was more masculine than you.
-
They're riding off towards certain death and they don't once think "Y'know, this could be our last day alive. Lets get some *****es and have us a ****ing party!!!!!"
Although it's commendable the way Aaraagaargaragorn basically gives every woman who takes a fancy to him an emotional *****-slap so he can go off huntin' orcs with his boyz.
-
Lord of the Rings, like 90% of geek literature, isn't about sex in the slightest. Dweebs don't like to be reminded of how long it was since they last got laid- read something that wasn't written specifically for lonely white guys and you'll notice a much more casual regard to sex, almost universally. Ascribing a sexual preference to characters at all takes a bit of an overactive imagination- the most randy anyone ever gets in the books is some discreet smooching.
Also- um... Tolkein wasn't writing all that long ago. If anything, homophobia ran far higher in his day than now, and the pop-culture images of manliness were the ones that spawned our own. It's simply that he's trying to recall a time way back (think, say, Wilde-era at latest) when men followed a different ideal of masculinity, and he didn't have to worry about accusations of gays in his books because homosexuality was so unspeakable then that most people didn't even know what it was.
-
I actually found the characters came across as gayer in the books than in the films - particularly Sam and Frodo. But then that was when they were actually in Mordor, so I'm guessing they were thinking "bugger, we're going to DIE!" quite a lot, so all they had for support was each other. And I haven't seen the film's take on it yet, so I dunno...
EDIT: Heh, I wouldn't exactly call LOTR "geek literature". "One of the finest fantasy epics ever written", possibly, but not written with the recently-emerged "geek" fantasy/dungeons and dragons-type fanbase in mind. Unlike a lot of more recent fantasy books.
-
EH?!?! Where?
Most 'intimate' thing I found was them talking about their horses as they got to the Path of the Dead.
-
Yet better. Maybe they're all into bestiality. I vaguely remember some quickly-passed-over smoochage, but it might have been inferred or just in the movie, my memory of the book's pretty poor and I'm content to leave it that way.
-
Christ, I can't give you a quote or anything, but there's something in there just after Shelob poisons Frodo and the orcs drag him off to the fort. Can't remember what, but I thought it was there.
I dunno, I haven't read it for four years. I'll have to read it again and see what I think of it this time. I remember that I didn't notice it the first time I read it (I was in Year 3/4), but it came through more strongly the second and third times (about 2 years later, then again a few years after that)...
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
Christ, I can't give you a quote or anything, but there's something in there just after Shelob poisons Frodo and the orcs drag him off to the fort. Can't remember what, but I thought it was there.
I dunno, I haven't read it for four years. I'll have to read it again and see what I think of it this time. I remember that I didn't notice it the first time I read it (I was in Year 3/4), but it came through more strongly the second and third times (about 2 years later, then again a few years after that)...
You mean where Sam strokes Frodo's brow rather excessively and kisses the back of his hand when he thinks he's dead. Me and my friend had a fairly lengthy discussion about the homosexual overtones that Sam posesses. Still a ****ing great book though :)
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Lord of the Rings, like 90% of geek literature, isn't about sex in the slightest. Dweebs don't like to be reminded of how long it was since they last got laid- read something that wasn't written specifically for lonely white guys and you'll notice a much more casual regard to sex, almost universally. Ascribing a sexual preference to characters at all takes a bit of an overactive imagination- the most randy anyone ever gets in the books is some discreet smooching.
Right, that's the other thing I find interesting. Why does everyone have the idea, that everyone who is a fan of LOTR is a hopeless geek. I have several friends, one of whom, who owns all the books, silmarillion, the unfinished tales, and god knows what else, and he's the single most un-geeky person I have ever seen. And that's more of a rule, not an exception.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
Right, that's the other thing I find interesting. Why does everyone have the idea, that everyone who is a fan of LOTR is a hopeless geek. I have several friends, one of whom, who owns all the books, silmarillion, the unfinished tales, and god knows what else, and he's the single most un-geeky person I have ever seen. And that's more of a rule, not an exception.
Everyone, absolutely everyone I know who has read LOTR is at least to some degree, geeky. I myself am an incredibly big geek but however by some weird kind of plot twist in the novel that is my life, people don't accept this to be true, in fact, my g/f vehemently denies my geekiness. I guess she just can't deal with the fact that she's with one of those guys that she rips the piss out of. Ha ha. :)
-
just to make something clear:
geek Pronunciation Key (gk)
n. Slang
A person regarded as foolish, inept, or clumsy.
A person who is single-minded or accomplished in scientific or technical pursuits but is felt to be socially inept.
I don't really understand how this came to be a soooo large term in the US. The way I understand it, at least here in Estonia, is just that. A person who is single-minded or accomplished in scientific or technical pursuits but is felt to be socially inept. I don't really understand how there can be that many socially inept persons in the States.
I also have an ego the size of Mount Everest. Thank you.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
just to make something clear:
I don't really understand how this came to be a soooo large term in the US. The way I understand it, at least here in Estonia, is just that. A person who is single-minded or accomplished in scientific or technical pursuits but is felt to be socially inept. I don't really understand how there can be that many socially inept persons in the States.
I also have an ego the size of Mount Everest. Thank you.
Apparently, the bigger the ego the smaller the penis size.
-
She hasn't complained so far.
-
Stu, dude, it isn't the socially well-adjusted people you meet at a LARP. That's the extreme end of the line, yes, but as a rule most anyone who's into fantasy or sci-fi is a geek. A larger portion of the populace is moderately geeky these days, so they don't stand out like they used to in the good ol' times, but the rule still applies. You ain't gonna find construction workers or Edward Abbey types who're into elves and castles.
And, well, fantasy is just pretty maladjusted thing at the core anyway. I mean, when you break it down, what is it? Nostalgia- but for a time that never happened, where instead of day-to-day reality you get this massive epic conflict between black-and-white evil, where your accomplishments just come to you from who you are (note how the hero's usually an enchanted prince or summat, it's the tongue-in-cheek versions where it's some nobody typically)- predestination rather than meritocracy. And, of course, where sex is secondary to hitting orcs with something sharp, where conversation is secondary to hitting orcs with something sharp, where interaction with real people in general is secondary to hitting orcs with something sharp. And occasionally speaking some babble that makes a fireball fly out of your palm.
If I wanted to create a genre that appealed specifically and viscerally to the insecure nerdly masses, I couldn't do much better than fantasy. Plus, I don't like it, because the losers also got into science fiction and started twisting it into the same escapist ****e. You hardly ever see good hard SF, or a passable allegoric story, these days.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
Right, that's the other thing I find interesting. Why does everyone have the idea, that everyone who is a fan of LOTR is a hopeless geek. I have several friends, one of whom, who owns all the books, silmarillion, the unfinished tales, and god knows what else, and he's the single most un-geeky person I have ever seen. And that's more of a rule, not an exception.
coz those other peoples don't like the book? When you see a lot of people who loves a thing so much, when you don't, you think "hey, they can't be normal". But Stryke would mice you into pieces if you call him a geek coz he fancies weapons so much, yet, he is one of them( and a severe one at that ).
They're everywhere... lookout!
translation: a geek is someone who likes a lot stuff that you're not interested in. Everybody's someone's geek, in short.
-
I have lot's of very, VERY good buddies (I'm pretty selective and strict about that.. - o.k. - so I don't have lot's, I have a few).
I understand perfectly the frendship between Sam and Frodo, but in the movie it does appear at least a bit... strange...
I'm not saying Sam is gay...he perhaps could be obsessed...I dunno.. But that could have been done better.
-
Venom: Um, no. Geek means something very specific- the best definition I could give is a devotion to purely intellectual pursuits that have no practical function whatsoever, though that's a flawed one (computer geeks are pretty much the people keeping society running). As the judge said, "I don't know what it is, but I'll know it when I see it". If you can't determine the difference, maybe it's time you reevaluated your reference point in life.
And yes, I am thoroughly a geek- the fact that I am also a gun nut is neither here nor there, as is the fact that I'm a scavenger, regularly take hikes occupying an entire day, or any other similar factoid. Fact, most of my friends are far geekier than I am- I have nothing against geeks in general. Just the sort that can't deal with a life even so plush as the one they're given- I could understand if, I dunno, an Albanian or Somali or someone developed a taste for escapist fantastic literature, got into pretending to be an elf-mage or summat as much as some people over here do- but they don't. They typically need their full attention on living. What does it say about the characters of these people in first-world countries, almost invariably middle-class, living the easiest and nearly the freest lives in all of history, that they can't deal with that?
Fiction such as Lord of the Rings holds no inner truths, says nothing significant about life or society or swordmaking or anything at all, because that's the way the average reader wants it. It's TV on paper. Crap. And should be treated as such- reading it once in a while is acceptable, but one shouldn't pretend it's any more than pure mindless entertainment, indeed chosen over literature at least as engaging that actually has redeeming value. They certainly shouldn't read it to the exclusion of anything else, or confuse those fictions with reality to the extent you see so many people doing these days. Nobody is so pretentious or foolish as to compare Temptation Island to Faulkner- why should fantasy literature be different just because it's written in books?
Trashman: Well, there is that whole extended sodomy scene. Fact that Frodo called it "meaningless" later on might just be to throw the reader off.
-
I think people get into the LOTR because it's a fully fleshed out universe and a lot of the events that are referenced in the book have whole tales that relate to anyone that cares to read more. That's personally the appeal to me, the fact that when I read about a certain place in Middle Earth, there's a whole history to it and I like that. It adds a lot more depth to the books to know that a battle happened here thousands of years ago, or that a characters weapon was used thousands of years before for a significant purpose.
I think the whole escapism issue is just that, escapism through a lack of anything better or significant to do with themselves.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Venom: Um, no. Geek means something very specific- the best definition I could give is a devotion to purely intellectual pursuits that have no practical function whatsoever, though that's a flawed one (computer geeks are pretty much the people keeping society running). As the judge said, "I don't know what it is, but I'll know it when I see it". If you can't determine the difference, maybe it's time you reevaluated your reference point in life.
And yes, I am thoroughly a geek- the fact that I am also a gun nut is neither here nor there, as is the fact that I'm a scavenger, regularly take hikes occupying an entire day, or any other similar factoid. Fact, most of my friends are far geekier than I am- I have nothing against geeks in general. Just the sort that can't deal with a life even so plush as the one they're given- I could understand if, I dunno, an Albanian or Somali or someone developed a taste for escapist fantastic literature, got into pretending to be an elf-mage or summat as much as some people over here do- but they don't. They typically need their full attention on living. What does it say about the characters of these people in first-world countries, almost invariably middle-class, living the easiest and nearly the freest lives in all of history, that they can't deal with that?
Fiction such as Lord of the Rings holds no inner truths, says nothing significant about life or society or swordmaking or anything at all, because that's the way the average reader wants it. It's TV on paper. Crap. And should be treated as such- reading it once in a while is acceptable, but one shouldn't pretend it's any more than pure mindless entertainment, indeed chosen over literature at least as engaging that actually has redeeming value. They certainly shouldn't read it to the exclusion of anything else, or confuse those fictions with reality to the extent you see so many people doing these days. Nobody is so pretentious or foolish as to compare Temptation Island to Faulkner- why should fantasy literature be different just because it's written in books?
Trashman: Well, there is that whole extended sodomy scene. Fact that Frodo called it "meaningless" later on might just be to throw the reader off.
Oh, before you gets the hots, first, I prefer to point out it wasn't directed to you. Just happened you were the latest one posting about LotR=Geek stuff. And to me "geek" holds the meaning I've deciphered through the few years I've spend on internet, and always was used for the same meaning: "someone who is too much into some kind of stuff ( which doesn't involved making money out of it, I guess ). Never my definition has been proven wrong in FACTS, so some "definition from the dictionary " thing won't change my mind. And my reference point in life is fine, thank you.
Voila, done. Now:
TLotR has that huge of a fan base for a few, simple, easy to understand even for negative IQed people, reasons:
1) It set up a genre. It took stuff from lots of mythologies ( dwarfs, etc ), and put those references into one, easy to understand, interesting and, for the time, modern package ( please note the book was never meant for large audience, don't remember the story, but it never left the Oxford - I think - faculty for years, and was just shared by a few students. Somehow it leaked out. Point being: Tolkien wasn't after a litterature price or anything, so I guess he didn't give a rat's ass about literacy excellence or "inner truth". He was a linguist, not a novelist ).
2) It set up a f*cking grand universe, highly detailled and stuff. Lots of books, illustrations, stuff. That was never done before ( if you mention the bible, I'll trout-slap you )
3) Was mindless fun. Yup, some people, from times to times, prefer that to complicated books with pulled from the ****hole logics and mind blowing psychocrap. If "inner truth" was so great, battle field earth would be a pillar in todays literracy.
4) nope, no 4), that's it, 3 points are way enough.
But to be honest, I don't find surprising one bit you don't like it, I would have bet on it.
...
...
...
I'm surprised Mikhael likes it, actually :p
"runs"
-
I remember reading somewhere that said that LOTRs was the second most popular book of all time.
That means that alot of people have read it...
-
And then again, LOTR has a point as to being a book about life changing people. and also a half-allegory of the Second World War, as much as Prof. Tolkien denies it. And Venom, I seem to agree with you on the definition of geek, in the States at least, from what I've gathered on the internet. It has suddenly become a very large term (which is probably why noone older than 18, and an IQ over 60 uses it where I live). But that of course, kinda rules out Stryke's opinion that geeks are, I quote "dweebs, who don't like being reminded about the last time they got laid." So if we go by that definition, which I like, then Strykes opinion as to why there is no sex in LOTR, is effectively false. Because, I, by Venom's definition am completely 100% geek - I take a great fancy in literature, arts, music, philosophy, etc. But I have no trouble with my love-life (aside from the autumn months, where I've dumped/been dumped by my latest girlfriend, again, because for some reason, none of my relationships tends to last over three months, which is rather interesting, because the female friends, who are just friends, I've had for some 5-6 years or so). If we take Stryke's definition of geek, then he is also wrong, because of my earlier post.
So.... In short, Stryke, you suck. :p
Hope that all made sense.
-
Sex, autum, Stryke sucking. Followed every word.
-
Um, you are aware that "geek" "dweeb" and so on aren't just synonyms. They all have thoroughly specified meanings developed from decades of use in our culture, and were you to regularly to have conversations with, you know, human beings rather than your "girlfriend" on The Sims, you'd know that. There's a reason I didn't just stick to the one word.
Also, there is no such thing as a "philosophy geek". You will never ever hear the term, and it's for the very simple reason that philosophy is not the sort of subject that falls into the aforementioned field. Same with music. They're culturally ascribed terms, dude, if you don't hear them used in that context more than once or twice by some retard they're not common currency and aren't proper usage. You can't make up your own definition just because it makes sense to you, personally, just like I can't ride an elephant down a major highway just because I feel like calling it a car. How clueless of you.
As for the rest, I think this
some reason, none of my relationships tends to last over three months, which is rather interesting, because the female friends, who are just friends, I've had for some 5-6 years or so
rests my case pretty thoroughly. Aside from the fact that, you know, you've so far completely failed to offer up a coherent alternate explanation, which is noteworthy in itself.
World War II allegory? You're grasping at straws, dude, reeeeealy grasping. Any epic battle between absolute good and absolute evil could be claimed to be about WWII, if the author doesn't say anything more worth bothering with than that one would hope he's not trying to write about WWII.
Venom: Definition of "geek" aside, since neither your nor my definition properly fits, say, the techs who make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and still remain thorough geeks...
1. Yeah. Most of his mythology was far from original, but his usage was. Trendsetting doesn't necessitate mindlessness, and neither do dwarves and elves. If you can't say something meaningful in as complete a universe as he set the foundations for, you're just plain a ****ty writer.
2. And manages to make it thoroughly escapist. I refer you to Dune, dull as it was, which is at least as thorough and contains rampant allegories to the reason the mideast is so ****ed up, etc. It's not the only one, either. Most "universes" as thorough as Tolkein's have massive redeeming value and will leave you at least a little bit more intelligent or knowledgeable after having read it. After reading Lord of the Rings? You learn to speak Elvish, and maybe pretend to be a Level 3 Mage of Loud Trumping. Talk about a wasted investment. I'd say this is precisely why you don't see any Dune fans dressing up like Atreides and running around shouting about using a Stone Burner on you- it's relevant to reality, in exactly the same way LOTR and TV aren't.
3. Dude, have you ever read a good book in your life? Having a point doesn't necessitate droning on in some pretentious tone about the meaning of life. In fact, they're very nearly mutually exclusive. Read some Vonnegut, Kingsolver, Rubin, Remarque, Wilde, even Adams- hell, just glancing at my bookshelf, it's hard to find books other than Gibson's that are readable in the slightest and don't have a point somewhere. And they're all infinitely more readable than Tolkein's encyclopedic droning. Check out any random book in the library, even if it's in the children's section, and I can guarantee it'll have more relevance and be more gripping than Tolkein's literature. Ever read Orwell? Go ahead, try and say he's boring- guess what, every single ****ing word in most all of his work means something, and something absolutely important to this very day.
Tolkein's stuff has its place, but defending it as anything other than a possibly pleasant waste of time is to delude oneself. Once again, TV, but without all the frantic action that makes TV passably interesting. I happen to not like it on top of recognizing that it has no redeeming value, but the two are irrelevant- I find Gibson to have no redeeming value, and his stuff is fun as hell to read. Where'd this need to claim that everything we like is some profound intellectual pursuit, or even worth doing in the first place, come from anyway? Is it tax-deductible if it has social significance? Is there some minimum tally of "worthwhile things" you need to get done this month that you're slacking on?
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
And then again, LOTR has a point as to being a book about life changing people. and also a half-allegory of the Second World War, as much as Prof. Tolkien denies it. And Venom, I seem to agree with you on the definition of geek, in the States at least, from what I've gathered on the internet. It has suddenly become a very large term (which is probably why noone older than 18, and an IQ over 60 uses it where I live). But that of course, kinda rules out Stryke's opinion that geeks are, I quote "dweebs, who don't like being reminded about the last time they got laid." So if we go by that definition, which I like, then Strykes opinion as to why there is no sex in LOTR, is effectively false. Because, I, by Venom's definition am completely 100% geek - I take a great fancy in literature, arts, music, philosophy, etc. But I have no trouble with my love-life (aside from the autumn months, where I've dumped/been dumped by my latest girlfriend, again, because for some reason, none of my relationships tends to last over three months, which is rather interesting, because the female friends, who are just friends, I've had for some 5-6 years or so). If we take Stryke's definition of geek, then he is also wrong, because of my earlier post.
So.... In short, Stryke, you suck. :p
Hope that all made sense.
why did I feel out of breath reading that? :p
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Dude, have you ever read a good book in your life?
By your standards, yes, I do. I'm out of a litteracy bachalaureat, I studied british and US litteracy during my english DEUG, I've read a friggin' amount of books when I was younger ( 4 novels a week at some point, just coz I "had to", probably some kids fancy ). I'm utterly fed up that you judge me because I like something you don't. I love Tolkien as I love Hugo: to the highest point, I like Herbert as I liked Maupassant , Lovecraft gives me the chills but I didn't looked down at Nicolas Gogol's books either, I enjoyed the Riverworld cycle by Philip José Farmer as much as Cervantes Don Quichote ( or whatever you spell it in english ). Hell, I even read Sophocles and loved Homere.
I'm astonished and sadened I have to write such a meaningless list just to show that I'm not an iliterate fool coz I like Tolkien.
I didn't read the rest of your post, I stopped at the sentence I quoted and:
You're too full of yourself, man ( voila, my blindful judgement of the day, I have to keep up with this forums level, after all ), that's your biggest problem. There's no way I can discuss with you, it'll always end up the same way. Call me a coward if you want, but I'm backing up from that argument.
-
erm, this might be a really stupid thing to say at this point, but i'd just like to mention that im a girl, and i like LOTR, and im pretty sure im not a geek seeing as i have absolutely no skill in anything to do with technology.
-
Venom: Dude, what can I say. You read "redeeming value" and translate that into "incredibly dull lengthy droning", I'm going to have to make a conclusion off of that. If you don't want to sound ignorant, don't talk like you are. Simple as that. And I'm not sure what you think name-dropping really gets you here, either.
This seems to actually be a regular card you play, come to think of it. I'm having trouble counting the times that, given a disagreement, you've acted completely obtuse and refused to even begin a thought as relates to what the other person is talking about, then come back screeching like a banshee when they got fed up or decided that you must be ignorant based on that. It's gimmicky, it's lame, it doesn't help you in any way, it's just plain irritating and makes you look like a fool or worse- cut it out or quit making posts. Seriously.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
you've acted completely obtuse and refused to even begin a thought as relates to what the other person is talking about,
:wtf: that's sounds utterly funny coming from you. How could I explain anything since in this discussion, YOU are the one who sets up the standards, who decide what is crap and what isn't. Obtuse, hey?
But I guess you're right on some point: I can't keep but replying when something is directed at me. I have to fix that, guess right now is a as good as a moment as another one to do so.
-
and, um, not that i want to butt in here (which obviously ive already done so please dont point that out to me, stryke, im aware of it) it might be easier to discuss stuff with people if people don't use such accusative methods of speech. insults dont really help, unless you cant possibly avoid it... i mean, okay, we can all handle it, but that doesn't mean its compulsory.
this is a general purpose comment not intended for anyone in particular.
-
Stryke 9..... you suck big time!
I read tons of books of all kind (from dozens of diffenent encyclopedias, best-sellers, novels, 900 page russian books to god knows what not.) And I can tell you that Tolkien is allmost at the top of the food chain.
Depth? You can find depth in everything if you really try to(just look at modern art - a guy displys his ****(literary) on a piece of paper and wow - the critics proclaim it a work of art)
the simple truth is - people like LOTR not becoause it's fantasy or becoause they're geeks, but becoause it's a excellent book!
-
Venom: "Read" involves your eyes actually reciving light input from the characters on the screen, and then your brain processing them into coherent thoughts.
You read "redeeming value" and translate that into "incredibly dull lengthy droning"
This is basically exactly what you did in your reference to "complicated books with pulled from the ****hole logics and mind blowing psychocrap", as nobody had said a word about that before. You took the rather simple concept of "books whut mean stuff" and turned it into "Freud". That speaks volumes. Long, dull volumes of "psychocrap".
You can play the retard or you can play the horribly maligned voice of reason, you can't have it both ways. And that is the sole standard I set- any others are open to debate, as they have been this entire ****ing time, only nobody cared to do that, only talk about how books that aren't tripe have to be boring or an alternate poor definition of "geek".
Ice: When have I accused anybody of butting into something? Now, please, we're trying to have a flamewar here. :p
Trash: How... illuminating. "They like it 'cause it's good". Might wanna work on that one a bit, though.
Also, just because pretentious artsy types can find deeper meanings in a can of **** doesn't mean it's actually there. If the point is something you actually have to make a conscious effort to manufacture, it isn't there. If it could reasonably be anything, with little evidence of one particular meaning the author intended, it isn't there.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Stryke 9..... you suck big time!
still, that's uncalled for, you know :doubt:
-
stryke, you didn't. i was anticipating you. :)
okay, so its not as easy as saying, lotr is good or bad. there are good things about it. the depth of imagination involved in creating the world probably deserves some merit, don't you agree? i'd say you'd find it hard put to produce anything of equal standard- imagination and detail wise.
on the other hand, it is quite long, filled with a lot of not necessarily necessary description (that was not definitive, dont pick on that) and it quite possibly doesn't have any meaning.
does that sum it up?
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Um, you are aware that "geek" "dweeb" and so on aren't just synonyms. They all have thoroughly specified meanings developed from decades of use in our culture, and were you to regularly to have conversations with, you know, human beings rather than your "girlfriend" on The Sims, you'd know that. There's a reason I didn't just stick to the one word.
Also, there is no such thing as a "philosophy geek". You will never ever hear the term, and it's for the very simple reason that philosophy is not the sort of subject that falls into the aforementioned field. Same with music. They're culturally ascribed terms, dude, if you don't hear them used in that context more than once or twice by some retard they're not common currency and aren't proper usage. You can't make up your own definition just because it makes sense to you, personally, just like I can't ride an elephant down a major highway just because I feel like calling it a car. How clueless of you.
Well, right then, excuse me for not knowing the damn definition of every american slang synonym, but unless you haven't noticed, I live in the other damn continent! And we've been speaking russian for 60 YEARS!. So I'm am so very sorry, that I don't interact with americans, who you seem to consider the synonym of 'people' every day of my life, even if they are 20 000 kilometers away. Now I understand that the states is filled with 60% of overweights, god knows how many racists, and, pardon if I use the wrong word here, geeks, but that doesn't mean that the rest of the world is excatly the same. As for your rather unappropriate comment involving something about "the Sims", "people", and "resting my case", I find it rather odd, seeing how I have a steady girlfriend right now, and hell, relationships between 15-year-olds rarely last for even that long.
Now, on to your comments about the actual subject, which is a welcome break from insulting everyone: In the WWII allegory, I pretty much had in mind the Orthanc-Fangorn thing, which kinda reflects what happened to Manchester at the time, when Tolkien was writing those books. And you don't make one of the greatest film trilogies ever, just on a book that is pointless and stupid.
And as for that comment:
Also, just because pretentious artsy types can find deeper meanings in a can of **** doesn't mean it's actually there. If the point is something you actually have to make a conscious effort to manufacture, it isn't there. If it could reasonably be anything, with little evidence of one particular meaning the author intended, it isn't there.
And exactly, how are you the english professor who has studied literature for 25 years, to actually say, if the author intended the deeper meaning or not. Just because you've read Dostoyevski once in your life, doesn't mean you're a literary genius (of course, neither am I, but that's a whole other story).
Oh, and Icespeed, I actually enjoyed those descriptions. I tend to like long detailed, poetic descriptions in books anyway, since they excite your imagination, in lack of a better term. But that's subjective.
-
I havent read or seen the LOTR Books or movie yet, nor do I intend to.
It's not because I hate tolkien or anything - hell, I bet his books are fantastic reads (writing myself, I know how difficuld it can be t o create an entire universe at times) and what-not if i do decide to do so.
It's just that the Genre doesn't.....what is the word?.....interest me much. I find the whole fantasy genre a bit too over-done and as such, avoid it, sticking instead to science fiction. (again, this is mostly because i have a collection of 180 Star Trek books which i have read at least 3 times over)
No offense meant, but the previous posts reminded me of semi-flame wars. Well thought out and argued, but in the end, still arguments leading to nowhere.
-
Well.. IMO, the latest (see last 10 - 20 years or so) year's Sci Fi books seem more or less the same as fantasy. Just replace dragons with Aliens, Space Ships with Horses and Lasers with Arrows.