[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.

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.

[pyro-manic]

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.

[an0n]

EH?!?! Where?

Most 'intimate' thing I found was them talking about their horses as they got to the Path of the Dead.

[Stryke 9]

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.

[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)...

[01010]

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

[Stunaep]

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.

[01010]

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.

[Stunaep]

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.

[01010]

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.

[Stunaep]

She hasn't complained so far.

[Stryke 9]

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.

[Nico]

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.

[TrashMan]

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.

[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.

[01010]

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.

[Nico]

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
"runs"

[übermetroid]

I remember reading somewhere that said that LOTRs was the second most popular book of all time.

That means that of people have read it...

[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.

Hope that all made sense.

[vyper]

Sex, autum, Stryke sucking. Followed every word.