Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The above describes me. I made an effort, I really did. I started reading the first novel, but gave up fairly early in the process. I tried watching the film trilogy twice, but each time I could not bring myself to advance any further than the first 30 minutes or so of the first movie.
I tried because so many people I respect, treat the work with such reverence and awe "Oh, you HAVE to see this, you HAVE to read this"...
I just do not enjoy fantasy elements in sci fi productions. The second you introduce a wizard, a spell, a magic potion, a dragon....you've lost me. I consider the use of magic in fiction to be an exceptionally vacuous dynamic. It seems to be that there is nothing challenging about the writing because anything is possible. The hero is about to succumb to some magic spell cast by the villain? No problem, just announce a counter spell. What is clever about that?
My apologies to the fans of Tolkien, I cannot understand why you are so absorbed, but I also cannot imagine the constructive purpose behind arguing why you are wrong to be absorbed.
Regarding the part in bold, that's not true, so far as I can see. The existence of magic doesn't mean anything is possible. There's always limits. For example, Gandalf (the helpful wizard who travel's with the main group) doesn't really doesn't do much beyond act as a guide for much of the movie trilogy. It's kind of implied that he doesn't have the kind of magic that can insta-poof away all the bad things. He has a more mysterious type of magic that acts as kind of a trump card that you know will be called upon in emergencies. His magic makes him a kind of...ultra paternal character, someone not only able to have the will to be a guardian, but the skills that can always be relied upon as a trump card. Gandalf is a supernatural security force, and the ability to create such abnormal characters is an advantage the fantasy genre has that more realistic stories lack. In fantasy, you can create and read about more heinous villains, more colorful protagonists, and more exotic environments. I like fantasy better than more realistic fiction because to me it seems like more realistic fiction could be compared to trying to paint an image using only black and white ink, whereas fantasy stories provide you with all the possible colors.
I like science fiction for that same reason, because of its ability to explore concepts you can't in more realistic fiction, except that I generally like a lot of research in science fiction stories I read and prefer them to be plausible, unlike my preferred fantasy. There are exceptions though, such as the force in Star Wars and Q in Star Trek (a shallow, sadistic all-powerful character). I think those were useful plot devices because they allowed ideas to be explored that couldn't be explored in more realistic stories.
I can imagine a being who, like Lucifer, endlessly rebels against an indomitable opponent. I can imagine that endless drive to, "stick it to the man." I can't write about that concept without using fantasy, magic, or mythological...things though. I can imagine the pros and cons of having humanity spread out throughout multiple solar systems, separated by dozens of years of travel time. There's nothing in modern society I can use to explore that concept though. I have to rely on science fiction to address those issues.
I'm not arguing that you should enjoy fantasy. I'm just trying to explain why I do.
The only other heroic, medieval-type fantasy that I've found worth more than a couple of reads is Tad Williams trilogy: Memory, Sorrow and Thorn.
If medieval fantasy ain't your thang but the blurring of the line between reality and the virtual version of same might be, do try his 4-part Otherland series.
I see Williams as a sort of hybrid of Tolkien and Philip K. Dick - a visionary with tale to tell and well-realized characters to tell it.
Regarding the part in bold, that's not true, so far as I can see. The existence of magic doesn't mean anything is possible. There's always limits. For example, Gandalf (the helpful wizard who travel's with the main group) doesn't really doesn't do much beyond act as a guide for much of the movie trilogy. It's kind of implied that he doesn't have the kind of magic that can insta-poof away all the bad things. He has a more mysterious type of magic that acts as kind of a trump card that you know will be called upon in emergencies. His magic makes him a kind of...ultra paternal character, someone not only able to have the will to be a guardian, but the skills that can always be relied upon as a trump card. Gandalf is a supernatural security force, and the ability to create such abnormal characters is an advantage the fantasy genre has that more realistic stories lack. In fantasy, you can create and read about more heinous villains, more colorful protagonists, and more exotic environments. I like fantasy better than more realistic fiction because to me it seems like more realistic fiction could be compared to trying to paint an image using only black and white ink, whereas fantasy stories provide you with all the possible colors.
I like science fiction for that same reason, because of its ability to explore concepts you can't in more realistic fiction, except that I generally like a lot of research in science fiction stories I read and prefer them to be plausible, unlike my preferred fantasy. There are exceptions though, such as the force in Star Wars and Q in Star Trek (a shallow, sadistic all-powerful character). I think those were useful plot devices because they allowed ideas to be explored that couldn't be explored in more realistic stories.
I can imagine a being who, like Lucifer, endlessly rebels against an indomitable opponent. I can imagine that endless drive to, "stick it to the man." I can't write about that concept without using fantasy, magic, or mythological...things though. I can imagine the pros and cons of having humanity spread out throughout multiple solar systems, separated by dozens of years of travel time. There's nothing in modern society I can use to explore that concept though. I have to rely on science fiction to address those issues.
I'm not arguing that you should enjoy fantasy. I'm just trying to explain why I do.
Interesting. Gandalf certainly isn't able to wave his wand and make enemies disappear wholesale, but is more like a superhero, with enough super -powers or advanced gadgetry like Batman or James Bond to give him a bit of an edge when he seems outmatched.
Aragorn is not really magical but just has picked up a few tricks that may seem magical to us. But he is a hero like Robin Hood or Arthur. Very good at what he does and very good at strategy.
I Get that, too, but not one of your best. It is how I use it for a particular purpose - to spoof (as the FSM does the Bible) the theist habit of selecting Bibletext to underline some argument they make as though it somehow proved it. The practice began with Paul in Romans by the way.
Example of how I use it :
Gimli "The words of this wizard stand on their heads"
Frodo to Gollum "I think this food would do you good, if you'd just try. But I suppose you can't even try, yet".
Theoden "When you hang from a Gibbet for the spirt of your own crows, I will have peace with you".
But no fear that it will be used in the way you suggest. Not the way you butcher argument in pursuit of your duck -hunt against atheists who will not be quiet .
I Get that, too, but not one of your best. It is how I use it for a particular purpose - to spoof (as the FSM does the Bible) the theist habit of selecting Bibletext to underline some argument they make as though it somehow proved it. The practice began with Paul in Romans by the way.
Example of how I use it :
Gimli "The words of this wizard stand on their heads"
Frodo to Gollum "I think this food would do you good, if you'd just try. But I suppose you can't even try, yet".
Theoden "When you hang from a Gibbet for the sport of your own crows, I will have peace with you".
But no fear that it will be used in the way you suggest. Not the way you butcher argument in pursuit of your duck -hunt against atheists who will not be quiet .
Of course, Tolkien was a British Catholic and saw Mordor as the hosts of cynical materialistic non -belief.
I always suspected deep down there would turn out to be a good reason why I BY FAR preferred "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenent the Unbeliever" than I did "Lord of the Rings". :-P
I always suspected deep down there would turn out to be a good reason why I BY FAR preferred "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenent the Unbeliever" than I did "Lord of the Rings". :-P
I heard of that but never read it. I'll have a look..maybe it will teach me how to stop doing duplicate posts
P.s I thought the title was familiar. Yes, I was given them read by a black work colleague to whoim the black orcs in the story being the good guys appealed more than the hardly ameliorated racism of Tolkien. I thought they were good, and that he brought wargaming methods to the council of war and was able to defeat much larger armies appealed to me. I was depressed though when all the good giants and decent orcs turned bad and just added to the enemy. And Covenant's ritual VSE's as a symbolic rejection of the world he'd been dragged into, protesting, to help them win another battle got on my nerves.
back to Tolkien for me.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-27-2017 at 10:40 AM..
Regarding the part in bold, that's not true, so far as I can see. The existence of magic doesn't mean anything is possible. There's always limits. For example, Gandalf (the helpful wizard who travel's with the main group) doesn't really doesn't do much beyond act as a guide for much of the movie trilogy. It's kind of implied that he doesn't have the kind of magic that can insta-poof away all the bad things. He has a more mysterious type of magic that acts as kind of a trump card that you know will be called upon in emergencies. His magic makes him a kind of...ultra paternal character, someone not only able to have the will to be a guardian, but the skills that can always be relied upon as a trump card..
As noted, I see no sense in trying to argue with anyone as to why they should not like what they like, but your above explanation in no manner ameliorates my complaint. Stating that he has magic which he can use as a trump card is my complaint. No matter what the danger, the trump card can be brought out to save the day. The author can give Gandalf any power needed, tailored to the specific emergency.
The microcosm of this dynamic would be any scene in any fantasy movie where the hero or the villain is able to shoot some sort of power beam from his or her hands. How many times have you seen this....the villain is bombarding the hero with these magical rays and the scene goes on until something or someone intervenes. What bothers me is that we know nothing of these rays...how long can someone be exposed before succumbing? In the films it is never so long as to be fatal, it will always be frustrated by a counter beam or a counter spell which renders the beam harmless....I never have any real sense of just how much jeopardy is taking place. It also annoys me that the villain can shoot the beams at the hero for a minute without the hero perishing, so why would the villain rely on such a slow working weapon when he could much more easily shoot or stab the hero to death?
I'm just not the sort to allow that stuff to flow over me, to accept the fantasy world without questioning the specifics. And the specific never make any real sense.
And that is why I don't like fantasy in general and Lord of the Rings in particular.
But that is just me, clearly there are millions who do not suffer from these problems.
I read sci-fi and a little bit of fantasy. I don't attempt to live it or use it as a moral guideline, and I'd find quoting bits of the text at me as irritating as being quoted bits of the bible, rather than something clever.
Of course, reading sci-fi as a young girl in the 60s, it was excellent preparation for how male-dominated the scientific world I was going to enter would be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I Get that, too, but not one of your best. It is how I use it for a particular purpose - to spoof (as the FSM does the Bible) the theist habit of selecting Bibletext to underline some argument they make as though it somehow proved it. The practice began with Paul in Romans by the way.
.
