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.
Yes. While I regretted that the scouring was missed out, I understood why it had to go. But it would be nice if they released it as a separate episode. It's rather interesting by the way, that some complained about the Lothlorian elves being sent to help at Helm's deep. In fact it was a master stroke and made more sense than Galadriel sending for the Rangers to go searching for Aragorn somewhere in Rohan.
As to the races, I watched a you tube on the Orcs. It was interesting that Tolkien hadn't decided their origins. They were there before men even appeared (according to Tolkien's mythology) and supposed to be corrupted elves. But that is what one would expect from The Free Peoples Ministry of Propaganda. If the Orcs had won, we might have a different history indeed.
The Elves at Helms deep was a master stroke, and seeing them march through the gates was a truly cool thing. Seeing Legolas in The Hobbit films I did raise an eyebrow at, but I understand why Jackson did that to.And I can't fault the character of Tauriel. Ah yes, such a woman!
I was musing about one of my favourite passages - Cirith Ungol, where Frodo has been poisoned, Sam has driven off the spider and thinking Frodo dead, took the ring and star-glass and set off to finish the quest.
Then some orcs turn up.
"Something has slipped - somebody got past Shelob Elf most likely- armed with an elf -sword, anyway". And Sam learns that Frodo isn't dead after all. I was thinking about how he'd known deep down inside that he shouldn't leave his master, and then it occurred to me. If he he was that sure, why didn't some elvish message come through Like For frodo o use the Star -glass - heck they even inspire him with the magic words.
And rather like the problem of evil scenarios - why doesn't God do this and why not do that? The answer is the same -"God knows best". God has his plans and his reasons and what may not make sense to us , makes sense to him - all part of his plan.
So in LoR, we can see the plan of the Eldar; like an omniscient God who sees ALL possibilities, and selects This universe (random though it looks) as the best one for achieving His Plan, the Eldar see ALL the outcomes and there is only one plan that works - Frodo destroys the ring. But by golly, it needs all the dreams and miracles they can devise; Gollum has to live and follow them to the end to grab the ring and destroy it unintentionally - because Frodo can't. After all, for Frodo to chuck the ring in and say "Counting down! Let's go!" or Sam slug him with a rock and chuck it in. "Sorry master, But I knowed you'd never be able to let it go". would be more likely and probable, but not such a good story.
And there you have it, While one may say there was a need for Gollum to do the job, why not a need for Sam to stop Frodo falling into Orc -hands? What's the purpose on having the Mithril -coat and Sting fall into Sauron's hands and only Gandalf suspects they didn't get the ring, too. And every reason to keep them OUT of Sauron's hands, as the Men of the West might have concluded it was over and sued for terms.
So, why did the gods do it differently? Not for any reason that makes sense to them or to us, but to make a good story. And indeed and article I wrote some time ago (passed without comment) "Why didn't the eagles take the ring to Mordor?" came to the same conclusion - one reason only: there would have been no story.
Recently I saw a comment that the eagles couldn't do it; not with the Nazgul about. In fact that is a matter of tactics and it would be easy to lure the Nazgul away while an eagle and escort ferry Frodo and Gandalf (to sure he does destroy the ring) to Mount Doom; even destroy the flying beasts so the Nazgul would have to thumb lifts back to Mordor and maybe Sauron would do a "Snoopy" on them - put them on Fatigues for losing too many Sopwith Camels.
So we see the signs of story -construction that don't make sense even if you postulate the Mind of God. It make the story work as a real thing. And that's a bit like the explanations of the problem of evil - the learning curve; doesn't work. Even making people fit to be with him doesn't work. Hell - behaviour doesn't make any difference - it's Faith gets people into heaven, though there is an explanation, but the believers can work it out themselves (I'd suggest they listen to the finale of Bruckner's 9th as a clue, but that probably wouldn't work). But even then, the way that works is nullified by the whole hellfire scenario. You couldn't have Total Faith AND Free will with hell going on.
And so some reject hell altogether - in which case, who cares? Take away the stick and the carrot ain't lure enough. Would you swap your brains for a carrot?
So wot I'm getting at is that it doesn't make sense in any way and it does sound, like the events at Cirith (pronounced Kirith, folks) Ungol. and it is just to try to save the story.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-11-2017 at 11:04 AM..
"Knowledge, order, Rule." Bad. very bad. Why? Because Saruman says it, so it must be bad.
Saruman and Gandalf up in the top of Orthanc, debating the merits of Saruman's liking for technology made a point that bothered me at the time.
'He that breaks a thing to see what it is has left the path of wisdom'. Says Gandalf, in rebuttal of Saruman's talk of 'breaking the white light' (into various colours).
Was Gandalf really objecting to that? To Newton? To red shift and the distance of the stars? To knowledge?
What, then, is his method? To take a car engine apart to discover how it works is to have "left the path of wisdom", according to Gandalf. Why? What is his method? I can guess - look at it working and declare 'here is some power' that it is driving it. And suggest it is the power of the Valar or Eldar - magic -or rather, since it is technology, "The deceits of the enemy."
This is good old Theist -think that is smack in the camp of creationist foolishness. I won't even touch on the knowledge and research Tolkien put into studies he approved on, nor harp too much on
his use of some technological advances (Telephone, tape, and for sure medicine - all based on the studies that had left the path of wisdom
Clearly, this is a wizard's words standing on their heads and Tolkien for all he wrote a splendid trilogy that remains up in the top three for me, was a God -believer and thus prone to basically flawed thinking. And, worrisomely, anti -science - the thin edge of the wede of anti -intellectualism that seems to go hands in hand with US religious -thinking.
Now, the question I have to ask myself is an old one - rather like 'How, as anti war (as anyone but a lust -for-glory looney ought to be) believer, how could I reconcile that with an interest in military history and a delight in the magnificent uniforms, the glorious charges, the incredible technology and tactics? In the end it wasn' a problem and no need even for rationalization. The fascinating and glory and courage was there, and also the horror, waste and destruction, and nobody knows it better than a student of military history
This is the Q. Doesn't such criticism of Tolkien ruin it for you? This is the Question that faced me in the days of learning to Listen to music "I don't want to know about music or it will spoil it for me." Perhaps that can happen. Perhaps it detracts from the music that Mozart had an obsession with crap, or Ives re - used "In the Inn" a musical scene of fratboys getting ratarsed o the sound of a ragtime piano in his Orchestral set No 2 with a pretentious title" The rockstrewwn hills join in the people's outdoor meeting." and a Bethel Amen coda tacked on (1). But on the other hand I could never have fathomes the 4th symphonies of Vaughan Williams or Sibelius.
And the relevant point, lesson and bottom line is the "Keats -venus' argument - that knowledge and understanding destroys the wonder and magic. And it is one that we get in theist apologetics. Keats himself debunked this as (according to Daniel Harbour in the excellent Intelligent persons' guide to atheism, which despite the title, I generally understood) Keats shows hat he knew that venus was not a mobile star, but a planet in orbit around thew sun - but that did not prevent his appreciation of it nor mine; nor does any understanding appreciably dent the wonder, beaty and fascination of nature, music or indeed military history.
No, Keats and indeed Tolkien's argument was wrong, whether used to ry to discredit science or learning.
(1) You know what I'm going to to do, don't you
The piano piece (sonata no 1) Evolved into a set for theatre orchestras (No 1 -from a song about a lion pacing in a cage) is short. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHu28izY-28
Hmmph
Well, as part of the increasing anout on internet 'you cannot use, access or watch anything, but you can be inundated with Adverts, I can't get this, but maybe you -all can. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8eJREdlo4g
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-17-2017 at 01:25 PM..
I'd say the key word is "break." If you can put it back together and it will work, it is not "broken." And Keats was wrong: for instance I know there are people who understand the effects of electricity and magnetism and they are repeatable, but I don't and it still amazes me. Now consider ecology.... will we ever get it back together?
I'd say the key word is knowledge. If you break a thing and can't put it back together, it's permissible if you learned something. This isn't easy. The end may justify the means for a race of soulless robots, but we are human beans and we have instincts of empathy and social taboos that impose limits. And the logic is irrelevant. The human preference trumps it, every time.
Now you ask me about ecology. And what do I know about that? I have heard horror stories about how the ocean has lost 80% of its marine life. I heard how 90% of the species that ever lived are extinct. But I also know that 90% of those extinctions happened before man even appeared. Here in London the local park was overrun by parakeets released after being used on a film set. But they seem to have been driven out by Jays, Rooks and a cold winter or two. Nature can repair itself surprisingly well, and if a natural global warming (1) is the cause rather than human pollution, we can use our knowledge acquired by breaking nature up to see how it works with saving and preserving what we can of it.
"I would have things as they were in the days of my forefathers" says Denethor. And here it is denial of necessary change, just as Gandalf has, But of course it is dependent on the kind of change. Dependent upon what Tolkien approved of. Sure, a Shire administered by Isengard and given some agricultural advance and double the wheat yield (2) is All Wrong and that is proven by making it look as vile as possible. No leave it as it is, backward with most of the hobbits illiterate and even suspicious of learning. Then they can just be left in happy ignorance to be ruled without question by the Lords and just line up to tug their forelocks if the "Lordlings" (I won't even go into the hinted distrust of democracy and preference for Rule by the Best people) deign to drop by to do a bit of hunting in the old forest.
I'm not going to get into an eco-social -political diatribe, because I am no expert and my views count for nothing (which don't mean I can't give 'em). But I do know double standards and well -poisoning bias when I see it, and Tolkien's story - as indeed are many stories - is full of such bias, even if they are not written specifically to peddle the bias.
(1) The Warming deniers have shifted from denying it is happening to denying than man is doing it. It's immoral really as they are less interested in helping anything than just being right.
(2) grind more and faster 'But there wasn't no more for the new mill to do than the old one' says Robin Smallburrow (or it might be Mr Cotton - they all look the same to me) reciting tiny minded objections to improvement. And increasing the grain yield? "Why, 'Taint natural to interfere with nature like that" grumbles Farmer Maggot, pig ignorant as Mr Bananaman that every bloody carrot and potato he grows has been genetically steered by humans to be the product they want. And there wasn't no more to be et than there was before objects Pongo Denialist or Fungo Luddite, breeding five hobbit kids per family and suddenly wondering why prices have gone up and the bread is running out (3).
In the end we come down to the good old ingrained idiocy of humans - helping themselves to all the benefits science and technology have produced, but moaning and groaning about any change in what they are used to as a result of it. Can't you just hear the argot of the Shire in "'tain't natural. Who knows what'll happen? No good will come of it." And off they go to join the demonstration against GM crops with their placards - blank, because none of the ignorant little creeps can write.
(3) Sheer indulgence this foopnote No 3. ...They will of course blame the "Old men and the Moneybags", the "Councillors" with their twisted words and whisperings, blame it on the the faceless "They" adminstrators - never on their own uncaring and self -indulgent 'go on just as we like' irresponsibility.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-21-2017 at 05:34 AM..
A fine scene, and well acted by Sir Kenneth (an LoR savant) who would know it was bosh, and he could have told Peter Jackson (also an expert on the book), who would have known it wasn't Tolkien's theology, anyway.
the scene continues...
(Faramir) "You didn't tell him that was only for you wizards and for elves. It isn't for Hobbits, Dwarves or men like mnyself."
(Gandalf) "No, but how comforting for him to think that it is!"
God knows (or he would if he existed) how I got onto this, but brilliant ideas flit though my planet -sized mind faster than I can commit them to paper and submit them to the Royal academy - and as I get older, this tendency is getting worse - but I had a recall of Slartibartfast asking Arthur Dent whether he was not curious about the Answer to Life, the Universe and Everything that Deep Thought, the SuperComputer, eventually came up with. And Arthur, not to be impolite says 'Well, yes.." and then not to encourage the old fool with a display of enthusiasm he doesn't really feel, appends..."quite..".
And I'd just put that down to a sort of Edginess we always get throughout the book, but it popped into my brilliant bonce as I said, "Why...he really doesn't care that much. I don't care that much! I wonder why not?"
And I wrestled with the obvious problem for some minutes before deciding to post here rather than in Chat about Anything, partly because to treat this Important subject as sorta "Miscellaneous" would be disrespectful, it might interrupt some discussion already going on there, and after all this is My own dedicated Thread, but really to save it from vanishing entirely. Which is why I trundled the old goalposts a bit from "LoR" to "Any books that Transark particularly likes".
Now, as I was saying, before You- all - distracted me...why isn't this fundamental and basic Question absorbingly interesting? I suggest because we -all apply humanist thinking to this, even if we are God -believers.
It's just like the Morality argument. NOBODY uses God's morality. We all use a humanist morality which, as I argued, Believers use to tell God's good deeds in the Bible (which prove His Goodness) from Bad deeds, which then have to be excused or blamed on somebody else.
The Meaning of life is, I suspect part Instinct (to avoid death and...well, as evolved nature has it "Survive, eat, reproduce" (1) and part finding stuff to keep us amused. I believe it was C.S Lewis who accused the atheist skeptic of distracting themselves with trivial amusements. And even then, I sorta thought "Well - what else?"
"God's plan" is frankly as waff as the alien mental superiors who appeared in a Startrek episode and sneered at Sulu's 'assemblages of trivia he calls his "collections" which were of no use compared to the greater destiny of this Galactic warlord in bringing all races and species under his thumb.
Now as a bit of a collector myself (2) I found that very offensive , but aside from that, I preferred Sulu's collection of alien pebbles or whatever he finds to collect while searching out strange new barren rock planets, to the megalomanic drives of this cut price -Deity - or the supposed real one.
I am quite content with my own meanings, thanks, and I can do without some Other Plan imposed by this or that Cosmic dictator whether I like it or not. Which is why, while "God can do what he likes" merchants have a point, it not one I approve of, and the idea that God knows better what I need than I do is laughable.
So maybe that's why, almost without having to think about it, Arthur Dent could not give a tuppenny damn about what Cosmic "Meaning of Life" the Universe has devised to suit itself. So, while it may be of mild academic interest to know what the Cosmos thinks is the meaning it has behind it's own efforts, it can take it and stuff it, frankly, while we get on with the no doubt lesser and trivial things we find of importance; and it can take a running jump at itself if it tries to tell us that It's Meanings are more important than ours, and that goes for any God -plan too.
(1) apart from Man who through a developed mind has replaced this with the more sophisticated: "Reproduce, Eat, survive".
(3) you may sneer at my "peanut butter jar labels of the world", but after fifty years, it must be worth...something
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-18-2017 at 01:35 PM..
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.
Bump...but not just a Bump..
