The Heretic
Should be playing D&D instead
You read too much. Nerd.
Book Fucking Talk
- Thread starter bryce0lynch
- Start date
You read too much. Nerd.
PrinceofNothing
High Executarch
All the women are pregnant and I have already out-wrestled all the mailmen in my neighborhood so what else am I to do?!?
You talk a tough talk bub. But if we were face to face in a Magic The Gathering tournament and I was playing Blue/Black Extended, you wouldn't talk so tough.
Last edited:
PrinceofNothing
High Executarch
I'm telling you that if you trifle with me it shall end poorly for you. I have a blue-eyes-white-dragon with your name on it. If you cross me I will raise havoc on your lifepoints. You will require a degree in topology to even describe how far in the negative I will have knocked them, and I will be drawing extra cards and dabbing every step of the way. I have a dice-bag that says "Bad Muthafucka" on it, and I have memorized the entire ouvre of Monthy Python and I will not hesitate to deploy their choicest quotes against you at the opportune time. You thought you were getting pussy tonight? Guess again Jock. Your reign is over. I own a trench-coat, a fedora and a replica of Masamune that I wield skillfully and with impunity and I have all the achievements in Counterstrike 1.6 which makes my lethality rating equal to that of a Ginaz swordmaster of the 10th level. My life-size sailor-moon wallpaper is proof against a .44. No doubt you are reeling from my impressive list of achievements and skills and wondering how you could ever undo this massive blunder. Whelp it is too late for you bub. You have incurred the ire of the Gods and you will experience the Dies Irae for your insolence. Let this be a lesson for you.
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
Finished Fellowship, partway into The Two Towers. I have to say, reading it now, and especially reading it aloud so that I end up reading every word, is a different experience from reading it when I was young. I've probably read the series a dozen times before, but it has been at least 20 years since the last time, maybe longer. I'm seeing a lot of detail that I missed then, and I'm appreciating Sam and Frodo far more than I did when I was younger. I have to say, the world is so richly detailed, anyone who dismisses LotR as "vanilla fantasy" really can't have been paying attention when they read it - if they read it at all.
On the other hand, I'm struck by Aragorn's indecisiveness and poor leadership. I'm hoping this is a character arc and that he grows into kingliness by the time I get to Return of the King.
I still find Bombadil to be an almost pointless sidetrack, barely brought to relevance by its intersection with the Barrow Wight encounter.
Galadriel is awesome in any medium.
On the other hand, I'm struck by Aragorn's indecisiveness and poor leadership. I'm hoping this is a character arc and that he grows into kingliness by the time I get to Return of the King.
I still find Bombadil to be an almost pointless sidetrack, barely brought to relevance by its intersection with the Barrow Wight encounter.
Galadriel is awesome in any medium.
PrinceofNothing
High Executarch
Reading something aloud to another person is a special pleasure that is very rare these days. I think vanilla fantasy as a genre borrows heavily from Lord of the Rings, but Lord of the Rings itself is heavily inspired by the Professors knowledge of old english and scandinavian myth cycles; King Arthur, The Saga of the Volsungs, The Song of the Niebelungs, Beowulf, the Eddas etc. The fall of Numenor parallels both Atlantis and Babel. Sauron is a clear Lucifer analogue. The vanilla only came about because it was so pervasive and effective everyone imitated it.
Right?!? More powerful then Sauron yet totally inert, mere weeks travel from the shire. The Mr. Popo of Middle Earth.
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
You guys! How do you not get how wonderful Bombadil is? There is a vibe to the Fellowship that is so different from the rest of the books---in and around the Shire---that develops the characters (hobbits) and instill one with wonder for how old and magical Middle Earth is. Skipping that in the movies, and fixating on instead Aragorn (a more typical Hollywood lead) is the greatest failing of Jackson's vision. It proves he never "got" the book, IMO.
As silly as Bombadil seems, he is a perfect foil for the hobbits discovering just how dangerous and bizarre the world the world beyond the Shire is. He is MYTHIC/FOLKLORE embodied! How can you not love how he plays with and seems immune to the Ring --- and what's more how The Wise know of him, yet for the most part realize he's not a player in the drama. These integrated, but non-linear elements mark LotR as a great literary work. It's part of why Middle Earth is so much more alive that most settings---it oozes over the bounds of the Trilogy's plot: just one story that take place in it.
As silly as Bombadil seems, he is a perfect foil for the hobbits discovering just how dangerous and bizarre the world the world beyond the Shire is. He is MYTHIC/FOLKLORE embodied! How can you not love how he plays with and seems immune to the Ring --- and what's more how The Wise know of him, yet for the most part realize he's not a player in the drama. These integrated, but non-linear elements mark LotR as a great literary work. It's part of why Middle Earth is so much more alive that most settings---it oozes over the bounds of the Trilogy's plot: just one story that take place in it.
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
The Barrow Mounds, Lothlorien and the trip immediately before and at Amon Hen do a much better job of that, and actually have a real connection to the characters and the overarching plot. The Bombadil segment is connected to nothing but Gandalf, who is absent, has nothing to do with the ring, and the only connection to the plot is a very circuitous method of getting Merry a magic sword.
He may have a place in Middle-Earth, but he doesn't have a place in LotR. Your very words, "he's not a player in the drama," illusrrate why he shouldn't be there. He isn't a foil for the hobbits, there is no meaningful contrast with them other than his power, which reveals nothing about the hobbits. LotR might be a great work, but it is so in spite of flaws like the Bombadil segment.
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
Oh Beoric!---I'm not sure we can continue to be friends. You are not saturnine---you have no heart!
He is their foil---all worldlyness to their innocence. For shame!
One of the best scene in the Trilogy is when he makes the Ring disappear. Brilliant.
He is their foil---all worldlyness to their innocence. For shame!
One of the best scene in the Trilogy is when he makes the Ring disappear. Brilliant.
Last edited:
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
No, not baiting---how is The Elder, you knows the ins-and-outs of all things in his corner of the world, not more worldly than the naive hobbits who were getting swallowed up by a Willow and/or trapped in a barrow? Tom is Master, yet is in sharp contrast to Sauron who desires that same mastery of the world (but seeks to subvert the natural world, rather than joyously dance through it). It's why all the hippies loved Bombadil in the book so much back in the late 60's and early 70's (I remember it quite well)!
Bombadil is as much (or more so) a Middle-Earth nature-spirit as Treebeard. The difference is: do you want to read a book that makes you feel as if you are traveling through Middle Earth trying to reach your destination, or do you want a purely linear plot where each element is only introduced if it's necessary and relevant to the finale?
Jacquay your novel! It's the difference between Wind in the Willows or the Odyssey and just about every single Hollywood movie made with a mind for budget and time-run. We've certainly become accustomed to stories of the latter sort. Perhaps it's resulted is an intolerance for non-sequiturs that create ambiance. But to omit, or gloss over, those details is like only putting a tapestry in your dungeon when there's a secret door behind it---obtuse single-mindedness. The difference between experiencing a work that is fascinating and multi-layered, versus an instruction manual on how-to-blow-up-the-Death-Star-in-every-movie-that-mimiced-Star-Wars-without-the-interesting-orthogonal-details. It's the difference between tearing through a novel to get to the end, and savoring it.
What's more, it's that first mini-adventure from Bag End to Bree, where the hobbits "Do-it-on-their-own" without a Strider or Gandalf, that is most like The Hobbit, and more importantly establishes the characters of the hobbits as more than just "baggage" for the super-heroes. It defines them---and was utter stupidity for Jackson to skip it. Their repeated quasi-failure to handle the risks of the Wild on their own, makes it that more heroic for the four hobbits to volunteer to take the Ring to Mordor at the Council. It establishes just how dangerous it is to travel outside the civilized parts---even for a short distance! The whole short-cut through the Old Forest, and how badly that turns out (like Moria) shows why it's best to stick to the main roads. Character growth is demonstrated by how Sam and Frodo manage in Mordor (and Merry & Pippin elsewhere) versus their initial outing. That first journey sets up everything that comes after it! Jackson had his head up his arse to hand-waive it. Fool! Events accelerate in the latter books---even Tolkien writes in the Forward that LotR was too short. It's only the Fellowship that moves at a proper pace.
Bombadil (like the Balrog, Treebeard, Shelob, and the Dunlendings) is symbolic of the older, wild, magic that still lingers in the corners of the aging world---and a big part of what makes Middle Earth such a singularly fascinating creation. The remnants of a deep history.
Admit it: ya haters just don't like English whimsy.
Bombadil is as much (or more so) a Middle-Earth nature-spirit as Treebeard. The difference is: do you want to read a book that makes you feel as if you are traveling through Middle Earth trying to reach your destination, or do you want a purely linear plot where each element is only introduced if it's necessary and relevant to the finale?
Jacquay your novel! It's the difference between Wind in the Willows or the Odyssey and just about every single Hollywood movie made with a mind for budget and time-run. We've certainly become accustomed to stories of the latter sort. Perhaps it's resulted is an intolerance for non-sequiturs that create ambiance. But to omit, or gloss over, those details is like only putting a tapestry in your dungeon when there's a secret door behind it---obtuse single-mindedness. The difference between experiencing a work that is fascinating and multi-layered, versus an instruction manual on how-to-blow-up-the-Death-Star-in-every-movie-that-mimiced-Star-Wars-without-the-interesting-orthogonal-details. It's the difference between tearing through a novel to get to the end, and savoring it.
What's more, it's that first mini-adventure from Bag End to Bree, where the hobbits "Do-it-on-their-own" without a Strider or Gandalf, that is most like The Hobbit, and more importantly establishes the characters of the hobbits as more than just "baggage" for the super-heroes. It defines them---and was utter stupidity for Jackson to skip it. Their repeated quasi-failure to handle the risks of the Wild on their own, makes it that more heroic for the four hobbits to volunteer to take the Ring to Mordor at the Council. It establishes just how dangerous it is to travel outside the civilized parts---even for a short distance! The whole short-cut through the Old Forest, and how badly that turns out (like Moria) shows why it's best to stick to the main roads. Character growth is demonstrated by how Sam and Frodo manage in Mordor (and Merry & Pippin elsewhere) versus their initial outing. That first journey sets up everything that comes after it! Jackson had his head up his arse to hand-waive it. Fool! Events accelerate in the latter books---even Tolkien writes in the Forward that LotR was too short. It's only the Fellowship that moves at a proper pace.
Bombadil (like the Balrog, Treebeard, Shelob, and the Dunlendings) is symbolic of the older, wild, magic that still lingers in the corners of the aging world---and a big part of what makes Middle Earth such a singularly fascinating creation. The remnants of a deep history.
Admit it: ya haters just don't like English whimsy.
Last edited:
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
An opinion I don't share.
I love the Bombadil parts. Very much so. Do you find that hard to believe?
LotR has it's flaws: There should have been more wierd non-linear (terrifying/bizarre) elements in Mordor. I also have trouble getting through the Dead Marsh section with Frodo, Sam & Gollum. Even the Faramir parts are a bit slow.
Last edited:
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
I generally don't like things, and then call them "objectively bad" --- sounds like catering to others opinions, so as to not to offend. There's no crime in standing behind your opinions---it OK to take a leap-of-faith and believe in something even in the face of a contrasting majority. "Peer pressure" can go pound sand.
I can admit things I like could be better, or are far from perfect. I can also say I understand why other people might not like them...but why would I like something that is "bad"? I mean, in matters of taste, it's just your opinion vs. mine---neither is particularly "valid". Academics and critics who pretend otherwise are just full of themselves. I'm an engineer. I can tell (hard) science fact, from quasi-science/opinion quite readily. You can't prove anything with me by claiming "it's generally accepted that..."
I knew a fella that used to say, "If everyone believes it, then you probably need to think twice about it."
I can admit things I like could be better, or are far from perfect. I can also say I understand why other people might not like them...but why would I like something that is "bad"? I mean, in matters of taste, it's just your opinion vs. mine---neither is particularly "valid". Academics and critics who pretend otherwise are just full of themselves. I'm an engineer. I can tell (hard) science fact, from quasi-science/opinion quite readily. You can't prove anything with me by claiming "it's generally accepted that..."
I knew a fella that used to say, "If everyone believes it, then you probably need to think twice about it."
Last edited:
PrinceofNothing
High Executarch
Bravo! A spirited defence! I had not considered the appearance of Tom Bombadil in the context you describe and I would maintain he is conceptually a bit too similar to Galadriel but you have convincingly defended his merits. I yield.
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
@bryce0lynch: Would you check to see if I just leveled-up?
Last edited:
Reading The Ruins and Confederacy on Dunces right now both I am liking quite a bit!
Ruins is good straight up well done horror.
CoD is a classic, it captures New O really well and is actually funny.
Even more so if you can relate via higher ed. The author can, you can tell and it hurts so good.
Ruins is good straight up well done horror.
CoD is a classic, it captures New O really well and is actually funny.
Even more so if you can relate via higher ed. The author can, you can tell and it hurts so good.
HypthtcllySpkng
*eyeroll*
Malazan: Book of the Fallen. Probably my favorite fantasy series now.