We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 59
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Gallifrey. I need a Jelly Baby.
    Posts
    19,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Dol_Amroth_Knight View Post
    . They also almost feel like history in my hands despite the fact that they're fictional. I happen to be a fan of history as a subject so it works out.
    .

    I think this is one of the things I love about his books. LOTR just feels so epic, like it really happened. One of my favorite parts is his telling of the history of Shelob. He told it like she really existed, had an actual history for her.

    Many other writers would have just had "a huge big spider" waiting for Frodo.
    Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"
    Continuing the never ending battle to keep Lobelia Sackville-Baggins in check

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by chieth View Post
    Kind of the wrong forum to ask this on, but hey, I don't really like Tolkien's writing style at all. I'm attempting to read the Hobbit again and there's something... sterile about his writing that I don't like. It doesn't pull me in at all. Plus there's also how the writing is different because of when it's written, and me wishing that there's women in significant roles or maybe non-white but also non-evil characters.
    I've seen this or heard this comment a lot and while I do understand people's feelings on the matter, they also do not stop to considering the time or the place. =) Some of this is just my interpretation while some is taking stuff from Tolkien's writings. Hopefully this will help to shed some light on things as to why they are the way they are.

    Again, keep in mind the time in which Tolkien was writing these works. There was still a LOT of division between races at the time and regardless perhaps of how Tolkien felt personally, that was simply societal norm and how a person was raised.

    Also, the part of Middle Earth in which LOTR and the Hobbit take place in are meant to represent Europe. During the time in which Tolkien wrote these stories, and still true for the most part today, white people are the dominant group in the area. Naturally, the heroes then, as well as many of the villains, are going to be white. It's not him trying to be a jerk necessarily, it's just a matter of geography. The areas in which people have tanned or dark skin are farther to the east and south where Tolkien does not go very much into lore-wise.

    Now, you do have the matter of the Easterlings and the Southerners. That is a bit of an issue, however they are not entirely evil, nor were they always (That was my impression anyway. I could be wrong and feel free to correct me on that). There are some tribes/factions of them that are neutral if I recall correctly and originally they were not evil, but Melkor/Morgoth corrupted them and turned them against the rest of Middle Earth.

    You do also have villains that are white. The Black Numenorians are an example. (They became jealous of the Elves for their gifts of immortality and the fact that they got to go to Valinor so they started catching elves and sacrificing them to try and get eternal life and then waged war on Valinor at the suggestion of Sauron in disguise.) The reference to black is not skin tone, but simply the stereotypical use of the color as a symbol of shadow and darkness, thus evil. A reference to the absence of light. Then of course you have Saruman and Wormtongue and Smeagol.

    Now for the orcs being dark skinned... I've had some teachers who tried to tout that it was Tolkien being racist, but I honestly do not think so at all. I think, like with the Black Numenorians, it was again a matter of simply shadows are black, thus evil is shadowed, so as the light of the elves was corrupted and twisted by Melkor into eventually what became orcs, their skin darkened to black/gray to represent symbolically that the light of the eldar had been ripped from them twisting them into monsters. My one professor tried to say it was him showing blacks as subhuman, but really, I think Tolkien was simply going with the stereotypical folk symbolism as shadow/black = evil. White/light = good.


    Mellonbeleg explained well the reason for women. That's simply how women were treated during the era that Tolkien meant this story to represent.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/1321300000007e167/01006/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Fangorn Forest
    Posts
    429
    Quote Originally Posted by Mellonbeleg View Post
    Men have a greater aptitude to swing swords because men are naturally, scientifically stronger physically than women. It can be overcome, but why would you overcome a crutch in one area instead of excelling in an area where you have the advantage. Eowyn was bitter, sour, passed over, frozen, trapped, etc. until Faramir came along, and then her personality completely changed to a more pleasant state. (read the chapters The Houses of Healing and The Steward and the King)
    Oddly enough, I'm reading up to the Return of the King right now and will have to check those passages. I would have to say that Eowyn was more likely bitter, sour, etc. due to Wormtongue's harassment (although I would suspect she would have gutted him if it was as explicit as Peter Jackson showed) and Rohan society obligations. Remember, Faramir was "Mr. Second Best" after Arwen had Mr. Right wrapped around her immortally perfect finger. She also met Faramir after she no longer had anything to prove glory-wise (she mentions to Aragon she fears a life without renown). She had slain the Witch King, and if she wasn't riding to Mordor it was because her shield arm was broken (and other nazgul related injuries) and not being held back for being a girl*.

    One of J.R.R.Tolkien's non-Middle Earth books was a translation of a work on Sir Gwaine and the green knight (translated effectively from what might effectively been Old English, although it was contemporary to Cantebury Tales). Sir Gwaine was 99.9% fearless, but the .1% left is the point of the tale. Similarly, Eowyn has everything she needs to excel in Rohan warrior society: high birth, tremendous courage, horsemanship, etc. but is disqualified left and right for being a woman (and when she is "put in her place" in command of the woman and children it is clear that everybody knows she is more qualified than all men who could do so in her place).

    "Men have a greater aptitude to swing swords because men are naturally, scientifically** stronger physically than women" this may be true, but Rohan are cavalry. Cavalry can get much of the force of their blows from the speed of the horse, and Eowyn
    is likely as strong at staying in the saddle as a man (her lighter weight making up for slightly reduced lower body strength). This might not help facing the Witch King on foot (whom no man could slay), but even there she was likely as strong as Theoden. Tolkien was in a cavalry unit before the war (or possibly the unit was mustered as cavalry, and then changed when it was clear how useful that would be in a trench) and probably knew if a noble tomboy could be an effective shield-maiden and shaped Eowyn and Rohan to fit. As an aside, I think that elf-lords are stronger than elf-ladies, but only because Tolkien doesn't appear to have put much thought into it.

    * girl being used in the sense that "girls can't ...". Obviously Eowyn is a woman.
    ** naturally, scientifically ... than woman. I really, really, really, don't want to think of all the things these words were used to justify (in the US as well as more obvious places) in 1937 (and 1957 (or whenever LOTR was finally published), and 2013).
    Last edited by yawumpus; Feb 19 2013 at 06:27 PM. Reason: added a bit about Eowyn's glory seeking.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Fangorn Forest
    Posts
    429
    Quote Originally Posted by Felardris View Post
    Now for the orcs being dark skinned... I've had some teachers who tried to tout that it was Tolkien being racist, but I honestly do not think so at all.
    It is far easier to paint the orcs as being German*. And while many racists are perfectly capable of the doublethink needed to assume that Saxons-who-migrated-to-Albion (England) are a different race from the Saxons-who-stayed-home (hmmm, high elves vs. other elves anyone?) I doubt the Professor of ancient languages was guilty of this.

    * German is the basis for Black Speech, and it isn't hard to draw other similarities. Tolkien denied it, and probably stamped out a few things that might have been claimed as "bigger clues". Between being gassed in the Somme and waiting as his son fought the Nazis while the books were written make them a much bigger target than any potential race issue.

  5. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by yawumpus View Post
    It is far easier to paint the orcs as being German*. And while many racists are perfectly capable of the doublethink needed to assume that Saxons-who-migrated-to-Albion (England) are a different race from the Saxons-who-stayed-home (hmmm, high elves vs. other elves anyone?) I doubt the Professor of ancient languages was guilty of this.

    * German is the basis for Black Speech, and it isn't hard to draw other similarities. Tolkien denied it, and probably stamped out a few things that might have been claimed as "bigger clues". Between being gassed in the Somme and waiting as his son fought the Nazis while the books were written make them a much bigger target than any potential race issue.
    Tolkien is his letters made a large distinction between ordinary Germans and Nazis; he admired the former and despised the latter. As for German being the basis for Black Speech, what similarities are there? I have not seen any linguistic analysis of the limited corpus of BS materials suggesting German was its basis. The only analysis I am aware of which links BS to a real world exemplar attempts to show that it was influenced by Hurrian.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    In my TARDIS
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by yawumpus View Post
    Oddly enough, I'm reading up to the Return of the King right now and will have to check those passages. I would have to say that Eowyn was more likely bitter, sour, etc. due to Wormtongue's harassment (although I would suspect she would have gutted him if it was as explicit as Peter Jackson showed) and Rohan society obligations. Remember, Faramir was "Mr. Second Best" after Arwen had Mr. Right wrapped around her immortally perfect finger. She also met Faramir after she no longer had anything to prove glory-wise (she mentions to Aragon she fears a life without renown). She had slain the Witch King, and if she wasn't riding to Mordor it was because her shield arm was broken (and other nazgul related injuries) and not being held back for being a girl*.

    One of J.R.R.Tolkien's non-Middle Earth books was a translation of a work on Sir Gwaine and the green knight (translated effectively from what might effectively been Old English, although it was contemporary to Cantebury Tales). Sir Gwaine was 99.9% fearless, but the .1% left is the point of the tale. Similarly, Eowyn has everything she needs to excel in Rohan warrior society: high birth, tremendous courage, horsemanship, etc. but is disqualified left and right for being a woman (and when she is "put in her place" in command of the woman and children it is clear that everybody knows she is more qualified than all men who could do so in her place).

    "Men have a greater aptitude to swing swords because men are naturally, scientifically** stronger physically than women" this may be true, but Rohan are cavalry. Cavalry can get much of the force of their blows from the speed of the horse, and Eowyn
    is likely as strong at staying in the saddle as a man (her lighter weight making up for slightly reduced lower body strength). This might not help facing the Witch King on foot (whom no man could slay), but even there she was likely as strong as Theoden. Tolkien was in a cavalry unit before the war (or possibly the unit was mustered as cavalry, and then changed when it was clear how useful that would be in a trench) and probably knew if a noble tomboy could be an effective shield-maiden and shaped Eowyn and Rohan to fit. As an aside, I think that elf-lords are stronger than elf-ladies, but only because Tolkien doesn't appear to have put much thought into it.

    * girl being used in the sense that "girls can't ...". Obviously Eowyn is a woman.
    ** naturally, scientifically ... than woman. I really, really, really, don't want to think of all the things these words were used to justify (in the US as well as more obvious places) in 1937 (and 1957 (or whenever LOTR was finally published), and 2013).

    Some such of "Here is [Eoywn] and she is healed" after she falls for Faramir then she says she will stay in the houses of healing because "no house is more blessed"
    But she was sour, and was not after Faramir came along.

    I shudder to think of the other ways that has been used too, but physical strength is something that can be easily quantified and compared. We are talking about women in general, not just Rohirrim women.
    Lore-Monkey(not a Lore Guardian) and proud of it.

    .

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Cookie Land
    Posts
    1,617
    Men are, as a rule, biologically stronger and bigger than women. I doubt that there would be any other major differences in their abilities in war other than this. (given a proper time frame for women to make the adjustment) i.e. be schooled in the same manner as men are schooled for war.

    In Tolkien’s world, war/fighting was a recurring theme throughout the centuries. After wars, populations must be replenished in preparation for more wars. This requires birth-ers. The number of male donors to the process is not as important during these periods as the number of female carriers. It is a matter of species/race/nation survival to protect the females and sacrifice the males.
    Last edited by RKL; Feb 19 2013 at 10:45 PM.

  8. #33
    I'm not even going to bother replying to some of the more hilarious things here and just leave this because it quite eloquently describes the issue with all of those things.

    Criticisms about representations of gender (or race and other diversity) are often countered in fandom by sociological or scientific analyses attempting to explain why the inequality happens according to the internal logic of the fictional world. As though there is any real reason that anything happens in a story except that someone chose to write it that way.

    Fiction is not Darwinian: It contains no impartial process of evolution that dispassionately produces the events of a fictional universe. Fiction is miraculously, fundamentally Creationist. When we make worlds, we become gods. And gods are responsible for the things they create, particularly when they create them in their own image.

    Science fiction in particular has always offered a vision of the world not myopically limited by the world as it exists, but liberated by the power of imagination. Perhaps more than any genre of storytelling, it has no excuse to exclude women for so-called practical reasons — especially when it has every reason to imagine a world where they are just as heroic, exceptional, and well-represented as men.
    from this article: http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/...females-media/
    [CENTER][charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/032020000004cffc5/01006/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]
    64 GRD | 58 MIN | 45 WRD | 43 BURG | 41 RK | 24 CHAMP[/CENTER]

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Cookie Land
    Posts
    1,617
    Quote Originally Posted by chieth View Post
    I'm not even going to bother replying to some of the more hilarious things here and just leave this because it quite eloquently describes the issue with all of those things.

    Criticisms about representations of gender (or race and other diversity) are often countered in fandom by sociological or scientific analyses attempting to explain why the inequality happens according to the internal logic of the fictional world. As though there is any real reason that anything happens in a story except that someone chose to write it that way.

    Fiction is not Darwinian: It contains no impartial process of evolution that dispassionately produces the events of a fictional universe. Fiction is miraculously, fundamentally Creationist. When we make worlds, we become gods. And gods are responsible for the things they create, particularly when they create them in their own image.

    Science fiction in particular has always offered a vision of the world not myopically limited by the world as it exists, but liberated by the power of imagination. Perhaps more than any genre of storytelling, it has no excuse to exclude women for so-called practical reasons — especially when it has every reason to imagine a world where they are just as heroic, exceptional, and well-represented as men.
    from this article: http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/...females-media/
    The writer seems to be saying that women are not very heroic in real life and that they should be portrayed as being more heroic than they actually are, in fiction. I cannot agree with this point of view. I do not find men to be more heroic than women.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Fangorn Forest
    Posts
    429
    Quote Originally Posted by Ceredig View Post
    Tolkien is his letters made a large distinction between ordinary Germans and Nazis; he admired the former and despised the latter. As for German being the basis for Black Speech, what similarities are there? I have not seen any linguistic analysis of the limited corpus of BS materials suggesting German was its basis. The only analysis I am aware of which links BS to a real world exemplar attempts to show that it was influenced by Hurrian.
    I can't remember now. I thought it came from a lotr extended edition comment, but maybe not:

    (what I thought each language was based on)
    Sindarin (or at least one of the Elvish tongues): Welsh
    Black Speech: German
    Dwarven: Hebrew
    Quenyan (by elimination): Finnish

    According to this wiki Quenyan and Sindarin are closely related (or not. They had long ages before the Sun and the Moon to diverge). Since (from memory) Finnish and Welsh aren't related at all (I'm not even sure Finnish is Indo-European), my memory is likely faulty. Or maybe my memory is fine but supplied by a bad source. I certainly remember (from elsewhere) that Tolkien was impressed with Welsh, it would be odd if he didn't use it in one of his languages. No, I'm not getting older. Age doesn't affect ents that way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mellonbeleg View Post
    Some such of "Here is [Eoywn] and she is healed" after she falls for Faramir then she says she will stay in the houses of healing because "no house is more blessed"
    But she was sour, and was not after Faramir came along.

    I shudder to think of the other ways that has been used too, but physical strength is something that can be easily quantified and compared. We are talking about women in general, not just Rohirrim women.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gandalf
    “My friend, you had horses, and deed of arms, and the free fields; but she, being born in the body of a maid, had a spirit and courage at least the match of yours. Yet she was doomed to wait upon an old man, whom she loved as a father, and watch him falling into a mean dishonoured dotage; and her part seemed to her more ignoble than that of the staff he leaned on.
    -Gandalf to Eomer, of Eowyn”
    Looks like this part was fixed in the Two Towers, although you couldn't expect an instant recovery from her as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eoywn
    ARAGORN: What do you fear, lady?

    EOWYN: A cage. To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recalls or desire.
    She handled this well by slaying the Witchking himself. Sauron wasn't going to answer Aragon's challenge personally, so there really wasn't an opportunity to do a greater deed than doing in the Witchking.

    Certainly meeting Faramir was good for her. But the way you put it seems a bit like "all she needed was a man", which wasn't at all what Tolkien wrote. Tolkien gave her (almost all) of his best lines. None of them were "someday my prince will come" (I will admit she perked up a bit around Aragorn. Still, I doubt she could be truly healed while locked in a cage while great deeds were done by others (presumably Theoden's decay would be somebody else's problem)).

    My point was that as far as Eoywn was concerned, her lower body strength was fine and her upper body strength didn't matter. I suspect in real battles there would be the issue of cutting deep, keeping your sword in your hand, and just how many slashes you can do before you sword arm tires out. There might even be some data on that last one. From the extended editions, there were plenty of shieldmaidens/matrons in the [extras] riders of rohan (I think they outnumbered the men). I wonder if there was a difference between how many takes each gender could go through (even if slashing with a prop is nothing like a real battle).

    Quote Originally Posted by RKL View Post
    In Tolkien’s world, war/fighting was a recurring theme throughout the centuries. After wars, populations must be replenished in preparation for more wars. This requires birth-ers. The number of male donors to the process is not as important during these periods as the number of female carriers. It is a matter of species/race/nation survival to protect the females and sacrifice the men.
    Considering that the French lost something like 1/30 of their total population (i.e. a huge chunk of the young men) in the Great War, in this case Tolkien's world also refers to what he saw first hand. Much of us later readers can happily forget it (until I see the phrase "cheese eating surrender monkeys").

  11. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by RKL View Post
    The writer seems to be saying that women are not very heroic in real life and that they should be portrayed as being more heroic than they actually are, in fiction. I cannot agree with this point of view. I do not find men to be more heroic than women.
    /facepalms
    [CENTER][charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/032020000004cffc5/01006/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]
    64 GRD | 58 MIN | 45 WRD | 43 BURG | 41 RK | 24 CHAMP[/CENTER]

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Cookie Land
    Posts
    1,617
    Quote Originally Posted by chieth View Post
    /facepalms
    Sorry, that’s the way I read it.

  13. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by RKL View Post
    Sorry, that’s the way I read it.
    ... I'm really not sure where you're getting that from at all. The article is simply about the number of women in series like Star Wars and LOTR, because that alone is severely lacking. As I stated above, the quote I selected is about how in fiction, the author plays God. The author make all the decisions, and even if there's meant to be some real-world basis for some things, the writer still chose that. And before anybody says this again; if it's possible to say "oh, LOTR's like dark ages Europe, except with elves, orcs, giant hawks, dragons and stuff" then... why is my original comment in this thread of wanting more female (and non-white) representation so outlandish in comparison to all those other things? The fact that I wish there were some more kick-&&& ladies around is just too discordant with the lore? Which reminds me, who wrote the lore in the first place?

    I'm just going to post this part again because it's the most relevant.

    Perhaps more than any genre of storytelling, it has no excuse to exclude women for so-called practical reasons — especially when it has every reason to imagine a world where they are just as heroic, exceptional, and well-represented as men.
    And on that note, I'm done with this thread, goodnight.
    [CENTER][charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/032020000004cffc5/01006/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]
    64 GRD | 58 MIN | 45 WRD | 43 BURG | 41 RK | 24 CHAMP[/CENTER]

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Cookie Land
    Posts
    1,617
    Quote Originally Posted by chieth View Post
    ... I'm really not sure where you're getting that from at all. The article is simply about the number of women in series like Star Wars and LOTR, because that alone is severely lacking. As I stated above, the quote I selected is about how in fiction, the author plays God. The author make all the decisions, and even if there's meant to be some real-world basis for some things, the writer still chose that. And before anybody says this again; if it's possible to say "oh, LOTR's like dark ages Europe, except with elves, orcs, giant hawks, dragons and stuff" then... why is my original comment in this thread of wanting more female (and non-white) representation so outlandish in comparison to all those other things? The fact that I wish there were some more kick-&&& ladies around is just too discordant with the lore? Which reminds me, who wrote the lore in the first place?

    I'm just going to post this part again because it's the most relevant.

    Perhaps more than any genre of storytelling, it has no excuse to exclude women for so-called practical reasons — especially when it has every reason to imagine a world where they are just as heroic, exceptional, and well-represented as men.s
    And on that note, I'm done with this thread, goodnight.
    Goodnight. And thanks for the posts.

    I am getting it from the way the line I highlighted was written. If the author had said: limited by the world as it is perceived by some to exist, instead of; limited by the world as it exists, I could look at it differently.

    There is nothing outlandish with wanting more female and non-white representation.

    The line quoted was about Science Fiction. Science fiction is about future worlds beyond where we are now. LOTR is about medieval type eras. Hopefully we will continue to liberate ourselves as time goes on.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Gallifrey. I need a Jelly Baby.
    Posts
    19,035
    Quote Originally Posted by chieth View Post
    I'm not even going to bother replying to some of the more hilarious things here and just leave this because it quite eloquently describes the issue with all of those things.



    from this article: http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/...females-media/
    I read that article. It just seems like a long rant to me. This is as bad as a thread about 6 years accusing Turbine of being sexist because there were more male quest givers than female quest givers. When the female players said it wasn't a big deal, the OP said that they were timid and he would stand up for them. To this day i remember them flaming him from here to Tuesday.


    I still do not see why it should be considered inappropriate for a story to have only one gender instead of mixed. A story can have all female or all male characters and there is nothing wrong with it.

    Please explain why mixed genders should be required in a story.


    I just don't see The Hobbit as a "NO GIRLS ALLOWED" story. Like I said earlier, it's just 14 dudes on an adventure.



    Besides, didn't Eowyn take down the Witch King? No man did. She did.

    I feel that you are looking for offensive material where it does not exist. I bet you anything the majority of females here don't view The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings as being racist or sexist.
    Last edited by Nymphonic; Feb 20 2013 at 01:24 AM.
    Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"
    Continuing the never ending battle to keep Lobelia Sackville-Baggins in check

  16. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by yawumpus View Post
    I can't remember now. I thought it came from a lotr extended edition comment, but maybe not:

    (what I thought each language was based on)
    Sindarin (or at least one of the Elvish tongues): Welsh
    Black Speech: German
    Dwarven: Hebrew
    Quenyan (by elimination): Finnish

    According to this wiki Quenyan and Sindarin are closely related (or not. They had long ages before the Sun and the Moon to diverge). Since (from memory) Finnish and Welsh aren't related at all (I'm not even sure Finnish is Indo-European), my memory is likely faulty. Or maybe my memory is fine but supplied by a bad source. I certainly remember (from elsewhere) that Tolkien was impressed with Welsh, it would be odd if he didn't use it in one of his languages.
    Having studied Middle Welsh, I can attest that Sindarin shares a great deal with it, including phonology and morphology. Dwarven and Aduniac take their triconsonantal morphemic structure definitely from Hebrew.
    Quenya takes its phonology from Finnish (which is not Indo-European but related to Estonian and Hungarian) in many ways but its morphology is rooted firmly in Indo-European structures. Tolkien attempted to model the relation between Quenya and Sindarin on that which exists between *British and Middle Welsh. I marked British with an * since other than inscriptionary and place name evidence, British is essentially an unattested language formulated by internal and comparative reconstruction.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Fangorn Forest
    Posts
    429
    Quote Originally Posted by Ceredig View Post
    Having studied Middle Welsh, I can attest that Sindarin shares a great deal with it, including phonology and morphology. Dwarven and Aduniac take their triconsonantal morphemic structure definitely from Hebrew.
    Huzzah! I am not losing my mind! The germanic nature of Black Speech may be in doubt, but at least I remember most of my sources correctly.

    -told you age didn't affect an ent's mind.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymphonic View Post
    I feel that you are looking for offensive material where it does not exist. I bet you anything the majority of females here don't view The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings as being racist or sexist.
    I agree in a way. Not that they are necessarily looking for offensive material, simply that 90% of the LOTR fans I know personally are woman and not a single one of them ever has been upset about the ratio of men to women. In fact, myself(I'm also a woman) and almost all of them disliked PJs replacement of Glorfindel with Arwen in FOTR. The rest simply said they did not care one way or another.

    And I do believe someone mentioned before that Tolkien does have many strong women in the stories. Are all of them up front swinging a sword? No. Arwen, Galadriel, Luthien, the Maia Queen Melian. They all had great strength, though it was of a more magical kind. Luthien helps Beren against Morgoth, Melian uses her magic to protect the kingdom of Doriath for hundreds of years, Galadriel uses her magic to protect Lothlorien for thousands of years AND she leads the forces of Lothlorien along side Mirkwood to throw down Dol Guldur. She busts down the gates herself it is implied. Arwen of course is not quite so achieved, but she too has her own strength.

    In Arwen's case it's more spiritual in nature. She finds the man she loves becomes completely aware that to love him means to die and she stays with him anyway. I essentially see her taking mortality to stay with Aragorn as looking death with the eye and saying that she does not care and she will face it none the less for what she believes in. If facing death when you could more than easily run the other way for something you believe in is not strength, than I'm not sure what is.

    Heck, it was Luthien's granddaughter I believe that took the final Silmaril and ran with it to save Doriath as much as she could from the wrath of the Noldor and at last put the stupid fight to rest. Her brother's certainly did not survive that battle and were led out to the woods never to be seen again.

    Then naturally, there's Eowyn.

    Tolkien based Beren and Luthien on he and his wife. He even had Beren and Luthien inscribed on their tomb stones. Luthien was a woman of great strength and beauty, so I greatly believe Tolkien had great respect for women.

    And I still see that article on people defending their fandom against racism for the sake of fandom and not wanting to admit to the fact that sometimes we are bias as somewhat bull, at least in this situation. Yes, in some cases that is true. People use their fantasy as an excuse to hate something without any blame, but in this case? I really sincerely doubt it's a matter of race.

    Evil is always portrayed as "black" because black represents darkness, shadows, and night time. People are often naturally afraid of the dark because it blinds us to danger that we normally can see in the daylight. Night time is when your subconscious often plays tricks on you into thinking there is some monster out there just out of sight waiting to kill you. Where as white is a symbol of light and day time where danger can be lain more plain before you. That is the reason the black = evil and white = good thing started in folk lore.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/1321300000007e167/01006/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]

  19. #44
    'His work created Fantasy, before him fantasy did not exist.'

    Clearly you've not heard of Lord Dunsany?
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/072060000001283c6/01005/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Fangorn Forest
    Posts
    429
    Quote Originally Posted by knifesedgegames View Post
    'His work created Fantasy, before him fantasy did not exist.'

    Clearly you've not heard of Lord Dunsany?
    I would claim that when Terry Brooks sold (and sold pretty well) a character for character and scene for scene copy of the Lord of the Rings* (The Sword of Shannara 1977), thousands of readers took up a pen claiming "I could do better than that".

    Hundreds were right. To be honest, later books by Mr. Brooks were also better.

    * fan fiction existed, but had to be printed on paper so it was a bit more limited and serious.
    Last edited by yawumpus; Feb 21 2013 at 02:06 AM. Reason: extra "a" removed

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2
    I'll probably get flak for this, but I did. It was hard getting past the first 11 pages when I picked it up one day. I have ADD and Dyslexia. Being too descriptive in writing is overbearing and "noisy" for me. I applaud trying to pain vivid images, but it's too much. I was disappointed with myself that I couldn't really get into it. I would love to RP in the game, but I'm nervous since I hardly know the lore, and pretty much all of it is in those books, which are brain-wracking for me. I do love reading, don't get me wrong, but certain books don't do it for me because in the scenes, too much is going on and I lose interest rapidly.

    I wouldn't exactly call the book boring, though. There's just too much to take, especially for an individual like me. I'm a huge nerd, but if you use giant fancy descriptive words and three paragraphs about how nicely-made a table is... yeah. Not my cup of tea.

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Imladris
    Posts
    15
    Fellowship of the Ring has a lot of dialogue and not much fighting at all as well as a lot of description on the scenery. (If you've been through the Fellowship's General area you'll be able to get a decent view of what Tolkien meant on the scenery) If your a hardcore Tolkien fan then you'll enjoy a lot of the dialogue.

    Two Towers had more fighting and somewhat more dialogue.

    Return of the King had a lot of fighting and a lot of dialogue.

    The Silmillarion had loads of dialogue and some fighting

    The Hobbit had a lot of scenery describing.

    Personally all books I read were great, but the Silmillarion was by far the best written. It makes the book come alive and teaches a lot about the First Age/before it.

  23. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by LinoraAmell View Post
    I'll probably get flak for this, but I did. It was hard getting past the first 11 pages when I picked it up one day. I have ADD and Dyslexia. Being too descriptive in writing is overbearing and "noisy" for me. I applaud trying to pain vivid images, but it's too much. I was disappointed with myself that I couldn't really get into it. I would love to RP in the game, but I'm nervous since I hardly know the lore, and pretty much all of it is in those books, which are brain-wracking for me. I do love reading, don't get me wrong, but certain books don't do it for me because in the scenes, too much is going on and I lose interest rapidly.

    I wouldn't exactly call the book boring, though. There's just too much to take, especially for an individual like me. I'm a huge nerd, but if you use giant fancy descriptive words and three paragraphs about how nicely-made a table is... yeah. Not my cup of tea.
    Don't know why anybody should flame/criticize you for voicing your opinion (well this is the Internet, thats why)? I found the books dull and boring the first time I had a shot at them, I guess I was about 10 years old back in the middle of the good old '80s. I had finished reading my first "grown up" book "The Talisman" by Stephen King and Peter Straub and thought I'd plow through anything. Started reading the books and got stuck, time after time. I tried to adopt a tehnique that I used for a long time with books that didn't seem to go forward fast enough or didn't interest me; I skipped 10,20,30 or 50 pages and tried to read on - it didn't work. I can't remember when I started reading the books for real - I might have been 16 or 17 - and I found them great then. It happens to me from time to time still that a book doesn't catch on, but usually I just suffer through it (even without being a fast reader now, I have developed a lot the last 20-30 years) and before I know it the book is finished.

    Nowadays when I've read all of the books several times over (am about to finish Silmarillion again now, David Farland got me distracted tho and can't say when my next round is finished) I'm really a big fan of the books. I've read "The Hobbit" aloud for my now 5-year old son since he was born, can't say how many times I read it to him, maybe 3 or 4, maybe more.

    Asking if the books are boring in a forum that relates to the author won't get many answers that say "Yes they are" (LinoraAmell being a rare exception). Try going into any forum about a specific author and ask if his or her books are bad/boring/dull and don't expect to get many positive answers (this is no flame, just a statement).

    Some books feel a bit naive when you reread them after some years (the memories you have of the book might be so strongly influenced by the way you viewed the world at the time you read it the first time and that view might change, especially when you are growing up) that it feels almost embarrasing to read them, but I believe that is more a childhood/youth thing. It hasn't happened to me with Tolkiens books tho.

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Gallifrey. I need a Jelly Baby.
    Posts
    19,035
    Quote Originally Posted by LinoraAmell View Post
    I'll probably get flak for this, but I did. It was hard getting past the first 11 pages when I picked it up one day. I have ADD and Dyslexia. Being too descriptive in writing is overbearing and "noisy" for me. I applaud trying to pain vivid images, but it's too much. I was disappointed with myself that I couldn't really get into it. I would love to RP in the game, but I'm nervous since I hardly know the lore, and pretty much all of it is in those books, which are brain-wracking for me. I do love reading, don't get me wrong, but certain books don't do it for me because in the scenes, too much is going on and I lose interest rapidly.

    I wouldn't exactly call the book boring, though. There's just too much to take, especially for an individual like me. I'm a huge nerd, but if you use giant fancy descriptive words and three paragraphs about how nicely-made a table is... yeah. Not my cup of tea.

    Nothing wrong with voicing your opinion. I just don't like it when people start getting angry because people don't agree with them, like the posts claiming Tolkien to be sexist and racist and lashing out at anyone that disagrees with them.

    You presented your opinion in an intelligent manner. I saw your line at the very end "not your cup of tea". That's what is so nice about literature, there is something for everyone. And as much as I love Tolkien, it's not for everyone.
    Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"
    Continuing the never ending battle to keep Lobelia Sackville-Baggins in check

  25. #50
    I can only say, from my own experience: don't ever read them in any other language than English. Seriously.
    [CENTER]“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”

    [/CENTER]

 

 
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload