We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 212
  1. #126
    Originally Posted by Quellentalious
    OP, petty amusing trolling with 'alternative facts'.
    Completely intellectually dishonest and dull if mildly serious.
    If dead serious, than this is just unhealthy. Requires
    custody and mental care until fantasy gender-obsession is cured :P

    This is game based on JRR Tolkien's fantasy world. It does a pretty decent job at that.
    Trying to push personal fantasies and agendas onto it is silly - such things belong to fanfic.
    'Reinterpretation' of Silmarillion, filling in 'blanks', 'reading between lines' = fan fiction != author's intent.
    Quote Originally Posted by elianidd2 View Post
    I love it when people use lore as a hammer to justify their own prejudices. In case you hadn't noticed, 'reading between the lines' is exactly what LOTRO is all about and what it's built on; if you don't like that kind of fleshing out approach to Tolkien lore then you should probably quit the game or risk bursting a vein. There's a hell of a lot more textual support for Dwarven women than there is for normal people fighting Balrogs and Nazgul, Alien eggs at the bottom of Moria or Nurzum. Same for tons of elves and hobbits (and women of any kind) traipsing the world and a myriad other things about LOTRO. It's a game, and its expansion of the lore is what makes it fun and interesting to play. You don't want to play a dwarf female, then don't play one, but don't come here to make some easy hay and try to foreclose the possibility for those of us who do care.
    Thank you; I think J.R.R Tolkien himself agrees with you.
    See where Tolkien pointed out on the topic of people confusing the difference between applicability vs allegory.
    Last edited by Legiorlos; Apr 19 2017 at 02:07 PM.

  2. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by Drawbar View Post
    IMHO OP only wanted male/female option for dwarfs and change the npc conversation and deed-titles with it.. not changing visuals.. nothing lore-braking.
    NOT necessarily true.....the OP showcases a number of visuals of what Dwarven women could look like....the inference being that indeed the OP would like to change visuals...any emphasis on NPC conversation or deed-titles is a later attempt at compromise....
    "The world weighs on my shoulders, but what am I to do? You sometimes drive me crazy, but I worry about you. I know it makes no difference to what you're going through, but I see the tip of the iceberg, and I worry about you"

  3. #128
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    5,717

    The First Rule of Dwarf Ladies Club is You Don't Talk About Dwarf Ladies Club

    Dwarf Women have always been present in LOTRO. They are implemented in a way that is absolutely faithful to canon:

    - They know who they are.
    - Elves, Hobbits, and Men never know who they are.
    - Some male Dwarves might know who some of them are.
    The Lag is so bad I saw Sara Oakheart outrun someone - kickman77

    Cener, Ingo, Rilibald, Hesred, Halras, Belegthelion, Ingoror, Gloringo
    Arkenstone (ex-Elendilmir) - The Osgiliath Guard - http://www.theoldergamers.com

  4. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by elianidd2 View Post
    I love it when people use lore as a hammer to justify their own prejudices. In case you hadn't noticed, 'reading between the lines' is exactly what LOTRO is all about and what it's built on; if you don't like that kind of fleshing out approach to Tolkien lore then you should probably quit the game or risk bursting a vein. There's a hell of a lot more textual support for Dwarven women than there is for normal people fighting Balrogs and Nazgul, Alien eggs at the bottom of Moria or Nurzum. Same for tons of elves and hobbits (and women of any kind) traipsing the world and a myriad other things about LOTRO. It's a game, and its expansion of the lore is what makes it fun and interesting to play. You don't want to play a dwarf female, then don't play one, but don't come here to make some easy hay and try to foreclose the possibility for those of us who do care.
    It's not a prejudice nor it's a hammer. It is however common sense.
    This 'proposal' is akin of me demanding to play 2m sized hobbit because Tolkien never wrote specifically that there are no such hobbits ever and irl we obviously know that every population has outlayers like that. And if you oppose that, you're a bigot that discriminates large people and their struggle.
    Or that my elf should have an option to have no legs (could have been born without or got'em chopped off) and possibility to have a long puff tail, I mean Tolkien obviously suggested between the lines that tails were hidden in pants supporting elven nimbleness and only cat like heritage 'really' explains superior reflexes and speed, so he didn't mention the obvious. It's soooo obvious. Of course if you oppose you have your own ugly prejudices and likely hate people with disabilities and don't want them to be represented!

    Anyway, these are all fine ideas - but NOT veiled insults targeted at people who disagree with them.
    However they are fine in: trolling for some kicks and giggles or fanfics. Because why not.
    In project like this sensible and respectful approach to lore should take precedence, as inconvenient as it may be for personal preferences and fantasies one might have,
    This game is different from tens of other games in similar setting because it respects the Tolkien's lore and setting. Not because it goes against it to provide generic fantasy world.

  5. #130
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    7,697
    Quote Originally Posted by elianidd2 View Post
    I love it when people use lore as a hammer to justify their own prejudices. In case you hadn't noticed, 'reading between the lines' is exactly what LOTRO is all about and what it's built on; if you don't like that kind of fleshing out approach to Tolkien lore then you should probably quit the game or risk bursting a vein. There's a hell of a lot more textual support for Dwarven women than there is for normal people fighting Balrogs and Nazgul, Alien eggs at the bottom of Moria or Nurzum. Same for tons of elves and hobbits (and women of any kind) traipsing the world and a myriad other things about LOTRO. It's a game, and its expansion of the lore is what makes it fun and interesting to play. You don't want to play a dwarf female, then don't play one, but don't come here to make some easy hay and try to foreclose the possibility for those of us who do care.
    What some people call 'reading between the lines' can really be anything but, i.e. not really what LOTRO is about or what the devs do in order to make for good gameplay but people using that phrase in bad faith, as an excuse. Like the OP here, who reckons that 'reading between the lines' allows for giving female Dwarves an obviously feminine appearance. That's not reading between any lines old man Tolkien ever wrote, that's straight out of left field, simply importing something from generic fantasy without caring how it relates to this game or its source material.

    The devs themselves denied this particular possibility well over a decade ago when they turned away from their own original intention to have stereotypical FRPG-style female Dwarves (no beards, etc.) in the game in the face of overwhelming objections from the community. They listened, then. They got it right, then. No more needs to be said.

  6. #131
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    7,697
    Quote Originally Posted by Legiorlos View Post
    Thank you; I think J.R.R Tolkien himself agrees with you.
    See where Tolkien pointed out on the topic of people confusing the difference between applicability vs allegory.
    I'm still not seeing what Tolkien's denial of the use of allegory has to do with this. I suspect the problem here is that you have no idea what he was talking about and so you're simply throwing it around in vague hopes of sounding erudite. Whatever, it simply isn't relevant.

  7. #132
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Gallifrey. I need a Jelly Baby.
    Posts
    20,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Quellentalious View Post
    It's not a prejudice nor it's a hammer. It is however common sense.
    This 'proposal' is akin of me demanding to play 2m sized hobbit because Tolkien never wrote specifically that there are no such hobbits ever and irl we obviously know that every population has outlayers like that. And if you oppose that, you're a bigot that discriminates large people and their struggle.
    Or that my elf should have an option to have no legs (could have been born without or got'em chopped off) and possibility to have a long puff tail, I mean Tolkien obviously suggested between the lines that tails were hidden in pants supporting elven nimbleness and only cat like heritage 'really' explains superior reflexes and speed, so he didn't mention the obvious. It's soooo obvious. Of course if you oppose you have your own ugly prejudices and likely hate people with disabilities and don't want them to be represented!

    Anyway, these are all fine ideas - but NOT veiled insults targeted at people who disagree with them.
    However they are fine in: trolling for some kicks and giggles or fanfics. Because why not.
    In project like this sensible and respectful approach to lore should take precedence, as inconvenient as it may be for personal preferences and fantasies one might have,
    This game is different from tens of other games in similar setting because it respects the Tolkien's lore and setting. Not because it goes against it to provide generic fantasy world.

    Yeah, I think this is what gets my goat more than anything else in this thread. Anyone that disagrees with this idea is labeled as some kind of ignorant miscreant or bigot.
    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

  8. #133
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    101
    I kind of liked the idea that dwarf women characters could at least get female pronouns for their emotes and interactions (even if only other dwarf characters could see them.) I see no reason why this would be against the lore. Certainly other dwarves would be able to recognize their own kind (imagine the awkwardness if not!) I would also like to see them have access to "daughter of" titles instead of "son of" titles and so on. Titles are inherently OOC anyway and only the player can see them (not the character), just like being able to see what class or level someone is.

  9. #134
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    7,697
    Quote Originally Posted by CloudCastle View Post
    I kind of liked the idea that dwarf women characters could at least get female pronouns for their emotes and interactions (even if only other dwarf characters could see them.) I see no reason why this would be against the lore. Certainly other dwarves would be able to recognize their own kind (imagine the awkwardness if not!) I would also like to see them have access to "daughter of" titles instead of "son of" titles and so on. Titles are inherently OOC anyway and only the player can see them (not the character), just like being able to see what class or level someone is.
    It's not the same as class and level, those are purely game mechanics, whereas being 'son of' or 'daughter of' whoever is in-character in itself and it's only it being shown that's OOC, not what it says. It's an extra bit on your character's name, after all, not just another title. What characters other than Dwarves should see is just an apparently male Dwarf, no giveaways at all, OOC or otherwise. And lore-wise, there's the implication that female Dwarves would go by a male name in the outside world, if they gave any name at all - having gone to the trouble of dressing like male Dwarves for travel so as to blend in, they'd hardly want to give the game away to outsiders.

    Travelling could be fully in-character if there's a good IC reason for it, but fighting never would be (barring extremes like absolutely desperate last-ditch defence of a Dwarf-hall). You can only have a truly lore-friendly female Dwarf if she leaves the fighting to the male Dwarves, i.e. she's not an adventurer.

  10. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by CloudCastle View Post
    I kind of liked the idea that dwarf women characters could at least get female pronouns for their emotes and interactions (even if only other dwarf characters could see them.) I see no reason why this would be against the lore. Certainly other dwarves would be able to recognize their own kind (imagine the awkwardness if not!) I would also like to see them have access to "daughter of" titles instead of "son of" titles and so on. Titles are inherently OOC anyway and only the player can see them (not the character), just like being able to see what class or level someone is.
    A better solution, I think, would be for the game to use impersonal (and thus gender-neutral) pronouns (i.e. "it") everywhere for sneaky, greedy Dorfs.

    It's not like they're people, after all, and this would accommodate any Dorf that wants to be 1) fat, stinky and male, 2) fat, stinky and female or 3) fat, stinky and something else.

    Likewise, the "Son of ..."/"Daughter of ..." issue could be easily solved by instead using "Spawn of ..." for vile and disgusting Dorfs. This (again) ensures there is no confusion with legitimate folk (Children of Illuvatar).
    Dagoreth (Warden) and Belechannas (Lore-master) of Arkenstone

    < No Dorfs >
    Fighting the Dorf menace to Middle Earth since 2008

  11. #136
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Gallifrey. I need a Jelly Baby.
    Posts
    20,003
    Quote Originally Posted by LagunaD2 View Post
    A better solution, I think, would be for the game to use impersonal (and thus gender-neutral) pronouns (i.e. "it") everywhere for sneaky, greedy Dorfs.

    It's not like they're people, after all, and this would accommodate any Dorf that wants to be 1) fat, stinky and male, 2) fat, stinky and female or 3) fat, stinky and something else.

    Likewise, the "Son of ..."/"Daughter of ..." issue could be easily solved by instead using "Spawn of ..." for vile and disgusting Dorfs. This (again) ensures there is no confusion with legitimate folk (Children of Illuvatar).

    I had a really stressful day today, and you put me in a good mood. ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    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

  12. #137
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Gallifrey. I need a Jelly Baby.
    Posts
    20,003
    Quote Originally Posted by CloudCastle View Post
    I kind of liked the idea that dwarf women characters could at least get female pronouns for their emotes and interactions (even if only other dwarf characters could see them.) I see no reason why this would be against the lore. Certainly other dwarves would be able to recognize their own kind (imagine the awkwardness if not!) I would also like to see them have access to "daughter of" titles instead of "son of" titles and so on. Titles are inherently OOC anyway and only the player can see them (not the character), just like being able to see what class or level someone is.


    Sorry for the double post, multi replying on my phone is a (bad word goes here). I really have nothing against this idea.
    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

  13. #138
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymphonic View Post
    Yeah, I think this is what gets my goat more than anything else in this thread. Anyone that disagrees with this idea is labeled as some kind of ignorant miscreant or bigot.
    Nobody's accusing anyone of being a bigot or of being ignorant.
    Though in my opinion, some are acting overly sensitive about the whole thing and ironically these often also seem to be the same loudest voices in the room; thus crowding out the voice of those who may have a different opinion (seemingly in a thinly veiled attempt to shut down any meaningful conversation on this topic).
    Last edited by Legiorlos; Apr 22 2017 at 02:16 PM.

  14. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by CloudCastle View Post
    I kind of liked the idea that dwarf women characters could at least get female pronouns for their emotes and interactions (even if only other dwarf characters could see them.) I see no reason why this would be against the lore. Certainly other dwarves would be able to recognize their own kind (imagine the awkwardness if not!) I would also like to see them have access to "daughter of" titles instead of "son of" titles and so on. Titles are inherently OOC anyway and only the player can see them (not the character), just like being able to see what class or level someone is.
    I think that would be a better solution then the way things currently are and would surely be a change that's acceptable by the silent majority of LOTRO players. I'd like repeat what you said about the pronoun and title changes only being made visible to other Dwarves (in order to please the few but loud overly-picky types).
    Last edited by Legiorlos; Apr 22 2017 at 02:35 PM.

  15. #140
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    7,697
    Quote Originally Posted by Legiorlos View Post
    Nobody's accusing anyone of being a bigot or of being ignorant.
    Though in my opinion, some are acting overly sensitive about the whole thing, and these often also seem to be the same loudest voices in the room (crowding out the voice of those who may have a different opinion, seemingly in a thinly veiled attempt to shut down any meaningful conversation on this topic).
    We've had a meaningful conversation, you just don't like how it went.

  16. #141
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    7,697
    Quote Originally Posted by Legiorlos View Post
    I think that would be a better solution then the way things currently are and would surely be a change that's acceptable by the silent majority of LOTRO players. I'd like repeat what you said about the pronoun and title changes only being visible to other Dwarves (in order to please the few but loud overly-picky types).
    If the majority is silent, how do you know what they think? lrn2argue

  17. #142
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Gallifrey. I need a Jelly Baby.
    Posts
    20,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    If the majority is silent, how do you know what they think? lrn2argue
    I was wondering that too.
    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

  18. #143
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,182
    Quote Originally Posted by Legiorlos View Post
    and would surely be a change that's acceptable by the silent majority of LOTRO players.
    It's completely intellectually dishonest statements like this that have people opposing your idea, not their over-sensitivity or pickiness, as you put it.

    You have been completely dishonest from the beginning, reinventing the facts and then calling it "reading between the lines" and "using applicability instead of allegory".

    I know this has been quoted here before, but here it is again:

    "It was said by Gimli that there are few dwarf-women, probably no more than a third of the whole people. They seldom walk abroad except at great need. They are in voice and appearance, and in garb if they must go on a journey, so like to the dwarf-men that the eyes and ears of other peoples cannot tell them apart." J. R. R. Tolkien.

    There is nothing ambiguous in that statement, there are very few dwarf-women, and other people cannot tell them apart. Tolkien clearly intended that statement to be taken as written, and telling us otherwise is just you being dishonest, as you have been with your whole argument from the beginning.

    It was never going to be easy for the devs to deal with this problem, clearly there would always be people who wanted to role play a female dwarf, while others would see it as flying in the face of the lore as stated by Tolkien. I think the solution the developers came up with was quite clever, and has been accepted by the overwhelming majority of the player base over the years.

  19. #144
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,182
    Quote Originally Posted by LagunaD2 View Post
    A better solution, I think, would be for the game to use impersonal (and thus gender-neutral) pronouns (i.e. "it") everywhere for sneaky, greedy Dorfs.

    It's not like they're people, after all, and this would accommodate any Dorf that wants to be 1) fat, stinky and male, 2) fat, stinky and female or 3) fat, stinky and something else.

    Likewise, the "Son of ..."/"Daughter of ..." issue could be easily solved by instead using "Spawn of ..." for vile and disgusting Dorfs. This (again) ensures there is no confusion with legitimate folk (Children of Illuvatar).
    Now that is funny

  20. #145
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Gallifrey. I need a Jelly Baby.
    Posts
    20,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfhelm View Post
    It's completely intellectually dishonest statements like this that have people opposing your idea, not their over-sensitivity or pickiness, as you put it.

    You have been completely dishonest from the beginning, reinventing the facts and then calling it "reading between the lines" and "using applicability instead of allegory".

    .

    I pretty much agree with this 100%.
    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

  21. #146
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfhelm View Post
    It's completely intellectually dishonest statements like this that have people opposing your idea, not their over-sensitivity or pickiness, as you put it.

    You have been completely dishonest from the beginning, reinventing the facts and then calling it "reading between the lines" and "using applicability instead of allegory".

    I know this has been quoted here before, but here it is again:

    "It was said by Gimli that there are few dwarf-women, probably no more than a third of the whole people. They seldom walk abroad except at great need. They are in voice and appearance, and in garb if they must go on a journey, so like to the dwarf-men that the eyes and ears of other peoples cannot tell them apart." J. R. R. Tolkien.

    There is nothing ambiguous in that statement, there are very few dwarf-women, and other people cannot tell them apart. Tolkien clearly intended that statement to be taken as written, and telling us otherwise is just you being dishonest, as you have been with your whole argument from the beginning.

    It was never going to be easy for the devs to deal with this problem, clearly there would always be people who wanted to role play a female dwarf, while others would see it as flying in the face of the lore as stated by Tolkien. I think the solution the developers came up with was quite clever, and has been accepted by the overwhelming majority of the player base over the years.



    To re-quote
    There is nothing ambiguous in that statement, there are very few dwarf-women, and other people cannot tell them apart. Tolkien clearly intended that statement to be taken as written, and telling us otherwise is just you being dishonest, as you have been with your whole argument from the beginning.
    The funny thing is... it might surprise you to know that I also agree with this statement except for the part of you accusing me of being intellectually dishonest. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself; Yes Dwarf women are very few and yes the other races can not tell them apart. I've already previously addressed these issues and if you've read my proposal you will see how it already compensates for all of that.







    You seem to take issue with/misunderstand or seem to be confusing applicability vs allegory.
    Here is the explanation from Tolkien himself:

    “I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.”
    ~ J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring

    Also, Tolkien wrote the following about the idea behind the One Ring:
    "I should say that it was a mythical way of representing the truth that potency (or perhaps potentiality) if it is to be exercised, and produce results, has to be externalized and so as it were passes, to a greater or lesser degree, out of one's direct control." (Letter #211, 1958)

    Tolkien always strongly held that The Lord of the Rings was not allegorical, particularly in reference to political events of his time such as World War II or the Cold War. At the same time he conceded "applicability" as being within the "freedom" of the reader and indeed many people have been inclined to view the One Ring as a symbol or metaphor. The notion of a power too great for humans to safely possess is an evocative one however and I think it's safe to say that the One Ring is a symbol in the broader sense that represents ultimate power and highlighting mankind's weakness for it. Many readers are free to view it that way (symbolically)… and perhaps as a reader Tolkien did too.


    To paraphrase Tolkien definition of "Applicability= Freedom of the reader" and his definition of "Allegory= Domination of the author"

    In other words he acknowledges that his works can mean different things to different people and therefore he prefers freedom of the reader/gamer(in this case) rather then domination of the author when it comes to what his works actually mean to different people. So as long as something is not going directly against what he had said, I think people having the freedom to "read between the lines" or "fill in the blanks" when it comes to any details he left out is completely acceptable, and is seemingly the mindset that is embraced and even preferred by Tolkien himself.
    I think this could not be clearer.
    Last edited by Legiorlos; Apr 23 2017 at 03:23 PM.

  22. #147
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,139
    I understand some of you want Female dwarves added in some way, but its like your beating a dead horse, the idea is gone an won't happen in game...we already been on this subject many times before its the same arguments all over again, now I'd be surprised if the devs did this... but don't think it will happen sadly.

    Edit: also no need to continue on this leave it alone an see what happens the Devs read this forum its upto them, no need for beating the dead horse.
    Last edited by Pontin_Finnberry; Apr 23 2017 at 03:27 PM.
    Pontin Level 115 Hobbit Burglar Kinship Second Breakfast Crickhollow Server. Staff member of the Lord of the Rings Discord Server, and Owner of Middle-Earth Lore discord.
    Alts: Legoan Elf Hunter, Belladonea Hobbit Minstrel, Unnari Dwarf Guardian, Jorunn Man Captain, Sallyberry Hobbit Warden. Laurelin Server, Edwell Man Hunter.


    Here's some of my Screenshots Throughout Middle Earth. Also can follow me on Twitter for Adventures in Middle Earth and more!

  23. #148
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    7,697
    Quote Originally Posted by Legiorlos View Post
    You seem to take issue with/misunderstand or seem to be confusing applicability vs allegory.
    Here is the explanation from Tolkien himself:

    “I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.”
    ~ J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring

    Also, Tolkien wrote the following about the idea behind the One Ring:
    "I should say that it was a mythical way of representing the truth that potency (or perhaps potentiality) if it is to be exercised, and produce results, has to be externalized and so as it were passes, to a greater or lesser degree, out of one's direct control." (Letter #211, 1958)

    Tolkien always strongly held that The Lord of the Rings was not allegorical, particularly in reference to political events of his time such as World War II or the Cold War. At the same time he conceded "applicability" as being within the "freedom" of the reader and indeed many people have been inclined to view the One Ring as a symbol or metaphor. The notion of a power too great for humans to safely possess is an evocative one however and I think it's safe to say that the One Ring is a symbol in the broader sense that represents ultimate power and highlighting mankind's weakness for it. Many readers are free to view it that way (symbolically)… and perhaps as a reader Tolkien did too.

    To paraphrase Tolkien definition of Applicability= "Freedom of the reader" and his definition of Allegory= "Domination of the author"

    In other words he acknowledges that his works can mean different things to different people and therefore he prefers freedom of the reader/gamer(in this case) rather then domination of the author when it comes to what his works actually mean to different people. So as long as something is not going directly against what he had said, people having the freedom to "read between the lines" or "fill in the blanks" is completely acceptable and even embraced and seemingly preferred by Tolkien himself.
    I think this could not be clearer.
    Not even close. In that quote Tolkien was talking specifically about why he disliked allegory (essentially because he considered it to be heavy-handed symbolism that imposes on the reader) so you're taking what he said entirely out of context. What we're discussing here is just a matter-of-fact detail in the narrative, like how hobbits have hairy feet. Even if we were discussing a detail which is reckoned to be symbolic, like the Ring, then while we could debate about what it might symbolically represent that wouldn't change its actual described appearance or properties in the narrative. Your conclusion is complete bunk.

  24. #149
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,182
    Quote Originally Posted by Legiorlos View Post
    You seem to take issue with/misunderstand or seem to be confusing applicability vs allegory.
    Here is the explanation from Tolkien himself.
    You see, this is exactly why your idea has received such a cold reception. The whole applicability versus allegory issue had to do with people making straight one to one comparisons between Tolkien's stories and real life events. For example, the One Ring being a metaphor for the atom bomb, or Saruman being Adolf Hitler.

    Tolkien's statement about dwarf-women has nothing whatsoever to do with allegory/applicability, it is just a very clear, unambiguous claim that non-dwarves cannot tell them apart.

    You accuse me of misunderstanding the issue, but it seems perfectly clear to myself (and to many others here) that you (at best) are completely confused about it or (at worst) are deliberately being dishonest about it in a vain effort to support your ridiculous argument.

  25. #150
    I think your missing the point.

    I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.”
    ~ J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring

    What takes precedence, the substance/spirit of the law (that helps us to better understand the letter of the law in the first place) or only the letter of the law itself(which still requires interpretation)? In this case, when asked about something that involved interpretation of the meaning of some things that the author didn't specifically state but involves a "which is more important authors interpretation of symbolic allegory vs readers interpretation", Tolkien didn't even use the word symbolism but rather specifically stated that "Freedom of the reader" needs to take precedence over "Domination of the author". This is revealing in more ways then one because it helps us to better understand the substance/spirit behind Tolkien's mindset. It is then revealed to us that Tolkien's default way of thinking is that in cases where he left out the specific meaning of something (and therefore some filling in the blanks is required when it comes to interpretation), Tolkien immediately defaults to a "let the reader decide" mentality". This is consistent with overall how Tolkien thinks.. However, it would be inconsistent (and possibly OCD) with his overall methodology of thinking style if he stated that somehow "freedom of the reader" only applied in that one specific way and only in that one specific instance when asked about interpretation of his works but yet somehow never applies to other forms of interpretation like details of lore that were left out or not specifically stated by the author. Can you link me a phrase where Tolkien specifically stated that non-existent details (because they were left out by the author) must never allow for freedom for the reader to fill in the blanks or interpret for themselves these left out details? I have yet to see one.
    I think that in this case, when in doubt, we need default to the substance/spirit of Tolkien's overall style of thinking... and that is a "let the reader decide" mindset.

    For some reason, you keep trying to stick words in my mouth when it comes to what Tolkien specifically said about Dwarf women; I do not contest what Tolkien said about this; nor am I saying that this specific phrase has anything to do with allegory. What I am I'm referring to is to try to understand his overall mindset when it comes to left out details (including the many many left out details concerning Dwarf women). For example We know that other races can not tell them apart (I agree with this); but why? Is it because Dwarves are very protective of their women and cover them in dwarf men's clothing? Do Dwarf women wear different styles of clothing when not out & about travelling? Can other races not tell them apart because they literally have big bushy beards that are literally as large as the male beards or are Dwarf women's beards possibly smaller furry-like sideburns but if their faces are always covered up in wooly scarves while travelling (maybe Dwarf men also sometimes use scarves in the cold north and so used this as a way to disguise their women) combined with being bundled up in Dwarf men clothing therefore perhaps this is the reason that the other races can't tell the difference between the males and the females when they are out travelling? Tolkien left out a bunch of these details that would be needed to know for sure. The "what" is important, but IMO so is the "why". Is this interpretation a stretch of the readers imagination? Sure! Does this directly oppose what Tolkien said about Dwarves? Nope! Not at all! It simply adds to it but in a way that's completely consistent with what he said about Dwarves (The idea of Dwarf women being dressed in male clothing while travelling and possibly covering most of their beards in wooly scarves is not even remotely out of context with what Tolkien had said). I do believe that it was Tolkien intention to give the reader the freedom to have some form of imagination here when it comes to the unsaid details as long as it is in context.

    When it comes to understanding Tolkien's works there are a few different schools of thought; his works are vast and such that the more details given, the more questions arise. I have given my opinions and you're also very welcome to your own opinions, but don't tell me that I somehow have to conform to your opinions when you have not given me a convincing enough reason to do so; therefore on this subject we can agree to disagree.
    Last edited by Legiorlos; Apr 24 2017 at 08:57 AM.

 

 
Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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