31 replies to this topic

[Doro]

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony...

[The MMO Troll]

Doro, on 22 February 2012 - 11:57, said:

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony...

I so wanted to throw "Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" at Sap in a PM, when they decided to put me on Mute, but I didn't think he deserved the chuckle.

[Iorionael]

First law of the universe...

No matter the seriousness of a conversation, there is no situation where a Monty Python quote is out of place

[Raedwulf]

Jackalope, on 22 February 2012 - 09:16, said:

(Although when it comes to oil, that's usually the case, the US wants it obviously, if there had been no oil in Iran or Iraq, there would have been no war).

Another statement I cannot agree with. Korea. Vietnam. No oil in either of those. I will agree that as far as Iraq goes, security of oil supply (not necessarily from Iraq / Kuwait themselves; uncertainty over oil drives up global prices, wherever you actually buy it from) was a factor, but how much of one is another matter.

It was a factor; it might have been a major factor; I don't think it was the major factor, which is how a lot of people portray it ("Iraq was all about oil..."). I sometimes wonder if people have forgotten there were two Gulf Wars. The first was about the invasion / liberation of Kuwait. Twenty years ago is a very long time ago for some of you guys, I guess...

As for Iran, I don't think that's got anything to do with oil. As with Korea & Vietnam, this is a clash of ideologies.

Quote

And I can't believe whinge is a word. I had to look it up. Looks like British origin. Must be another word that has been Americanized into whine. Although, pronouncing the j at the end just sounds wrong to me. Not only that, but whine sounds annoying and just like the noise made by crybabies that are whining. Whinge sounds nothing like that. I'll take whine as a descriptive word over whinge any day. Personal preference. But you go ahead and do it your way Raedwulf.

As a matter of fact I nearly said before that, to me, whine is pretty much as you describe it, whereas whinge is more like grumble. Although you'll find them given as synonyms for each other, those are the contexts in which I would tend to use them, rather than as direct replacements for each other. As for origin, no, there's no Americanisation, although most dikkers will tell that whinge is "chiefly British" or "Brit. informal". They stem from related OEng / OGmc words which, I think, may be related to wind (in the sense of gale, rather than clockwork toy).

Who says you don't learn anything playing games, eh?

The MMO Troll, on 22 February 2012 - 13:12, said:

I so wanted to throw "Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" at Sap in a PM, when they decided to put me on Mute, but I didn't think he deserved the chuckle.

More to the point, I'm not sure he'd have taken it as a joke...

[Jackalope]

You must have a sense of humor to be able to understand it. And if you are the kind of person that takes themselves far too seriously, no amount of humor will lessen the impact of tongue in cheek truthful observation.

[AgamemnonV1]

Doro, on 22 February 2012 - 11:57, said:

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony...

If I went around saying I was emperor because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd lock me away!

[Cavnor]

There are some interesting Tolkien discussions in these forums. As a big Tolkien fan I just thought I would chip in with my 10c worth.

AnonymusBosch, on 20 February 2012 - 20:44, said:

'Experts' have pointed out the following possibilities (of which I am sure you are aware   ):

• The LOTR is in part a religious parable

Haimostigar, on 20 February 2012 - 22:09, said:

Yet, not my opinion but in Tokien's own words, he says that these "meanings" suggested by

others were not what he intended. Doesn't mean they don't have validity, but still.

The OP and Haim are incorrect on this one. In letter 142 of his published letters Tolkien states that,

"The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work"

Raedwulf, on 20 February 2012 - 22:38, said:

Rather than trying to describe the mechanics of things he doesn't very well understand

How do you know what Tolkien understood and didnt understand about war? Not all people boast of their knowledge - it tends to be ill-informed, pretentious oafs who mouth off about matters they know nothing of. In your case, you would have to be over 100 to have real-life experience of the horse-cavalry fighting of WW1. Tolkien served in WW1. Did you?

Raedwulf, on 20 February 2012 - 22:38, said:

So yes, moral simplicity; black & white; make it stark, and of course, since "history" is written by the winners>

In the UK only members of certain political parties talk of "winners writing history" in a discussion about that German dictator.  He abducted innocent civilians from their own countries and then murdered them in cold blood. He also left his own country and much of Europe in ruins. Comparing his situation to that of the Russian dictators is offensive.

[Haimostigar]

Cavnor, on 28 February 2012 - 13:04, said:

The OP and Haim are incorrect on this one. In letter 142 of his published letters Tolkien states that,

"The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work"

Do you have more of the letter that you could share? The one sentence is quoted a lot out there, but I have not read the rest of the letter and it seems easy to take out of context. Tolkien was a very religious person so of course that background influenced his writings.. how could it not. However, my comments were referencing Tolkien's own words about his intent of meaning.

(quoted directly from the forward to Second Edition)
apologies for typos, typing from my book as fast as possible...
Prior to this he was talking about how since the book being published, it has been read by many and many have postulated "opinions or guesses" concerning the "motives or meaning of the tale."

Tolkien ~ Forward to the 2nd Ed. LOTR said:

As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches; but its main theme was settled from the outset by the inevitable choice of the Ring as the link between it and The Hobbit. The crucial chapter, 'The Shadow of the Past', is one of the oldest parts of the tale. It was written long before the foreshadow of 1939 and yet become a threat of inevitable disaster, and from that point the story would have developed along essentially the same lines, if that disaster had been averted. Its sources are things long before in mind, or in some cases already written, and little or nothing in it was modified by the war that began in 1939 or its sequels.

The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or its conclusion. If it had inspired or directed the development of the legend, then certainly the Ring would have been seized and used against Sauron; he would not have been annihilated but enslaved, and Barad-dur would not have been destroyed but occupied. Saruman, failing to get possession of the Ring, would in the confusion and treacheries of the time have found in Mordor the missing links in his own researches in Ring-lore, and before long he would have made a Great Ring of his own with which to challenge the self-styled Ruler of Middle-earth. In that conflict both sides would have held hobbits in hatred and contempt: they would not long have survived even as slaves.

Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But 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.

He goes on to talk about how the author cannot remain unaffected by his own experience and that experience creates a "extremely complex" bed for seed of story to grow in.

So again, his background and experience undoubtedly affected his writings. But the point here, I believe, is that Tolkien himself is making it clear that he did not intend meaning or connections to the war in Europe or as an allegorical reference. [allegory: a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another. ~ (Random House Webster's Unabridged)]
He's even talking specifically about how allegory dictates and defines the meaning (or applicability) of the tale to the reader, and that is not what he wanted. Ultimately, as I've stated before, the really cool thing about this story is that it can indeed have varied meanings with each reader, and that whatever references/influences appear to be there, Tokien states that he did not intend specific meaning as so many, even at that time, conjectured.

Cavnor, on 28 February 2012 - 13:04, said:

In the UK only members of certain political parties talk of "winners writing history" in a discussion about that German dictator.  He abducted innocent civilians from their own countries and then murdered them in cold blood. He also left his own country and much of Europe in ruins. Comparing his situation to that of the Russian dictators is offensive.

Stating the history is written by the victor has nothing to do with being a part of a party or agenda.. it's stating a fact. We all have our own bias, whether admitted or not. Just think if each of us wrote a history of the saga with Turbine, how different each would be! Well then, think of war, the loosing side/group/persons would not have a way for their voices/perspectives to be heard, so all we will have is a lopsided record.
Comparing is offensive? Why? It has nothing to do with saying the German dictator was any less bad, it's saying that we may be blind to the dark truth of other dictators. I don't see how killing innocent people in other countries is automatically worse than killing innocent people in your own country. People all have worth. Abuse of power in what ever form, and killing others in pursuit of power (or money or both) is simply wrong and evil. Comparing dictators should not be offensive, it should be helpful. Study history, or the mistakes will be repeated.

[Dalthalion]

I agree.  From his own admission, Tolkien wasn't into Christian allegory.  C.S. Lewis was, but he wasn't.  However, that did not stop Tolkien from infusing his personal morality into the story.

[Cavnor]

Haimostigar, on 28 February 2012 - 18:31, said:

But the point here, I believe, is that Tolkien himself is making it clear that he did not intend meaning or connections to the war in Europe or as an allegorical reference.

Perhaps the contradiction between letter 142 and your denial of allegory is that Tolkien intended at least one meaning, but that any such intended meanings should not be tied to specific dates. For instance, that his comments on war be applied to all future wars not merely WW1 or WW2. The ring could represent any terrible weapon of the future not just those around today.

Haimostigar, on 28 February 2012 - 18:31, said:

Stating the history is written by the victor has nothing to do with being a part of a party or agenda...

Moral simplicity is about ambivalence not subjectivity. Different religious groups beleive in different things. In the same way, the people of England will have a different view of a serial aggressor to the people in another country. What counts is the degree of ambivalence within a country or group. An English resident has three options:

He can admit that in rare cases Tolkien is right to be "simplistic"

Alternatively, he believes himself to be much cleverer than "simplistic" Tolkien even when Tolkien is correct and he is in error. He is the sort of guy who can never admit a mistake and who always rationalises that he is correct

Alternatively, he is of an extremist mindset

[Haimostigar]

Cavnor, on 29 February 2012 - 11:41, said:

Perhaps the contradiction between letter 142 and your denial of allegory is that Tolkien intended at least one meaning, but that any such intended meanings should not be tied to specific dates. For instance, that his comments on war be applied to all future wars not merely WW1 or WW2. The ring could represent any terrible weapon of the future not just those around today.

Denial of allegory? You're still misunderstanding me, I fear. Tolkien himself says his own writings are not allegorical, and that he intended applicability not allegory. It's his statement, not mine.

And as for my personal take, I think he did a remarkable job of writing prose with amazing applicability. Thus it absolutely applies to today and tomorrow, not just then. Principles in life remain the same, across generations and changes in society. For myself, I think talking about the ring in terms of a weapon of war, just modernized for today, is very much missing the point. But here lies the beauty of applicability, because we each take whatever meaning from the story we choose.

[Raedwulf]

Cavnor, on 28 February 2012 - 13:04, said:

How do you know what Tolkien understood and didnt understand about war? Not all people boast of their knowledge - it tends to be ill-informed, pretentious oafs who mouth off about matters they know nothing of. In your case, you would have to be over 100 to have real-life experience of the horse-cavalry fighting of WW1. Tolkien served in WW1. Did you?

Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear... In Tolkien's case, he would have had to have been about 500 years old to have known, from personal experience, how medieval combat goes. No, I'm not 600+ years old. But I have been a medieval re-enactor & a medieval martial artist. I know what you can & can't do with a wide variety of the weaponry that is described in LOTR. Do you? I doubt it. Did he? I doubt it. And; the point I made; he wisely does not attempt to describe blow-by-blow medieval-style combat. He paints you a picture & lets you fill in the details. What the hell has WWI got to do with it? WWI; about which I also know a very great deal, I might add, though not by personal experience; has already been dismissed from the debate - Tolkien said LOTR was not allegory.

Quote

In the UK only members of certain political parties talk of "winners writing history" in a discussion about that German dictator.  He abducted innocent civilians from their own countries and then murdered them in cold blood. He also left his own country and much of Europe in ruins. Comparing his situation to that of the Russian dictators is offensive.

What? WTF? What on earth are you on about???? What German dictator? What Russians? WWII? I alluded so slightly to WWII that I have no idea what point you think you are trying to make. The quote about winners writing history has many variations & has been attributed to many people. Churchill is one of them, but many are far older than that.