LOTR from a gamer's perspective

[Celebrim]

E.G.: What he thought would be cool was if his world worked according to his religious beliefs.

Generally speaking, when one refers to a religious person doing something that is motivated by piety, you don't refer to it as being motivated by as flippant of a reason as 'he thought it would be cool'. For one thing, pious people feel compelled to do things whether they think it would be cool or not. You might as well suggest that Frodo went to Mordor, "Because he thought it would be cool."

E.G.: "Deus Ex Machina."

In the modern usage of the phrase, it has nothing to do really with divine intervention any more than it has anything to do with machines or stage props. It refers to any sort of aid which delivers the protagonist from a seemingly hopeless situation and doesn't mean that the author is saying anything in particular. It could be the police arriving or the cavalry or the sudden discovery of the lost letter. But in context, based on what we know of the author, his works, and his writings about his works, we know that the deus ex machina in LotR is literal divine intervention so the author is trying to say something particular.

You're saying the same thing molonel is, you're just taking longer to say it.

I'm sorry to hear that you think so. I'll be the first to admit that I'm overly wordy, but I am most certainly not saying the same thing that Molonel is.

 

[molonel]

I think that even aside from the tactical* aspect, LotR doesn't work as an RPG, and gamers who think it does have been the bane of my existance at times. "Mixed level parties are cool, just look at the Lord of the Rings!" - always from the guy playing the Gandalf equivelent, of course. To say nothing of DMs who think its cool to have important things happen to or around your characters rather than important things being done by them. Oh and destinies and prophecies... A good RPG campaign can make a good story, but I would go so far as to say that the majority of good stories do not make good RPG campaigns.

Quoted for truth.

*the giant eagle discussion reminds me of something I read about the making of Star Trek (orriginal series). The teleporter was introduced as a method of transportation simply because they couldn't make shuttle landings look good and they wanted to actually show the crew arriving on the surface of any given planet. So, teleporter. But once they had it, every single episode had to be contorted to say why they couldn't just beam out this week. If you have to, you can make it so the eagles wouldn't work, just like they made it so the teleporters wouldn't work, and for the same reason - so there will be a story. But it doesn't change the fact that both are really powerful and potentially plot destroying ideas that show what happens when falible humans attempt to create an entertaining reality.

Extremely well put, and a good example.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Generally speaking, when one refers to a religious person doing something that is motivated by piety, you don't refer to it as being motivated by as flippant of a reason as 'he thought it would be cool'. For one thing, pious people feel compelled to do things whether they think it would be cool or not. You might as well suggest that Frodo went to Mordor, "Because he thought it would be cool."

Yeah, he did think it would be cool to save the world. Definitely cooler than letting it be ruled over by an evil iron fistiness.

I can refer to piety as "doing something cool." It's not entirely reverential, but it doesn't really have to be. I'm not the one with the pious reverence.

In the modern usage of the phrase, it has nothing to do really with divine intervention any more than it has anything to do with machines or stage props. It refers to any sort of aid which delivers the protagonist from a seemingly hopeless situation and doesn't mean that the author is saying anything in particular. It could be the police arriving or the cavalry or the sudden discovery of the lost letter. But in context, based on what we know of the author, his works, and his writings about his works, we know that the deus ex machina in LotR is literal divine intervention so the author is trying to say something particular.

I think you misunderstand Deus Ex Machina. It's common usage is to say something in particular. Any time the police or calvary arrive, for instance, it states the power of authority. Any time they find the lost letter, it states the inherent risks of ignorance and how a few words can set everything right.

Tiddy has nothing more important to say than anyone else who uses the device, nessecarily.

I'm sorry to hear that you think so. I'll be the first to admit that I'm overly wordy, but I am most certainly not saying the same thing that Molonel is.

You are, you just seem to be angry that he's not wording it the way you are. His tone is more flippant, your tone is more reverential. There's reasons for both of you using those tones.

 

[molonel]

Generally speaking, when one refers to a religious person doing something that is motivated by piety, you don't refer to it as being motivated by as flippant of a reason as 'he thought it would be cool'. For one thing, pious people feel compelled to do things whether they think it would be cool or not. You might as well suggest that Frodo went to Mordor, "Because he thought it would be cool."

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

John Bunyan admitted in his letters and in the preface to Pilgrim's Progress that he was working on a story that he much preferred, but the story which became Pilgrim's Progress wouldn't leave him alone, and so he wrote it out because it annoyed him and he wanted to get on to more important work. His annoyance is our literary treasure.

John Milton wrote best when he was angry at something. That's what made him so good as a pamphleter. It's also part of the reason there is such a blatant current of misogyny floating through even so grand a poem as Paradise Lost.

The Hobbit began as a nonsensical comment Tolkien wrote on the back of a paper he was grading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit

Pious people burp and fart like the rest of us. Great art is filled with flippancies, mistakes that turned into diamonds, wrong turns, dead ends and flaws.

I'm sorry that you feel we are staining Professor Tolkien's stories by suggesting that he be motivated by something so incredibly crass as "It worked" or "It was cool" but the fact is, it may very well have been motivated by exactly that.

In the modern usage of the phrase, it has nothing to do really with divine intervention any more than it has anything to do with machines or stage props. It refers to any sort of aid which delivers the protagonist from a seemingly hopeless situation and doesn't mean that the author is saying anything in particular. It could be the police arriving or the cavalry or the sudden discovery of the lost letter. But in context, based on what we know of the author, his works, and his writings about his works, we know that the deus ex machina in LotR is literal divine intervention so the author is trying to say something particular.

A deus ex machina is a cheap shot that the author hasn't really earned. The gods themselves - or something like them - have to step into the story in order to get the character out of a corner that the author has painted himself into. I'm not even entirely sure I'd call the eagles at the end of the trilogy saving Sam and Frodo a deus ex machina, because they didn't really resolve the story or decide the direction of the plot. They just made sure the main characters didn't get burnt to a crisp after the actual action was resolved.

 

[rgard]

What gamer destroys loot? Claim the ring as your own!!

exactly. My epic duskblade/wizard/urpriest/mt can certainly make her will save against that trinket.

 

[Vocenoctum]

You are, you just seem to be angry that he's not wording it the way you are. His tone is more flippant, your tone is more reverential. There's reasons for both of you using those tones.

I think the problem is still the mixing of whether the Eagle problem is something to be worked out within the text, or some seperate discussion about authors being able to do what they want. The Eagles are a literary Deus Ex Machina in some sense, but within the text they actually are sent by the gods, more in line with the original meaning of the phrase.

Either way, the Eagles didn't save the day, the battle was done. They just rescued a couple lost hobbits. The world would have still been saved had Frodo and Sam taken a lava swim.

So, aside from the fact an author can do whatever he wants, sending eagles or not sending eagles, there is the discussion of whether the Eagle Plan would have worked within the material as presented. Molonel says the Eagles could have worked, I disagree. Bringing the authors mastery of the material into it has no bearing.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Logical to you.

You're quoting out of context. It's logical that they are Deus Ex Machine, in the sense that they are servants of the gods. There is no arguement that they are a plot element that comes in to do as they want, and they are servants of the god.

Because, of course, it makes PERFECT sense that the eagles should not want to involve themselves into the affairs of men ... unless some scrawny dwarves and a hobbit need to be plucked out of trees, or an old man needs to be saved from a tower, or two smoldering hobbits need to be plucked from the side of a mountain, or some orcs need to be killed in a battle.

But other than that, they never really get involved, and keep to themselves.

It makes perfect sense that the eagles act when they choose to act. They will act as messengers, but steeds only when they want. At the same time, they also act within something that might be a divine plan.

Maybe they like to save people, that doesn't mean they're going to carry the One Ring to Mt Doom. Within the text, they don't enter Mordor while Sauron holds power there. I don't see a plot hole there, you do.

 

[molonel]

You're quoting out of context. It's logical that they are Deus Ex Machine, in the sense that they are servants of the gods. There is no arguement that they are a plot element that comes in to do as they want, and they are servants of the god.

It nowhere says in the text says that Manwe sent the eagles. That is your gloss upon the text.

It makes perfect sense that the eagles act when they choose to act. They will act as messengers, but steeds only when they want. At the same time, they also act within something that might be a divine plan.

The only divine plan they obey is the author's.

Maybe they like to save people, that doesn't mean they're going to carry the One Ring to Mt Doom. Within the text, they don't enter Mordor while Sauron holds power there. I don't see a plot hole there, you do.

It's a hole because good beings who save people and have the power to out-fly, out-maneuver and go above the capabilities of any creature in Middle Earth had the power to do exactly what I propose. The only beings capable of challenging them are frequently scattered across the land rather than acting as guardians or guards. Whether by stealth or in force, they could do it. They have the motive. They have the self-interest, if nothing else. Sauron would certainly hunt and kill them, and bears them about as much love as the forests and the ents.

Simply because they do not simply says that the author chose not to have them do so. It does not mean the conclusion was neither logical, nor does the lack of address by the author solve the question.

 

[Vocenoctum]

It nowhere says in the text says that Manwe sent the eagles. That is your gloss upon the text.

You mean at all, or in the specific event of showing up at the gate, or what?

The only divine plan they obey is the author's.

So you don't think they are divine at all? Just big eagles that happened to wander into history?

And once more you insert the God Author thing when talking about the text.

It's a hole because good beings who save people and have the power to out-fly, out-maneuver and go above the capabilities of any creature in Middle Earth had the power to do exactly what I propose.

We have no evidence of those capabilities. Certainly they are capable, but being able to outfly anything?

The only beings capable of challenging them are frequently scattered across the land rather than acting as guardians or guards. Whether by stealth or in force, they could do it.

Or so you theorize, thats sort of the point of the arguement, nothing in the text says they can enter Mordor, just as nothing says they can't. You assume it's a plothole, I figure there's a reason. The arguement will never be settled simply because it's a matter of opinion.

They have the motive. They have the self-interest, if nothing else. Sauron would certainly hunt and kill them, and bears them about as much love as the forests and the ents.

Simply because they do not simply says that the author chose not to have them do so. It does not mean the conclusion was neither logical, nor does the lack of address by the author solve the question.

The Author always chooses, so once again it's a non-arguement to say the author chooses. He chose them to exist at all, he chose them to rescue Frodo & Sam.

It does not mean the conclusion was not logical. A direct stroke was ruled out as too risky, stealth was required. Was that the only course? Obviously not, but it's the one the Council chose. The lack of the matter being addressed within the text simply means it is not addressed, not that either position is correct.

This isn't a quantifiable problem, simply because we don't know what the eagles are capable of, or what defenses vs the eagles may have been in place. All we know is that they didn't enter Mordur while Sauron was in control of it. Was it their decision not to? Perhaps, but then they can also decide not to drop the ring. Were they for some reason incapable of entering? Who knows.

Anyway, since you obviously want to continue the circular arguement ad infinitum, I'll pick it up from here Monday, since I work this weekend.

 

[Celebrim]

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

There is a story they tell in New Orleans about a man who after eating his meal at Gallatoire's then complained to the waiter that it wasn't fit to pay for. The waiter informed the man, "This is Gallatoire's. Our good taste is not in question."

John Bunyan admitted in his letters and in the preface to Pilgrim's Progress that he was working on a story that he much preferred, but the story which became Pilgrim's Progress wouldn't leave him alone, and so he wrote it out because it annoyed him and he wanted to get on to more important work. His annoyance is our literary treasure.

Are you trying to make my point or yours with this analogy? As best as I can understand your point, you are arguing for (to overly simplify) "The Author as God", and I am arguing (to overly simplify) "The Author as a Servant of His Muse". When you raise the example of an author writing a story, not because it was one he thought was cool, but because it was one he found he had to write, it would seem to me to argue very much against what you have hithertoo been arguing. It hardly matters to my point whether Bunyan was annoyed or not, and the only reason I can imagine you'd be raising this point is you are still stuck on that red herring that I think that JRRT is perfect.

The Hobbit began as a nonsensical comment Tolkien wrote on the back of a paper he was grading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit

I can't believe you think you need to instruct me in something as well known as that. If I'm half the Tolkein worshiper you think I am - and that bit of character attack seems to be your only point at times - then at least in your derision give me some credit for knowing the facts even if you think that my admiration is blinding me to thier proper interpretation.

Pious people burp and fart like the rest of us. Great art is filled with flippancies, mistakes that turned into diamonds, wrong turns, dead ends and flaws.

Sure. But yet again, that is entirely a red herring, for it doesn't really help your point to say that in some other case there is a mistake or a flippancies or a wrong turn because first of all I've never argued against that, but more importantly what you have to prove is that in this case it is a mistake, oversight, flippancy, or whatever. And you can't, because it isn't, which is probably why you keep returning to these irrelevant points.

I'm sorry that you feel we are staining Professor Tolkien's stories by suggesting that he be motivated by something so incredibly crass as "It worked" or "It was cool" but the fact is, it may very well have been motivated by exactly that.

First of all, you can't stain Professor Tolkien's. They are are far beyond your limited power to detract from and they are going to live longer than either of us.

But more to the point, there are things in Tolkien's stories that are very much nothing else but he thought they were cool at one point. As an extreme example, it could be argued that all the Northern European mythic elements like elves, 'gods', magic, wizards, and so forth are in thier solely because he thought they were cool. None of that has to do with his piety, and he was by his own admission deeply uncomfortable with the presence of such fanciful things in the story especially when people began to take his work seriously. And the whole battle of Helm's Deep he thought discardable when it came time to write a screen play, so that tells you a bit about what he thought was important. But when you start dealing with an element that gets tied into his theology, I assure you that you are better off starting with the assumption that it is well thought out than starting with the assumption that it isn't. You are dealing with one of the brightest minds of the 20th century and his life's work, and there are very few such minds that have poured so much of thier energy into a single body of work. He spent far more time thinking about his work than you or I have.

A deus ex machina is a cheap shot that the author hasn't really earned. The gods themselves - or something like them - have to step into the story in order to get the character out of a corner that the author has painted himself into.

If you think that is what is going on, you haven't paid very much attention at all. Frodo understood what you don't. The author clues you in when Frodo says to Gandalf that the idea that he was meant to find the ring - but not by its maker - does not in fact comfort him (which one would suppose it should), but you have to stop looking just at the surface of the story.