LOTR from a gamer's perspective

[hong]

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.

Hmmm.

 

[Celebrim]

Hmmm.

Now, see, that is a sense of humor.

 

[molonel]

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."

That's nice. You still don't know what you're talking about.

Are you trying to make my point or yours with this analogy? As best as I can understand your point ...

Celebrim, let's get one thing clear. You have never attempted to understand my points. Your only argument is that you simply cannot allow me to MAKE a point, and you will not allow - in your view - anything I say to have any weight or import so long as it is not sufficiently reverential.

So, naturally, what follows is simple disparagement. Not understanding.

Just as long as we're clear on that.

... 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.

Perfect? Untouchable? Holy? I really don't care what word you choose. It's not a red herring. Your biggest beef appears to be that I don't RESPECT him or his books enough. Any time anyone suggests that any particular detail in his work emerged from anything but perfect craftsmanship, careful planning or the inspiration of God himself, you descend like Yosemite Sam on his mule blowing a tin bugle and waving your sabre.

Naturally, you can't even possibly imagine how my own examples could support my own argument.

So let me explain. Slowly, carefully, deliberately. And you'll still miss it, I'm sure.

Authors, and artists in general, are often motivated not merely by what is great, or with the best of intentions, but also by factors which are completely external to careful planning. Whether by annoyance and distraction (Bunyan) or anger (Milton) or sometimes even by a random passing thought (Tolkien).

Does this prove in particular instance that this is the case? No. But what you dismiss as absolutely impossible is, in fact, quite possible. And demonstratable. Even in the greatest artists. Even in Tolkien.

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.

You do require instruction. A lot of it, in fact. Nobody particularly cares how many times you've read Tolkien, or whether you consider yourself a member of the secret Gnostic Tolkien Club who grasp the deeper, subtler truths in Tolkien. The Hobbit started as the absent-minded musings of a bored Oxford don grading papers. Both he, and his friend C.S. Lewis, were known for burning holes in the pockets of their jackets because they would stick their pipes into the pockets while forgetting they were still lit.

Is it just maybe possible Tolkien hadn't considered some things like this when he wrote his stories?

Yes, I think so.

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.

And it just simply isn't ... because you say so. Despite the fact that it is nowhere answered in the text, and Tolkien admitted that there were holes in the story.

Yes, we got that part.

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.

Then why do you defend him as if this were actually in danger of happening?

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.

See? And this is what I'm talking about. You could almost write a hymn with that paragraph. I feel like I'm supposed to say "Amen!" or something like that.

Tolkien was a man, my friend. Not a saint. A genius, in some regards. A very good philologist. A story which may be apocryphal says that when he accepted the translation of one of the books in the Old Testament for the Jerusalem Bible - Job? - he didn't even know Hebrew. His work on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, as a scholar, was pivotal. His translation was so-so. His poetry mostly blew chunks. He wrote ten yards of crap for every ounce of diamond he squeezed out.

But the diamonds? They formed a genre, and everyone who writes about the McGuffin and a quest in a world with maps and strange languages stands in his shadow.

Was a serious religious thinker? Not quite so much as C.S. Lewis, though he certainly changed the course of Protestant religious thought on that night when he and Lewis strolled about talking about the myth that became fact. Serious, yes. But not everything that dripped from his pen had to flow past his WWJD bracelet, first.

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.

Frodo understood what I don't?

HE DOESN'T EXIST!

You do grasp that, right?

Tolkien gave vague allusions to meaning and destinies throughout his stories. But they are not Christian allegories, and he said so, himself. He also snorted - or harumphed, as a typical Oxford don might - at precisely the sort of reverential treatment and searches for deeper meanings in his stories that you float as a sign of your devotion.

He considered the primary purpose of fantasy was escape. Or to have fun, though you scoff at that. He wasn't concerned with creating a perfect, airtight bubble of a self-contained world, flawless in every respect.

 

[molonel]

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.

Truer words were never spoken.

 

[The Human Target]

There is just no way this thread could be any funnier on any level.

No way at all.

 

[Someone]

One thing to keep in mind in all this is that the heroes probably had imperfect knowledge about Sauron's capabilities.

I agree; in fact I posted exactly the same earlier.

 

[molonel]

There is just no way this thread could be any funnier on any level.

No way at all.

And ultimately, that is what's important.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

And here's what I can't puzzle out: why are eagles appearing at the end specifically related to his theology? Why are these a matter of faith, and, say, Frodo's constant battle with sin and temptation throughout the story, not? Or even his selection of elves and dwarves and whatnot, and his presentation of them as greater-than-human beings? Or even the fact that he made halflings the heroes, or that evil ultimately had to destroy itself because good was too weak?

I mean, eagles appearing at the end have only the vaguest of Christian allegories (Majestic as "divine spirits" is one of those tropes that most human societies stumble upon). Is entertaining the mere possibility that they may have appeared simply because Tiddy thought it would be awesome such a wrong thought to have in this case?

We're not talking even about his deep unintended themes, we're talking about friggin' birds flying in for the credits roll.

 

[Agemegos]

The obvious solution was to fly the ring into Mordor on the backs of giant eagles. Quicker, faster, less dangerous.

What do you think?

It's a good idea to draw the flying Názgûl off to the west first. I reckon Gandalf's plan was to send Strider and Boromir to Minas Tirith to distract Sauron's attention, then load the Ringbearer onto Gwaihir at the Rauros, fly straight to the Sammath Naur, and chuck the thing in before the Názgûl could get back.

 

[Agemegos]

Sauron says, "Well crap. These new rules that make you blow all of your exp making a magic item SUCK!"

Sauron still wins if the Ring is lost. He's been doing fine for years with the Ring lost.

What he's afraid of is that someone with "stature" will use it against him. If it had ever crossed his mind that anyone would try to destroy the most powerful and valuable object in existence he would have put at least a locked door on the Sammath Naur.

And he was probably right. Frodo, the 'best Hobbit in the Shire', sent by the Valar to destroy the Ring with pity and humility and courage-without-pride, can't quite manage to do it.