[SPOILERS] THE Return of the King Thread

[Brown Jenkin]

You're wasting my time, and I'm offended.

No problem. I will cease to discuss this with you as you aparently don't want to.

 

[Desdichado]

P.S. Pezagant, despite your occasionally testy attitude (obviously from frustration), you have earned my respect. You clearly have the chops to break down a tale, and I find myself wishing I could go back to my college days and trade in a couple of physics courses for some of your dramatic analysis training.

Not mine. Despite the several dictionary definitions quoted word for word, he's essentially said, "no, use this definition. It's better than yours because I went to college."

Although I disagree that he's been rude, he's also been pedantic and argumentative to the point of silliness.

What's offensive to me are the many people who have gone out of their way to be offended by statements that were clearly not meant to offend, and IMO are clearly not offensive anyway. A few folks added to my ignore list, to be sure.

 

[Storminator]

Not mine. Despite the several dictionary definitions quoted word for word, he's essentially said, "no, use this definition. It's better than yours because I went to college."

I agree with him. As my post above showed, I think people have misapplied dictionary definitions.

Although I disagree that he's been rude, he's also been pedantic and argumentative to the point of silliness.

What's offensive to me are the many people who have gone out of their way to be offended by statements that were clearly not meant to offend, and IMO are clearly not offensive anyway. A few folks added to my ignore list, to be sure.

Offensensitivity.

PS

 

[WizarDru]

The eagles are not "introduced suddenly." To fit that definition, this would have to be the first scene we see eagles in, but it's not. The eagles were previously introduced, and everything they do is entirely consistent with their characters: they fly, they have sharp talons, they are large enough to carry people. Eagles as Deus ex Machina fails on two points (not suddenly introduced, not resolving plot points).

Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but where do we see more than a single giant Eagle in FotR? I realize that we here them discussed with some length in the books, but I was under the impression we were discussing the movie, and I honestly don't recall if Gandalf makes mention of there being more than a single great eagle.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

If you look closely, Pezagent is using his terms very precisely and consistently (and to my limited knowledge, accurately). The point of the attack at the Black Gate is to draw Sauron's eye. That all the heroes will die is given. Therefore, there is no plot problem. In fact, the attack is completely successful.

Your mostly right. For the characters the attack is successful (Maybe), but as the ring is not destroyed yet they can't realy be sure. Until they know the ring is destroyed this is just a gamble. If they die too early Sauron will then shift his attention elsewhere and Frodo will be caught and Sauron wins. No, for the characters the longer they survive the better, not because they wan't to live but because the longer they survive and draw Sauron's attention the better. Plus like with the Hobbits the reader wants Aragorn and company to live even if they are happy in dying.

The eagles are not "introduced suddenly." To fit that definition, this would have to be the first scene we see eagles in, but it's not. The eagles were previously introduced, and everything they do is entirely consistent with their characters: they fly, they have sharp talons, they are large enough to carry people. Eagles as Deus ex Machina fails on two points (not suddenly introduced, not resolving plot points).

The eagles are mention in The Lord of the Rings twice previously, Once in FotR and Once in TT. Each time it is not an army of eagles but just Gwaihir giving gandolf a ride and the scenes are told as stories not as direct narative. The fact that they show up in number and to fight can very well be taken as sudden and whether it resolves a plot point has already been discussed pages ago.

While DeM is supernatural, and it is aid, it does not fill the same literary role. Supernatural aid, as a techinical term, still requires support in the context of the story. Perseus's magic sword and boots are supernatural aid, and we see them provided before they are used. As a contrast, the Holocaust Cloak in Princess Bride is a DeM, because we never even hear mention that such a thing could possibly exist until it is needed, and then it turns out our heroes already have one, and it's the perfect tool for the job.

Your right I am not an expert so I can't fight a battle of litterary terms well, but writing is a form of art and it is up to the individual to interprete as they wish. Whatever we feel about or interprate in a work of art is right for us. Experts might have a wider base to draw their own interpretations from but they still can't tell me my own feelings about something.

You can't use definition 1 of DeM unless you are specifically refering to Greek or Roman drama. That's right there in the definition. That leaves with definitions 2 and 3. Defintion 3 does not refer to drama at all, and is there to cover the cases in real life that mimic the DeM, such as when an unexpected buyer appears to save your nearly bankrupt company from oblivion. That leaves, in the context of fiction, definition two, which happily coincides with the classic literary definition of DeM. This is why pezagent focuses on this definition: it is correct to do so.

DeM clearly has negative connotations, in all modern literary critiques. This is because it is artistically unsatisfying, almost be definition.

Once again we differ on our interpretations of a definition. As we all learned we can't even agree on what the definition of "is" is.

PS

P.S. Pezagant, despite your occasionally testy attitude (obviously from frustration), you have earned my respect. You clearly have the chops to break down a tale, and I find myself wishing I could go back to my college days and trade in a couple of physics courses for some of your dramatic analysis training.

P.P.S. As the trilogy winds away, I foresee a time when there are no more LotR threads, at least not how we're used to seeing them. To me, that makes this thread sort of the swan song of LotR discussion on ENWorld. It's kind of sad how it's needlessly degenerated into bitterness and acrimony.

I too was hoping for a good discussion and I even respect Pezagant for his writing ability and broad base of experience even if I disagree with him. I hope that everyone in this thread can continue on without bitterness. But there will be more discussions. We will go over this all again in a year when the Extended Edition comes out and we have yet another take on the story.

 

[barsoomcore]

Storm Raven, pezagent: keep on keeping on.

This has been a great discussion, despite the offensitivity of some involved.

Geez, you want to see insults and condescension, watch me and reapersaurus go at each other sometime!

 

[Storminator]

Your mostly right. For the characters the attack is successful (Maybe), but as the ring is not destroyed yet they can't realy be sure. Until they know the ring is destroyed this is just a gamble. If they die too early Sauron will then shift his attention elsewhere and Frodo will be caught and Sauron wins. No, for the characters the longer they survive the better, not because they wan't to live but because the longer they survive and draw Sauron's attention the better.

Agreed.

Plus like with the Hobbits the reader wants Aragorn and company to live even if they are happy in dying.

If we go back to pez's separation of what the readers want from what the plot demands tho (accepting for the moment that separation as valid), this falls out of plot resolution. Right? If pez's separation holds, this doesn't address plot.

Wether or not you accept pez's terms is another discussion.

The eagles are mention in The Lord of the Rings twice previously, Once in FotR and Once in TT. Each time it is not an army of eagles but just Gwaihir giving gandolf a ride and the scenes are told as stories not as direct narative. The fact that they show up in number and to fight can very well be taken as sudden and whether it resolves a plot point has already been discussed pages ago.

But we as readers have expectations of the eagles. We think of them as bigger, better, cooler versions of real eagles. Therefore, if we accept the existance of one, we can accept the existance of many. In fact, if there was only one giant, intelligent eagle, we'd like an explanation of why he exists. We also accept eagles that fight, because we know that in real life, eagles kill things. Naturally, these bigger, better, cooler version should also kill things.

As a parallel, in FotR, we see exactly one troll. But we accept the others when they arrive.

Your right I am not an expert so I can't fight a battle of litterary terms well, but writing is a form of art and it is up to the individual to interprete as they wish. Whatever we feel about or interprate in a work of art is right for us. Experts might have a wider base to draw their own interpretations from but they still can't tell me my own feelings about something are wrong.

But we aren't talking about interpretation (at least not all the time, and not directly). The DeM discussion is based on pinning the right term on the eagles, and wether or not that term is DeM.

How you feel about it is certainly up to you, but what the device technically is, isn't.

Once again we differ on our interpretations of a definition. As we all learned we can't even agree on what the definition of "is" is.

Here's the three definitions.

1.In Greek and Roman drama, a god lowered by stage machinery to resolve a plot or extricate the protagonist from a difficult situation.

2.An unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot.

3.A person or event that provides a sudden and unexpected solution to a difficulty.

Repeating my earlier arguments:
1 can't apply, as it specifically refers to Greek and Roman drama. Can we agree on that? No matter what else you pull out of that definition, it only counts for Greeks and Romans.

2 is the classic literary definition of DeM. This doesn't come from the definition, but from general knowledge of literary criticism. It is the generalized form of definition 1, right? If you are trying to apply definition 1, but not to Greek or Roman drama, you should revert to definition 2, as it specifies fiction or drama.

3 doesn't mention fiction or drama. This makes it an even further abstraction from 2, as 2 is from 1. But this is the only definition that omits the term drama. Therefore, this definition should not be used to refer to drama, as that's what definition 2 is for.

Therefore, in arguing the eagles, we need to look at definition 2, and it follows from there that the eagles are not DeM. I think if you accept my analysis of the definitions, this result is clear. If you don't, we're down to arguing assumptions, and that can never be won.

I too was hoping for a good discussion and I even respect Pezagant for his writing ability and broad base of experience even if I disagree with him. I hope that everyone in this thread can continue on without bitterness. But there will be more discussions. We will go over this all again in a year when the Extended Edition comes out and we have yet another take on the story.

True, we'll get one last shot at it. Won't be anything like the last 3 years tho.

PS

 

[Desdichado]

I agree with him. As my post above showed, I think people have misapplied dictionary definitions.

Not the very first dictionary definition quoted. It's ironic that we're mentioning Classic litreature. I think a great example of modern-day hubris to come to a message board and say (paraphrasing), "No, that dictionary is wrong -- I know better than that dictionary. No, trust me, I really do. You're problem is that you're not trained in literary criticism."

Offensensitivity.

Yes, one of my biggest flaws.

Anyway, what were we talking about? Maybe we should have some spin-off threads on some of the LoTR details, eh?

 

[Storminator]

Not the very first dictionary definition quoted. It's ironic that we're mentioning Classic litreature. I think a great example of modern-day hubris to come to a message board and say (paraphrasing), "No, that dictionary is wrong -- I know better than that dictionary. No, trust me, I really do. You're problem is that you're not trained in literary criticism."

Well, I did miss a lot of this thread. Note that jumping in the middle didn't stop me from trying to prove everyone wrong!

PS

 

[JRRNeiklot]

And yes, the Dragonlance novels were far more user friendly.

That's because Dragonlance belongs in the section with the "I Can Read" books.