|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted March 17, 2009 11:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And JollyJoker, I have explained too many times in this thread the same thing again, and thank goodness I wasn't only speaking to you at least so I didn't waste it on nothing (I didn't even realize I was replying to you, or rather, I didn't care). You seem to have a hobby calling things "incomprehensible" and not worth replying to (despite the fact that you never provide exact data on what you don't understand), but I wonder whether you actually even take the time to read it better or use some common sense judgment (yeah, blame me for not being native english speaker). (and not just against me, though that is usually the case it seems)
That's because you have no POINT. You basically quote me, when I said that CORRUPTING good to evil is lightyears ahead to simply destroying good, and then you start the keyboard and write unconnected stuff without any point. At least you fail to make a clear point.
Just as another example, from your last posts you may conclude, that in order to make the Elves different from humans he had to make them uniform and boring since all the interesting traits are already occupied by humans...
|
|
SwampLord
Supreme Hero
Lord of the Swamp
|
|
posted March 18, 2009 02:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
And now I will talk about Warcraft lore instead because I LOTR is boring after 9 pages lol.
Sylvanas was never retconned but lots of 9-yr olds who played though she was a Night Elf untill Blizzard changed her whole model, texture and everything in WotLK. Now she is beautiful.
Rise of the Lich King comes in one month but I already have it because I won it on BlizzPlanet.com
The book states in the end that Arthas banished what was left of his own good side and Ner'zhul so that he would rule the Scourge alone.
Also Arthas is like 26 years old in Wc3 
I agree that its kind of lame that Starcraft 1and Warcraft 3 is almost the same... but the story worked and most people enjoyed it and didnt think about it.
If you like fantasy go Warcraft and if you like sci-fi go Starcraft.
I have never stated that Tolkien sucks, only his name does. I love LOTR but I dont understand why people speak of it as it is an work of Zeus (lol)
Honestly, I didn't really enjoy the WC storyline. SC I enjoyed a little more so because of the somewhat different nature of it, but WCIII's just didn't do anything for me.
The missions were cool and fun but the story as a whole left me with a resounding "meh" at best. I found SC's much better though because of the whole "rednecks in space" angle, which was hilarious and refreshing. Sci fi that doesn't take itself too seriously is great.
It's kind of your average "good vs evil" battle with clearly defined character roles in both respects.
____________
They can take my swamp, they can take my town, but they will never take my FREEDOM!
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 18, 2009 02:05 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 02:10, 18 Mar 2009.
|
Quote:
That's because you have no POINT. You basically quote me, when I said that CORRUPTING good to evil is lightyears ahead to simply destroying good, and then you start the keyboard and write unconnected stuff without any point. At least you fail to make a clear point.
I did say that the Joker is one EXAMPLE of an evil entity. But to make this clearer, even in D&D there are 3 different kinds of evil. Corrupting is not always the most evil, depending on context (and the world in which it takes place). I did say this mind you. I'm not going to say one evil is less interesting than another -- I could but that would be personal bias and subjectivity. That shouldn't be criteria when "rating" a book (since this thread is about overrating).
Also check Evil Versus Evil for the different varieties (especially "Dominator" vs "Destroyer").
Quote:
Just as another example, from your last posts you may conclude, that in order to make the Elves different from humans he had to make them uniform and boring since all the interesting traits are already occupied by humans...
Less subjectivity could help 
At least he succeeded into what he wanted to portray with them, and the whole world in fact. That's what I call brilliance. Not the fact that "I don't like them, they aren't how I want them to be." (you can add there: "depth", "bastards", "variety", or whatever the respective reader wants -- remember: this varies from person to person).
For example, if I read a genre I don't like, I'm not going to say it sucks just because for me it's completely uninteresting. If it delivers what it was set out to deliver. And Tolkien's makes a lot of sense with the different species too, metaphorically/allegorically they represent different philosophies (a bit Christian-biased but who cares?). Not a random mashup. Another excellent put.
On a different side note, let's get an example with a different fantasy setting. Are you going to criticize an "angel" race just because they cannot be evil? (not the Christian angels mind you, but more fantasy-like... some could argue even more pure )
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 18, 2009 07:58 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
That's because you have no POINT. You basically quote me, when I said that CORRUPTING good to evil is lightyears ahead to simply destroying good, and then you start the keyboard and write unconnected stuff without any point. At least you fail to make a clear point.
I did say that the Joker is one EXAMPLE of an evil entity. But to make this clearer, even in D&D there are 3 different kinds of evil. Corrupting is not always the most evil, depending on context (and the world in which it takes place). I did say this mind you. I'm not going to say one evil is less interesting than another -- I could but that would be personal bias and subjectivity. That shouldn't be criteria when "rating" a book (since this thread is about overrating).
Also check Evil Versus Evil for the different varieties (especially "Dominator" vs "Destroyer").
The only problem is, that I wasn't talking about a comparison of different sorts of evil, but of a comparison of MOTIVES for being it and PLOTS, and the simple truth is, that if you reduce LotR to its basics in terms of PLOT and motives it has trouble to compete with something as trivial as TDK.
And, as usual, I might add, you are not addressing THAT point, but you transfer discussion to a slightly different area, and note, that I read Angelito telling you the same in another post and thread.
Quote:
Quote:
Just as another example, from your last posts you may conclude, that in order to make the Elves different from humans he had to make them uniform and boring since all the interesting traits are already occupied by humans...
Less subjectivity could help
At least he succeeded into what he wanted to portray with them, and the whole world in fact. That's what I call brilliance. Not the fact that "I don't like them, they aren't how I want them to be." (you can add there: "depth", "bastards", "variety", or whatever the respective reader wants -- remember: this varies from person to person).
Oh, come on. You could make that point if he was borrowing or portraying from reality. He wasn't, though. The point isn't, that LotR isn't good in the formal way. Yes, he portrayed a whole world. Yes, he did take great care (and succeeded) to let all the races speak in a different and characteristic way.
But also he simply copied age-old prejudices. For example, the evil minions are dumb and ugly. That's just... great, isn't it? And so original. It's evil that is trying to copy a beautiful creation and manages just a grotesque travesty. Thank heavens, that evil is so easily identifiable.
Quote:
For example, if I read a genre I don't like, I'm not going to say it sucks just because for me it's completely uninteresting. If it delivers what it was set out to deliver. And Tolkien's makes a lot of sense with the different species too, metaphorically/allegorically they represent different philosophies (a bit Christian-biased but who cares?). Not a random mashup. Another excellent put.
Look above. It's not my habit to say something sucks, because I don't like whole genre - but no one does this, this is another red herring of yours. The question here is just LotR.
What he does is creating a universe in great detail, which is commendable. And it's technically done with great care and precision. However, below the hood it's just a long fairy tale with the same simple message a fairy tale has.
Quote:
On a different side note, let's get an example with a different fantasy setting. Are you going to criticize an "angel" race just because they cannot be evil? (not the Christian angels mind you, but more fantasy-like... some could argue even more pure )
OF COURSE! If good and evil would play any role at all. If it wasn't about good and evil at all, then I wouldn't critisize it, because it was just a minor detail. But creating a race that "could not be evil" is just as bad an idea as creating one that cannot be good, because they are either animals or, if intelligent, mind-controlled. A sentient intelligent being that CANNOT be evil, isn't good, because it has no choice. A being that has no choice and must behave in a certain way, has no free will of its own. That would be an android, a programmed android. Interestingly enough all stories about them deal with samples of them who somehow get over their programming...
Not to mention the fact that you would have to define "good" and "evil" very specifically to do that - it wouldn't even be possible to have such a race.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted March 18, 2009 08:31 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 08:34, 18 Mar 2009.
|
Well I will be honest, I may never understand how people think that there is only shallow 'evil or good' people in the Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. We must just be reading different books, or maybe speaking different languages. Not a single character in the book had either pure good or pure evil motives. Not even Gandalf 'The White' or Gollum. Everything can be corrupted, but we can look within ourselves and overcome. That was the moral of this story.
Even the greatest of the good (Saruman) mind was twisted so much that he thought he was actually trying to spare the world as much as possible. He WAS the whitest of the white, and their strongest at one time.
Even one of the most evil (Gollum) however, had a GOOD role to play. He helped out Frodo and Sam despite his gnawing hunger for the ring (though it overcame him).
The Elves were more 'human' then the humans. They were scared, and selfish, and felt betrayed. They had great power, and were willing to just leave everybody to fend for themselves!
Yet I know those that don't see it won't. Have fun ya'll, Mytical out (for a long while at least).
Edit : Keep in mind that I don't think Tolkien is the ultimate fantasy writer. The Test of the Twins (Dragonlance) and that collection are WAY better (though some of the characters are very black and white). The chronicles (of Thomas Covenant, not Narnia) beat it hands down. The Landover series, the Xanth Novels, The phaze/proton books..all better. But..Tolkien was not as black and white as some seem to think.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Ecoris
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted March 18, 2009 03:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I criticize it because I have created a far bigger universe myself. It's NOT hard. You just need a lot time and thinking. No, I'm not joking.
Have you really? And if yes: So?
Quote:
If LOTR was released tomorrow it wouldnt have been such a hype and success.
It wasn't hyped in any way when it was originally released. It took many years before it slowly caught on.
____________
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted March 18, 2009 03:06 PM |
|
|
It was usually celebrated by either intellectuals or just the plain nerds of the genre, I believe...
The hype came with the movie. Even after that, noone really read them, because they're still monstrous tomes.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 18, 2009 05:05 PM |
|
|
My old teacher said that LOTR only became über popular and overrated because of the movies (which were great, compared to Eragon which was total trash compared to the books, I only hate Eragon because of some nordic inspired words, when the elf is called Arya Dröttningu I was not suprised that her mother was a queen, Drottning = Queen in swedish)
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted March 18, 2009 05:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Have you really? And if yes: So?
Yeah, I did.
and you ask what of it? Well, simple. Anyone can. It doesn't take genious. Say, you want a different humanoid race? You make them shorts, you make their ears pointy, you make them ugly, you make them beautiful, you just pretty much modify their appearance. Voila, a fantasy race.
Now for the culture. Grab a pencil and start throwing in names and dates, battles, victories and defeats. So, in the year 1001 of the third age, the great city of Itsoverninethousand has been established, later transformed into the capital city of all people of the Whatever Empire, in the year 1208 of fourth age, the great king Shoopusdawhoopus used his sword Immafirinmalazor to defeat the evil Lord Octagonapus. The sword broke in half but it still powerful, if reforged, to bring end to the war of the sixth age and our heroes just need to find it and carry it into the last epic battle against evil, after which everything ends and a new era begins..
Duh, everyone can do that, mate. Alphabet? What the heck. Draw some runes, any will do, assign them letters, voila! What's more, poetry? if you're talented enough, you can add a romantic, nihlistic or whatever twist to normal one and there you go.
What else? What honestly has he created beside history, culture, alphabet, and so on? I can do it to. Anyone can.
I respect Tolkien for the sheer amount of work, but I still think it is just not interesting enough.
Death: I have to agree with JJ. Sorry
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted March 18, 2009 05:23 PM |
|
|
Sure but I wonder how others would judge it as compared to Tolkien's  To be honest I am curious what it is about and how you write.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 18, 2009 05:27 PM |
|
|
Doomforge: Unless you write out someting more epic and bigger, well then yeah you got little to do against it.
____________
|
|
phoenixreborn
Promising
Legendary Hero
Unicorn
|
|
posted March 18, 2009 06:32 PM |
|
|
All those things that Doomforge wrote about don't mean anything unless put in some kind of context. That's what the novel provides, a story with all those things that Doomforge mentioned as background. They aren't the whole story itself.
For those concerned with the boringness of Good vs. Evil you may wish to have a look at the Amber Chronicles. It concerns a group superhuman possibly not human 'royalty', the nine princes and there are some sisters as well. The entire 10 book series is a family power struggle and the main character is very morally ambiguous, mostly self-serving but not always.
Some ideas and text in the game Planescape Torment was copy pasted from those books. Another very cool thing about that series is that you are presented with certain events but each character that was involved has their own take on exactly what happened and sometimes you don't a get a truly clear picture until several books later. In this it is like the Rashomon story.
____________
Bask in the light of my glorious shining unicorn.
|
|
Ecoris
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted March 18, 2009 08:35 PM |
|
Edited by Ecoris at 20:36, 18 Mar 2009.
|
Quote:
I can do it to. Anyone can.
And I can write a novel, right? With enough time at my hands. All I have to do is write something. Do you think the result would be good?
In fantasy the reader has to explore an unfamilar and fantastic world. Fantasy has to appeal to your imagination (or fantasy) at this level. The universe of Tolkien does a very good job at this.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 19, 2009 01:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
A sentient intelligent being that CANNOT be evil, isn't good, because it has no choice.
Actually it's not being WILLING to do it rather than not being ABLE. There are lots of things that I can choose to do, and a LOT of them I am absolutely not even WILLING to do at all -- NOT even as a "test" or in a virtual world.
If I, a human, an ordinary human, can do it, then what the hell is it about fantasy?
Also what's wrong with androids? I think The Terminator was a good character, for example. In fact a good villain by itself, even better than those with "remorses" or "doubts" in MANY aspects.
Don't get me wrong, I am sure that preferring it is a matter of my opinion (I mean, The Terminator "style" of villains rather than more complex villains with remorse),
And of course that most hollywood stuff out there, if that's what you were talking about, likes to makes robots "more human" or "doubt" their actions, or after spending some time with humans, some aliens make them 'important' or something, etc...
I mean of course, since Humans are special.
Also, some villains, espcially those who should represent evil (like Sauron) do it because Evil Feels Good. You think that's not a reason? Newsflash: many people in the real world think Good Feels Good (and some even think Evil feels good, but they usually fall under the psycho classification), so it is relatively easy, philosophically speaking, to make an opposite species -- naturally inclined to feel good doing evil. Go to the extreme version and you arrive at Sauron.
Also JollyJoker, if you don't want to define good and evil, you can either just... let the writer do it, or (as is the case) simply take their ATTRIBUTES (like: selfish, likes to eat babies, wants to destroy the world, etc...) and classify them however you want! I don't care if you call them "good" instead of evil or however else you want, as long as you say they are not poorly done because they "lack dynamics in their behavior" (which is like saying "they lack human weaknesses or traits").
Also this applies to Doomforge too. He said he *thinks* (his opinion) that LotR is childish. Ok, then are you going to rate cartoons bad just because you don't like 'em? What kinda "argument" is that? (for the record, what I find childish is to USE different races for absolutely no purpose, since they would still be "human-like" and have "human traits" and "human weaknesses" (I'll spare you TV Tropes links here...)).
You base your arguments on subjectivity. "rating" should be done objectively, and in this case sorry, but it is absolutely not overrated. I love it a lot more than other "complex dramas" with "predictable twists" (in my opinion) and Black&Gray Morality and all sorts of "dilemmas" or other psychological subjects. Well, I have plenty of shows to watch for that. Real-life of course, since humans are that way, I would turn it off immediately if it were a different species. But that is just IMO of course. I don't rate it on THIS.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted March 19, 2009 01:17 AM |
|
|
How can this thread possibly go for 10 pages?
____________
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted March 19, 2009 01:22 AM |
|
|
Quote:
How can this thread possibly go for 10 pages?
Because some people treasure LOTR like some other people treasure the bible 
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted March 19, 2009 01:24 AM |
|
|
Oh, my mistake. I thought you got to the end of the book and headed to the bookcase to pick the next book.
____________
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted March 19, 2009 01:24 AM |
|
|
Now that this thread is in the tavern, I can put some effort into it.
Firstly, my brother loves LOTR. If someone were to slap "Lord of the Rings" on dental floss, he would be at the store an hour before it opened. I can't really explain this, that two brothers raised under identical circumstances would have such different reactions to this epic.
My own opinion of LOTR is formed from 3 things. "The Hobbit", the first half of "Fellowship of the Ring", and the parts of the 3 movies that I saw when I wasn't sleeping. I say the "first half of FOTR" because I found it excruciatingly boring and despite my best efforts I was unable to finish it. I'm going to try to analyse it in the form of objective literary criticism.
Frodo.
Frodo's arc is the main arc of the book. He is chosen because he is self absorbed, with no pretensions to any other life besides his happy go-lucky existance in the shire. In the hands of anybody else, the ring would usurp and corrupt their ego. Frodo's development, and the lure of the ring, is the over-arching story arc for the entire set of novels.
The problem is that for one sixth of the book, and possibly more, the arc remains flat. Frodo remains a detestably weak character, with no ability to elicit sympathy. Unlike admirable characters who defeat their circumstances by tenacity or cunning, his progress through the story is aided by random encounters, deus-ex-machina like, with other secondary characters. (From what I've seen of the movies, this doesn't really change). From a strictly personal viewpoint, at no point in the entire trilogy did my feelings for Frodo ever rise above "inert".
Gandalf.
Magic needs to be wielded carefully by the author. When a character pulls out a new magic trick to resolve a problem, it is at best a distraction, at worst a story-killer. Gandalfs powers are never delineated, so he serves as a type of distracting plot glue. He moves things along here, nudges things over to the side there. A reader can only take so much of this before losing stock in both the character and the story. It reaches its apogee when Gandalf pulls a self-resurrection out of his butt. A comic-book style reincarnation like this destroys the narrative legitimacy of a book.
Sauron
It detracts from the story as a whole when the antagonist appears to be created for the sole purpose of driving a plot. A convincing antagonist either grows from their circumstances, or grows out of their circumstances. Tolkiens presentation of Sauron and his evil minionz is like a saturday morning cartoon. Why is they evil? because they is ugly! There's nothing the reader can relate too, so there's no reason to treat Sauron as a meaningful character. In sum, Sauron is not convincing, he's not authentic, he's not real.
The Elves.
Tolkien picked a persona/stereotype for the elves, and unfortunately didn't develop any of the characters into anything beyond that. They are supposed to be immortal, wise, and selfish, instead they come off as faceless and humorless. Writing cookie cutter humanoids is effective in children's fantasy books (the dwarves in "The Hobbit") and video games, but its a horrible habit to get into when trying to write meaningful or interesting fiction for adults.
Also
Gratingly dull poetry, lots of it.
In summary, I gave Tolkien 250 pages to pull me into his story, and he failed miserably. I shan't be revisiting his world.
Also, I could write a whole 'nutha 5000 words on why Peter Jackson is the one of the worst directors ever, acadamy awards be damned, but that would be off-topic.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 19, 2009 01:26 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 01:33, 19 Mar 2009.
|
Let me take an example. I admit, I do not like Harry Potter. Shoot me.
I do not like the genre at all, it seems childish to me. However, I have no doubt that the book may be good or appealing in what it was set to do. And maybe even represent some allegory or have a deeper meaning (or maybe some moral backend story for kids?? no idea). There's a lot of praise around the world. Should I say it's overrated?
Quote:
It detracts from the story as a whole when the antagonist appears to be created for the sole purpose of driving a plot. A convincing antagonist either grows from their circumstances, or grows out of their circumstances. Tolkiens presentation of Sauron and his evil minionz is like a saturday morning cartoon. Why is they evil? because they is ugly! There's nothing the reader can relate too, so there's no reason to treat Sauron as a meaningful character. In sum, Sauron is not convincing, he's not authentic, he's not real human
Corrected it for you.
And the thing with the ugly marks your ignorance.
PROVE IT to me that he is not real! Show me Sauron in real life so I can see for myself! I dare you.
On the other hand, I think we know what a computer is capable of (that is, no "thinking" at all). Wouldn't be hard to extend it a bit for sci-fi -- but I bet you would call it unreal too, cause it won't act like a human, won't have human weaknesses (like dilemmas, doubts, and other things) and basically, won't have any human traits! So it can't be real, can it?
For some, especially different species which are the embodiment of that message, Evil feels good mate. What other reason you want? I see real-life people getting drugged all the time cause "it feels good", I guess they aren't as real as they seem.
Quote:
Tolkien picked a persona/stereotype for the elves, and unfortunately didn't develop any of the characters into anything beyond that. They are supposed to be immortal, wise, and selfish, instead they come off as faceless and humorless. Writing cookie cutter humanoids is effective in children's fantasy books (the dwarves in "The Hobbit") and video games, but its a horrible habit to get into when trying to write meaningful or interesting fiction for adults.
Actually, a horrible habit would be to make them all real-life dramas. And by the way, I think they are supposed to be humorless (what's the problem with that?) and I think it's a good thing.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mamgaeater
Legendary Hero
Shroud, Flying, Trample, Haste
|
|
posted March 19, 2009 02:08 AM |
|
|
I think one of the problems is that people are trying to put the book into categories it doesn't belong in... the book is a medium, a paintlike medium that allowed tolkien's world to be seen by his peers. its like a great landscape of his dreamlike world.
To criticize a landscape painting for lacking emotion is just taking it too far. it is the mystique of his world that captivated ancient (think computer-wise) man and set a foot in the door for what we refer to as the fantasy genre as a whole. Perhaps the storyline of Lotr has a good deal of discrepancies... i personally feel that the story was like a river, swift and just out of your grasp at one moment but dreadfully slow the next(this isn't good for me). And although the story can be classified as epic, It indeed lacks what most modern writers use in their story.
Either way what does my opinion matter I'm just one of those people who make it overrated
(geez, even though this isn't long its one of the most challenging posts i've ever had to make...)
____________
Protection From Everything.
dota
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
