Jump to content

av_nefardec

WFG Retired
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4.772

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by av_nefardec

    What's your entertainment?

    in Fun and Games

    Posted

    I don't get a lot of time for entertainment alone with my studies, but after studio work and TLA, I'm usually out and about. Studio work and TLA can both be entertaining at times, and downright tedious at others. Nighttime equals coffeehouses, parties, or clubs. Trance, techno, house, and jungle clubs are hard to come by where I go to school, but every once in a while the Europeans throw a good party at one of the local clubs and I can lose myself to the music for a night. Chilling out and listening to tracks with my friends at school is always a good time. Riding through the crisp night on a bicycle towards the rare manuscripts library to read an 18th century german manuscripts on the Bavarian illuminati is always fun.

    Advice?

    in The Green Dragon

    Posted

    I'll give you some ideas a bit later, as I have some guests to entertain soon, but really quick stuff:

    I don't think "Matt" provides the reader with a very believable atmosphere. I understand you want to abbreviate it ala Peregrin>Pippin, but I'd abbreivate it as "Matty", to fit more with the world Tolkien created.

    I think you need a more compelling motive for the two Breelanders to head off. Breelanders and Shirefolk were quite happy with their sedentary and subsistance culture. They felt little need to explore, let alone quest. Even if they got a map, few would actually go on the quest.

    Bilbo Baggins, being descended from Tooks, had a bit of an "itch" to leave the shire, and Frodo had Nazgûl after him.

    I think you could write a compelling reason for these two to actually leave behind their idyllic life and it would make it much more believable, and might make the story that much more interesting, if there is an underlying reason for the quest other than simply to follow a map.

    Asking advice from two Rangers lodging at the Prancing Pony, they are directed to travel to Rivendell where Elrond would (hopefully) make things clearer to them. On the way to Rivendell, Matt and Rosie come upon an Elven girl beset by wolves. Raaniselde is her name, and after she is rescued she travels with them to Rivendell.

    This seems to follow the Lord of the Rings plot-wise very closely. You might want to make things a bit different.

    A few things to ask yourself:

    Why would two rangers, descended from the high blood of Númenor bother to help two random Breelanders of a peasant class? Aragorn helps Frodo because Gandalf tells him to.

    Elrond would never let a party of Hobbits or Breelanders into Rivendell without the accompaniment of someone like Gandalf or Aragorn, extremely trusted friends (and with Aragorn, kin) of the Noldor. Why then would the rangers direct them to Rivendell without friends of Rivendell?

    Why is an elven girl in the middle of the woods outside of her paradise and beloved sanctuary?

    Where did they get weapons from to fight these wolves?

    What language is "Raaniselde"? It doesn't seem to follow the rules of any of Tolkien's languages.

    Also at Rivendell is a wounded Dwarf named Pundin, who seeks the same treasure that the map speaks of.

    Dwarves would never be admitted to Imaldris. And Dwarves would never let their wounded go there anyways. You need a good reason to have dwarves in Imladris. In the hobbit it was because Gandalf accompanied them, and in LotR it was because the White Council called the Council of Elrond.

    I see potential for a character conflict here. As you know dwarves can be quite greedy B)

    Radagast the Brown, who stopped at Rivendell on one of his few journeys from his home near Mirkwood. An injuction on the map to "beware the blue wizard", concerns Radagast and he also offers to accompany them.

    Radagast had business in Mirkwood, with the activity at Dol Guldur, and also at Isengard, as we know in LotR. Radagast then would not be able to accompany anyone and there is much less of a chance he would have stopped in Rivendell.

    The other thing is that Tolkien speculated the Blue Wizards did not fall, but rather prevented many of the Easterlings from being corrupted by Sauron, thus preventing Sauron from taking Minas Tirith in the Battle of the Pelennor fields. Alatar and Pallando's role in the east would have involved fighting on an eastern front of their own, along with the Gondorian and Mirkwood fronts elsewhere in the story.

    Glorfindel

    in The Green Dragon

    Posted

    That's in HoME XII, The Peoples of Middle-earth.

    This is the reference I was alluding to with that Mithrandil quoted.

    We've had significant discussion on this already within the team, and we also agree that Glorfindel must have been one of the most powerful Noldor living in the Third Age, behind Galadriel.

    Another thing - we can't assume that elvish names are common B) Elves also were named not with a "conventional list" of names, like we do in our modern society, but with names that were invented to suit the elf.

    Flame of Udun

    in The Green Dragon

    Posted

    There were probably 3-7 balrogs.

    In the Silmarillion you read about Gothmog, the lord of the Balrogs, with his black axe and fiery whip. He's by far the strongest of the balrogs, slain by Echthelion of the House of the Fountain, at the Siege of Gondolin. Then there is another balrog that fought Glorfindel outside of Gondolin (the same Glorfindel that is in LotR).

    In his last writings Tolkien was talking about as many as seven balrogs. But in earlier writings, Tolkien was writing about hundreds of Balrogs, in his description of the Fall of Gondolin. If you want to read this, check out History of Middle-earth II, The Lost Tales, Part II, and read the chapter entitled "The Fall of Gondolin"

    The Battle for Middle-earth

    in The Green Dragon

    Posted

    I believe peter jackson to be as purist as we are

    You might want to watch the extended edition's commentary, where he struggles with rudimentary bits of lore, confesses that he has not read the entire book in years, and that he can no longer distinguish what is movie and what is book. B)

    I don't think purist is the word for Peter Jackson. A purist is one who believes in the ideal application of something. Peter Jackson, while perhaps an enthusastic fan, is no purist. And besides that, Peter Jackson wasn't behind a lot of the storywriting anyways - a lot of it was Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens. Peter Jackson, however, was behind a lot of the simplfication and "bastárdization" of various characters and cultures of Tolkien's.

    I think one of the most unregonized things about tolkien is that hes was first and foremost a storyteller, and lover of stories, above historian and writer.

    You're quite right there. But let's also make the distinction that Tolkien was a storyteller and lover of stories, not a full-time author/bookseller and a lover of selling books. Tolkien was a professor, he wrote things most of the time for Academic reasons, though the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings were more likely for personal reasons, again with his love for storytelling. Tolkien was interested in the study of stories, of tales, of lore, not the sale of stories, tales, and lore for profit, for a living.

    And now whither you care or not, the movies changes in the plot have effective altered some the history of middle earth to the vast majority of people. Forgive me for my rambling, but I guess my point is that we were lucky it came out the way it did, and people will remember most of what is correct, along with the bad, instead of never knowing.

    This is actually something I have considered writing on. A characteristic of legends is the varied adaptations that different cultures have of legends, and how legends change over time. The separation between history and myth is so blurred. In a way I think that it only makes sense that a consumer culture adapts this legend in a consumer way. If this were a tale released in Celtic Ireland, it would certainly be different.

    And it's not that I don't like the movies, but that I dislike the fact that they are so "popular" and widespread, because the public tends to be easily swayed. I think there can be many versions of legends, and there must be, for legends to be "real". Unfortunately, the movie creates "one legend". The plurality of visions and legends that once existed become "acquired" like big corporations acquire small businesses. And besides that I just like the book so much and the vivid effect it had on me as a young child and it continues to have on me as a young adult that I care enough to want to preserve the "purity" of the books, so that they can have this same effect on future readers.

    I have done a lot of thinking on what the Professor would have thought of the movies (from my readings only of course). Ultimately I think he would have been a bit peeved about the preference for battle, excess, and technological showcasing, but in terms of the storyline, he might have been OK with a lot of it. I know he was quite fond of his characters, however, and the perversion of some characters I think he would have found unacceptable.

    The Eye of Sauron?

    in General TLA Discussion

    Posted

    In fact, reading LotR, it was obvious to me that what is called the Eye of Sauron is in fact a Palantìr, and that the power he possesses to project himself is only a sidepower he adds to the Palantìr (he used the Palantír not only too look far off, but to project some image of himself in a long distance)...

    That's quite right, Yiuel.

    Tolkien uses the "eye" as a symbol throughout his mythology, not limited to Sauron alone, as Sukkit points out - it was also used by Morgoth. The eye represents knowledge, usually arcane knowledge.

    Eyes have an interesting iconographic history too in this regard. A lot of renaissance and baroque art is preoccupied with "vision" and how we see things. (Gerrit Dou's "The Quack" of 1652 is a good example of this). As humans one of the main ways we gather knowledge is through looking with our eyes. However, looks can be deceiving, and though it is easy and tempting to gather knowledge from our eyes, the sort of knowledge that comes from this is inferior to "divine knowledge" that is gained through revelatory processes, wisdom, etc.

    Elven knowledge and wisdom comes not from the usage of such devices of sight as the Palantíri, but rather from experience and learning directly from the Valar. (and remember it was Fëanor, the most "worldly" of the Noldorin Kings who fashioned the Palantíri!)

    Sauronian knowledge, however, comes through the the Palantíri. Like I said earlier, the eye serves as a symbol of knowledge. By "Seeing" Frodo, and telling frodo that he is "seen", Sauron tells Frodo that he "knows his intent", or that he can surmise his feelings. Knowledge begets fear in this case, helplessness, subservience. Vision is Knowledge is Power. We see similar usage of the eye in our own world - the All-seeing eye, the (purported) symbol of the Bavarian Illuminati of the late 18th century, which can be found on the back of any US dollar bill, on the seal for United States Intelligence organizations (The Information Awareness Office), and even in such logos for companies as Ameritrade, CBS, and America Online.

    I could go on and on about this.

    Point is: Tolkien uses the eye of Sauron as a symbol- Sauron, through the Palantir and the ring, uses the image of an eye wreathed in flame also as a mental/psychological symbol of his power. The eye was not a physical thing, and likely not Sauron's eye at all. It was more like a psychological avatar of Sauron. The scene in the fellowship movie where Frodo puts on the Ring in the Prancing Pony is a great adaptation of Tolkien's ideas on the eye of Sauron, but later occurences are horrendous :D

    More like that image of Uncle Sam pointing at Frodo if he put on the ring in America B)

    In TLA' scenarios, the eye will be represented while playing other civs besides Sauron the way Tolkien did it - through writing. We'll script the psychological effects of the eye and use writing to establish it as a symbol.

    So remember that there was no "Eye of Sauron" except through the minds of those he controlled. Thus you see it as a symbol on banners to remind his forces of his omniscience and omnipotence, and through the minds of those who interact with Sauron, whether through the ring or through the palantíri. As the Forces of Sauron in the game then, a player will be able to control others through the palantiri and rings, in this same way.

    Keep in mind that the eye of Sauron was mainly a psychologial device, to some degree a propagandistic weapon used by Sauron (A master of lies and deceit) to fight on both the physical and mental fronts.

    Siege Tower-how will they do the Job?

    in General TLA Discussion

    Posted

    Unfortunately we don't know for sure if they are mail or not. Tolkien writes simply

    …Then on a time Melko assembled all his most cunning smiths and sorcerers, and of iron and flame they wrought a host of monsters such as have only at that time been seen and shall not again be seen till the Great End.  Some were all of iron so cunningly linked that they might flow like slow rivers of metal or coil themselves around and above all obstacles before them, and these were filled in their innermost depths with the grimmest of the Orcs with scimitars and spears; others of bronze and copper were given hearts and spirits of blazing fire; yet other creatures were of pure flame that writhed like ropes of molten metal, and they brought to ruin whatever fabric they came nigh, and iron and stone melted before them ad became as water, and upon them rode the Balrogs in hundreds; and these were the most dire of all those monsters which Melko devised against Gondolin. 

    I would hold that the "dragons" are actually mechanical beasts covered with heavy plates of various metals such as bronze, iron, and even gold, linked in the manner of Lorica Segmenta. Technically we don't know if they were even mechanical, as they seem to have been more like animate metal creatures. Orcs filled the inside, the dragons were used as rams to bash in the gates of Gondolin, and the dragons emitted flames, either by some type of dark sorcery or mechanical contraption operated by the orcs within. The dragons piled up at the gates and when the gate finally fell, the maws of the metal beasts opened and thousands of orcs poured in. Some of the beasts were even within the city, causing destruction to the Tower of Turgon and surrounding buildings.

    Here's a good quote for you to read:

    …But now Gothmog lord of Balrogs, captain of the hosts of Melko, took counsel and gathered all his things of iron that could coil themselves around and above all obstacles before them.  These he bade pile themselves before the northern gate; and behold, their great spires reached even to its threshold and thrust at the towers and bastions about it, and by reason of the exceeding heaviness of their bodies those gates fell, and great was the noise thereof:  yet the most of the walls around them still stood firm.  Then the engines and the catapults of the King [Turgon] poured down darts and boulders and molten metals on those ruthless beasts , and their hollow bellies clanged beneath the buffeting, yet it availed not for they might not be broken, and the fires  rolled off them.  Then were the topmost opened about their middles, and an innumerable host of the Orcs, the goblins of hatred, poured therefrom into the breach ; and who shall tell of the gleam of their scimitars or the flash of the broad-bladed spears with which they stabbed? 

    I highly recommend buying this book if you're interested in some of the lesser known details of this siege. (For instance, that the Noldor used siege weaponry such as catapults and ballistas and equipped them with flaming ammunition)

    The Battle for Middle-earth

    in The Green Dragon

    Posted

    By the way, in regards to one who had claimed that Tolkien wrote the Lord of the Rings for commercial reasons, this comes from the first paragraph of his foreward:

    This tale grew in the telling, until it became a history of the Great War of the Ring and included many glimpses of the yet more ancient history that preceded it. It was begun soon after The Hobbit was written and before its publication in 1937; but I did not go on with this sequel, for I wished first to complete and set in order the mythology and legends of the Elder Days, which had then been taking shape for some years. I desired to do this for my own satisfaction, and I had little hope that other people would be interested in this work, especially since it was primarily linguistic in inspiration and was begun in order to provide the necessary background of 'history' for Elvish tongues.

    After the book was published and had enjoyed unexpected success in the commercial market, Tolkien writes: (with the reprint of the books)

    The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them. As a guide I had only my own feelings for what is appealing or moving, and for many the guide was inevitably often at fault. Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer. But even from the points of view of many who have enjoyed my story there is much that fails to please. It is perhaps not possible in a long tale to please everybody at all points, nor to displease everybody at the same points; for I find from the letters that I have received that the passages or chapters that are to some a blemish are all by others specially approved.

    Another interesting thing Tolkien writes is:

    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.

    This is one reason why we resent the over-simplication of good and evil in the movies and their derivatives, with the simplification of all easterlings into one homogenous civilization (the same thing happens with all civilizations more or less). The story turns from the history/lore/tale that Tolkien wrote to a simplified, allegorical fairy tale, which Tolkien disliked very much.

    And here are some quotes from Tolkien's letters (Letters 201, 207, and 210), written in regards to an early movie adaptation of The Lord of the Rings, with which Tolkien was markedly displeased:

    The canons of narrative art in any medium cannot be wholly different; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in exagerration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies. He has cut parts of the story upon which its characteristic and peculiar tone principally depends, showing a preference for fights; and he has made no serious attempt to represent the heart of the tale adequately: the journey of the Ringbearers.
    An abridgement by selection with some good picture-work would be pleasant, & perhaps worth a good deal in publicity; but the present script is rather a compression with resultant over-crowding and confusion, blurring of climaxes, and general degradation: a pull-back towards more conventional 'fairy-stories'.
    (The Producers) may be irritated or aggrieved by the tone of many of my criticisms. If so, I am sorry (though not surprised). But I would ask them to make an effort of imagination sufficient to understand the irritation (and on occasion the resentment) of an author, who finds, increasingly as he proceeds, his work treated as it would seem carelessly in general, in places recklessly, and with no evident signs of any appreciations of what it is all about.
    I should resent perversion of the characters (and do resent it) even more than the spoiling of the plot and scenery.
    (The Producer) does not read books. It seems to me evident that he has skimmed through L.R. at a great pace, and then constructed his story-line from partly confused memories, and with the minimum of references back to the original. I feel very unhappy about the extreme silliness and incompetence and his complete lack of respect for the original (it seems wilfully wrong without descernible technical reasons at nearly every point)

    Side note - I watched Peter Jackson's commentary on the RotK EE last night, and Peter Jackson has a good laugh while he talks about how confused he was between what was "book reality" and "movie reality". It certainly shows, and unfortunately his confusion gets carried over to inexperienced readers.

    An example of what I find too frequent to give me 'pleasure or satisfaction': deliberate alteration of the story, in fact and significance, without any practical or artistic object (that I can see); and of the flattening effect that assimilation of one incident to another must have. It is based on a misconception of the Black Riders throughout, which I beg to reconsider. Their peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no great physical power against the fearless.

    Strider does not 'Whip out a sword' in the book. Naturally not: his sword was broken. Why then make him do so here, in a contest that was explicitly not fought with weapons? There is no fight. Why has my account been entirely rewritten here, with disregard for the rest of the tale? I can see that there are certain difficulties in representing a dark scene; but they are not insuperable. A scene of gloom lit by a small red fire, with the Wraiths slowls approaching as darker shadows - until the moment when Frodo puts on the Ring, and the King steps forward revealed - would seem to me far more impressive than yet one more scene of screams and rather meaningless slashings.

    If details are to be added to an already crowded picture, they should at least fit the world described.

    What do you think are the top 8 songs

    in Arts and Entertainment

    Posted

    Sunrising - Choopie & Shmuel

    Smooth (Airbase Remix) - iio

    Dreaming (Tiësto Remix) - BT

    Loco Love - Jas van Houten

    Horizion (Extended Remix) - Verzus

    As the Rush Comes (Armin van Buuren Universal Religion Remix) - Motorcycle

    Greece 2003 (Plastic Angel Mix) - Three Drives on a Vinyl

    Icarus - Flutlicht

    I guess for americans unless you listen to trance or go clubbing in larger cities these songs are probably unknown, but they're played on the radio, etc in Europe.

    The Battle for Middle-earth

    in The Green Dragon

    Posted

    And it's not so much that I dislike the game as I dislike what it stands for. I think everyone needs to be aware at least that things aren't created objectively, and that the sorts of things that are being produced and consumed by gamers these days can change our views of Middle-earth in potentially negative ways. There are positive things about them too, of course.

  24. Have you ever met a celebrity?

    in Introductions & Off-Topic Discussion

    Posted

    Let's see. When I was in London a few years back it happened to be the premiere of the movie "Tomb Raider" and I was walking by the cinema where it was opening and happened to see all of the commotion. I got to the front of the crowd and was able to shake Angelina Jolie's hand, and I took a picture as she was headed towards my side (attached)

    I met Ralph Nader at a campaign rally for his presidency just this past October and he had a lot of very interesting things to say. (Some of you might know my stance on the two-party political dualopoly that Nader likes to talk about)

    I met John Cleese of Monty Python as he is a visiting Professor at my university (he teaches an improvised comedy course), and he gave a speech in October while watching the Life of Brian with the audience. It was quite cool. Later that night he came to my residence hall (which inicidently is a ridiculous and awesome creative arts program house) and while watching the movie "A Fish Called Wanda", talked to residents of my hall.

    This summer I was in NYC for this awards ceremony I had to attend and some of the guest speakers were Edie Falco (from The Sopranos) and Russell Simmons (Rap Mogul), who talked with some of the honorees at the event.

    This is not as famous I imagine, unless you are up on professional baseball, but a player of my local team, Jim Thome, of the Cleveland indians lives in a development close to my childhood home. You used to see him driving his Humvee to the local grocery store.

    Just on a side note (this has nothing to do with me, but it's kind of cool). My father was a weight-trainer in a gym, very much into bodybuilding when he was younger, and he actually got to sit and talk to the would-be governator, Arnold Schwarzenegger in his Limo, when he was still a bodybuilder making a name for himself, not a Republican politician, a movie star, or anything else B)

×
×
  • Create New...