Originally posted by TomDavidson:
It breaks my heart to see Saruman's line end in Isengard.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Agreed. They should know better.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
It breaks my heart to see Saruman's line end in Isengard.
quote:I wanna know how you can read the thing well enough to even tell which line is Saruman.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
It breaks my heart to see Saruman's line end in Isengard.
quote:If you click on it, it loads a zoomed in version of the charts.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I wanna know how you can read the thing well enough to even tell which line is Saruman.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
It breaks my heart to see Saruman's line end in Isengard.
quote:Totally agreed.
Originally posted by IanO:
http://xkcd.com/653/
Absolute truth. Completely and totally.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:You are not alone.
Originally posted by Shmuel:
(As for today's comic, I confess it does nothing for me, but I accept that it's my turn for that.)
quote:Do you say this because Saruman dies at Isengard in the movie, but not the book?
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
It breaks my heart to see Saruman's line end in Isengard.
quote:This is the only slight error I've been able to find. Aragorn's line seems to join the hobbits at Weathertop, when actually he joined them at Bree and accompanied them to Weathertop.
Originally posted by Tara:
But why does Aragorn's line start ahead of everybody else?
quote:Your post inspired me to look it up, and I found the xkcdsucks blog. Wow.
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Now if it turns out the XKCD critic site can't find the awesome in this comic I will throw something at them.
quote:Just watched it. Best line: "Are you hungry? I haven't eaten since later this afternoon."
Originally posted by Sean Monahan:
Primer is available for instant play right now on Netflix.
quote:I was amused that the critic just said "Wow, that was actually pretty clever" in response to this comic. But beyond that... man, I desperately want to assume this guy is being satirical or something. A blog this ridiculous can't possibly be real... right?
Now I've always been a bit confused by the concept of fandom, and people who spend so much time apparently just being... fans of a person/band/movie/game/concept/etc. rather than enjoying said thing. Seeing someone who absolutely hates a comic posting multi-page rants on how much he hates every single comic several times a week is surreal. If I dislike something, by first reaction is to ignore it, not create a website dedicated to my endless hatred of it.
quote:I think it's more the fact that the Scourng of the Shire was left out of the films entirely.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
It breaks my heart to see Saruman's line end in Isengard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you say this because Saruman dies at Isengard in the movie, but not the book?
quote:I feel the same way.
Now I've always been a bit confused by the concept of fandom, and people who spend so much time apparently just being... fans of a person/band/movie/game/concept/etc. rather than enjoying said thing. Seeing someone who absolutely hates a comic posting multi-page rants on how much he hates every single comic several times a week is surreal. If I dislike something, by first reaction is to ignore it, not create a website dedicated to my endless hatred of it.
quote:Quite frankly, even when I read the book I thought "What the hell is this?" when I got to the Scourging of the Shrine. A few years later I do appreciate that Tolkien was trying to show that everything doesn't magically become fixed once you throw the ring into the fire, there's still aftermath to deal with, but putting the climax in the middle of the book was still really annoying.
I think it's more the fact that the Scourng of the Shire was left out of the films entirely.
quote:Which is almost by definition what a climax is. You spend a whole story building up to something, raising the stakes and tension, until finally you reach it and there's a release. It almost every other work of fiction ever, you build up and up to a final event that the main character is striving for, he/she finally reaches it (or maybe fails), then theres a short period of resolution to tie everything together.
The ring going into the fire was anything but climactic, since it was clear from the moment the goal is mentioned that the goal will, eventually, be accomplished.
quote:Did we read the same book? Are you saying that never at any point, not when the Nazgul were chasing the hobbits, not when Boromir tried to take the ring, not when Frodo and Sam were captured by Faramir, not when Shelob stings Frodo, not when Frodo is captured by the Orcs, not even when Frodo standing on the edge of mountain doom decides to put on the ring rather than cast it in to the fire, never at any of those points was there any intensity or tension related to the ring going into the fire?
Originally posted by erosomniac:
A climax is a release of built up intensity and tension. There was no tension or intensity at any point, during the LotR trilogy - or at least, not related to the ring going into the fire.
quote:Agreed. In particular for Harry Potter since the whole thing is structured perfectly for a TV show. Each book is a season, each chapter is an episode, and the writers would actually have wiggle room to accomplish something something more than a direct word-to-image translation.
The ring going into the fire was anything but climactic, since it was clear from the moment the goal is mentioned that the goal will, eventually, be accomplished.
quote:In stories where such tension exists, the author is successful because despite every story following an archetype, the resolution is NOT clear. An author trying to create tension convinces the reader, in spite of conventions, that he or she should not be sure of whether or not a problem will be resolved positively.
Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
Did we read the same entire hemisphere of Western Literature? Because that's how pretty much every story is structured. Unless the story has an actual twist, you almost always know that the good guy will catch the bad guy or the two lovers will end up together or the sports team will win.
quote:It's interesting that you bring this one up, because I didn't know they would land safely, but the friends that I saw the movie with did, and I'm the only one of us that enjoyed the movie.
In Apollo 13 you know for a fact that they will land safely, but that was still one of the most intense movies I've ever seen, and the tension was entirely built around the characters NOT knowing that they would land safely, and when they finally do the tension dissipates.
quote:How is this significantly different from other quest story? There was never any doubt in my mind from book 1 to book 7 that Harry Potter would triumph over Voldemort. None the less, that triumph was the climax of the story. In Card's "Wyrms" there was never any doubt that Patience would defeat the unwyrm, and yet that is the climax of the story.
Originally posted by erosomniac:
We did. But all of those scenes were tense to me because of the risk of imminent harm to the characters, not because there was ever any doubt in my mind that the ring would go into the fire.
quote:I was not at all sure that Harry would triumph over Voldemort. Haven't read Wyrms.
How is this significantly different from other quest story? There was never any doubt in my mind from book 1 to book 7 that Harry Potter would triumph over Voldemort. None the less, that triumph was the climax of the story.
quote:I don't think so. I read the books first when I was about 12, so its hard for me to say objectively. But certainly in that first reading I thought there was a great deal of tension around the issue of whether the good guys would be able to accomplish their goal.
Originally posted by scifibum:
I'm kinda with Rabbit on this one. I think Tolkien definitely tried to create tension around the central question of whether the good guys would be able to accomplish their goal. Am I forgetting some clear giveaway that erases all the tension?
quote:I don't think there's any one single thing. There's precedent: by the time one arrives at LotR, one knows that Tolkien writes happy novels full of songs and laughter and the good guys win. We already know how to handle all of the characters we're presented with.
Originally posted by scifibum:
I'm kinda with Rabbit on this one. I think Tolkien definitely tried to create tension around the central question of whether the good guys would be able to accomplish their goal. Am I forgetting some clear giveaway that erases all the tension?
quote:I actually agree with you here, the actual act of killing Voldemorte was essentially resolution. But it ended up that way because Harry dying and surviving (um, spoilers, I guess, my bad) was the key to defeating him in the first place. All the previous story told us that a final showdown with Voldemorte was inevitable even if we didn't know how it would play out.
ETA: Also, I don't know that I agree that Harry's triumph over Voldemort is the climax of the story. I think Harry (and the others) surviving is the climax of the story.
quote:I think you are confusing what the climax with the denouement.
ETA: Also, I don't know that I agree that Harry's triumph over Voldemort is the climax of the story. I think Harry (and the others) surviving is the climax of the story.
quote:Exactly.
The climax is the point of highest tension in the story, or the point where the critical action resolving the central conflict takes place.
quote:I actually did feel all the tension pretty much gone after Harry's talk with fake? Dumbledore. The rest just felt like mop up to me.
but I'd argue that the climax encompasses the entire arc from the point where Harry enters the woods through Voldemort's defeat.
quote:And in the LoTR, that point happens at the edge of mount doom. That is the point of maximum tension in the story. That is the point when all the heros of the story are united in massive crisis. And at the moment when Frodo stands on the edge of the volcano and we think its over, Frodo succumbs to the rings power and puts it on. That is the peak of the books tension.
Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Exactly.
The climax is the point of highest tension in the story, or the point where the critical action resolving the central conflict takes place.
quote:Clear to a modern reader, sure. Clear to everyone who read the series when Tolkien wrote it? That's speculative.
Originally posted by erosomniac:
I've long felt that the Scouring of the Shire is not just the most important part of the trilogy, it is the only reason for the trilogy to exist, and that the movies are absolute trash because they fail to include it.
I don't see how you can call the middle of RotK the climax. The ring going into the fire was anything but climactic, since it was clear from the moment the goal is mentioned that the goal will, eventually, be accomplished.
quote:Yes, it is, but that tension has nothing to do with whether or not the ring goes into the fire. That the ring will go into the fire is a foregone conclusion.
And in the LoTR, that point happens at the edge of mount doom. That is the point of maximum tension in the story. That is the point when all the heros of the story are united in massive crisis. And at the moment when Frodo stands on the edge of the volcano and we think its over, Frodo succumbs to the rings power and puts it on. That is the peak of the books tension.
quote:No more so than in any quest story. It was equally as much a foregone conclusion that our Heros would survive. As I mentioned before, you are arguing two different things. You are arguing that because the author was unable to get you to doubt whether or not the quest would succeed, successful completion of the quest was not the climax of the story. The fact that you couldn't suspend your disbelieve has nothing to do with where the climax of the book lies.
Yes, it is, but that tension has nothing to do with whether or not the ring goes into the fire. That the ring will go into the fire is a foregone conclusion.
quote:Wasn't it written in the 40s, published in early 50s. So, while folks who first read it when he wrote it are old, I can't believe there is no one alive who read it at first publication. Since I don't know who the editors and who all he he reading while he wrote it, it is possible no one who read prior to publication is still alive (if by read it when he wrote it you are going for a very literal meaning), but it is possible one of those folk are still around, though that would take some research to determine.
Originally posted by erosomniac:
twinky: given that no one in the world today is someone who read the series when Tolkien wrote it, I'm not sure how that's relevant.
quote:Given how many heroes die, are adversely affected or otherwise harmed by the quest for the Ring, I think it's pretty obvious that the heroes surviving is not a forgone conclusion.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
It was equally as much a foregone conclusion that our Heros would survive.
quote:How is this two different things? You've mentioned one.
As I mentioned before, you are arguing two different things. You are arguing that because the author was unable to get you to doubt whether or not the quest would succeed, successful completion of the quest was not the climax of the story.[/qb]
quote:It has everything to do with it. Tolkien did not really attempt to convince the reader that the quest had a chance of failure; thus, the success of the quest is not supposed to be a point of tension.
The fact that you couldn't suspend your disbelieve has nothing to do with where the climax of the book lies.
quote:I was recalling, erroneously, that it was much earlier than that. You're right, though, which makes me question the validity of the idea that Tolkien played as formative role in the establishment of fantasy genre norms as people seem to believe.
Originally posted by scholarette:
Wasn't it written in the 40s, published in early 50s. So, while folks who first read it when he wrote it are old, I can't believe there is no one alive who read it at first publication. Since I don't know who the editors and who all he he reading while he wrote it, it is possible no one who read prior to publication is still alive (if by read it when he wrote it you are going for a very literal meaning), but it is possible one of those folk are still around, though that would take some research to determine.
quote:I don't think they really understood that the shire was at threat. Up until their returned, they thought of the shire as a place that was safe and apart from the rest of the world. I'll have to look at the book and see, but my memory is that the scouring of the shire isn't something that is foreshadowed in any significant way. Aside from the barrels of tobacco at Isengard, it really isn't even hinted at. And even when Merry and Pippin find the tobacco at Isengard, it doesn't seem to raise any questions about whether the shire is safe. That seems in their mind to be a foregone conclusion. I think that is significant. The hobbits don't set out on their quest to save the shire. They see themselves as giving up the shire to serve a greater good, but in the end it is evident that serving that greater good was essential to the shire.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Frodo (and Sam) didn't set out to destroy the ring or to save the world from Sauron. They set out to save the Shire. To protect "home". That task wasn't finished when the ring was destroyed.
quote:Also, it should be stressed here that you're talking only about Merry and Pippin. I see these two as being halfway between Sam and Frodo, who knew what was going on, and the hobbits of the Shire, who were blissfully ignorant. It takes Merry and Pippin (especially Pippin) much longer to catch on to how serious this is. These two did not set out to do anything other than support Frodo - and they were only allowed to go because they couldn't be stopped. Sam and Frodo, who were both present at the Council of Elrond, were very clear on how serious the danger was to the Shire, as well as the rest of the world.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
And even when Merry and Pippin find the tobacco at Isengard, it doesn't seem to raise any questions about whether the shire is safe. That seems in their mind to be a foregone conclusion. I think that is significant.
quote:Today we see it as a classic archetype, the Dark Lord who embodies all evil challenged by an unlikely hero armed only with his own virtue. Its become of a cliche'. Its Harry Potter, Star Wars and a hundred other stories. But LoTR is the original source of that archetype. We think of it as a classic tale, but it isn't. Its only half a century old. You don't find it in Greek Epics or Shakespearean plays. Tolkein originated it.
People seem to be convinced that the story should be interpreted differently because of when it was published. I've yet to hear any reasons why, though.
quote:I would say they didn't set out to save the Shire until Frodo said, "I will take the ring, though I do not know the way" at the Council. When they left the Shire, they were only seeking to take the ring to Rivendell then go back.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
The Council of Elrond wasn't until after Frodo and Sam set out. They left the Shire in the first place because the Shire was in danger.
quote:No, they left the Shire in the first place because Frodo was in danger.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
They left the Shire in the first place because the Shire was in danger.
quote:No they left the shire because the ring was no longer safe in the shire and there was very much a sense removing the ring from the shire was all that was needed to protect the shire.. From the moment Gandalf revealed that it was the Lord of the Ring, the prime objective was to keep the ring out of Sauron's hands. They didn't have a clear plan on how they were going to do that until the Council of Elrond, but it was the primary goal from the start.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
The Council of Elrond wasn't until after Frodo and Sam set out. They left the Shire in the first place because the Shire was in danger. They got caught up in something bigger, but I believe it is their love of home and need to protect it that drives them. They are not adventurers out for glory as in grail quests stories, but are compelled by a threat. That threat is not resolved until the Shire is safe.
quote:No, the book is very clear. They left the shire because the ring is no longer safe in the shire and its presence in the shire will brings danger. But the very clear assumption is that once the ring is out of the shire, the shire will be safe. Even in Sam's vision in Galadriel's mirror, it is strongly implied that the destruction of the shire will not come to pass as long as the quest to destroy the ring is successful. Galadriel says "Remember that the mirror shows many things, and not all have come to pass. Some never come to be, unless those that behold the visions turn aside from their path to prevent them."
No, they left the Shire in the first place because Frodo was in danger.
quote:Did you watch the hours and hours of special features on the extended edition DVD sets? Your description of a Ken Burns style documentary sounds remarkably like how these 'making of' features turned out, though it wasn't the intent. Of course, when watching these, one has to put up with the usual amount of talk about director vision and inspiration. However, there was so much put into the props, costumes, and set design, that when the artists, actors, and directors talk about the making of the movie, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine them as participants in the battle of Helm's Deep, for instance.
Originally posted by Shmuel:
The thing is, LotR isn't fundamentally a quest story; it's a milieu story. The whole business with the One Ring is just a device used to take the reader all around Middle Earth at a time of transition. The films get this exactly backward.
Personally, I want Peter Jackson to give an aspiring documentarian access to his miles of footage so he or she can create the film version I want to see, which would be something along the lines of Ken Burns's Middle Earth. Show us the land. Don't have any action-packed battle scenes, just survivors and historians talking about them as the camera pans over an artist's depiction. Include all the poetry, either front and center, or as part of the soundtrack. In short, put the focus on Middle Earth, and use the Ring as a means of showing part of it.
...granted, only a handful of people would watch the result, but I'd be one of them.
quote:I hope you don't think I'm nitpicking (I myself despise being nitpicked) but I felt the need to point out that what Tolkien did was bring back the old "unlikely hero clothed only in his virtue challenges the mighty evil dragon" archetype. More specifically, the LotR and the Hobbit seem to be a new perspective of Beowulf, which was Tolkien's favorite poem. Arguably, this speech was the single most important moment in his academic career. What was once an obscure Anglo-Saxon poem is now one of the most widely read and revered epic poems of all time, thanks to his influence.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Today we see it as a classic archetype, the Dark Lord who embodies all evil challenged by an unlikely hero armed only with his own virtue. Its become of a cliche'. Its Harry Potter, Star Wars and a hundred other stories. But LoTR is the original source of that archetype. We think of it as a classic tale, but it isn't. Its only half a century old. You don't find it in Greek Epics or Shakespearean plays. Tolkein originated it.
quote:I have two thoughts about this.
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
I had put my trust in the hero, hoping, believing, knowing his good character and pure heart would save the day. And he failed. He was corrupted, totally submitted to the will of the ring and his thirst for power. In the end, it wasn't his heroics or good deeds or pure heart that slew the dragon, it was his pity for a wretched creature. His simple kindness to Gollum throughout the series was the deciding factor.
quote:Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily blaming Frodo his failure. I don't think anyone, man or hobbit could've resisted that temptation in that moment. I thought he was a very good and noble hobbit, but I have to disagree with you on one point: it counted for nothing. Or rather, the only thing that really counted how he treated "the least of these" among his companions. Sure he may have sacrificed so much, and gotten right to the brink - but his small change of heart would've doomed Middle Earth to another age of darkness. Once he made that choice, once he gave the ring complete control, there was no going back until either he or the ring were destroyed. It's not like 15 minutes after he proclaims himself the new dark lord he says "hmmm, well this wasn't as fun as I supposed it would be, Sam." and casually tosses the ring into the fire. I doubt Frodo as we know him would've even existed after 15 minutes.
Originally posted by steven:
[I have two thoughts about this.
1. Frodo made it all the way there, risking his life all the way. The fact that he had a (possibly temporary) change of heart at the last moment, right at the brink, is a relatively small point. Look how many times he risked his life to get there. That stuff counts for something.
quote:I meant hero is the traditional sense. Since LotR is in many ways a subversion of these medieval heros, obviously Frodo (and Sam) would be as well. Possibly Tolkien also saw Wiglaf as the real hero of the last part of Beowulf? After all, Beowulf starts out doing his mighty deeds for honor and valor, and finally, because it's his duty as king. (or ring bearer) But Wiglaf does his part out of love for Beowulf.
2. It's not Frodo specifically that is the hero, so much as it's ALL the hobbits, even Gollum, if you want to call him a hobbit. Gollum wasn't perfect, but he never tried to take over the world. Gollum, relative to a human, dwarf, elf, or even Gandalf, was only mildly corruptible.
quote:As does Tolkien.
It took Sam, Frodo, AND Gollum to get the ring to Mount Doom. They all played a role. OSC says that Sam is the real hero.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:I certainly believe that's true as well. As I said earlier, I don't think you can see LotR as just "one thing" and possibly hope to get more than a fragment of it's true meaning. I've also thought of it as a study into the nature of power at it's rawest level. (the ring *is* power, in the most primal form Tolkien could put into a fantasy setting) Perhaps it could be best described as an parable of of I Corinthians 25-30? Consider:
I think the story here might be simply the fact that the hobbits are basically very humble and simple, in a "morality tale" sense. It's almost like Tolkien was writing a moral lesson in the value of humility, along with his epic.
quote:25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
quote:I'm sorry but while LoTR in many respects fits the archetype of the epic poem, the quest story, Beowulf does not fit the new archetype inspired by LoTR. Beowulf is not an unlikely hero like Frodo. Beowulf is a classical hero, strong, brave, virtuous, and aristocratic. Grendel isn't ultimate evil threatening the entire world.
I hope you don't think I'm nitpicking (I myself despise being nitpicked) but I felt the need to point out that what Tolkien did was bring back the old "unlikely hero clothed only in his virtue challenges the mighty evil dragon" archetype. More specifically, the LotR and the Hobbit seem to be a new perspective of Beowulf, which was Tolkien's favorite poem. Arguably, this speech was the single most important moment in his academic career. What was once an obscure Anglo-Saxon poem is now one of the most widely read and revered epic poems of all time, thanks to his influence.
quote:That is an assessment that ignores a very very important fact. The quest only succeeds because of Frodo's compassion for Gollum, and that is a choice that Sam would not have made.
I definitely agree that Sam is the real hero.
quote:Yes, what there is not is a precedent for unlikely heros in great epics. I'm not suggesting that Tolkein created something out of whole clothe. One can definitely see many influence on the work. But Tolkein's innovations to the hero story are very important. Important enough to have inspired a whole new archetype. It is worth considering why.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I think that there is some precendent for the unlikely hero in fairy tales.
quote:Do you mean perhaps WWII?
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I think, there, we also have the influence of WWI.
quote:No I think she meant WWI as Tolkien was a veteran of WWI.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Do you mean perhaps WWII?
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I think, there, we also have the influence of WWI.
quote:I didn't say it was a parallel story, just in the same genre.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
It still doesn't parallel the LoTR story. Beowulf as an old man, is king, a hero proven in battle. Frodo and the rest of the hobbits are just ordinary citizens from the smallest a weakest of peoples who have no credentials that would distinguish them.
quote:I think we agree on the fact that the Ring corrupted, but did not have the tendency to change Gollum into anything other than a self-absorbed creature. But we cannot forget that the Ring is an embodiment of Sauron's personality as well and was doing what it could to get back to Sauron. It's efforts were foiled by Gollum's total self-absorption. It seems that it gave up, eventually, and simply abandoned Gollum as a lost cause and perhaps hoped that it would eventually be stumbled upon by a goblin. At the time the Ring slipped from Gollum's possession, it had no way of knowing (unless it possessed some measure of pre-cognition in addition to its already far-fetched normal cognition...) that Bilbo would chance upon the Ring. Again, however, the Ring was confounded by the nature of Bilbo's personality, and perhaps, on the nature of hobbits in general who are apparently not easily corruptible by their very nature. Yet it still was constantly working to find a way to get back home.
Originally posted by steven:
OK, fine, but, who would you rather give the ring to, if you had no choice? Gollum, or Boromir (or Denethor, or various others)?
My point being, a corrupted Smeagol is far less worrisome than a corrupted king, or maybe wizard. Gollum's faults were small to begin with, so the ring could not make him into something awful on a grand scale.
I guess what I'm saying is, humility hedges your bets. That's the one virtue that makes your mistakes smaller simply by having it.
Really, it's a very Taoist/Zen virtue. Here's a little Chinese parable:
"The Emperor hears of a wise sage who lives in the woods. Everyone speaks of his wisdom and virtue. The Emperor sends his most trusted envoy to bring the sage to court to give the Emperor daily advice on matters of state. The envoy finds the sage in the woods, gathering food. The envoy says, "The emperor wishes you to come live at court. He will feed and clothe you well, and give you plenty of spending money, in return for advice." The sage replies "In the halls of the Emperor there is an enormous, beautiful turtle shell, encrusted with precious jewels. Once that turtle played in the mud, happily. If you were that turtle, where would you rather be, in the Emperor's hall, or splashing in the mud?" The envoy realized the sage was right, and returned to the Emperor without the sage.
This is what I mean. Who would you rather give the ring to, that sage, who would accept it only grudgingly, or the Emperor?
Or, more to the point, who would you rather be?
I definitely agree that Sam is the real hero. I think Tolkien may have, as well, been quietly pointing out Gollum, Frodo, and hobbits generally as usefully humble. But, you know, whatever.
quote:I'm sorry if I misunderstood your intent. My original post on this issue was in response to a question of why people would have seen Tolkien differently when it was first published. To answer that question, it was necessary to focus on innovations in LoTR that have been very influential. In that context, I thought you were disputing the underlying point.
I digress, though. Please don't think I'm trying to downplay Tolkien's creativity or influence - he essentially invented the modern high fantasy - I'm just pointing out some of the building blocks of earlier epics Tolkien used to craft his own genre. You seem to think that means I think less of him, which isn't the case at all. LotR is one of my favorite books.
quote:Bar none the scourge of the shire was my favorite part of any of the LoTR books. I personally feel like that it was the best possible way to show how the Hobbits changed thoughout the trilogy. Pippen and Merry were then some of the tallest hobbits in history, and Sam when it came down to it was able to prevail as a hero. If it were not for the scourge Sam would have never gotten to be seen as anything other than a loyal but short fused servant to Frodo. Instead he is able to show his true colors by saving the Shire.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Quite honestly, there was absolutely no tension in the scouring of the shire. It came as a completely surprise, out of left field after what seemed a complete story. So there was no build up of tension and even when it is revealed, there isn't any real tension. After defeating Sauron, was there ever even the slightest doubt that our heroes would fail to restore the shire? Was there a point, like the point at the edge of mount doom, when there was reason doubt that they would succeed? You are going to have to explain it to me if you even want me to seriously consider it. Where is the point in the scouring of the shire where the tension peaks?
quote:Sorry, I should have told you I completely agreed with your argument against erosomniac about that issue. (if you notice, the rest of that post was dedicated to refuting his claim that the scene on Mt. Doom wasn't climatic) Nobody had written a significant epic fantasy for, well, several hundred years beforehand as far as I know, and the epics closest to Tolkien style were written over a thousand years ago. Clearly, it wasn't a commonly read genre. I didn't even think of my comment in terms of what you were discussing with erosomniac, it was just a little aside that came to me. Your posts make a lot more sense now that I have.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I'm happy to agree that Tolkien was strongly influenced by Beowulf and the classic epic quest in general. That simply wasn't relevant in answering the question of why LoTR would have been viewed differently in 1955 than it is today.
quote:Not enough paper in the universe. LOL
Originally posted by theCrowsWife:
I want to see one of those graphics for the Wheel of Time series....
--Mel
quote:Probably not enough internet in the universe either.
Not enough paper in the universe. LOL
quote:What do I get if I re-read the whole thing (up to present, which I actually need to go buy...) and do it?
Originally posted by theCrowsWife:
I want to see one of those graphics for the Wheel of Time series....
--Mel
quote:I could probably read through it in a few weeks if I forgo my other forms of entertainment. I wouldn't have to keep it in my head if I just make the graph as I go along. I think Jordan's time flow in the series is fairly consistent, so I don't think it would take much backtracking. Also, if memory servers, he doesn't have a lot of "Off-screen" developments or travel, so if you just update it every time the setting changes, it should be pretty straight-forward.
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
How long would WoT take to read through? A year? I've never read it, and I've never met anyone who's bothered to actually read the entire thing, but I can't imagine it'd be very easy to keep everything together in your head during 14,000+ pages... you'd have to do some SERIOUS note-taking to even attempt a graph of it.
quote:You must be insanely fast. I consider myself a very fast reader, I can read 100 pages an hour if it's light reading, but it'd still take me 21 weeks to read WoT at that rate. (assuming I have 5 hours a week to dedicate to reading it)
Originally posted by Kwea:
I just read the last book, the new one, and it's the best one in at least a decade.
I have read all of them, and will reread the series probably in 5 weeks, after I graduate. It will probably take me 2-3 weeks, but AI read really fast.
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
which is a possibility I hadn't considered, but I admit it seems to fit with xkcd's general tone.
I love ACI (Alternate Character Interpretation)
Great find, Telcontar!
quote:Wall-E's cousin.
Damn XKCD, anthropomorphizing and pulling at my heartstrings.
Spirit
quote:That made me really, really sad.
Originally posted by The White Whale:
Damn XKCD, anthropomorphizing and pulling at my heartstrings.
Spirit
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:Tough choice.
Originally posted by Mucus:
A more curious question is, in the case that you have to see a world leader strip, who would you pick to see?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote:I think she'd probably win in her age category regardless of whether she was the head of state or not, since I can't imagine there are a whole lot of 20,000+ year old female elves hanging around that have been around since well before the journey across the Helcaraxe (spelling I know).
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
Galadriel wins her age category.
quote:I think she'd probably win in her age category regardless of whether she was the head of state or not, since I can't imagine there are a whole lot of 20,000+ year old female elves hanging around that have been around since well before the journey across the Helcaraxe (spelling I know).
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
Galadriel wins her age category.
quote:Had Lyr stayed consistent, he would have posted a third time.
Originally posted by Tatiana:
rivka, what happened at 7:30 PM CST last night?
quote:Not as far as I know. Rivka is the original Hebrew of Rebbecca.
Originally posted by Tatiana:
"ribka", apparently a Russian endearment meaning little fishy or something like that. Is that a cognate of your name?
quote:Lol, now I get it!
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Had Lyr stayed consistent, he would have posted a third time.
Originally posted by Tatiana:
rivka, what happened at 7:30 PM CST last night?
quote:Do we know what Rivka means? I know what Rachel and Leah and Sarah mean, but not Rivka.
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Not as far as I know. Rivka is the original Hebrew of Rebbecca.
Originally posted by Tatiana:
"ribka", apparently a Russian endearment meaning little fishy or something like that. Is that a cognate of your name?
quote:Wow I didn't even notice the double post. How the heck did that happen so far apart?
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Had Lyr stayed consistent, he would have posted a third time.
Originally posted by Tatiana:
rivka, what happened at 7:30 PM CST last night?
quote:Not as far as I know. Rivka is the original Hebrew of Rebbecca.
Originally posted by Tatiana:
"ribka", apparently a Russian endearment meaning little fishy or something like that. Is that a cognate of your name?
quote:Not really. I've seen some speculation, but as far I know, that's all any of the theories are.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Do we know what Rivka means? I know what Rachel and Leah and Sarah mean, but not Rivka.
Originally posted by rivka:
Not as far as I know. Rivka is the original Hebrew of Rebbecca.
It reminds me of when I first found out "Nacho" was a hispanic nickname for Ignatio. I was like "dude, are you named after a snack?"
quote:Another version - with some recognizable names.
Originally posted by Strider:
I stumbled across this on youtube today and thought all us XKCD lovers would appreciate it.
I love XKCD fans!
code:That calculates any arbitrary integer and prints each step. Seems to work for numbers in the several billions. This one overflows with the integer range is reached, but would only take a few seconds for me to use BigDecimal instead, which would allow it to work for much bigger numbers even.public class Xkcd {
public static void main(String[] args){
int number = Integer.parseInt(args[0]);
while(number != 1){
if(number % 2 == 0){
number /= 2;
}
else{
number *=3;
number++;
}
System.out.println(number);
}
}
}
quote:Yikes. THe materials scientist in me insists I correct this. Glass is a rather ambiguous state of matter. It has some liquid like characteristics (no long range order, viscous creep). The claim that glass windows are thicker at the bottom because of slow flow is silly. The question of whether glass is a liquid or a solid is very complex and does not have a single simple answer. Here is the best summary I could find.
Originally posted by AvidReader:
Black holes aren't the Brawny towels of the universe? That one's actually kind of a bummer.
And the glass is surprising. I had heard it was a liquid in my college humanities class! Good to know that's just silly.
quote:
There is no clear answer to the question "Is glass solid or liquid?". In terms of molecular dynamics and thermodynamics it is possible to justify various different views that it is a highly viscous liquid, an amorphous solid, or simply that glass is another state of matter that is neither liquid nor solid. The difference is semantic. In terms of its material properties we can do little better. There is no clear definition of the distinction between solids and highly viscous liquids. All such phases or states of matter are idealisations of real material properties. Nevertheless, from a more common sense point of view, glass should be considered a solid since it is rigid according to everyday experience. The use of the term "supercooled liquid" to describe glass still persists, but is considered by many to be an unfortunate misnomer that should be avoided. In any case, claims that glass panes in old windows have deformed due to glass flow have never been substantiated. Examples of Roman glassware and calculations based on measurements of glass visco-properties indicate that these claims cannot be true. The observed features are more easily explained as a result of the imperfect methods used to make glass window panes before the float glass process was invented.
quote:Believe that some things (like glass) don't fit the most common rigorous definitions of either liquid or solid.
Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
Gah, now I don't know what to believe!
quote:Lack of a definite, repeating, consistent crystalline structure.
Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
I guess what I'd like to actually is what makes glass different from a straight-up solid?
quote:Not necessarily terminal. Those look like typical "optimistic" numbers for cancer - something that is caught relatively early and that responds well to treatment.
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
Today's XKCD is painful.
I know he's going through a family illness, beyond that I have no specifics, but I think he's making it clear here that someone is terminal. (((Randall)))
.
quote:I used to work at a company that converted textbooks and reference books into e-text for a searchable and hypertexted (if that's a word) engine. At one point I was working on the New Oxford Dictionary of English, and I noticed that the definition of "recursive" didn't say "see recursive". So I added it.
Originally posted by Jeorge:
If only the page for "Circular Definition" looped back on itself...
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
)
quote:They also didn't have Netflix to entertain them. Lots of time to figure things out.
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
But on a more serious note, just because they were born 4000 years ago doesn't mean that they were retarded. They had their geniuses and they had the benefit of slave/taxed labor. Add up the two and it was more then possible to build the pyramids.
quote:Oh. Oooh. I don't have Netflix either. That might explain some things...
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
They also didn't have Netflix to entertain them. Lots of time to figure things out.
quote:I think your silly detector might need re-calibrating.
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Pyramids built on aquifer, large dark energy generators, cap stones were insulators...forgotten technology...lots and lots of evidence that makes current accepted theories look silly.
quote:how specifically do you think the pyramids were made
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Pyramids built on aquifer, large dark energy generators, cap stones were insulators...forgotten technology...lots and lots of evidence that makes current accepted theories look silly.
Watch the first ten min...experts of good quality, production value & music too.
quote:ZPMs?
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Dude, what tech do you think "the ancients" possessed that they wasted on building heaps of rock?