PDA

View Full Version : Who is your favoritue Lord of the Ring character?



Matthias of Redwall
May 23rd, 2003, 09:18 PM
Mine is Legolas the Elf, he is cool and I like archery... so no doubt!:cornflow:

Airemia
May 23rd, 2003, 10:01 PM
Oh nooooo!! There are too many great characters! I guess I'll have to name a few then...

My all time favourite would have to be Eowyn. I liked her right from the beginning, and I really empathised with her, and I was cheering her on all the way. She was VERY cool. :cool:

I also like Legolas. *Dodges various objects* WHAT! Yes, he's hot in the movie. You'd have to be blind not to admit that. But I sincerly do like his character in the books! *Shifty glance* ;)

I liked Saruman. Probably because one of the bad guys usually becomes one of my favourites from any particular book series/movie/TV show/etc. I liked Saruman's character, because I found it very interesting. Corrupted by power, yes. How cool. :p

Gollum was one of my favourite characters. He had so much depth to him, and we all know how important he really is, eh? I feel sorry for the poor little guy.

As for more obscure characters, I like Beregond, the Mouth of Sauron, Finduilas (Faramir and Boromir's mother), and Ioreth.

It's late, and I'm tired, so I've probably forgot some. Oh well. If I think of any others I'll post them.

Matthias of Redwall
May 24th, 2003, 11:26 AM
Speaking of Sauruman, it reminds my of Gandalf, know that old wizard who help Fordo Baggin until Moria...

Rillflag27
May 24th, 2003, 12:21 PM
LOTR, havent watched that in a loooooooooong time I guess it would have ta be aragorn.

Furrtil
May 24th, 2003, 12:26 PM
I started reading LOTR, but kind of lost the book..... I have seen the first two movies, and I'd have to say my favorite characters are Gollum (poor guy, he shows the ring's destroying power, he used to be a hobbit!) and Gimli, because he's so stout and short and stubby and funny. :D

Matthias of Redwall
May 24th, 2003, 12:34 PM
I like Gimli and his quote, like




I got eyes of a hawk and ears of a fox! *then the elves came with bows*


a dwarf that breathes so loudy that you could have shoot him in the dark!


I like that part:cornflow:

LadyBeelze
May 24th, 2003, 03:48 PM
First off i'd have to say legolas, not because hes um..HOT in the movie just because i like elves. Quick on the feet, excellent with the arrow, and they're good with animals and trees.

Gollum/Smeagle - just because i feel sorry for him ..er them

VanessaNB
May 24th, 2003, 05:01 PM
Legolas, because archery is just cool, and I like Gandalf too. Elves and Gandalf are like those all-seeing, all-knowing characters ya just gotta love.
Gimli is just funny. I liked his little contest with Legolas, the guy invented comedy relief in LOTR. Merry and Pippin were funny too, but they don't have cool names like "Gimli". Yah,'nuff about him.
My absolute favorite must be Gollum. He's just...schizophrenic. Or some other personality disorder. How many other people have always wanted to have a conversation with yourself?
I'll be quiet now...

Lady Terra
May 24th, 2003, 05:08 PM
*sighs* I'd have to say Aragorn...he's sooooo hot. Second would be Legolas cuz he's just so adorable and i like elves and archery. And then Gimli cuz he's SO funny! i love the quote....

*Gimli's jumping up and down over the railing* Let me See! let me see!

Legolas: "Do you need a box Gimli?" :D

Airemia
May 24th, 2003, 07:05 PM
Well this would be the moment where Airemia goes back and corrects all your movie quotations, but she doesn't feel like annoying everyone and being nitpicky. ;)

I'm disappointed with myself, though. I only saw TTT in theatres 12 times, while I saw FOTR in theatres 16 times. Well, I s'pose I can partially blame the theatre for this... I took TTT out too soon! *Cries*

And how am I supposed to wait till December for ROTK?! These people are trying to kill me! :p

Slagar the Cruel
May 24th, 2003, 07:51 PM
Definately Gollum. I've liked him since the Hobbit, and the way his inner struggle and pitiful, wretched nature plays out in the end... he's a very interesting fellow.

Next in line would probably be Gimli, because I'm a great fan of dwarves, and Gimli exemplifies all that a dwarf can be; he shows that there's more to them than just "greedy, short, elf-haters".

Next I'd probably pick Gandalf, because he's probably the best "wizard" the literary world will ever know.

And then... aw, what the heck. The mouth of Sauron is number four, just because he hasn't been in the movies yet! Hooray for the Mouth of Sauron! :cool: ;)

Matthias of Redwall
May 24th, 2003, 10:09 PM
Erm.... I you all are going for bad guys, well I guess I will choose the Ringwraiths,:cool: but I don't know they are person though:confused:


And I forgot, there is also a killing contest between Legolas and Glimli in The Two Towers, about how many Orcs they killed, that part was soooooooo funny!:D

Martin the Warrior
May 24th, 2003, 10:39 PM
I've always liked Gandalf the best, followed closely by Gollum, who has intrigued me ever since The Hobbit. The two of them are, arguably, Tolkien's most masterfully created characters. Certainly the two that would have the most influence upon the fantasy genre for years to come (you'd be hard pressed to read a fantasy book, epic fantasy, at least, without a Gandalf-character).


Rillflag
LOTR, havent watched that in a loooooooooong time

I once more weep for the blurred line.


Airemia
I'm disappointed with myself, though. I only saw TTT in theatres 12 times, while I saw FOTR in theatres 16 times.

But, that's easy to explain-- FOTR was better. ;)

Pity all the quotes are from the movies, movie-exclusive, embellished, or reattributed ones at that. How about some pure, unaltered Tolkien? ;)

From the Gate of the Kings the North Wind rides, and past the roaring falls;
And clear and cold about the tower its loud horn calls.
'What news from the North, O mighty wind, do you bring to me today?
What news of Boromir the Bold? For he is long away.'
'Beneath Amon Hen I heard his cry. There many foes he fought.
His cloven shield, his broken sword, they to the water brought.
His head so proud, his face so fair, his limbs they laid to rest;
And Rauros, golden Rauros-falls, bore him upon its breast.'
'O Boromir! The Tower of Guard shall ever northward gaze
To Rauros, golden Rauros-falls, until the end of days.'

Matthias of Redwall
May 24th, 2003, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by Martin the Warrior
From the Gate of the Kings the North Wind rides, and past the roaring falls;
And clear and cold about the tower its loud horn calls.
'What news from the North, O mighty wind, do you bring to me today?
What news of Boromir the Bold? For he is long away.'
'Beneath Amon Hen I heard his cry. There many foes he fought.
His cloven shield, his broken sword, they to the water brought.
His head so proud, his face so fair, his limbs they laid to rest;
And Rauros, golden Rauros-falls, bore him upon its breast.'
'O Boromir! The Tower of Guard shall ever northward gaze
To Rauros, golden Rauros-falls, until the end of days.'



Er... I second that Martin, how about a common one?;)

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for the Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
:cornflow:

Pennybright
May 25th, 2003, 02:31 PM
I have to admit I don't really know the charactors that well... actually I think the only reason I know any of them is because my cousin is obsessed with LOTR. She has several different versoins of FOTR on DVD. She never talks about anything else. She confuses me a lot. :rolleyes: My favorite charactor would end up being Legolas because I like archery.

VanessaNB
May 25th, 2003, 06:27 PM
Gandalf is the wizard who defines all wizards. How old is he, anyways?

*is waiting for TTT to come out on video 'cause she couldn't get to see it in theatre*
A relative says that one day when he's got all the movies, he's gonna zone out for an entire afternoon of "Lord of the Ri-i-i-i-i-ings" . Yeah, he elongonated it like that. Kinda funny.

Olaf The Fierce
May 25th, 2003, 07:04 PM
Even though he isnt in the Lord of the Rings, Merlin could still beat Gandalf easily.

But anyways, Gimli is my favorite character. Hes a true warrior.

Matthias of Redwall
May 25th, 2003, 08:10 PM
Everyone is saying they like Legolas, Gimli and Gollum but how come there is no Frodo, Sam, Pippin and others?:confused: Or maybe Boromir and Aragon?

Furrtil
May 25th, 2003, 08:48 PM
I started reading the Fellowship of the Ring, and I didn't like Frodo. He was just some kinda fat middle-aged guy. As far as I got in the book (only about halfway through the first book! :eek: ), Frodo had no personality whatsoever. Only Bilbo did, but Bilbo left. I'm not fond of how Tolkien decides to write paragraph long sentences, that would be several sentences if it weren't for the use of a billion commas and semi colons. I applaud Tolkien's songs/poetry/riddles; he is really very good at that type of thing.

Martin, I quote the movie because I actually like it better than what I have read of the book. However, the Hobbit was fairly good.

Matthias of Redwall
May 25th, 2003, 09:05 PM
er... I second that:cornflow: but Fordo is not fat!:eek:

Furrtil
May 25th, 2003, 09:15 PM
Um, well, most hobbits /are/ fat. Splendidly stout, fabulously fat, charmingly chubby, pleasantly plump, ravishingly rotund, call it whatever you want.

Or at least, not skinny.

Matthias of Redwall
May 25th, 2003, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by Furrtil
Um, well, most hobbits /are/ fat. Splendidly stout, fabulously fat, charmingly chubby, pleasantly plump, ravishingly rotund, call it whatever you want.

Or at least, not skinny.




Well guess what? Frodo is SKINNY he is soooo thin because he got much much food in the journy in TTT:p

LadyBeelze
May 25th, 2003, 09:22 PM
I don't own the first movie nor do i plan to get the second movie anytime soon after it gets out. Not buying them until the third movie is out on video...cauz its to depressing when you watch the two movies and can't watch the third. *can't wait till december*

Matthias of Redwall
May 25th, 2003, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by LadyBeelzebumon
I don't own the first movie nor do i plan to get the second movie anytime soon after it gets out. Not buying them until the third movie is out on video...cauz its to depressing when you watch the two movies and can't watch the third. *can't wait till december*



Well not really, you can still read the books, you just go to the libaray and borrow all the three volume out and read until your eyes poped out;) just like me:cornflow:

Dannflower Reguba
May 26th, 2003, 07:07 PM
I'm obsessed with Sméagol (Yes, there's an é involved!). He's by far my favorite character, just because I'm relatively insane like him. In English class, we were doing poetry, and I wrote a Sistina (If you don't know what that is, look it up, cause I'm not explaining it.) about him which turned out rather well.

LadyBeelze
May 26th, 2003, 07:35 PM
I got all the three books actually. Only read them 4 times due to the size, but i might do some rereading a month before the third movie hits theaters.

Darkhood_343
May 27th, 2003, 10:36 AM
This thread is kinda pathetic... Anyway, I like Merry. I did see the movie before reading the books, but I liked Merry the most, probably because he had a bit more action in the books than Pip, and was with the Riders of Rohan, who are ten times beter than the army of Minas Tirith. ;) Doesn't matter if they're tens times smaller. ;) I also liked Éomer (Use some ALT codes, people! It helps with the pronunciation. ;) ) He rocked, and I was glad that: (and spoilers too! can't believe how much has been not spoiled. )

He took Theoden's place after he died. It was kewl.

Matthias of Redwall
May 27th, 2003, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by Darkhood_343
This thread is kinda pathetic...





Are you insulting my thread? Or are you simply commenting on it? :mad:

Darkhood_343
May 27th, 2003, 06:04 PM
Nope, just how pathetic it's gotten. I think that they're are some things that didn't really need to be said. ( Not like I do that... :rolleyes: )

Matthias of Redwall
May 27th, 2003, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by Darkhood_343
I think that they're are some things that didn't really need to be said. ( Not like I do that... :rolleyes: )



Uh Huh.... so what are they?

Furrtil
May 27th, 2003, 09:52 PM
Matthias, you don't have to reply to every single post that is put up. This is partly how a post gets pathetic: only one person is doing the main posting.

Darkhood_343
May 28th, 2003, 09:46 AM
Thanks Furrtil. And shes right Matthias. And I'm not insulting your thread, but I plan on making this my last post here. I've said what I need to say.

Matthias of Redwall
June 1st, 2003, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by Furrtil
Matthias, you don't have to reply to every single post that is put up. This is partly how a post gets pathetic: only one person is doing the main posting.



Oh, what if I perfer to reply to every post? That is personal liking doncha know

Dakota
June 1st, 2003, 10:40 PM
There is no conceivable way for me to answer this question. Once I start listing characters, I eventually name all of them. So, the only way to do this is to name a few key ones and then the ones that I don't care for.

Likes: Legolas, Aragorn, Frodo, Sam, Gandalf, Gollum, Fingolfin... mm.. Elrond..

Dislikes: Gimli (I have no love for dwarves- it's the elf in me)... that's about it ;)

I have to say, based on looks in the movies, Legolas takes the cake. Can't get enough of THAT.

Matthias of Redwall
June 4th, 2003, 07:52 PM
I got some questionto ask, does Legolas every use up all his arrows?:confused: Well in the book he does use them up but in the TV, it seems to me he does not, well which one to believe?

LadyBeelze
June 4th, 2003, 07:55 PM
I don't know about the movies since i haven't watched them in so long but yes i do renember legolas running out of arrows on a couple occassions.

Dakota
June 4th, 2003, 11:06 PM
Well it seems only logical that he would run out on occasion.

Airemia
June 5th, 2003, 01:17 PM
I got some questionto ask, does Legolas every use up all his arrows? Well in the book he does use them up but in the TV, it seems to me he does not, well which one to believe?

Actually the reason that he never seems to run out of arrows, is that he goes back and collects them after he's shot all the orcs or whatever. Nifty, eh? ;)

Martin the Warrior
June 7th, 2003, 12:03 PM
Actually, I think the reason is that the filmmakers groaned and realized they hadn't covered it, then decided they flat out didn't want to explain it. The audience is left to suspend disbelief. ;)

Matthias of Redwall
June 7th, 2003, 01:26 PM
I know why Legolas would not run out of arrows in the movie... if you look at his quiver carefully, you will notice all his arrows were glued to his quiver!:lol:

Matthias of Redwall
June 8th, 2003, 04:48 PM
I just found out another point, when Legolas shoots and arrow, the arrow is attached by a thin, very thin piece of wire so when after the arrow was shot, the arrow comes back to him.



P.S. This is just a rumor

Dakota
June 8th, 2003, 11:08 PM
I heard... where was it.. I think it was in a FOTR documentary/filming of something rather. Anyway, what it said was that in shots of Legs just whippin' off the arrows as fast as can be (like at the end of FOTR in the woods)- there aren't any actual arrows. They added them digitally so that Orli could go "load" arrows faster and shoot them off faster.

Did that all make sense? :eek:

Rillflag27
June 9th, 2003, 09:46 AM
uhhhhh, yeah :rolleyes: anyways i'm posting here from what the topic says..........aggh I cant help it.........What does it matter if Legolas cheats getting arrows in the movie?? The movie was awesome I saw it 3 times. My fav character would have to be........................Gimli :p he rocks.

If you go to http://www.barrowdowns.com/fanfiction/ they have lots of parodies that people wrote.

Rillflag27
June 9th, 2003, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by Furrtil
Um, well, most hobbits /are/ fat. Splendidly stout, fabulously fat, charmingly chubby, pleasantly plump, ravishingly rotund, call it whatever you want.

Or at least, not skinny.

:lol: :lol: :lol: , got that right Furrtil, ;)

Keyla
June 9th, 2003, 02:39 PM
If you are reading this then it means I have finally got this thread to work!:)

Favorite character, mmm...
In the books I would have to say the following: Denethor, as a good complex character who aids in preventing the final confrontation being one dimensional (for those who have only seen the films, he is Boromir and Faramir's father, the steward of Gondor); Gollum, for being such an original character and also adding interest to the ending (I'll say no more for you non-book readers); Gandalf, for being good but I can't really explain why, though he has been emulated, it appears, by many since; all the elves for being cool, for lack of a better way of describing it. However, there is one character whom I don't like, and this might suprise you: Eowyn. Why? I'll explain below:

*SPOILER for those who have not read "The Return of the King"*
In "The Two Towers" and especially in the first half of "The Return of the King" Tolkein appears to be going against his normal conservative views on the role of women with Eowyn, which I thought was good as it shows develpoment of thought. But then just as the trilogy is on the home straight she goes and decides to stop being a sheildmaiden. :mad: But I guess it was for a reason. Here's my guess: Tolkein is perhaps trying to say that he does not think women are incapable of fighting as men do on the battle field nor that they are not brave enough but rather that he believes that it is not their role . But who knows?
*SPOILER END*

I really liked the film, both as a film and as an adaptation. I felt the actors did superbly to not be dwarfed by the special effects, scale and spectical of it all and still give some outstanding performances both technically and with their conveying of the story. These are the best performances in my view: Gandalf; Aragorn; Gollum; Galadriel; Sam. Having said that all were fantastic. I can't wait to see what they've done with "The Return of the King".

Airemia
June 9th, 2003, 03:04 PM
This whole post is going to contain spoilers, and I typed it all out before I remembered the spoiler thing, so this is your warning.

G
O

B
A
C
K

I
F

Y
O
U

D
O
N
'
T

L
I
K
E

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
!
!
!


Actually, I think people are really missing the point with Eowyn. She didn't go out to battle dressed as a man for fun. She didn't do it because she was out to prove that women could fight too. She did it because she was basically in a state of despair, and suicidal, and hated the idea of being trapped in the life she seemed to be living. She wanted to die valiently in battle, because she wanted to be remembered as something more, plus she was miserable.

The point is, she got over it. That's what Tolkien was saying. She got over her despair that she had going on. I think that's where Eowyn really triumphes. But people don't see that, they just see that here was a girl who went out into battle, so cool! But now she's decided to settle down and start a family?! Well that's not cool!

I could see if this character was some woman who simply was out to prove herself, or women in general, and then all of a sudden decided to get married and have a bunch of kids or whatever. But that's not what was going on with Eowyn. So it's different, very different.

If that makes any sense at all. I'll shut up now. :p

Madd The Sane
June 9th, 2003, 03:07 PM
My Favorite charachter would have to be Gandalf. I liked the fight sequence between Gandalf and Saruman. (I wonder if there's going to be another one on the third movie?)

Matthias of Redwall
June 9th, 2003, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by Madd The Sane
My Favorite charachter would have to be Gandalf. I liked the fight sequence between Gandalf and Saruman. (I wonder if there's going to be another one on the third movie?)



Saruman, your staff is broken! I like that:cornflow:

Slagar the Cruel
June 9th, 2003, 10:32 PM
Just as a reminder: we DO have spoiler tags here.
SAM TURNS INTO AN ORC IN RETURN OF THE KING! Ha, bet you thought this was just an example. Well... actually, it is. Sam doesn't turn into an orc. And why do we really need spoiler markers for a 40-year-old work of literature? It's like having to put warnings before mentioning that Romeo and Juliet die at the end of their play. ;)

Ambrose
June 10th, 2003, 12:22 AM
Um, I would have to say Illuvatar, because if it weren't for him none of this would've happened. :p (If you have no idea what I'm talking about, read the Silmarillion)

Keyla
June 10th, 2003, 03:13 AM
Okay, I'll try this spoiler tag thing and hope it works:

I see your point Airemia. I wasn't saying "women in battle, yeh". I'm male so I don't really have issues over it and I respect that it was Tolkein's personal belief on the roles of men and women. The thing that disappointed me was that Tolkein was exploring his view and going against what it might be perceived to be. It was just when she did a big u-turn it felt a bit like if Blaggut had suddenly decided to go evil in "The Bellmaker". I'm not saying it was a bad plot choice. Maybe I was a little grumpy that he didn't do what I hoped he was doing. I think also the way I imagined it in my head made her seem to fall back into a very conventional almost "damsel in distress" show of weakness. I think you are probably right here. ;)

Rillflag27
June 10th, 2003, 10:13 AM
Does this work??? ;), k I was just testing. Anywho, I'm not that big of a LotR fan. I just like the action in the movie

Ambrose
June 10th, 2003, 10:05 PM
Wait... slags... Romeo and Juliet DIE?!?!? Are you SERIOUS?!?!? Noooooo, you completely ruined the entire thing for me. I'll go sulk now.

Matthias of Redwall
June 11th, 2003, 06:57 PM
What does spoiler do?

Dannflower Reguba
June 11th, 2003, 07:44 PM
One can safely assume it creates a black background around black text so that it's only visible when highlighted, thus removing any chance of accidentally reading something that would spoil the story.

Matthias of Redwall
June 11th, 2003, 08:21 PM
Really, Tolkien should make more women's parts in

Airemia
June 12th, 2003, 03:27 PM
Really, Tolkien should make more women's parts in

Well that may be kind of difficult, seeing as how he's dead. :p

Eru almighty, Ambrose! For Elbereth's sake! I'm not so cursed as to not be able to read the Silmarillion! Who do you think I am, Turin? No, I'd never kill my best friend and marry my sister. Have you been hangin' around with Sauron in Numenor or something? Has he been corrupting your mind? Watch out for that wave, eh? Of COURSE I've read the Silmarillion.

This is Airemia, shutting up. :o :p

Ambrose
June 12th, 2003, 10:58 PM
Just call me the Lord of Gifts. Want a ring? Oh, by the way, why don't you go attack Valinor. That would be swell. :-)

Keyla
June 13th, 2003, 10:43 AM
You're a braver beast than me if you're prepared to take on the 14 remaining unbanished Valar and the elves. It would be quite hard to get there too.;)

Back to the subject: in my mind the reason Tokein didn't seem to have so many women was because of his beliefs relating to the "roles" of men and women. He never plays women down: 7 out of the 14 unbanished Valar are female; the balrog that flies the sun across the sky is female and more powerful than the male being, can't remember what, that flies the moon. It simply appears that he believes that it is not the role of women to fight in battle, though there are exceptions such as Eowyn, whom we have already mentioned, Lady Haleth, who, it would appear from what I remember of "The Silmarillion", fought in battle and lead her people and perhaps even the female Valar, as when Morgoth and Angband were overthrown I do not remember any indication being made that the female Valar just stood and watched "while the men got on with it".

Edit: okay, got it. Call me slow but I've only just understood that you were playing Sauron the deceiver.:o *Crawls beneath the mouse mat in shame.*

Matthias of Redwall
June 14th, 2003, 10:10 AM
Let me try my hands on spoilers:







Spoiler,Spoilers everywhere I am really seeing them everywhere

Mackinsie
June 14th, 2003, 12:54 PM
I actually think Tolkien was quite 'evolved' when it came to women's roles. Although there weren't many women in LOTR, the main female characters were all strong and an integral part of the story.

Please only use the spoiler space for spoilers! Thank you :)

Treerose
June 14th, 2003, 04:22 PM
the balrog that flies the sun across the sky is female

Just for the sake of accuracy... ;) That would be Arien, a Maia. She was not a Balrog (despite being all flame-covered and and everything). Balrogs were fallen Maiar who followed Melkor. But otherwise, you're right, she was more powerful than Tilion, the Maia who guided the moon.

Re: women in Middle-Earth, I agree that they're consistantly strong and luminous characters. So what if there weren't many? Besides, it's not like they were treated like second-class citizens - look at the way Arwen (the *original* Arwen ::sob:: ), Galadriel, Goldberry, Eowyn, etc were honored and practically worshipped. ;) But the bottom line is, it was Tolkien's world, and he wrote it the way he saw fit, and that was his right.

Tree

~~~~

"Never compose anything unless the NOT composing of it becomes a positive nuisance to you."

~Gustav Holst~

Keyla
June 16th, 2003, 12:58 PM
Out of curiosity, how is Maia pronounced? Is it Ma-i-a, the "a" as in as and "i" as in bin? Or is the "ai" a dypthong (sp?) or something?
Out of "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Silmarillion" which do people prefer? I found the stories in "Sil" better, maybe because I couldn't really predict the endings at all from too far off as the stories were shorter. I also thought you got more of a sense of awe and beauty. The main problem I had reading "The Lord of the Rings" was that I began to skim read, loosing lots of potential enjoyment, whereas with "Sil" I couldn't because it was so dense. I enjoyed certain characters in "Sil" but only got a snatch of them and was always being bombarded with new ones, which made it better for me, though keeping track of names was a bit of a chalenge, even with the family trees and index.

Edit: Just a quick thought: other than in a quick mention in "The Fellowship of the Ring", "The Return of the King" after the war when she enters the city with Galadriel and possibly a few other bits before and after and I think there was meant to be a bit in the appendices does Arwen (the proper Arwen;) ) really feature much in the story and how made up is what happens in the film or does it have a basis in the text?

Dannflower Reguba
June 16th, 2003, 01:31 PM
In LotR she says two or so sentences, which are just elaborate forms of saying "Hello". Then in RotK...
After all is said and done she pops up and gets married to Aragorn in a very meloromantic scene.

That's it.

Keyla
June 16th, 2003, 02:13 PM
Yes, that's what I remembered. Making her a proper character in the films seems to have come a bit from nowhere. I reckon they wanted to add another woman to the cast in trying to get "balance". Mind you, my mum called it sexist, even with Arwen enlarged, but she hated the film in general anyway. Or maybe they just wanted to get a pretty elf on screne (sp? I can't spell today) for a bit longer. People might have thought it was an arranged marriage if she just "turned up at the church" as it were, which might not be very westen audience friendly.

Airemia
June 16th, 2003, 08:26 PM
Basically they expanded Arwen's role in the movies, because they had to set up her character, so that the movie-goers would actually know who she was, and sympathize with her. Then they'd be used to her, and her relationship with Aragorn, and wouldn't be shocked when they got married.

Furrtil
June 16th, 2003, 09:13 PM
I read the Silmarillion. The whole thing. *deep breath* I wshould probably reread it, seeing as I read it a while ago. I would have enjoyed the book much more if I could actually remember who the characters were. I realize that Tolkien wrote his books as a history, which obviously is not cookie-cuttered with one main hero, one main villain, and two sidekicks and a definite conflict. But, I just couldn't remember who anyone was, and it was very confusing. Maybe I had issues because I read the Silmarillion before the Hobbit, before anything.

How do you all remember all the names? The only thing I remembered at all was about Morgoth, and a teensy bit about the elves.

Matthias of Redwall
June 17th, 2003, 04:30 PM
I got a question, what happened to Gollum when Fordo and Sam was attacked by Shelobe towards the end of TTT?:confused:

Dannflower Reguba
June 17th, 2003, 04:51 PM
He slunk off into the darkness, waiting for Shelob to finish with the two so he could loot their corpses for "His Precious".

Martin the Warrior
June 17th, 2003, 06:43 PM
Keyla
Out of curiosity, how is Maia pronounced? Is it Ma-i-a, the "a" as in as and "i" as in bin? Or is the "ai" a dypthong (sp?) or something?

I've always said it "My-uh" (more or less), with Maiar being "My-are". Tree should know the correct version, though. ;)


Out of "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Silmarillion" which do people prefer?

I generally prefer LOTR, if for no other reason than Tolkien was actually able to polish it to his satisfaction whereas The Silmarillion was compiled posthumously and Christopher doesn't quite have the flair his father did. The Silmarillion is far more epic in scope and contains some incredible stories (I always liked Beren and Luthien's story), but when it comes down to it I enjoyed LOTR more.


does Arwen (the proper Arwen ) really feature much in the story and how made up is what happens in the film or does it have a basis in the text?

The scenes between her and Aragorn in Rivendell (FOTR) fit in well enough with the books, overlooking Aragorn's manufactured doubt over Isildur and the Ring of course. Substituting her for Glorfindel was more a matter of convenience, I think, to keep from having to make another elf character and to give some heroine for the female viewers.

All of the crud featuring her in the second movie, such as Aragorn breaking up with her, her talk with Elrond, her departure for the Grey Havens, her appearances in Aragorn's dreams, etc.-- that has no basis whatsoever and only adds more fuel to the "warrior princess" fire.


Furrtil
But, I just couldn't remember who anyone was, and it was very confusing. Maybe I had issues because I read the Silmarillion before the Hobbit, before anything.

The bigger question is: did you read Silmarillion before you read LOTR? It's a complicated book and should not be read first. This is one of those times when chronological order does more harm than good. Furthermore, I'd generally recommend waiting on the book. It's even harder to fully grasp at a young age than LOTR and reading it when you're thirteen or so would definitely ruin its impact. The Silmarillion wasn't intended for a young audience. ;)

Furrtil
June 17th, 2003, 09:01 PM
It's even harder to fully grasp at a young age than LOTR and reading it when you're thirteen or so would definitely ruin its impact. The Silmarillion wasn't intended for a young audience.

Eheheheh.... *shifty eyes* Oh no, I would do nothing like that! In fact, it was probable I was twelve. Er..... *digs out "The Fellowship of the Ring*

Treerose
June 18th, 2003, 12:55 AM
About the Maia/Maiar pronunciation, yep, the "ai" is pronounced as the ai in "aisle." ;) Appendix E goes has a full pronunciation and syllable stress guide, which is very handy.

As for the Silmarillion - as much as I love it, LotR's my first and favorite. :D The Silmarillion has a beauty of words and stories rarely seen in literature (the only fly in the ointment is that C. Tolkien had so much to do with it...) - but if The Hobbit was intended for younger readers, and LotR for older readers, then the Silmarillion is intended for older LotR fans who want to see Middle-earth's horizons and history expanded: the Tolkien lover's Tolkien, really.

Tree

~~~~

"The piece on which I am now working would have been already finished if it were not that my hand gets tired of setting the notes on paper. Why doesn't some ingenious person invent a machine which would enable the afflicted composers to write the notes faster and with less fatigue?"

~F. J. Haydn~

Dannflower Reguba
June 18th, 2003, 04:43 AM
A little question. Now, I've only read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, but two friends of mine both say the same thing. The Book of Lost Tales is much, much better than The Silmarillion, as it was written by Tolkien himself, and not "remixed" by his son. Yet I've not seen it referred to once in this entire thread. Why?

Treerose
June 18th, 2003, 11:23 AM
Probably because not many people here have read the Lost Tales. ;) However, his son did have a lot to do with them - so much so that his name is on the front covers as well as Tolkien senior's, so one can't say this is pure, unaltered Tolkien. The Lost Tales are the early form of the Silmarillion's stories... for myself, I prefer the Silmarillion, as it's a little more finished than the Lost Tales. Has anybody else read these books - what do you think?

Tree

~~~~

"When people have learned to love music for itself...their enjoyment will be of a far higher and more potent order, and they will be able to judge it on a higher plane and realize its intrinsic value."

~Igor Stravinsky~

Martin the Warrior
June 18th, 2003, 01:51 PM
Furrtil
Eheheheh.... *shifty eyes* Oh no, I would do nothing like that! In fact, it was probable I was twelve. Er..... *digs out "The Fellowship of the Ring*

Read it again in about ten years. ;)


Dannflower
The Book of Lost Tales is much, much better than The Silmarillion, as it was written by Tolkien himself, and not "remixed" by his son. Yet I've not seen it referred to once in this entire thread. Why?

Well, Tree's already addressed most of this, but I'll throw in my two cents anyway.

I own both Lost Tales volumes, as well as Unfinished Tales, although I've yet to read them cover to cover (flipped through them many times). Like Tree said, these are generally earlier versions of the stories and/or are unfinished. And Christopher definitely had a hand in it (they're included as part of "The History of Middle-Earth" series, which he receives a sizable amount of credit for). The Silmarillion was Tolkien's great work, the first story he started and the one he never finished. He was constantly revising the stories and, it's my understanding, the ones included in The Silmarillion were the most recent drafts (or the ones he was most satisfied with) at the time of his death. Lost Tales are simply earlier versions, just as earlier versions of LOTR are included in the later "History" volumes with Strider being referred to as "Trotter". The books were intended to be glimpses into the past for Tolkien fans, but The Silmarillion was intended to be the canon history. As such, that's why it's referred to instead of the Lost Tales.

Talon Baowolf
September 9th, 2003, 09:31 PM
my absoballylutly fav character is my Legolas. HE RULES!!!
Then Gimli, cus he's cool n' short
Then Merry and Pippin. I luv them

Matthias of Redwall
September 9th, 2003, 09:37 PM
Phew, old tread coming back to live. Forgot about it. Anyway, Martin, why, and how come The Silmarillion is not for young audience?

Karen
September 10th, 2003, 01:21 AM
Gollum of coarse.He has the most character.He may have two personalitys but their both very strong ones and the look of his face and body is wicked! He's a lovable little guy even in his evil little ways and Im always wondering,is he going to steal the ring?And what did he look like before he got the ring in the first place?
I think he's just great.Im an artist and I want to paint him.He's just great!

Slagar the Cruel
September 10th, 2003, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by VanessaNB
Gandalf is the wizard who defines all wizards. How old is he, anyways?
About 1,050 years old at the beginning of LOTR, if my cross-referencing of the Appendixes and the Silmarillion has been succesful...

And yes, I know you asked that months ago, but I was curious myself, so I looked it up.

Keyla
September 11th, 2003, 03:48 PM
But Slagar, wasn't he meant to be one of the Maiar (sp?) and therefore would have been around much longer? Or is that value just from his arrival on Middle Earth?
I have to say that since I last posted on this thread I have come round to Eowyn somewhat after re-reading ROTK, although with here she is at the end of the book she still seems to me to be in a potential cage to a similar extent that she was before she did what she did in ROTK. Perhaps she feels she has broken that cage by her deeds and that the cage was partially what people thought she could do and that this has obviously changed by the end of the book. I guess I'm still a little confused, but liking her a lot more now.

Martin the Warrior
September 11th, 2003, 08:20 PM
Matthias
Anyway, Martin, why, and how come The Silmarillion is not for young audience?

Well, the writing would most likely be over their head, the complexities of the work would be lost on them, and they'd probably find it to be a very dry read and would likely abandon it before they finished even the first part. It reads very much like a history book.

In a sense, it's like giving a Shakespeare play to a four-year-old and expecting them to both understand it and like it. The odds of that happening are very slim.


Keyla
But Slagar, wasn't he meant to be one of the Maiar (sp?) and therefore would have been around much longer? Or is that value just from his arrival on Middle Earth?

He was, although he's known as Olorin among the Maiar. In that form, he's ageless. The name Gandalf came from men, though, for his human (Istari) form. In that sense, "Gandalf" is only as old as the time he came to Middle-Earth (although the Istari were already old men when they arrived at the Grey Havens).

(To note further, I haven't checked on this myself so I have no idea if Slagar's age-estimate is correct. Accept with caution. ;))

It's one of those conundrums like how Gandalf the Grey and Gandalf the White are the same person, but not the same person.

Boar the Fighter
September 17th, 2003, 09:06 PM
Hey, Martin, tone down the ridiculous age generalizations just a little bit, please. I mean, for goodness sake, I'm fourteen now, and the Silmarillion will not go right over my head. It's a heck of a lot more likely to go right over your head than it is to go right over mine, so back off. If you know so much about the complexities of the work, answer me these.
What dream caused Tolkien to create a major element of mythology for the second age?
What, to Tolkien, was Sauron's greatest evil?
What poem inspired Tolkien to create Lord of the Rings? (Come on, that's so easy; the references are everywhere!)

Favorite characters:
Frodo
Sauron
The Witch-king

Matthias of Redwall
September 17th, 2003, 09:24 PM
Hello, Boar the Fighter! I am Matthias of Redwall or MoR for short, welcome to the forum! Nice to meet you.

Boar the Fighter
September 18th, 2003, 05:53 AM
Uh huh. It's nice to meet you too.

Martin the Warrior
September 19th, 2003, 04:17 PM
You need to calm down as you've completely misinterpreted my statement. There's no need to be so confrontational as I'll happily explain my position.

Note that "most likely" does not mean "all"-- there is room for exception, and it would appear you (to say nothing of a few friends of mine) were able to appreciate the work at a much earlier age. Of course, that's an assumption on my part. While the line "will not go right over my head" from your post does suggest you haven't read it yet, I assume you would not choose to argue the issue of when someone should read a book with someone who has read the book unless you, yourself, had read it as well.

So, I'm glad to hear it-- more power to you. However, also note that I never specified what a "young audience" was-- that is left up to interpretation and any age bracket assigned to it comes from you and you alone.

In any case, I still believe that a large portion of that "younger audience" would probably (an opinion, not a statement of fact) find it to be a very dry read and would push it aside. Such an incident could cause them to write off the book completely-- something I don't want.

I, personally, set the book aside for a few years because I simply wasn't enjoying it at the time. By contrast, when I picked it up again and finally read it, I was able to enjoy it far more-- even the passages I'd found relatively uninteresting had new life breathed into them. Even given the fact that you're able to enjoy it now, I'd wager your appreciation of the book will only increase with time. As such, all I'm doing is recommending people wait so that their first impression of the book isn't tainted by the fact that they started it too young.

This is an opinion Tolkien himself held with regards to Lord of the Rings (which I've quoted on the Forum before, but will do so again as it's relevant) and I would be very interested to hear someone argue that The Silmarillion is more suitable for children than LOTR is:


"I find that many children become interested, even engrossed, in The Lord of the Rings, from about 10 onwards. I think it rather a pity, really. It was not written for them. But then I am a very 'unvoracious' reader, and since I can seldom bring myself to read a work twice I think of the many things that I read- too soon! Nothing, not even a (possible) deeper appreciation, for me replaces the bloom on a book, the freshness of the unread. Still what we read and when goes, like the people we meet, by 'fate'. "

The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien - Letter #189, From a letter to Mrs. M. Wilson, dated 11 April 1956

Now, with regards to your bait-- sorry. I have nothing to prove here and my opinion needs no such validation. Answering those questions would hardly indicate whether or not I understood the complexities of The Silmarillion-- all it would mean is that I'd memorized a few bits of Tolkien trivia, which anybody can do and which would accomplish absolutely nothing. Sorry, I won't play that game.

All I've done is offer my opinion-- which was requested by someone else. If you would like to debate this issue, I'd be more than happy to oblige you. But, focus on the issue, set forth a reasoned counter-argument (not "Prove you understood the complexities by answering these trivia questions!"), and refrain from the personal attacks. I've ignored them this time because you're a first time poster, but I'm not likely to do so again.

Regards!

Boar the Fighter
September 19th, 2003, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by Martin the Warrior
All I've done is offer my opinion-- which was requested by someone else. If you would like to debate this issue, I'd be more than happy to oblige you. But, focus on the issue, set forth a reasoned counter-argument (not "Prove you understood the complexities by answering these trivia questions!"), and refrain from the personal attacks. I've ignored them this time because you're a first time poster, but I'm not likely to do so again.
What you've offered is an impersonal attack, which is far worse than a personal attack in my opinion. And they're not trivia questions, as they can be descerned from the way he wrote the stuff, and outside knowledge isn't required.
Oh, and by the way, I wouldn't call my post a "personal attack." I wasn't attacking you, I was saying that you needed to realize that generalizations like that are just that: generalizations. Just because someone reads The Silmarillion at a young age doesn't mean they didn't get it.
The Silmarillion isn't better for children. In fact, in my opinion, it's better for no one! I find Lord of the Rings to be a much better book, simply because I find the philosophy in The Silmarillion to be extremely WRONG. One of those questions I asked you, "What was Sauron's greatest evil in Tolkien's opinion?" is an embodiment of everything that's wrong with The Silmarillion that doesn't come through in The Lord of the Rings.
Sauron's greatest evil, in Tolkien's opinion, was creativity. Only God (or in the case of Arda, Eru) could create in Tolkien's opinion. Melkor's desire to create things of "his own imagining" are what makes him evil, and Melkor gives that desire to create things of his own to Sauron. Tolkien's belief that only one being should create things is very uninspiring indeed, and it makes me pull for Sauron, Melkor, and the Balrogs.
None of this stuff shows up in The Lord of the Rings. The Lord of the Rings is about fighting evil even when it is stronger than you, about showing compassion, and about going on even when it seems all hope is lost. The Silmarillion is, essentially, about how thinking for yourself makes you evil. I'd like to think that isn't the case.
As you would say,
Regards!

Keyla
September 19th, 2003, 04:56 PM
I think the philosophy being explored in "The Silmarrillion" is not that one shouldn't be created but that one should realise the things one believes one create or makes aren't one's at all but actually God's (in this case Eru's). It's not that he's saying that thinking for one's self is wrong but that loosing sight of God and his will for the sake of what one has created. In this case Feanor leaves Valinor never to be able to return for the sake of some jewels. It makes comments on how greed can cloud one's reason and one's relationship and sight of God. I think there's a lot of truth in this. It's a comment on materialism and arrogance in my opinion.

As an aside, Boar you certainly live up to your title.;) Your first post did actually sound quite rude in my opinion. Martin didn't appear to me to be being patronising people as you seem to be reacting to. We get to understand and appreciate things better as we grow older. It is a fact. I think the reason we try to deny this as people is because we don't like to admit that we can't do everything. I know I do this often and I think everyone feels it to a certain extent.

Boar the Fighter
September 19th, 2003, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by Keyla
I think the philosophy being explored in "The Silmarrillion" is not that one shouldn't be created but that one should realise the things one believes one create or makes aren't one's at all but actually God's (in this case Eru's).

That's the philoshophy that I find bogus. I think that it is possible to create something all your own, even if there is some sort of God who created everything. I assume you're religious, so I won't go any farther (you already think I'm rude, wouldn't want that to continue :eek:) because I can say some stuff that will make religious people mad at me. All I'll say is that I find the idea that one being creates everything and controlls everything to be depressing and wrong, not to mention the #1 ingriedient for a bad story. The thing I always liked about The Lord of the Rings was that no one knew what was going to happen. In The Silmarillion, it becomes clear that Eru knew all along. Where's the fun in that?

Martin the Warrior
September 19th, 2003, 06:09 PM
Oh, and by the way, I wouldn't call my post a "personal attack."

Nor would I, seeing as how I didn't. I never said your post was a personal attack-- I simply advised you to refrain from them. Such as:



"It's a heck of a lot more likely to go right over your head than it is to go right over mine, so back off."

Personal attack, insult, flame, take your pick. As I said, I'd be happy to debate the issue with you, but personal attacks aren't allowed, so please refrain from them.


And they're not trivia questions, as they can be descerned from the way he wrote the stuff

"What was Gollum's real name?" "What are the Istari?" "What was Narsil renamed?" can also be discerned from what he wrote, yet that does not make them any less trivia questions.

What you're doing is throwing mud in the water and attempting to divert attention from the subject I was commenting on-- "Is The Silmarillion meant for younger audiences?"-- by demanding that I prove I grasped the complexities of the book, as if failing to do so would render the opinion invalid. As I said before, I am under no such obligation to do so nor will I do so. It is not the issue and it was never the issue.

If you disagree with me, then by all means disagree with me. Rebut the opinion I've set forth with an argument of your own. What your post (and I'm referring to your initial one) could be boiled down to is, "Nuh-uh, you're wrong, so prove you understand the complexities!" Which is not a very compelling argument.

I've yet to see you make the case that The Silmarillion is meant for a younger audience.


Just because someone reads The Silmarillion at a young age doesn't mean they didn't get it.

Absolutely. Likewise, just because a young reader believes they "get it" doesn't mean they actually do. Without that second frame of reference, it's impossible to say.

Boar the Fighter
September 19th, 2003, 06:50 PM
I believe I gave you my opinion of The Silmarillion in my other post.

And by the way, just because something isn't meant for someone doesn't mean they can't enjoy it. That's not what I'm saying at all. Someone such as Tolkien would have never intended something so serious for anyone under the age of thirty-five; that doesn't mean that people under the age of thirty-five can't get every bit as much out of it. When you operate under a generalization, you tend to be wrong a lot, just because there are a lot of people in the world. That's what I was saying in my first post. I guess when I said it would be more likely to go over your head than mine I was just trying to further my point. I didn't mean anything personal by it. I'm sorry if you interpreted it as an attack and felt it was necessary to threaten me by saying that you were only ignoring it because I was a first time poster.

Anyway, I'm perfectly calm, and have been throughout this entire discussion. I understand how to have a debate, and yet you keep telling me I need to rebut you with a clear argument. I'm not arguing with you about anything but your generalization about people under the age of whatever you consider to be the boundary of childhood. I'm not interested in debating you about The Silmarillion, you think it's great and I think the ideaology behind is so wrong that reading it is not a pill I'm ready to swallow yet. Who knows, maybe the ability to read a complete bunch of bunk will come with maturity.;)

Aside from that, buy Servone's book when it's ready. Let's just say I have a hand in the works ;)

How old are you, anyway?

LadyBeelze
September 19th, 2003, 06:55 PM
I don't think anyone online knows martin's age 0.o ...

Anyway, i've heard about tolkien's other work, Silmarillion but whats it about? I just want to know...

Btw, welcome Boar The Fighter :)

Martin the Warrior
September 19th, 2003, 09:08 PM
And by the way, just because something isn't meant for someone doesn't mean they can't enjoy it. That's not what I'm saying at all.

Neither was I. My point all along has simply been that they'd have a better chance of appreciating the work if they wait until they're older. As I said before, there are exceptions.


I guess when I said it would be more likely to go over your head than mine I was just trying to further my point. I didn't mean anything personal by it. I'm sorry if you interpreted it as an attack and felt it was necessary to threaten me by saying that you were only ignoring it because I was a first time poster.

I'll take you at your word about that. Regardless, that's how it came across.

However, I did not threaten you. If you were unaware of the fact, this is my Forum. I'm the Admin. As such, I will inform members when their actions violate the rules and board etiquette (as personal attacks do). All I said was that, since you were new, I'd cut you some slack. If you'd like to read more into that, feel free, but there's nothing there.


yet you keep telling me I need to rebut you with a clear argument. I'm not arguing with you about anything but your generalization about people under the age of whatever you consider to be the boundary of childhood.

Okay. It seemed to me that you disagreed with my opinion that younger readers are less likely to enjoy and/or understand The Silmarillion. If it's simply about the generalization in my opinion, then I believe I addressed that point in my other post.


I'm not interested in debating you about The Silmarillion, you think it's great and I think the ideaology behind is so wrong that reading it is not a pill I'm ready to swallow yet.

I'm afraid I'm now unclear on whether or not you've read the entire book. Could you clarify, please? ;)


How old are you, anyway?

Ah, the eternal question rears its head once more. You're new-- you'll learn.

The Red Badger
September 19th, 2003, 10:06 PM
Boar, Boar, Boar, Boar.

I want to point out a few things and ask you something.

"It's a heck of a lot more likely to go right over your head than it is to go right over mine, so back off."

Let's say that was directed at you. Someone you've never met and who has never met you says "something is more likely to go over your head than over mine". The obvious insinuation of that statement is one of the following: 1) I'm smarter than you. 2) You're dumber than me. 3) You wouldn't understand the complexity of the story before me.

This is someone you've never met before. So, 1) How would you know? 2) How would you know? 3) How would you know?

Then, you compound it by throwing "so back off" on the end, which is NEVER used as a pleasantry and is generally either an indicator of irritibility or meant to be antagonistic. ("You've got no say here, Vito, so back off!" "I'm her father, so back off!")

And yet. . . you say you didn't mean anything personal by it (then why single him out in the first place?) and only wished to further illustrate your point. So, could you explain how it does? What does that sentence illustrate other than one of the three insinuations I listed? Because, honestly, man, I do NOT see it and your assertion that you didn't mean it personally looks to have more holes in it than a slice of swiss cheese.

(You say you've been calm all along, but, seriously, there is a real antagonistic tone in that first post. If you want to avoid misunderstandings in the future, read over your posts before you make them to ensure your intent is getting across.)

Boar the Fighter
September 20th, 2003, 06:27 AM
Martin,
I have treated The Silmarillion like a reference, not like a novel. Whenever I have had a question about something in The Lord of the Rings, I've tried to answer it in The Silmarillion. Reading it like a novel, to me, would be kinda like reading the Bible cover to cover. I kind of look at it more likt the Bible. I've read some history books, and I dunno if that's the best comparison. Anyway, as a general rule people read the Bible in snatches, not cover to cover (there are exceptions. My dad, for instance). Anyway, The Silmarillion is kinda like the Bible for Middle-earth. I don't know if I've actually read every stroy in there; though I have read "Of the Rings of Power and the Thirs Age," and it's a completely different perspective on the War of the Ring. Perhaps a Tolkien commentary on historieography?

Reds,
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't patronize me. I hate it. That's why I railed against Martin in the first place. When people patronize me, I say stuff I regret. I would appreciate being shown the ropes in a less "you're and idiot, let's get past it" fashion. I'm sorry if this wasn't what you intended. Perhaps you should read over your posts to see how they'll be interpreted.

Have a nice day!

P.S. Martin. HOW THICK DO YOU THINK I AM? It says President of the Long Patrol TWICE on all your posts. I know these are your forums. Nice work, by the way. They're pretty cool.

Rimrose
September 20th, 2003, 10:59 AM
:rolleyes:


Anyway, as a general rule people read the Bible in snatches, not cover to cover
Hey, tone down the ridiculous generalizations! Maybe you can't handle reading the Bible cover to cover, but I can, so back off.

Not exactly the best first impression to give, is it?


Oh, and by the way, I wouldn't call my post a "personal attack." I wasn't attacking you

That's why I railed against Martin in the first place.
Rail: to revile or scold in harsh, insolent or abusive language.
Maybe you could clear up what your first post actually was. You appear to be contradicting yourself with each subsequent post. Let's look at the genesis of this topic. Martin's comments were not at all confrontational, he was merely clarifying his opinion for Matthias. Your very first post on the entire forum attacks him for expressing that opinion.

I am sure Reds' post comes across in the exact manner he intended it to. I couldn't say the same for your posts, because your intent is not clear. Are you interested in a friendly debate, or are you merely looking for an argument. The advice Reds gave you is something to keep in mind for all aspects of your life, not just on this forum.

FYI: The Long Patrol Forums: Terms of Use (http://forums.longpatrolclub.com/misc.php?action=faq&page=4#general)

The Red Badger
September 20th, 2003, 11:43 AM
I'm not trying to "show you the ropes" right now, nor did I call you an "idiot", I'm asking a question. Which you avoided answering. :cool:

If you want to make what looks like a personal attack and then claim it wasn't, you need to explain how it wasn't. If you can't, then you need to own up to your actions and apologize. And, no, you haven't apologized for it. You apologized for HIM taking it the "wrong" way, without explaining what the "right" way was, and you "apologized" for him "feeling the need to threaten" you (which he didn't). Both essentially deny you did or said anything wrong. Both deny you bear any responsibility for the fallout. They're what I call "false-apologies".

But, nope, I'm not telling you to apologize right now. I'm giving you the opportunity (another one) to explain how that statement was intended to be something other than an insult. As I've said, I don't see it. So, enlighten me.

Oh, and nice try turning my advice back on me, but no dice. My post said what I intended and was clear: I don't really believe your claim. Which is not to say you can't change my mind, but you won't by dodging the question.


Martin. HOW THICK DO YOU THINK I AM? It says President of the Long Patrol TWICE on all your posts. I know these are your forums.

Hey, you're the one who took a standard Admin/Mod "that's against the rules, don't do it again" as a threat. :p

Boar the Fighter
September 20th, 2003, 02:59 PM
Rimrose,
You ought to become a Biblical scholar. They make a living taking quotes out of context and distorting them. You completely missed the point of my initial post with your quote of me about the Bible. I said I was generalizing (exactly what Martin didn't do) and then I put in paraenthesis after that I knew there were exceptions and even named one. Martin didn't do any of that. Once I called him on it, he said that he knew there were exceptions, and we were fine. I just wanted him to tone he generalization down, that's all. Perhaps I shouldn't have said railed against Martin, but rather, railed against Martin's generalization.

Reds,
I really have nothing further to say to someone who implies that I'm thick. You have a nice day.

Keyla
September 20th, 2003, 03:39 PM
You ought to become a Biblical scholar. They make a living taking quotes out of context and distorting them.
you already think I'm rude, wouldn't want that to continue
Boar I don't think you are rude, though I think what you were saying was a touch rude and out of place. The difference is I don't agree with your action, but I try to give people a clean slate as much as possible.
The same goes for the unnecessary comment you made about biblical scholars. I won't say that you offended me by having such a view as there are many others who do. I'll just ask you not to say that kind of thing. I guess it is from your own experience that you hold that opinion, but I think there is no need to slag them off; it just shows disrespect. But heh, slate clean.
I forgot to say earlier: welcome to the forums. No-one here thinks you're thick or is looking down on you. The scribes are simply doing their jobs as moderators.
I look forward to more debates, but in better cheer. This arguement seems to have from everyone feeling they have been attacked or that someone is attacking someone else. I know this isn't my place to say, but I think it might be an idea to freeze this thread. Once again Boar, welcome.

I'm sorry if any of the above sounds condescending or patronising; it' not meant to be.

The Red Badger
September 20th, 2003, 03:57 PM
You ought to become a Biblical scholar. They make a living taking quotes out of context and distorting them.

Hey, lookee here, a generalization with NO exception made! Imagine that! :rolleyes:

Strike two, you're out, and we're done here.

You have not owned up to your statement, you have not offered an explanation, and you certainly have not apologized. You're evading my question, posed twice now, and that speaks louder than words ever could. There's no point in continuing this conversation.

As you just complained about people twisting words, though, I find your indignation to be rather ironic seeing as how *you* said the word "thick", not me, nor did I say, "Yeah, you're right!" But, pretending I did made for a better closing, did it not?

Later, people.

Boar the Fighter
September 20th, 2003, 08:05 PM
Strike two, you're out, and we're done here? Never been called out on two strikes before. And I won a batting title once. But that was a long time ago, maybe they changed the rules. Anyway, what the heck is your question? Please apologize? Why should I apologize? What am I guilty of? A personal attack? I haven't attacked anyone. I told Martin to tone down his generalization, he did, so what? You're the one going after me. As far as I can tell, this is an attack on me. And I know, you're just going to respond "I'm only asking a question!" You're not. You're attacking me. So I will now ask you a question. Will you please back off? Apparently you all think that is a rude thing to say, but I don't think it is, so please excuse me for using it.

For a change of subject, maybe some of you will find this interesting. I know it's unrelated to the thread but hopefully it can calm a few of you down who seem to think that your honor has gotten involved and you somehow need to defend yourself and your honor.

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe

Pretty weird, huh?

Martin the Warrior
September 20th, 2003, 11:00 PM
Actually, Boar, about the only thing that happened was you misread my statement and I had to point that out. There was nothing wrong with my initial post and it allowed for exceptions. You simply didn't notice that little fact.

I stand by my opinion and would give the same answer if asked tomorrow, word for word. This discussion hasn't accomplished a thing.

Second, the question of Reds' that you've avoided answering is, "What point does the sentence 'It's a heck of a lot more likely to go right over your head than it is to go right over mine, so back off.' make if it's not a personal insult?" He explained-- quite clearly-- how it comes across as one and asked for you to explain your assertion that it wasn't, which you've not done, despite the fact that he asked you to do so twice. It was a perfectly reasonable question and is not a personal attack against you by any means.

You're quick to cry "foul" and put words/insults into other people's mouths, but I've not really seen any justification for it. Your position and statements have been challenged, but no one has personally attacked you, commented on your intelligence, or anything of the sort. So, I would suggest you read posts more carefully in the future and with less of a confrontational slant.

This discussion, however, is over. Nothing can be accomplished from it.

We welcome you to the Forum and hope you'll join in the other discussions. This was not the best of introductions, however.

Thread locked.