|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
Fri, 4:21pm
Post #26 of 31
(38 views)
Shortcut
|
Conventional Christian theology:
The Lord made the world perfect. And He would have gotten away with it too, if it were not for you pesky Kids.
The Bible, Book Of Scooby Doo, Ch 1 Verse 6
By contrast, Tolkien's secondary world creation myth has Arda as a world marred in its making, but with it's creator deciding to keep things going and make running repairs, rather than starting again.
Maybe it makes sense that nobody in the imperfect (imaginary, secondary world) creation is perfect. And yet it is the task of the pesky kids to work things out, and sometimes they do.
~~~~~~
"I am not made for querulous pests." Frodo 'Spooner' Baggins.
|
|
|
CuriousG
Half-elven
Fri, 4:23pm
Post #27 of 31
(33 views)
Shortcut
|
|
After they flay a few and behead a few, I'm sure there will be room for you to join. //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
CuriousG
Half-elven
Fri, 4:30pm
Post #28 of 31
(38 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Well, the real evil comes not from orcs but
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
from real estate developers on Scooby Doo. Of course Morgoth cut down the Two Trees, not because he hated the Valar, but because they were in the way of his new luxury resort and parking lot! And OMG, all the beachfront property to develop! No wonder they had to hide.
But thanks for taking us back to the macro picture of Arda Marred. A mostly good world, but with flaws, and he came up with reasons for that. But, he still made it a better world than the GOT world, which I can enjoy watching for the action, the acting, etc, but I would NEVER want to visit it, and sometimes when I'm watching them fight over a province/kingdom in that show, I just wonder, "Is it even worth fighting over?" Whereas with M-Earth, I'd never ask that question. I also think that "Cruelty is the point" is every episode of GOT.
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
Fri, 5:42pm
Post #29 of 31
(33 views)
Shortcut
|
...that Melkor cut down the two trees so as to make room to stage cage fights in the Ring of Doom. But Lady Varda delivered such a terrifying smack talk that all the Noldor fled.
And then Velma pulled off Melkor's mask to reveal he was really Old Man Masters, the Janitor....
....oh....wait.......it seems that I might have got my notes on different subjects muddled up....
~~~~~~
"I am not made for querulous pests." Frodo 'Spooner' Baggins.
|
|
|
Maciliel
Valinor
Fri, 9:24pm
Post #30 of 31
(26 views)
Shortcut
|
|
re game of thrones (in comparison to middle earth)
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
i watched all of game of thrones, and anticipated every new episode. but i would describe my anticipation as more nervous, rather than delighted. more "what will happen" rather than "this world and these characters call to me." (there were a couple of character exceptions.) but the GOT world seemed bereft of goodness, and seemed to celebrate humanity's worst characteristics.
when house of the dragon came along, i decided to give it a try, because we'd be seeing more dragons. but HOTD was just more of the same, and i quit after a few episodes.
akin to cg's observations elsewhere, my response was
( 1 ) "these are two aristocratic houses fighting over rulership of a cruel world. why should i care?"
and
( 2 ) "according to GRRM's history, the victor is already known. and on top of that, the victorious side is not the side i would have favored if i was called to select a side. why continue watching?"
one of the redeeming aspects of GOT was the existential threat to that world by the ice walkers. elements of the regular, cruel world were trying to come together to defeat that menace which was a threat to all. that was compelling. but HOTD doesn't have that, and why should i expose myself to all that violence and cruelty?
middle-earth definitely has its sorrows and pains, but it also has joy, and tolkien (through his narrative and through the speech and actions of his characters) upholds justice, reason, compassion, peace, and morality (even if those elements are not always victorious -- they are shown to be worth pursuing -- worth fightin' for, as sam might say).
i definitely would not want to visit the GOT world, whereas it would be worth considering visiting middle-earth (depending on the circumstances).
this line of our discussion calls to mind an old reading room thread i was reading just yesterday, where tolkien's influence on other writers was being discussed.
http://newboards.theonering.net/..._reply;so=ASC;mh=25;
although i wasn't familiar with all the author-worlds discussed, i was familiar with most / a good chunk, and part of my reaction to reading the (many thoughtful) posts was that (for me) it's not quite enough that an author has created something original (GOT). conversely, slavishly copying tolkien (terry brooks / sword of shannara) is equally unsatisfying.
i think some of the most compelling and inviting author-worlds don't shy away from evil and our worst impulses (although these elements are not required). i also don't think the compelling-ness and inviting-ness of the worlds is dependent on the sophistication of the writing. i also don't think that compelling-ness and inviting-ness is dependent on whether an author is writing juvenile fiction or fiction for non-children.
some of the better examples of author-world creation (in no particular order)...
middle-earth / tolkien
--
-- the best and most meaningful, imo. the beauty, the meticulousness. but also it's value (to me) is not episodic ("tune in next week!"). that's why i can reread -- and -- discuss these books over and over. because i feel they make me think, and question. and they reaffirm my values.
harry potter / j.k. rowling
--
-- j.k. rowling's writing is not as sophisticated as tolkien's, and argueably she's writing for a juvenile audience. but she created a lively, interesting world in which each reader can imagine her / himself as capable of magic (rather than a muggle). and there is an ongoing conflict with evil (that also argueably threatens all the world).
earthsea / ursula k. le guin
--
-- i believe le guin stated that she thought rowling's wizard school was shoplifting from earthsea. while i've not yet come across a detailed accounting of her objections, if i were to address the complaint on this one point i would say it's unfounded. having a wizard's school in two author-worlds is not evidence of mimicry. schools and the transfer of knowledge are ubiquitous throughout history. and le guin's magic school is very different (and her world is very different) from rowling's.
that being said, le guin's earthsea is wild. the sense that anything can happen, but that the aspiration to justice, reason, and goodness has not been ceded to any forces that seek to dislodge them. there are human frailties and their dangers, but also dangers from the magical unknown. dark forces that encroach and are perhaps unknowable, despite humans trying to understand and dabble. the earthsea has a rustic beauty. the series is also aimed at juveniles, but does not talk down to them. and it offers much for non-juvenile readers.
narnia / c.s. lewis
--
-- such a wonderful world! lewis's faith was (like tolkien's) very important to him, and it suffuses his author-world. his author-world seems devised to very consciously teach readers about god and faith, which i do not think detracts from his author-world because the characters and stories are so compelling. this series, too, is aimed at the juvenile reader (which is not necessarily an unsophisticated reader).
pern / anne mccaffrey
--
-- mccaffrey's world has existential crises, but they are of the natural world, rather than of human frailty. her author-world certainly has human frailty, but there are no out-of-control psychopaths threatening to upend the social order (fax would be an exception, and though he was problematic, he was of limited scope when he died). ignorance and selfishness are often the villains. for those unfamiliar with her author-world, it is a science fiction series, despite the presence of dragons. there is no magic except for technology. the people of pern are all descendents of humans who travelled in spaceships to settle far-off worlds. over time, they lost / gave up their technology, and settled into a kind of medieval structure.
i think it would be fascinating to discuss pern's "medievalism" vs. middle-earth's.
the dragon song / dragon singer are two of the most lovely books of that author-world, and just lovely books overall.
lastly, i've often wondered why hbo / amazon hasn't snapped up the pern IP to create series. mccaffrey wrote dozens of books, each of which could be the basis of a multi-year series.
hexagons / jack l. chalker
--
-- i found a lot of chalker's books very interesting. the construct of his author-world was a space that housed mini-worlds (the hexagons) that held extremely diverse environments and sentient beings. some of them can traverse easily between some of the hexes, and have difficulties with other hexes. but it's not just a matter of "air-breather vs. water-breather." the denizens of the hexes also have differning social structures and values. and the cherry on the top is that there is master technology running the whole interconnected place that can transform a sentient being's matter without compromising that being's essence (soul). it's a recurring theme that someone may enter the apparatus as one being (e.g.,, human) and exit the apparatus into one of the hex-worlds as a native being of that hex, perfectly adapted to it (e.g., a sentient tree).
i'm sure there are more examples, but these are the ones that spring to my mind.
cheers : )
.
aka. fili orc-enshield
+++++++++++++++++++
the scene, as i understand it, is exceptionally well-written. fili (in sort of a callback to the scene with the eagles), calls out "thorRIIIIIIN!!!" just as he sees the pale orc veer in for the kill. he picks up the severed arm of an orc which is lying on the ground, swings it up in desperation, effectively blocking the pale orc's blow. and thus, forever after, fili is known as "fili orc-enshield."
this earns him deep respect from his hard-to-please uncle. as well as a hug. kili wipes his boots on the pale orc's glory box. -- maciliel telpemairo
(This post was edited by Maciliel on Fri, 9:30pm)
|
|
|
CuriousG
Half-elven
39 mins ago
Post #31 of 31
(5 views)
Shortcut
|
Such a great overview!
You speak for me on GOT:
i watched all of game of thrones, and anticipated every new episode. but i would describe my anticipation as more nervous, rather than delighted. more "what will happen" rather than "this world and these characters call to me." (there were a couple of character exceptions.) but the GOT world seemed bereft of goodness, and seemed to celebrate humanity's worst characteristics.
While it was broadcast, I always felt a bit mixed about it and had trouble joining the conversations at work where people were "blown away", ecstatic, "it's better than an orgy!" and all kinds of great enthusiasm. But I liked how it wasn't predictable: I never knew what Cersi would do (that religious cult backfiring on her--well, maybe I should have seen it coming, but I didn't, so "Shame!" on me). And doing re-watches where I feel free to FF past mutilations and brutality, I really enjoy the Daenerys' arc of learning to be a ruler: sure, you can conquer a city, but are you ready for the rebellion and resistance? (No.) And every scene between Cersi and Tyrion was riveting for me: watching their eyes and the microexpressions of their faces as they plot, deceive, and test the other through dialogue in a human chess match is just fun. But yeah, it's joyless, ugly, and entirely from the human id as a world.
Narnia: I guess I liked it when I was young, but no real desire to revisit. It had a good mixture of peril & darkness vs. "this is a nice place to be," and everyone loves a talking horse. (Wiz only likes lyrical dogs, but he's our Wiz, and we accept him and protect him as one of our own.)
Pern: you almost made me want to revisit that world. I can vaguely remember the oddball dragon, Ruth, who was disappointing to me because I felt they were set up as a "chosen one" with special powers that never emerged, and I was never sure the point of Ruth. But some of the other stories were good; I remember a sort of Cinderella/Prince Arthur character (female) and her struggles, and how she'd seek solace with some kind of chained dragonlike something--basically a pet dog, but not a dog, and it was sentimental in a good way.
Earthsea: I revisited the 4 books a few years ago, with Tehanu so radically different in tone and structure and theme from the first three. They were all good. I never felt like her world-building depth compared to Tolkien's, but she equaled or surpassed him in anthropology, philosophy, psychology, and the sophistication of her character conflicts. I'd love to go island-hopping there.
Harry Potter: never pretended it was aimed at adults so it always felt a bit fluffy reading it as an adult, but I still enjoyed it a lot. Her world-building was deep, consistent, and meticulous, which I greatly respect. If I had unlimited reincarnation choices ahead of me, one would be to be born a wizard and go to Hogwarts--and I don't know what house I'd belong in, but half the fun is letting the sorting hat tell me. (Maybe I could start a fifth house, Owlspecks, for bona fide geeks.)
Never heard of that Hexagons world but sounds fascinating and need to check it out. Is there a hexagon for lyrical dogs? Asking for a friend.
|
|
|
|
|
