How would you rate civ III and Lord of the Rings Movie

[Pembleton]

Re: Poor Kierkeggaard...

Originally posted by ShuShu
My wife couldn't get into the books either. I do believe that a distinction should be made between big G and little g great books. I think Great books are generally difficult reads because they are meant to be (baked in?). I think great books are generally easy reads because they are meant to be. The world would be a lesser place without either, they both should be read, and, err I think I am agreeing with you, the big G's are not supreior to the little g's.

Now I'm really confused. You make a distinction between Great books and great books while I make no such distinction between my favorite writers and the daily comic strip and you call me elitist? The only distinction I make is one of preference. That's why I put "deep" in quotes in my original post. Yes, they were in quotes. It was not meant to be taken literally.

I might have to take back my apology.

[lord of the mark]

ok, as some of you may note from my nick, im a tolkien fan.

Ive read and re-read LOTR many times. Ive even read the Silmarillion, and skimmed some of the other Tolkien lit, and occasionally browse a Tolkien website.

I enjoyed the movie very much. Of course it wasnt like the book, movies are by their nature different, much of the depth (including most my favorite lines) was left out for obvious reasons. OTOH it managed to both highly faithful, and a good piece of cinema. Some of the changes I even liked. Having Arwen take the function of Glorfindel at the Fords was not only cinematically exciting, it added a "feminist element" which made the movies much more alive for this era. The Tolkien purists may burn me as a heretic, but that "Alternate version" i think practically deserves to be added to the Tolkien cannon. After all as Tolkien introduces the book, he was basing it on ancient manuscripts ("the Red book of Westmarch") which are not always reliable. In that context why cannot two conflicting versions BOTH be cannonical (shades of biblical scholarship).

I also particularly liked the way they briefly introduced the events from the second age as intro. Not only was this necessary for LOTR newbies, but was also impressive even to hardcore fans.

Yeah of course the "council of Elrond" in the book was much better, but what could you do with a scene like that in a movie? This wasnt a documentary on the end of the 3rd age, after all.


AS for Civ3 i havent played it. Sounds like its got some cool features, but needs some work. Unfortunately much of the discussion is by people who fundamentally misunderstand CIv2. People who either expected grognard historical realism, or who think that historical realism is irrelevant to a "fun game" They miss the way Civ2 was an abstract, sometimes unrealistic alternative history game, and yet captured broad historical themes. I therefore do not trust what they say about Civ3, either positive or negative.

In this respect the contrast between Civ and LOTR is illuminating. Tolkien spent much of his career explaining his literary theory, philosophy, etc. It is therefore uncontoversial in the LOTR community that LOTR is not a detailed allegory of any real historical situation, however it is not simply "a fun read" but is laden with deep philosophical, theological, moral and even political (in the broadest sense) subthemes.
Sid Meiers on the other hand wanted a broad audience, so has been unwilling to alienate any share of hsi audience, so the community is more confused

[Raging Mouse]

Originally posted by Snapcase
Scholarship comes to nothing if you've got a basic inability to write stylishly and consistently. Tolkien drifts off into pages and pages of sense-numbing, adjectiveless description, loses the sense of story frequently, writes soulless, stilted poetry for row upon row upon row, has no sense of the english language or narrative pace and is generally a bad writer. And that's all that counts- no haughty world-building or self-indulgent archetype-building in the world is going to save a badly written book. In fact, any book with that sort of thing baked in is generally awful- as far as I'm concerned it just gets in the way of the story. Oh well, back to Robert E Howard, I suppose...

Um, Snapcase, you may have your foot in your mouth.... you see, that 'has no sense of the english language' thing... He was a freakin' professor in english! He was a linguist! And, after reading Dostoyevsky, I might tell you that Tolkien is unusually concise and short in his descriptive ramblings. Man, if you thought Tolkien was long-winded... stay away from Crime & Punishment. Stick to R.A. Salvatore instead.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Snapcase
Scholarship comes to nothing if you've got a basic inability to write stylishly and consistently. Tolkien drifts off into pages and pages of sense-numbing, adjectiveless description, loses the sense of story frequently, writes soulless, stilted poetry for row upon row upon row, has no sense of the english language or narrative pace and is generally a bad writer. And that's all that counts- no haughty world-building or self-indulgent archetype-building in the world is going to save a badly written book. In fact, any book with that sort of thing baked in is generally awful- as far as I'm concerned it just gets in the way of the story. Oh well, back to Robert E Howard, I suppose...

Scholarship is far from all that Tolkien has. He also has a deep sensitivity to many (though not ALL) aspects of the human condition, an ability to frequently turn the right phrase, to command a large, history-like scene, to describe a wonderfully creative world, and to write an often compelling plot. I cant get into most of the longer poems, but some of the shorter lyrics are delightful ("The road goes ever on and on ...") I cant think of an occassion when the numbing description actually goes on for pages - care to cite a passage?

I will admit his charecterizations are generally (though not always) weak, and that in general he is not a consistent writer, nor the best stylist. I do not class him with the greatest writers of the English language, nonetheless he is someone who inspires and fascinates in ways that many other (better?) writers cant - and who does this while at the same time delivering a fair sampling of purely literary delights as well. Frodo lives, my friend, in a way that Rabbit Angstrom, Humboldt, Madame Bovary (no that was a MUCH more stylish book) do not. Well maybe Pierre does - from War and Peace - cause Tolstoy, like Tolkien was more than just a writer - but was someone who brought a deep hope and human aspiration to this work. Granted Tolstoy was the greater writer, there is an affinity there that needs to be grasped to understand LOTR's appeal - and Im not so much talking about the epic length, as the epic quality. Maybe its a matter of age - i enjoyed Tolkien as a teen - in my college years and twenties I tneded to read more "stylish" lit (im a yank, and my favorites are Updike, Bellow, and Malamud - oh, yeah Malamud, i should have mentioned him too in the Tolstoy category) As ive lived, suffered, I read Tolkien with new appreciation. I can see depth there that I didnt see before.

Proudly,
Lord of the Mark

" I feel very small and very uprooted, and well - desperate" Vol I , p. 72.

[ShuShu]

Gee, Pemberton...

If you are going to chime in on a coneversation between two people, its generally polite to have listened to the conversation before doing so.

You make a distinction between Great books and great books

I am agreeing with you, the big G's are not supreior to the little g's

I am just at a loss how you could interpret this as making a qualitative distinction between the two. But don't worry, I have studied enough philosophy to acknowledge that logic is a hue in mankind's rose colored glasses, but that does not necessarily make it true.

The only distinction I make is one of preference. That's why I put "deep" in quotes

I am sorry, I am not familiar with customs on your planet. On this one however, the impact of adding the quotes to the above statement changes the meaning from:

"I prefer books that I find intellectual and thought provoking"

to

"I prefer books that OTHERS find intellectual and thought provoking"


of course

Wow, you take fantasy too seriously. To me, it's not literature in the "literary" sense, it's *fantasy*. Literature is about the human condition, our flaws, our weaknesses, and our relationships with others, be it friendly or romantic.

generally is not paraphrased as " I prefer" down here.