Well, I've been looking them over; we San Serriffeans tend to feel superficial details gets in the way of appreciation at the deeper, intuitive level, so I just don't feel the need to waste my time reading each and every post.

Talking of my culture, I wonder what people like N----n (as I'll call her to avoid conflict) would think of the dramas performed in our famous Festival of the Well-Made Play, the true meaning of which nobody in the audience comprehends? No doubt she would wish to subject them to some kind of icy academic analysis!:rolleyes:

Not that I'm trying to pick a fight with anyone here. Just saying what I feel!

It would appear that there's an easy solution for those who don't find this thread appropriate, or worthy of their attention: simply avoid it and move on to other things.

Inzil, I have to say that your siggie has inspired me to sit and to listen to, over and over again, the Chicago Symphony's version of the Overture and then to Karajan's version. My father loved Tannhauser but I can't remember which rendition I grew up with. Thank you so much for the remembrance. (/off topic)

I often have to laugh at the animosity of some Tolkien fans to "academic" discussion. Tolkien was himself an academic and his professional work represents a wide range of styles, from the very dry tomes of academe to the more passionate voice of the "essai." But the very foundation of his art is his love of language, of philology, and his keen interest in, as the academic Shippey has it, the "asterisk" poem/word/source, which haunts our interest and whets our curiosity to uncover more. This was, indeed, the very nature of Tolkien's own passion and it is the rare fan who doesn't share this.

There is, indeed, a great number of tum tum trees which Tolkien bemoaned (out of respect for all I refuse to give a footnote for that allusion), but by and large he had great respect for those who loved the tower. Most of us here, I believe, are those. One can love the tower and still want to discover the asterisk word.

How absurd! Imagine if everyone had that kind of laissez faire attitude!

It is absolutely necessary for posters to voice their distaste for a certain topic, or the manner in which a topic is being discussed. Without people wasting immense amounts of time harping on inconsequential points, Internet forums would cease to exist.

And I, for one, will not be held responsible for the destruction of the Internet!

I'm not sure the threat to Barrow Downs is all that severe. I'm not sure, but I think you have to throw the server into a volcano.

Perhaps a really big flood would do.

I'm glad it gave you fond memories. The Tannhäuser Overture is one of my favourite pieces, and that particular performance is absolutely stunning. With no hyperbole, it seems that, especially in the last few minutes of the second part, one can hear dim echoes of Heaven.

Well put. If we here were all adverse to such discussions, this forum might be a boring place indeed. Occasionally I run up on topics I don't find very interesting, but the thing to do there is to ignore them, and find one of the myriad threads that does get my attention.

Ah, there are so many fora that in my opinion have no business existing. But for the sake of the Downs, I guess they have to be allowed room as well. ;)

Indeed we do. Some of us, for example, may allow the fact that we actually know something about mythology and comparative religion to colour our responses to someone whose endless posting regarding the same is riddled with leaps of logic and demonstrable factual errors. Or we may allow a certain impatience to show in our reactions to what perhaps looks like to us like an act of complete self-indulgence. Just being ourselves, blantyr.;)

Then you're fine with your ideas, like Dak's before you, being open to debate just like everyone else's? An excellent start.:)

I agree...

Here I will say that while I find Daks posts intriguing and his/her grasp on some different things impressive, it is the long winded and (seemingly, perhaps unintentional) domineering posts that irritated me initially. Which led to my own controversial/ill-toned post that seemed to have an even greater effect on the thread...:o


(For which I apologize, realize that generalizing was a mistake when it only the tone/direction of a few posts that instigated my irritation. I have only seen many intelligent and passionate fans who post here, all of whom have my respect. Including Dak...)

Which Dak, I think I agree with some previous posts, what you were writing about is a topic worthy of a whole new thread, which I would love to see discussed some more. I find your concepts of history and pre-history fascinating and found the initial direction of what you were saying intriguing.




Tut tut, tum tum. A forced laugh indeed. Nonetheless, I agree, the art is caught up in the academic foundation of Tolkien's passion for language and philology. The haunting, it seems to me, is the realism that we can feel yet still tends to stay just beyond our grasp leaving us wanting more...to reference an earlier post, who doesn't wish Tolkien would have left us more?

Yes, I love the academia as long as it continues to lead me further into the expression of the "art." Or, as I would put it, the reason why we do what we do, I guess.



I've never seen those associated with Mandos inject such humor into a...serious situation...I laughed, and I applaud you.

Waiting for the bee
 

Speaking of fantasy crossbreeding: many years ago a TV-series called Quark chronicled the voyages of an intergalactic garbage scow. The crew featured a first officer named Ficus -- half-man/half-plant -- and a set of identical-twin bimbo clones called Betty-1 and Betty-2. In one hilarious episode, Betty-1 (or Betty-2) asked Ficus how his species bred and he offered to demonstrate with the more-than-willing clone. "First we get down on the deck and lay down on our backs," he instructed. This they both did. "Now, we raise our legs and arms up in the air," he continued. This they both did. "Now what do we do?" inquired the luscious Betty-2 (or Betty-1). Replied Ficus in all seriousness: "Now we wait for the bee."

Nothing about morality, but something about crossbreeding. Just what, I have no idea.

MTM, just to let you know, I believe you are having an engrossing conversation with a spam-bot. Cleverly disguised, but a spam-bot nonetheless.

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll keep it in mind. I wouldn't have bothered stepping in here, but I temporarily ran out of invective to lavish on the Itaril/Tauriel nonsense.

These quotes are from the original post of this thread:
As other posts have pointed out, this is a question of how one reconciles suffering with a loving creator. But I would go further and ask how can there be love in a world where there is so much evidence of its non-existence?
The same question hangs over other concepts such as 'beauty' and 'freedom'. Like Eu they cannot be quantified or pinned down and neither can they be eliminated from our fantasies. Being in pain may stop me appreciating the sunset, but it doesn't mean the beauty is no longer there. Logic may tell me that suns do not set (the earth spins) and that it is merely a huge, dangerous ball fire. I still say it's also beautiful.

Deontology: deont = duty + logic. Why not say "a sense of duty"?

When Sam sees the Scouring of the Shire in the mirror of Galadriel his sense of duty impels him to return and do something about it. Galadriel has to remind him that he was resigned to his duty to Frodo before looking in the mirror, effectively saying "know thyself". If you do not know yourself prophecy is an unreliable guide. Sam has to decide which is 'nobler in the mind'; to go back and take up arms against the Scouring, or to suffer that outrage in favour of the greater purpose.

Personally I find Nietszhe's philosophy flawed. Like Sam we have to choose, not between 'serving' or 'being served' but between different battles, different masters, different things we love.