Me yet again. Look, I've just been thinking a bit more about this- there is another basic problem with your approach, already mentioned by
Morthoron, which at present makes it hard to take seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marwhini
It's pretty easy to accept/reject other's accounts of Middle-earth based upon a singular criteria:
Do they alter the Canon?
Peter Jackson didn't just alter the canon, he vomited all over it. And that doesn't even get into the metaphysical or theological minutia. All one needs to look at is the pure Historical record of Middle-earth (what Tolkien said happened, and where).
|
...and then reject anything that doesn't fit your model as in-world fiction, as demonstrated by your "explanation" of the talking purse. In other words, you are ignoring that "singular criterion" in practice.
It seems that what you are doing is
- arbitrarily designating various elements of Tolkien's writing as true or false.
- creating a Grand Unified Theory of Middle-earth to account for the "true" elements only.
- using the theory to determine whether elements of Tolkien's writing are true or false.
Quote:
How we treat each other seems to be exactly the same as how everyone in academic gets treated. Some have more experience than others.
And I didn't recruit them.
We got the idea after the original Jackson movies were produced, but it really didn't go very far until the second Trilogy of movies was produced, when we all pretty much reacted with revulsion to Jackson's treatment of The Hobbit, and began wondering a bit more deeply about a simple question (which also sums up the goal):
"What would need to be true given what is true in Tolkien's works?"
Another way to put that is:
"What is necessarily True in Middle-earth given the Observation of Middle-earth?" (not necessarily referring to the books by the same name there).
This is the essence of the Sciences (What is Necessarily True given what we Observe of the Universe?).
|
And not one of your scientific experts can recognise circular reasoning (see above)? Really?
Now, if you were just content to come up with a partial model, rather than a Middle-earth Theory of Everything, the problem would largely disappear- but you have said many times that isn't the case.