Um, let's see, my IP is stealthed, so you know I'm a Windows user, right?
Sorry, I'm not. I'm using OS X with the built-in firewall (ipfw), behind a Netgear router/firewall.
Microsoft includes Mozilla and IE in its default Windows install. This is something we would NEVER expect any other company to do.
Unless my memory fails me, Apple includes Internet Explorer on the default install of OS X. Yes, Safari is the default browser and comes already in the Dock, but IE is there in the Applications directory.
I don't think it's at all unreasonable to expect that Microsoft would ship Windows with Netscape and/or Firefox installed along with IE.
I'd like to see the pages and pages and pages you refer to. Perhaps you'd like to point to the specific chapters where you find them.
Nothing is evil in the beginning, even Sauron was not so. --Elrond
One could also argue that scenes like Gorbag and Shagrat in Mordor talking about getting away from the "bosses" even humanizes the orcs.
The fact is that the "enemy" in The Lord of the Rings is composed of various groups, including Sauron, orcs, Southrons, Corsairs, etc. The fact that at least some (I would say nearly all) of these groups are to some degree made sympathetic demonstrates my point, that it is very simplistic to describe Tolkien as demonizing all enemies so all the good guys can feel good about killing them.
Looking down on Tolkien may make us feel superior and wonderful, but I don't think it accurately reflects his thinking.
Re:The problem I have with this article
on
Message in a Battle
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's amazing to me how many people try to portray Tolkien's universe as morally simplistic. His thinking is black and white in the sense that he rejects moral relativism. However, his characters are shot through with ambiguity, at least on careful reading.
Is Boromir good or evil? How about Saruman? How about Sam? How about Denethor? How about Frodo? How about Gollum? How about Galadriel? You can easily state on what side each one mostly falls, but there is nuance there.
The movies "flatten" many of these characters to some extent, so some of that nuance is lost, but not all.
Regarding the article's argument that The Lord of the Rings demonizes the enemy, I think the following quote from The Two Towers certainly gives it the lie.
It was Sam's first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much. He was glad that he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace--all in a flash of thought which was quickly driven from his mind.
The Two Towers Extended Edition includes this scene, though it's Faramir who expresses the sentiments.
I don't know how one can read such scenes and argue that Tolkien advocates a demonification of enemies.
Or perhaps the explanation is that one doesn't read at all...
Do you mean that in the books, Frodo drops the Ring and Boromir picks it up? I am confident that is not the case. In the books, Boromir never touches the Ring (or its chain).
Boromir picks up the ring when Frodo drops it while walking on the mountain. There's a tense moment, then he freely gives it back to Frodo. But he has touched the ring (don't quibble about the chain or not).
I can grant you that, at least in the movies (this incident does not occur in the books).
In the movies, there are plenty of others who are tempted by the Ring without touching it (Galadriel, Aragorn, Faramir).
However, I disagree that Sam is portrayed in the movies as tempted by the Ring (except for when Frodo demands it back). Gollum claims Sam wants it for himself, but IIRC there are no scenes with the signature "tempting" signs (such as the Ring speaking or the high singing).
TGK, I agree completely with your points in 2, but not your point 1.
Here's what the Prologue to The Lord of the Rings says:
Those days, the Third Age of Middle-earth, are now long past, and the shape of all lands has been changed; but the regions in which Hobbits then lived were doubtless the same as those in which they still linger: the North-West of the Old World, east of the Sea.
Tolkien is clearly saying that a lot has changed since the Third Age, but Middle-Earth is our world.
More discussion of this question can be found here.
Can anyone confirm that Middle Earth is SUPPOSE to be our ficticious past?
Yes. It's supposed to occur in our "prehistory".
Why couldn't Gandalf hop on a Nuclear radiated giant eagle - fly over the top of "Mount Incinerator" and drop the ring? Poof, end of story. The people of Rohan and Gondor would've been much happier!
A lot of people seem to ask this.
The short answer is obviously "because then there's no story". Even if this is the only answer, it doesn't have to be an issue. For example, a lot of people enjoyed the first Matrix movie, even though its premise violates physical laws (since human bodies cannot generate more energy than is put into them).
However, there are perfectly reasonable justifications for why the "just fly an Eagle into Mordor" isn't going to work.
In your scenario, Gandalf flies an Eagle over Mount Doom and drops the Ring in. If you recall, Gandalf was unwilling to even touch the Ring in the first movie because he felt he would be unable to resist the temptation to use it. He felt that hobbits in general and Frodo in particular would be better able to resist the temptation. This is because they have very little ambition or desire for power, as well as having relatively little innate power.
However, even Frodo, when it came down to it, was incapable of throwing the Ring into the fire! Gandalf would have been even more unable to.
What would probably happen in your scenario, given how Tolkien has set up the story, is Gandalf would take the Ring, mount the Eagle, make it most of the way to Mount Doom, and say "Forget this throwing away business, you can all call me Lord Gandalf now." There is no way he (or anyone else, I would argue [except perhaps Bombadil]) would be capable of dropping it in.
Another difficulty with the Eagle scenario is that it's extremely blatant. There is no secrecy possible. This means Sauron would have perceived it immediately. His significant psychic/spiritual power would instantly been focused on preventing the destruction of the Ring, either by destroying, cowing, or deceiving the bearer.
These first points are derivable from the movies alone. The following one requires knowledge of the books.
The (giant) Eagles are not at the command of anyone in Middle-Earth. They are the servants of Manwe, who in Tolkien's legendarium is the head Vala (arch-angel kind of figures), the ruler of Middle-Earth. The Valar felt that defeating Sauron was the responsibility of the peoples of Middle-Earth themselves. They sent help in the form of the Wizards (including Gandalf and Saruman), but even they were not supposed to act directly, but only advise, guide, and prompt. So while it's acceptable for the Eagles (as Manwe's representatives) to assist the effort against Sauron in minor ways, they cannot act more directly.
The real security wisdom of Mac OS lies in its internal architecture and how the operating system works and interacts with applications. It's also something Microsoft unfortunately can't accomplish without a complete re-write of the Windows software -- starting with ripping out the bug-riddled Internet Explorer that serves as the Windows version of "Finder." (That alone would seriously improve Windows security, methinks.)
What does explorer's search have to do with security? How is it insecure?
The OS X Finder is not the equivalent of Explorer's search. It is the equivalent of Explorer. Yes, the "Finder" name is somewhat of a misnomer, though file searching is part of the Finder's capability. So the original author is not saying to rip out Explorer's search capability, he's saying rip out Explorer completely.
I don't know what's so hard about disabling services anyway. You can even do it from the command line; just tell users to go Start->Run and type "sc stop messenger" to stop messenger, and "sc config messenger start= disabled" to disable it.
"Hard" could mean complicated or involving many steps. I agree going to Start->Run and typing "sc stop messenger" isn't hard in that sense.
However, "hard" could mean unintuitive and unlikely to be discovered by the average user within his own lifetime, let alone the lifetime of his computer. I think that's the relevant sense here.
Fear not! "The Grey Havens" and "Into The West" are the titles of the last two tracks on the soundtrack. I don't see how anyone who listens to "Into the West" (as you can do at the official site) can imagine that this is a "happy Hollywood ending."
Slashdot Mirror
Um, let's see, my IP is stealthed, so you know I'm a Windows user, right? Sorry, I'm not. I'm using OS X with the built-in firewall (ipfw), behind a Netgear router/firewall.
Unless my memory fails me, Apple includes Internet Explorer on the default install of OS X. Yes, Safari is the default browser and comes already in the Dock, but IE is there in the Applications directory.
I don't think it's at all unreasonable to expect that Microsoft would ship Windows with Netscape and/or Firefox installed along with IE.
I'd like to see the pages and pages and pages you refer to. Perhaps you'd like to point to the specific chapters where you find them.
Nothing is evil in the beginning, even Sauron was not so. --Elrond
One could also argue that scenes like Gorbag and Shagrat in Mordor talking about getting away from the "bosses" even humanizes the orcs.
The fact is that the "enemy" in The Lord of the Rings is composed of various groups, including Sauron, orcs, Southrons, Corsairs, etc. The fact that at least some (I would say nearly all) of these groups are to some degree made sympathetic demonstrates my point, that it is very simplistic to describe Tolkien as demonizing all enemies so all the good guys can feel good about killing them.
Looking down on Tolkien may make us feel superior and wonderful, but I don't think it accurately reflects his thinking.
It's amazing to me how many people try to portray Tolkien's universe as morally simplistic. His thinking is black and white in the sense that he rejects moral relativism. However, his characters are shot through with ambiguity, at least on careful reading.
Is Boromir good or evil? How about Saruman? How about Sam? How about Denethor? How about Frodo? How about Gollum? How about Galadriel? You can easily state on what side each one mostly falls, but there is nuance there.
The movies "flatten" many of these characters to some extent, so some of that nuance is lost, but not all.
Regarding the article's argument that The Lord of the Rings demonizes the enemy, I think the following quote from The Two Towers certainly gives it the lie.
The Two Towers Extended Edition includes this scene, though it's Faramir who expresses the sentiments.
I don't know how one can read such scenes and argue that Tolkien advocates a demonification of enemies.
Or perhaps the explanation is that one doesn't read at all...
Do you mean that in the books, Frodo drops the Ring and Boromir picks it up? I am confident that is not the case. In the books, Boromir never touches the Ring (or its chain).
I can grant you that, at least in the movies (this incident does not occur in the books).
In the movies, there are plenty of others who are tempted by the Ring without touching it (Galadriel, Aragorn, Faramir).
However, I disagree that Sam is portrayed in the movies as tempted by the Ring (except for when Frodo demands it back). Gollum claims Sam wants it for himself, but IIRC there are no scenes with the signature "tempting" signs (such as the Ring speaking or the high singing).
Actually, touching the Ring is not required. Remember, for instance, how profoundly Boromir was tempted by the Ring without touching it once.
Alright, then, Gandalf would have been even farther from being able to than Frodo.
Here's what the Prologue to The Lord of the Rings says:
Tolkien is clearly saying that a lot has changed since the Third Age, but Middle-Earth is our world.
More discussion of this question can be found here.
Yes. It's supposed to occur in our "prehistory".
A lot of people seem to ask this.
The short answer is obviously "because then there's no story". Even if this is the only answer, it doesn't have to be an issue. For example, a lot of people enjoyed the first Matrix movie, even though its premise violates physical laws (since human bodies cannot generate more energy than is put into them).
However, there are perfectly reasonable justifications for why the "just fly an Eagle into Mordor" isn't going to work.
In your scenario, Gandalf flies an Eagle over Mount Doom and drops the Ring in. If you recall, Gandalf was unwilling to even touch the Ring in the first movie because he felt he would be unable to resist the temptation to use it. He felt that hobbits in general and Frodo in particular would be better able to resist the temptation. This is because they have very little ambition or desire for power, as well as having relatively little innate power.
However, even Frodo, when it came down to it, was incapable of throwing the Ring into the fire! Gandalf would have been even more unable to.
What would probably happen in your scenario, given how Tolkien has set up the story, is Gandalf would take the Ring, mount the Eagle, make it most of the way to Mount Doom, and say "Forget this throwing away business, you can all call me Lord Gandalf now." There is no way he (or anyone else, I would argue [except perhaps Bombadil]) would be capable of dropping it in.
Another difficulty with the Eagle scenario is that it's extremely blatant. There is no secrecy possible. This means Sauron would have perceived it immediately. His significant psychic/spiritual power would instantly been focused on preventing the destruction of the Ring, either by destroying, cowing, or deceiving the bearer.
These first points are derivable from the movies alone. The following one requires knowledge of the books.
The (giant) Eagles are not at the command of anyone in Middle-Earth. They are the servants of Manwe, who in Tolkien's legendarium is the head Vala (arch-angel kind of figures), the ruler of Middle-Earth. The Valar felt that defeating Sauron was the responsibility of the peoples of Middle-Earth themselves. They sent help in the form of the Wizards (including Gandalf and Saruman), but even they were not supposed to act directly, but only advise, guide, and prompt. So while it's acceptable for the Eagles (as Manwe's representatives) to assist the effort against Sauron in minor ways, they cannot act more directly.
Fear not! "The Grey Havens" and "Into The West" are the titles of the last two tracks on the soundtrack. I don't see how anyone who listens to "Into the West" (as you can do at the official site) can imagine that this is a "happy Hollywood ending."