|
Ravenfood posted:Says clearly that the shadow of the same evil that overcame Feanor's had fallen on the minds of all the Noldor, including her own, and that she was unaware of it. That's easy enough to expand a bit and make her a bit monomaniacal in terms of her hunting Sauron and then have her back off. That can be read ambiguously. Namely that she didn't see it, because it didn't happen. Or, it happened, yet she was unaware. quote:[...]though she did not perceive that the shadow of the same evil had fallen upon the minds of all the Noldor, and upon her own. Considering the many great deeds of the Noldor during the First Age I go with the former reading. A lot of them did not become lovely like Feanor and his sons. thumper57 posted:That's a description of the character before she spent centuries in a forever war against a god, in which time the brother that passage specifically calls out as closest to her heart was murdered by the guy she's now hunting. These events should have had no effect on her I guess, she should just be basically the same person from Valinor -> Fellowship? There's not a shred of evidence in the source material that the war had given Galadriel some kind of PTSD trauma, or that it had changed her personality in such a way. That interpretation is exclusive to the show. It is just as ignorant as turning Valinor into a mental asylum for war veterans, who can be sent there by command of a king. Hammerstein fucked around with this message at 12:59 on Sep 14, 2022 |
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 12:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 14:37 |
|
|
"shred of evidence"... in... this fiction? Think about it this way, if Galadriel is a perfect madonna (poster above who made this reference is spot-on, I think) through the whole history of the world, whose role is just to kinda float there unknowably while the real movers and shakers debate whether she's hotter than her niece, then what's the point of tempting her with the ring? If she's instead acting out of character here - and other characters are pointing out this is the case, to the point her own soldiers even abandon her (and think about Elf soldiers, they're like "OK kill our cousins and take their ships? Can do", and "OK burn those ships and leave our other cousins to die in the ice? Can do") - then going from "I will do whatever it takes to bring Sauron to justice" to "Wait so I can take my archnemesis' own weapon and use it to humiliate him? Nah I'll pass" implies an interesting story I think? It kinda recontextualizes that event from being confirmation that she's a perfect angel to instead being redemptive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 13:06
|
|
|
thumper57 posted:"shred of evidence"... in... this fiction? what
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 13:07
|
|
|
thumper57 posted:"shred of evidence"... in... this fiction? Yeah the only downside is that this show will not do anything interesting like that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 13:09
|
|
|
How dare the show runners not use the characterization written right there in the source material that they don’t have the rights to
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 13:22
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:How dare the show runners not use the characterization written right there in the source material that they don’t have the rights to That spoiler you posted, I do not think it means what you think it means.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 13:33
|
|
|
You are asserting that the stuff Tolkien never published is somehow more cannon than whatever their interpretation is and ... I don't know. Giving Galadriel an arc and making it "about her" seems like an ok adaptation for a tv show.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 13:38
|
|
|
I don't understand the idea that an adaptation must only be of material I've already read, and must be presented exactly as I imagined it while reading. Isn't that a waste of time? Just go read the book, it's better than TV anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 13:43
|
|
|
euphronius posted:You are asserting that the stuff Tolkien never published is somehow more cannon than whatever their interpretation is and ... I don't know. Giving Galadriel an arc and making it "about her" seems like an ok adaptation for a tv show. I prefer to rate the work of the original author higher than the scribble of Amazon writers, that too often drops to fanfic quality:"Oh yeah, this character will be really gritty and she's gonna run all over Middle Earth, while her PTSD crazed brain tells her to do all kinds of stupid poo poo. It's so edgy and wild and has never been done before.". The Silmarillion was also published posthumously, but it does not make it less of a primary source. thumper57 posted:I don't understand the idea that an adaptation must only be of material I've already read, and must be presented exactly as I imagined it while reading. Isn't that a waste of time? Just go read the book, it's better than TV anyway. In that case they could have named the show: "Deep South - A Middle Earth Tale" and set it into the hinterlands of Harad. Then they could go hog wild with their own story. Hammerstein fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Sep 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 13:55
|
|
|
Also consider that the degree of characterization in The Silmarillion is sparse and mostly indirect. There's lots of room for interpolation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 13:57
|
|
|
The Silmarillion was not sitting on Tolkien’s desk waiting to be shipped after he died . Also you didn’t quote the Silmarillion iirc. As mentioned above Galadriel was invented during the writing of lord of the rings. She is not like Tuor or Earendil (for example) in that sense at all . After that she went through lots of retconning by Tolkien that was never finished afaict. I am not a Galadriel expert. I’m just pointing out “She’s not like she is in the books !!” Is a complicated statement to make in this context . Compared to like for example Harry Potter or Cercei Lannister euphronius fucked around with this message at 14:16 on Sep 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 14:12
|
|
|
Hammerstein posted:Well the problem here is that elves in general are rather set in their ways, compared to hobbits, humans and even dwarves. Portraying Galadriel like a character in the genre of the Bildungsroman (or coming-of-age novel) just feels off for an elven leader who is already thousands of years old. I think a lot of this comes down to the urge by modern TV/film writers to put characters into archetypal buckets. Galadriel is the amazonian wild woman archetype so she has to act combative to everyone all the time. Halbarand is the reluctant exiled prince so he has to act smug and quietly confident and we also need to get a scene of him beating up peasants so that we realize he's actually a badass in disguise. Durin is a Dwarf and Dwarves in Peter Jackson's universe are moronic and the show has decided to follow his example so Durin's gotta belch and burp and face Elrond in Festivus feats of strength. Etc. I sound overly negative. I actually do like the show and I think they've done a fairly good job of capturing Tolkien's tone despite that. I wish they'd tried to go a bit less broad with character archetypes but that's how media likes to do these things. What's interesting to me is that some of the characters do feel entirely spot on for how I imagine their book counterparts. The shows Elendil doesn't feel archetypal. He feels like a Tolkien character. Durin's father (Durin III) is serious and grumpy and not ridiculously Scottish and he's how ALL the Dwarves should be instead of the comedic caricatures they are often reduced to. Elrond and the Hobbits feel appropriately elvish and hobbitish. They hit a lot of the right notes for me, so I'm not complaining. But if I'm being honest with my main criticisms, these would be it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 14:58
|
|
|
For a 5 season long series Galadriel necessarily needs an arc even though canonically she was basically the same person at the start of the Second Age as she was at the end of the Third.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 15:24
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The Silmarillion was not sitting on Tolkien’s desk waiting to be shipped after he died . Also you didn’t quote the Silmarillion iirc. Not at the time of his death, no, but he did have a completed manuscript of the Quenta Silmarillion that he did attempt to publish in 1937, but Allen & Unwin rejected it so he decided to keep tinkering with it throughout his life.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 15:53
|
|
|
Falathrim posted:Not at the time of his death, no, but he did have a completed manuscript of the Quenta Silmarillion that he did attempt to publish in 1937, but Allen & Unwin rejected it so he decided to keep tinkering with it throughout his life. Right and Galadriel would not have even been in that on as she as invented sometime in the 1940s. Later than 1937 at least.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 15:57
|
|
|
Ginette Reno posted:I think a lot of this comes down to the urge by modern TV/film writers to put characters into archetypal buckets. Galadriel is the amazonian wild woman archetype so she has to act combative to everyone all the time. Halbarand is the reluctant exiled prince so he has to act smug and quietly confident and we also need to get a scene of him beating up peasants so that we realize he's actually a badass in disguise. Durin is a Dwarf and Dwarves in Peter Jackson's universe are moronic and the show has decided to follow his example so Durin's gotta belch and burp and face Elrond in Festivus feats of strength. Etc. It is a good idea to start your story with familiar story beats and archetypes to hook the audience. If they don’t quickly understand who people are or what the story is trying to do people will tune it out. Once they’re hooked you’re more free to do whatever you want. Look at what Robert Jordan did with the Wheel of Time. The story starts out VERY similar to Fellowship of the Ring until it begins to do its own thing. It’s a deliberate decision to speak a storytelling language that the audience understands before eventually doing your own thing. Could these guys gently caress it up and leave these characters 2 dimensional for 5 seasons? Absolutely. I hope not and I don’t expect them to, but it’s possible sure. Still VERY early in the series though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 16:09
|
|
|
Hammerstein posted:That can be read ambiguously. Namely that she didn't see it, because it didn't happen. Or, it happened, yet she was unaware. The very next sentence is "and so it came to pass" that the Noldor rebelled against the Valar, which very much reads as an explanation for why the Noldor rebelled: they were unaware of the shadow of the same evil on their thoughts as befell Feanor. I mean, really, does "Hey this lady was amazing and there was no evil clouding her judgment. At around this time that i am emphasizing that there was no evil in her thoughts, she rebelled, along with the other elves who also had no evil, against the Valar, which is an act very much described as A Bad Move" make more or less sense than "this lady was really great even among her kin, and yet, still had her judgement clouded by evil and so did an evil thing". Sure the Noldor did great things but the kinslaying and rebellion was not one of them. Galadriel does not have to be presented as some perfect figure to be in line with her portrayal from "primary" sources. A portrayal of her with ambition and a previous mistake that she is wise enough to realize is a mistake puts her ahead of a lot of the Noldor, especially in this age, and fits. I always read her scene in LotR as someone who, in her past, would have been tempted to take the Ring and is now, in her experience, wise enough to refuse. I think in her whole arc, that being the endpoint, means she has to have not been like that since forever. Ravenfood fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Sep 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 16:13
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:It is a good idea to start your story with familiar story beats and archetypes to hook the audience. If they don’t quickly understand who people are or what the story is trying to do people will tune it out. Once they’re hooked you’re more free to do whatever you want. Oh I know why they do it, it's just unfortunate that that's how it always has to be done. I wish there was more willingness to take risks. That said, this show has taken some risks, and I appreciate that. It's been a pretty slow burn so far, and there hasn't been a ton of action or really a huge rush to get from point A to point B with the storytelling. Part of the reason why I do appreciate this show so far is because it's taking things a little slow. It's funny but I've seen a lot of people complain about that and for me that's been one of the things that has drawn me to it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 16:17
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Right and Galadriel would not have even been in that on as she as invented sometime in the 1940s. Later than 1937 at least. Oh I'm not trying to argue against that at all. I just wanted to make it clear that Tolkien did think the Silmarillion was publishable, and just couldn't ever get a publisher onboard with the idea. Using publication as the one metric for "canonicity" is a bit complicated as a result.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 16:17
|
|
|
The Silmarillion that was published is not the one sitting on his desk in 1937. The 1937 is probably in one of the HOME books tho iirc
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 16:19
|
|
|
Was Sauron still a cat in the 1937 version?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 16:32
|
|
|
Excuse me they were a Maia in the shape of a cat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 16:34
|
|
|
Falathrim posted:Not at the time of his death, no, but he did have a completed manuscript of the Quenta Silmarillion that he did attempt to publish in 1937, but Allen & Unwin rejected it so he decided to keep tinkering with it throughout his life. The 1937 Silmarillion was not complete. It was interrupted in the middle of the Tale of Turin by the sudden success of The Hobbit, which necessitated that he drop everything and get down to work on a sequel. And we all know how that turned out. When he was trying to sell Milton Waldman on it in 1950-51 he still didn't have a "complete" Silmarillion. At no point was there a complete version of the Silmarillion until Christopher's preparation of the texts for publication.The closest thing is the 1930 Quenta Noldorinwa, which does get through the "whole story" from the arrival of the gods to the War of Wrath, but is in essence an expansion of the highly elliptical 1926 "Sketch of the Mythology". In other words, it is an outline of the multiple-volume work Tolkien was hoping to sell his publishers on so that he could devote himself to writing it out; far shorter than Christopher's published text, let alone a "complete version". Shimrra Jamaane posted:Was Sauron still a cat in the 1937 version? No. Tevildo never makes it out of the Lost Tales. The Lay of Leithian (late 20s) already has Thu, who is pretty recognizably Sauron. skasion fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Sep 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 16:45
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:I think you are misreading that passage from the unfinished tales. The way I interpret it, is that "and so it came to pass" refers to "when the light of Valinor failed". Meaning the destruction of the trees (as well as the other events) made the Noldor chase after Morgoth. Galadriel also had no part in the kinslaying from what I read. The character we experience in LOTR is the logical pinnacle of everything that Tolkien wrote about Galadriel. Would the author only make her good and wise so as not to contradict himself, when writing about her earlier years after he had published LOTR? I think not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 16:53
|
|
|
And that's a shame because Tevildo Prince of Cats was the high point of the legendarium and everything was downhill from there. And skasion is right, I did idiotically forget where the QS trails off, which pretty much kills the argument I was trying to make. I feel very smart!
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 16:54
|
|
|
Hammerstein posted:I prefer to rate the work of the original author higher than the scribble of Amazon writers, that too often drops to fanfic quality:"Oh yeah, this character will be really gritty and she's gonna run all over Middle Earth, while her PTSD crazed brain tells her to do all kinds of stupid poo poo. It's so edgy and wild and has never been done before.". I'd much rather have "fanfic" PTSD Galadrial than "fanfic perfectly beautiful and wise Galadrial who drifts above the conflict on a cloud of her own heavenly scented farts."
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 17:54
|
|
|
I'd rather just have a good TV show ! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 17:59
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:And to make it even more complicated the translator decided that he would also try to figure out which norwegian dialect the characters would speak in. He also had to come up with translations of names like Shelob (he ultimately went with the Web Hag which is an old norwegian word for spider). What's the old norwegian for web hag?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 21:22
|
|
|
ovenboy posted:What's the old norwegian for web hag? goon
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2022 07:14
|
|
|
Hammerstein posted:The way I interpret it, is that "and so it came to pass" refers to "when the light of Valinor failed". Meaning the destruction of the trees (as well as the other events) made the Noldor chase after Morgoth. Galadriel also had no part in the kinslaying from what I read. He's right though, there's no way it's intended to be read the way you're interpreting the line about "not perceiving shadow".
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2022 11:33
|
|
|
Hammerstein posted:The way I interpret it, is that "and so it came to pass" refers to "when the light of Valinor failed". Meaning the destruction of the trees (as well as the other events) made the Noldor chase after Morgoth. Galadriel also had no part in the kinslaying from what I read. She has a reverence for the Valar, we are told that in the linked passage. She has a marvelous gift of insight. She has a desire for dominion. These we are told clearly and plainly. She perceives an evil on Feanor. She does not perceive an evil that had fallen on the minds of the noldor. He does not write "she perceived that the same evil had not fallen on the minds of the Noldor, or her own." The negation is on her perception, not the evil falling on the noldor. In the same passage, we are given an example of her perception: she sees the evil on Feanor. The other Noldor, presumably, do not. Next, we are told that "and so it came to pass that when the light etc". I know this hinges on the word so there, but that reads as explanatory. He is explaining why an event occurs here. We have a character who is perceptive and reveres the Valar. She sees an evil in Feanor and hates and fears it. And yet, the same perceptive character follows Feanor (who has evil that sheperceives, hates, and fears) into rebellion against the Valar she reveres for...what reason? The clear reading from the text is that her own perception is clouded. Also, note: that she desires dominions and dreams of far off lands. What other explanation do you have? It isn't that "the light failed", that provides the timing. We are given a lot of information about Galadriel specifically in that passage immediately preceding a phrase that I generally take to mean "and therefore", then a phrase that marks the timing of something. Is there any reason to suspect that the light failing immediately triggers a madness in all the Noldor? Tolkien does not tell us that she was blinded by the falling of the light, instead he takes pains to write that she was perceptive. The perception and qualities of Galadriel come from her, not from the light of Valinor. I'm not saying that that wasn't a factor, but the entire preceding section is about Galadriel as a character prior to a description of her taking an action that is "bad". The entire preceding section was not "and the elves were wise and blah blah because the light of Valinor filled them..." or whatever, it's about Galadriel. Your reading would have us believe that Galadriel had no qualities whatsoever and was entirely relying on the light of Valinor for her perception and clarity and reverence. Where are those qualities now, since the light certainly hasn't returned? And why the mention of her desiring far off lands and dominion? Those are all explanations for why she joins the rebellion, and crucially, that it was a mistake that she made because her judgement was clouded. That even she can be led astray. I really think you misread this passage, and Galadriel in general, before the show ever came along. I do wonder if your ire at the show stems from them not portraying the character that exists in your head, not in the text that you have presented. The show has a lot of faults (I would rather have her terrified that she has again had her vision clouded rather than just being mononaniacal) but setting all of that aside and focusing entirely on the text you are presenting: you read it wrong. I agree with you that the character we see in LotR is the pinnacle of her character. I don't think it is the same one that exists at the time of the passage, who is good and wise and only rebels because the light of Valinor fails. You would have us believe that she desires dominion, reveres the valar, is perceptive, follows someone she knows has an evil in him that she hates and fears into rebellion entirely because the light of Valinor fails and not because her judgement was clouded and she was wrong, becomes a wise queen who rules over a far off land and then passes the test and refuses the Ring (of Dominion) and goes back to the West (Valinor) and all of that information is utterly superfluous because the only piece of information that matters is "when the light of Valinor failed". He doesn't make her "good and wise" to not contradict himself later, he emphasizes her wisdom and perception and then tells us about a time they failed and explains why she, the person who later can refuse the Ring, rebelled. She has to be fallible to make passing a test worth anything at all, imo, and remember, she is the one who uses the phrase "pass the test". E: I can even read it as the shadow of evil and the light of Valinor failing as linked but very importantly I do not believe there is any way to read this as anything other than even the perceptive Galadriel failed to perceive something crucial and did something wrong and that in some way, her desire for far off lands and dominion played a part. She is not perfect in this passage, but the core of her good qualities are explained and lay the groundwork for her later success. I don't think she passes the test with the Ring if she isn't able to perceive that she made a mistake in Valinor. E2: yeah, the closest I can come to your position is that the light of Valinor failing and the evil on her, Feanor's, and all the Noldor's thoughts are essentially rather same thing, and that still hinges on her exception perception failing her. I still think they are different and one explains the other, but most importantly that Galadriel fails to perceive the evil in her own thoughts. That is completely unambiguous to me.. Ravenfood fucked around with this message at 12:45 on Sep 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2022 12:29
|
|
|
I like how Galadriel has to be a boring void of personality with no room for growth if she's not the unthinking moron we have in the show. Tolkien gives her a lot of interesting characteristics and backstory that could have informed the way she's portrayed in the show, but instead they ignored all of it and went with probably the dumbest take they could have. She's spent hundreds, maybe thousands of years in royal courts with some incredibly personalities. Why not make her good at talking to people and understanding their deeper motivations and have that show up in her character. She's proud and ambitious but she's also 5000 years old. She should have some idea of how to temper her emotions in order to achieve her goals. Why not make her a sorceress? How much more badass would that have been while also keeping true to her book character? Instead of backflips and acrobatics maybe she enchants the troll with a spell and stuns it before calmly walking up and finishing it off. There's still room for her character to have that emotional arc and come to terms with the grief and trauma that she suffered during the first age without making her a hot headed idiot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2022 12:54
|
|
|
Funky See Funky Do posted:I like how Galadriel has to be a boring void of personality with no room for growth if she's not the unthinking moron we have in the show. Yeah they could have done a ton of things differently in the show that they didn't do. But to say that she doesn't have room to grow because of how the show portrays her, or that the books portray her as someone that isn't impulsive or flawed, or most weirdly, that she (and the rest of the Noldor) wasn't partially affected by the same evil that overcome Feanor, is just wrong. I'm not saying that the show did a good job, I'm saying that Hammerstein being mad about the show's portrayal because it is a betrayal of Galadriel because she wasn't affected by the same shadow of evil, is looking in the wrong place. There was room for the show to do better in their portrayal, and there was room for character growth, and even the possibility of the core of her obsession with Sauron! Hammerstein's view of Galadriel is wrong, though. Quenta Silmarillion: "Fingolfin and Turgon his son therefore spoke against Feanor, and fierce words awoke, so that once again wrath came near to the edge of swords [...] Finrod was with Turgon, his friend; but Galadriel, the only woman of the Noldor to stand that day tall and valiant among the contending princes, was eager to be gone. No oaths she swore, but the words of Feanor concerning Middle-earth had kindled in her heart, for she yearned to see the wide unguarded lands and to rule there a realm of her own". Fingolfin eventually leaves Valinor because Fingon (who is described as being of like mind as Galadriel) convinces him, and because he does not wish to abandon his people to Feanor's "rash counsels". Finarfin, Galadriel's father, is "most loath to depart", and after the Kinslaying, turns back, repents, and receives the pardon of the Valar. Later, she is named as one of the leaders of the crossing of the Helcaraxe. Also she doesn't tell Melian of the Kinslaying, or of the Oath, which isn't cool and leaves the Sindar pretty much unaware of the giant timebomb that is the Oath. This is not a woman who has never had her judgement clouded by the evil that affected Feanor. She argues on Feanor's side here, and because of her own ambition. She manages to avoid swearing an oath and so is able to change her course, but she, here, is rash, ambitious, and proud, and of similar mind as Feanor. And that lines up with my interpretation of the Unfinished Tales quote, as well as a possible arc that ends with the Galadriel of the Lord of the Rings, in a way that requires character growth. Be mad that they didn't make her this character, but don't be mad that they didn't make her the perfect figure of your imagination. e: Also she is called out as the only one of the leaders of the Noldor who crossed into Beleriand to remain, in a way that makes it seem her choice. Then we get basically nothing about her in the Second Age except she immediately distrusts Annatar. Ravenfood fucked around with this message at 13:46 on Sep 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2022 13:35
|
|
|
She seems to have a "the worst person you know has a great point" thing as far as Feanor and leaving Valinor goes. He's an arsehole, but eh, head along to Middle-earth with him then ditch him and go find somewhere to rule no harm no foul. Then the oh poo poo moments start.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2022 13:53
|
|
|
Runcible Cat posted:She seems to have a "the worst person you know has a great point" thing as far as Feanor and leaving Valinor goes. He's an arsehole, but eh, head along to Middle-earth with him then ditch him and go find somewhere to rule no harm no foul. Making her some flippy ninja warrior woman instead of a leader figure was weird though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2022 13:57
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:Yeah, and since we know little about her in the Second Age, those "oh poo poo" moments leading to a "no seriously gently caress this guy I have to kill Sauron dead" obsession can work, and then can lead to her LotR portrayal if she figures out why that obsession doesn't work either. I really do think the idea isn't that far off being compatible her book portrayal. The idea being reasonable and then having it be done stupidly are different things. Yeah to both. I can absolutely see being born and raised in Valinor leading to a level of naivety that gets kicked in the teeth when she finds out that Valar can do terrible things and her uncle can do a whole series of terrible things and this leading to Second Age Galadriel being a Must Kill Powerful Arseholes obsessive, then learning the big Tolkien lesson that Obsession Will gently caress You Up to become Third Age preservation-minded Galadriel. No idea if that's where the show's going but it's a reasonable interpretation IMHO.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2022 14:08
|
|
|
It occurs to me that it's pretty funny that Ilúvatar telling Melkor that "all your rebellion will only come back to contribute to greater glory to me in the end" is not meant to dissuade him from being evil, and in telling him that he's basically saying "you being evil is your purpose and my intention, go be evil and make the world miserable" "Why is there evil in the world if it was created by a loving and omnipotent God" is as old as the hills but it's hilarious that Tolkien just stuck it right in at the foundation that Ilúvatar is kind of a monster e: I know the answer is probably "evil and suffering are necessary in order for there to be glory and splendour and the ability to appreciate them; you can't have stuff that's cool unless you have stuff that sucks" Data Graham fucked around with this message at 13:11 on Sep 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 13:04
|
|
|
Is this where I copy-paste all the points and counterpoints from the past three thousand years of debate?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 13:18
|
|
|
Pioneer42 posted:Is this where I copy-paste all the points and counterpoints from the past three thousand years of debate? Yeah can you summarize it though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 13:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 14:37 |
|
|
theres a bit in stanislaw lem's star diaries where evil is defined as a partial knowledge of god, but which thinks of itself as full knowledge
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2022 13:35
|
|
