361 réponses à ce sujet

[Kaosgirl]

Tirigon wrote...

Quote from Kaosgirl:

Tirigon wrote...

@ Kaosgirl: The
elves did, in general, fight the orcs and balrogs better than the
humans did, though the greatest warriors ever were humans, not elves.

Feh to the first.
And
to the second, you prove my point:  elves "cap out" earlier than
humans, in spite of having centuries more experience.  The Best Elf is
lesser than The Best Human.  Why?

Tirigon wrote...
Besides
of that, I already pointed out that Tolkien elves are weaklings
compared to the elves in other stories. In one of my favourite books,
there is a dark elf killing about 100 enemies in less than a minute.
Thats what I would call unrealistically strong, not the tolkien elves.

And
Richard Rahl would still kick his ass without breaking a sweat.  But
what some mary-sue-like character in some random novel can do was
beside the point I was making - offering an explanation for why Elves
aren't *all* strictly superior to the best humanity can offer, in
stories where they're not.
(Also why, as you admitted yourself, the best of the elven race are lesser than the best of the human race.)

Tirigon wrote...
But
I still think that there is no author who ever created a more complex
world, put more effort in developing it and wrote in a style as
historical as Tolkien. After all, you can even study the elven language
invented by Tolkien in some schools now... Which other author ever
managed something like that?

I don't know if he's discounted on grounds of 'collaberation' or not, but I'll offer up Gene Roddenberry anyway.



I dont know about Richard Rahl or Gene Roddenberry, so I can neither agree nor disagree with that.

Richard Rahl was the protagonist of the Sword of Truth series, by Terry Goodkind, and his whole purpose was to show why Objectivism is better than anything else.  So, of course, the only time Richard could do any wrong is if he strayed from Objectivist principles.

Gene Roddenberry is responsible for Klingons, the other fictional language one can study at a university level and attain fluency in

Tirigon wrote...

But I can tell you why the best men are better than the best elves: The elves are less than the humans insofar as their fate, and therefore their power too, is determined since the beginning of the world.

Rather circular.
"The elves are less because they're doomed to be less."

But how is that fate being carried out?  

Tirigon wrote...
Elves can never be heroes. They have their gifts, which are more than every human will ever have, but these gifts determine what they can accomplish and what not. They will never do something greater than what is determined for them to do.

This speaks of a people born to a set level of competency.  Whether they spend a decade or a century honing their skills, they still remain as good as they were and never better.
The reasoning you've given is a metaphysical one; an explanation that this is their status.  But it doesn't explain why they are unable to overcome this limitation, other than simply reiterating that they're not able to overcome it.

Tirigon wrote...
With humkans however, it is all about there own will. After all, Hurin, the worlds greatest warrior in the Silmarillion, wasnt actually more skillful (rather less) than the elven warriors. But by sheer willpower he kept fighting even when all his allies were dead and he was buried under the bodies of the slain orcs and trolls.

No manner of willpower will keep you fighting if your head is lopped off or your heart is split in twain.  That he managed to avoid those mortal wounds would speak to some degree of his skill, and give me room to  that his was not lesser.  Merely less obvious.  
He was better at "tanking," so to speak.

Edit: Please, PLEASE tell me how to make those textboxes. I want to be able to quote appropriate ;-(

BBcode.  Use (quote) to start the textbox, and (/quote) to end it.  But replace the brackets with square ones like these: [ ]
Hope that made sense?

[Tirigon]

MerinTB wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Edit: Please, PLEASE tell me how to make those textboxes. I want to be able to quote appropriate ;-(

Use the Standard Form to reply.

Now, when you have hit "quote" on a person's post that you want to answer, see those "quote" and "/quote" tags with the brackets?  Experiment with them.

Thx it works ;-)

[Tirigon]

[quote]Kaosgirl wrote...

But I can tell you why the best men are better than the best elves: The elves are less than the humans insofar as their fate, and therefore their power too, is determined since the beginning of the world. [/quote]

Rather circular.
"The elves are less because they're doomed to be less."

But how is that fate being carried out?  [/quote]

I read the Silmarillion a long time ago and in german, please dont expect me to give you an entire interpretation of Tolkiens work.

[quote]This speaks of a people born to a set level of competency.  Whether they spend a decade or a century honing their skills, they still remain as good as they were and never better.
The reasoning you've given is a metaphysical one; an explanation that this is their status.  But it doesn't explain why they are unable to overcome this limitation, other than simply reiterating that they're not able to overcome it. [/quote]

Again, this is what I remember of the Silmarillion. If I was to write a fantasy story, I would make the elves beat the humans by far, or rather just spare the elves and write about vampires. They´re cooler anyways.

[quote]No manner of willpower will keep you fighting if your head is lopped off or your heart is split in twain.  That he managed to avoid those mortal wounds would speak to some degree of his skill, and give me room to  that his was not lesser.  Merely less obvious.  
He was better at "tanking," so to speak.[/quote]

There are enough real-life stories about people being able to do incredible things if they are determined enough to do so. For example, after a catastrophe there is often a story about someone rescuing lots of people, though it seemed impossible. And it is a known fact that in some cases, for example if you have to defend your family or your best friend, you can sometimes use strength you didnt even know you had. Or remember berserkers: A berserker can, by sheer will, rage or whatever continue fighting when an average warrior would already lay on the ground screaming and dying.
In Hurins case, he did not only defend his family, but also his entire people as well as the retreating army of Gondolin that was considered as the last hope for elves and men.

[MerinTB]

Kalcalan wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

A - typo
B - it was a joke (horror, horrible - it wasn't even sublte, so I hope you got it and were just )
C - nobody likes pedantry, especially nitpicky pendantry

I don't want to nitpick but I do like pendants.

Cute.

Kalcalan wrote...
FYI I did get your joke, I didn't mean to upset you, I have no problem with people who say that they don't like Tolkien's writings or that they are not moved by the Lord of the Rings. It's a very personal thing. What I don't like is people who say that it isn't literature or that it is bad literature. There is nothing wrong with expressing an opinion but stating something like this as a fact is very pretentious (and offensive).

True, I too find that line between stating opinion and stating opinion as fact to be important.

But in that very post you were pulling my bad joke out of, I had said -

MerinTB wrote...
One cannot argue that Tolkien's LotR novel isn't a classic, it has earned it's place in literary history.
One cannot argue that there isn't a large following for Tolkien's work, even amongst academics.

But ...
one can argue that even a well-read literature professor can have bad taste.

Which is also, at the end, something of a bad joke.  But also my point.

For as many literary scholars are out there that love Shakespeare and despite how high a status the man's works have, there are english professors (and regular joes) who cannot stand Shakespeare's stories and, probably more often, his writing style.

Same with Tolkien.

I happen to love Shakespeare and hate Tolkien.  Personal taste.

My confusion is I find it hard to believe so many regular people (not PHD's in English and not fantasy-fan posers(as in the defiition of poser, not just an insult(and NOT an insult to those of you who honestly like Tolkien, this isn't a hidden personal attack!))) really enjoy reading a style that I find more obtuse than Dostoevsky or Joyce.

[Tirigon]

My confusion is I find it hard to believe so many regular people (not PHD's in English and not fantasy-fan posers(as in the defiition of poser, not just an insult(and NOT an insult to those of you who honestly like Tolkien, this isn't a hidden personal attack!))) really enjoy reading a style that I find more obtuse than Dostoevsky or Joyce.

I dont understand how anyone can like Shakespeare in a written form (I do like his stageplays, but I really wouldnt want to read them.) If you can explain that, I might try to explain how you can like Tolkien ;-)

[Diomedes2]

i mean there pretty much the same. the Dalish ones are especially, but it's nice to see a fantasy story that isnt just derivative.

[MerinTB]

Tirigon wrote...

My confusion is I find it hard to believe so many regular people (not PHD's in English and not fantasy-fan posers(as in the defiition of poser, not just an insult(and NOT an insult to those of you who honestly like Tolkien, this isn't a hidden personal attack!))) really enjoy reading a style that I find more obtuse than Dostoevsky or Joyce.

I dont understand how anyone can like Shakespeare in a written form (I do like his stageplays, but I really wouldnt want to read them.) If you can explain that, I might try to explain how you can like Tolkien ;-)

I love the language.  It's not hard for me to understand, and I like the stories that he wrote.  Not a fan of the sonnets, but I personally just don't enjoy poetry despite trying for years.

I also like reading movie scripts, too, if that means anything to you.

Your turn - do you really enjoy reading those songs and the lengthy town descriptions?  I cannot read songs in any work I can think of - I love Dragonlance Chronicles and there I still skip over the canticles and such.  Probably connects to my not enjoying poetry, probably.  But me aside - pages of song being sung by hobbits is entertaining to you?

[Kaosgirl]

Tirigon wrote...

Kaosgirl wrote...
This speaks of a people born to a set level of competency.  Whether they spend a decade or a century honing their skills, they still remain as good as they were and never better.
The reasoning you've given is a metaphysical one; an explanation that this is their status.  But it doesn't explain why they are unable to overcome this limitation, other than simply reiterating that they're not able to overcome it.

Again, this is what I remember of the Silmarillion. If I was to write a fantasy story, I would make the elves beat the humans by far, or rather just spare the elves and write about vampires. They´re cooler anyways.

Stephanie Meyers ruined Vampires, IMO. They won't really be cool again until Twilight is forgotten.

And just for that, I'm going to insert some elves into the fantasy story I'm writing.  They'll be useless, forgotten relics of a dead age suffering from a global melancholy and apathy.

Tirigon wrote...

No manner of willpower will keep you fighting if your head is lopped off or your heart is split in twain.  That he managed to avoid those mortal wounds would speak to some degree of his skill, and give me room to  that his was not lesser.  Merely less obvious.  
He was better at "tanking," so to speak.

There are enough real-life stories about people being able to do incredible things if they are determined enough to do so.

And there are stories of people who failed inspite of their determination.  Tianneman Square, for example
But that's not really relevant.  I'm simply positing that Hurin's ability to survive a battle better than his elven 'superiors' was an edge he had over them, and that it's an insult to his character* to portray it as something other than his own brand of skill.  Elves have more flair, perhaps, which makes them look that much better as they practice.  But if they can't overcome an opponent that a man could, then their battle prowess is clearly not superior.

 It's just prettier.

[MerinTB]

Kaosgirl wrote...

Stephanie Meyers ruined Vampires, IMO. They won't really be cool again until Twilight is forgotten.

Meh.  I just try and ignore the Twilight phenomenon.  There's plenty of bad sci-fi out there but I can still enjoy laser pistols, aliens and starships.

But I can thank that author for allowing me to start calling Tolkien elves "sparkly vampires."  Not that I ever loved elves to start, but it really sums up my feelings about Tolkien's elves.

Kaosgirl wrote...
And just for that, I'm going to insert some elves into the fantasy story I'm writing.  They'll be useless, forgotten relics of a dead age suffering from a global melancholy and apathy.

I'll proofread it for you.

[Shadow_Viper]

I like the Elves and Dwarves in Dragon Age, yes they're a little different than we're used to. But that is a good thing. Remember, Dragon Age is set in an original world.



For those of you who have played D&D, just look at it as a custom campaign world with Bioware as the DMs and more than a few house rules implemented.



IFSW.

[Dahelia]

MerinTB wrote...

Kaosgirl wrote...

Stephanie Meyers ruined Vampires, IMO. They won't really be cool again until Twilight is forgotten.

Meh.  I just try and ignore the Twilight phenomenon.  There's plenty of bad sci-fi out there but I can still enjoy laser pistols, aliens and starships.

But I can thank that author for allowing me to start calling Tolkien elves "sparkly vampires."  Not that I ever loved elves to start, but it really sums up my feelings about Tolkien's elves.

Kaosgirl wrote...
And just for that, I'm going to insert some elves into the fantasy story I'm writing.  They'll be useless, forgotten relics of a dead age suffering from a global melancholy and apathy.

I'll proofread it for you.

You know..that is the best idea I have ever heard...calling Tolkien elves "sparkly vampires" may I use that? I just call them people stuck in the 50s.

[grimeyhippy]

not a fan of elves in general, in fact usually I stay away from anything that has to do with elves but DAO had enough else to offer. The fact that Zevran keeps hitting on my character is driving that hatred deeper, one more time and I'm booting him out of the party. So the lower on the food chain elves are the better. Yes, I am racist against elves

[Kaosgirl]

MerinTB wrote...

Kaosgirl wrote...

Stephanie Meyers ruined Vampires, IMO. They won't really be cool again until Twilight is forgotten.

Meh.  I just try and ignore the Twilight phenomenon.  There's plenty of bad sci-fi out there but I can still enjoy laser pistols, aliens and starships.

But I can thank that author for allowing me to start calling Tolkien elves "sparkly vampires."  Not that I ever loved elves to start, but it really sums up my feelings about Tolkien's elves.

Kaosgirl wrote...
And just for that, I'm going to insert some elves into the fantasy story I'm writing.  They'll be useless, forgotten relics of a dead age suffering from a global melancholy and apathy.

I'll proofread it for you.

Masochist
Years of writers block have atrophied my skills, so I expect the first dozen or so drafts to be cliched and hackneyed.

[Noviere]

I like everything about the elves in Thedas except for their height. I wish they were as tall as humans.

[hangmans tree]

And why should elves be as tall as humans? Is there any reason apart of personal preferences? Elves in Thedas are what they are. Nothing more, maybe something less

I think that the concept isnt that fresh (with the elves). To look no further TES III - the fall of Ayleid; The Witcher - non-human ghetto; loosing immortality - Tolkien...But its rather well done.

Elves have more flair, perhaps, which makes them look that much better as they practice. But if they can't overcome an opponent that a man could, then their battle prowess is clearly not superior.



It's just prettier.

Heh, nice one!

[MerinTB]

Dahelia wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Kaosgirl wrote...

Stephanie Meyers ruined Vampires, IMO. They won't really be cool again until Twilight is forgotten.

Meh.  I just try and ignore the Twilight phenomenon.  There's plenty of bad sci-fi out there but I can still enjoy laser pistols, aliens and starships.

But I can thank that author for allowing me to start calling Tolkien elves "sparkly vampires."  Not that I ever loved elves to start, but it really sums up my feelings about Tolkien's elves.

Kaosgirl wrote...
And just for that, I'm going to insert some elves into the fantasy story I'm writing.  They'll be useless, forgotten relics of a dead age suffering from a global melancholy and apathy.

I'll proofread it for you.

You know..that is the best idea I have ever heard...calling Tolkien elves "sparkly vampires" may I use that? I just call them people stuck in the 50s.

As of reading your response it has become a life goal to see "sparkly vampires" become a new meme used as a pejorative to describe characters in fiction who are just way too perfect or are the author's heavy-handed attempt at respresenting their ideal people.

Modifié par MerinTB, 10 décembre 2009 - 08:07 .

[Tirigon]

MerinTB wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

My confusion is I find it hard to believe so many regular people (not PHD's in English and not fantasy-fan posers(as in the defiition of poser, not just an insult(and NOT an insult to those of you who honestly like Tolkien, this isn't a hidden personal attack!))) really enjoy reading a style that I find more obtuse than Dostoevsky or Joyce.

I dont understand how anyone can like Shakespeare in a written form (I do like his stageplays, but I really wouldnt want to read them.) If you can explain that, I might try to explain how you can like Tolkien ;-)

I love the language.  It's not hard for me to understand, and I like the stories that he wrote.  Not a fan of the sonnets, but I personally just don't enjoy poetry despite trying for years.

I also like reading movie scripts, too, if that means anything to you.

Your turn - do you really enjoy reading those songs and the lengthy town descriptions?  I cannot read songs in any work I can think of - I love Dragonlance Chronicles and there I still skip over the canticles and such.  Probably connects to my not enjoying poetry, probably.  But me aside - pages of song being sung by hobbits is entertaining to you?

DAMN YOU! You really did it......

But well... You say you love Shakespears language. I love Tolkien´s. Both in the book im reading in english and in the german translation. I do also like Tolkien´s story. And yes, I DO enjoy Tolkien´s poems and the "lengthy town descriptions". And I love his songs. I do even have a CD-set by the Tolkien ensemble, where you can actually hear the songs sung and have an orchestra and all - and I think it´s great, though I usually like Metal and Rock more than classic. His songs and poems are mostly funny and good to read.
Well, I skipped a few of the worse songs on the second reading, I admit it, but I wouldnt even consider disliking his work of 1000 pages alone in  LotR, + all his other stuff only because I dont like 2 pages of a certain song or the 20th town description.

[Tirigon]

Kaosgirl wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Kaosgirl wrote...
This speaks of a people born to a set level of competency.  Whether they spend a decade or a century honing their skills, they still remain as good as they were and never better.
The reasoning you've given is a metaphysical one; an explanation that this is their status.  But it doesn't explain why they are unable to overcome this limitation, other than simply reiterating that they're not able to overcome it.

Again, this is what I remember of the Silmarillion. If I was to write a fantasy story, I would make the elves beat the humans by far, or rather just spare the elves and write about vampires. They´re cooler anyways.

Stephanie Meyers ruined Vampires, IMO. They won't really be cool again until Twilight is forgotten.

And just for that, I'm going to insert some elves into the fantasy story I'm writing.  They'll be useless, forgotten relics of a dead age suffering from a global melancholy and apathy.

Tirigon wrote...

No manner of willpower will keep you fighting if your head is lopped off or your heart is split in twain.  That he managed to avoid those mortal wounds would speak to some degree of his skill, and give me room to  that his was not lesser.  Merely less obvious.  
He was better at "tanking," so to speak.

There are enough real-life stories about people being able to do incredible things if they are determined enough to do so.

And there are stories of people who failed inspite of their determination.  Tianneman Square, for example
But that's not really relevant.  I'm simply positing that Hurin's ability to survive a battle better than his elven 'superiors' was an edge he had over them, and that it's an insult to his character* to portray it as something other than his own brand of skill.  Elves have more flair, perhaps, which makes them look that much better as they practice.  But if they can't overcome an opponent that a man could, then their battle prowess is clearly not superior.

 It's just prettier.

The vampires in Twilight suck, but the story is nice though


Hurin wasn´t as such stronger as the elves; after all, he finally was captured, though it costed incredible numbers of orcs and trolls their life. The Gondolin elves however did survive, aside from a few exceptions. Hurin was just more heroic to stay, instead of trying to escape, what the elves did.
The way I understood the Silmarillion is in short: The elves are superior in terms of beauty, skill (in everything), wisdom and so forth.
The humans are superior insofar as they are more heroic, more honest etc, in short, they have the better character (Though there are, of course, humans who are ****s, too). And, as said before, they were more free.

And remember: There were only 2 kinds of elves in middle-earth: Those who did never go to Valinor because of fear or not being willing to travel so far, that is those who abandoned the Valar. And those who came back from Valinor. These were power-hungry and arrogant, many of them had killed other elves in Valinor and were therefore banished and doomed by the Valar, some had even abandoned their former comrades and were, therefore, nothing but shameless traitors. Their first deeds in Middle-earth say much about them: At first they killed a few armies of orcs sent out by Morgoth to defeat them when they were still new in Middle Earth, then they decided who would rule which part of the world, completely ignoring the elves that lived there and making them their servants.

[the_one_54321]

Tirigon wrote...

The way I understood the Silmarillion is in short: The elves are superior in terms of beauty, skill (in everything), wisdom and so forth.
The humans are superior insofar as they are more heroic, more honest etc, in short, they have the better character (Though there are, of course, humans who are ****s, too). And, as said before, they were more free.

And remember: There were only 2 kinds of elves in middle-earth: Those who did never go to Valinor because of fear or not being willing to travel so far, that is those who abandoned the Valar. And those who came back from Valinor

No. <_<

the difference between the first born children of illuvatar and the second born children of illuvatar was that the elves were imortal and destined for the halls of mandos. men were mortal, but their inner flame burnned the brighter and led them to be more driven, and their fate at the end of the world was known to none save illuvatar.

also, there were many kinds of elves. there were those that statyed in the east and gradually moved west. there were those that founded the havens. there were those who stated with thingol. there were those who went imediately to valinor. there were those that made their way to valinor very slowly. there were those who almost didnt get to valinor and ended up on the enchanted isle due to ulmo helping them. then there were the noldor that followed feanor back to middle earth. and even of the noldor some sailed with feanor on the ships of the telquendi and there were those that were left behind and made their way through the passes of the far north. of the nolder, most were valiant and noble. the first high king of the noldor even challenged morgoth to one on one combat and managed to wound him before being slain. it was the sons of feanor, bound by their oath, who continued to do wicked and selfish things.

[zodiac6]

I liked the elves in the original Everquest. I seem to remember there being a pretty wide variety of elf types (although it's been years since I've played it so I could be remembering wrong).

[Kaosgirl]

Tirigon wrote...

Kaosgirl wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Kaosgirl wrote...
This speaks of a people born to a set level of competency.  Whether they spend a decade or a century honing their skills, they still remain as good as they were and never better.
The reasoning you've given is a metaphysical one; an explanation that this is their status.  But it doesn't explain why they are unable to overcome this limitation, other than simply reiterating that they're not able to overcome it.

Again, this is what I remember of the Silmarillion. If I was to write a fantasy story, I would make the elves beat the humans by far, or rather just spare the elves and write about vampires. They´re cooler anyways.

Stephanie Meyers ruined Vampires, IMO. They won't really be cool again until Twilight is forgotten.

And just for that, I'm going to insert some elves into the fantasy story I'm writing.  They'll be useless, forgotten relics of a dead age suffering from a global melancholy and apathy.

Tirigon wrote...

No manner of willpower will keep you fighting if your head is lopped off or your heart is split in twain.  That he managed to avoid those mortal wounds would speak to some degree of his skill, and give me room to  that his was not lesser.  Merely less obvious.  
He was better at "tanking," so to speak.

There are enough real-life stories about people being able to do incredible things if they are determined enough to do so.

And there are stories of people who failed inspite of their determination.  Tianneman Square, for example
But that's not really relevant.  I'm simply positing that Hurin's ability to survive a battle better than his elven 'superiors' was an edge he had over them, and that it's an insult to his character* to portray it as something other than his own brand of skill.  Elves have more flair, perhaps, which makes them look that much better as they practice.  But if they can't overcome an opponent that a man could, then their battle prowess is clearly not superior.

 It's just prettier.

The vampires in Twilight suck, but the story is nice though


Hurin wasn´t as such stronger as the elves; after all, he finally was captured, though it costed incredible numbers of orcs and trolls their life. The Gondolin elves however did survive, aside from a few exceptions. Hurin was just more heroic to stay, instead of trying to escape, what the elves did.
The way I understood the Silmarillion is in short: The elves are superior in terms of beauty, skill (in everything), wisdom and so forth.
The humans are superior insofar as they are more heroic, more honest etc, in short, they have the better character (Though there are, of course, humans who are ****s, too).

None of which shoes up in LOTR.  Human are, generally speaking, *less* honest and less brave than the elves-in-general.  Heroes notwithstanding.

[Kaosgirl]

Tirigon wrote...

Kaosgirl wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Kaosgirl wrote...
This speaks of a people born to a set level of competency.  Whether they spend a decade or a century honing their skills, they still remain as good as they were and never better.
The reasoning you've given is a metaphysical one; an explanation that this is their status.  But it doesn't explain why they are unable to overcome this limitation, other than simply reiterating that they're not able to overcome it.

Again, this is what I remember of the Silmarillion. If I was to write a fantasy story, I would make the elves beat the humans by far, or rather just spare the elves and write about vampires. They´re cooler anyways.

Stephanie Meyers ruined Vampires, IMO. They won't really be cool again until Twilight is forgotten.

And just for that, I'm going to insert some elves into the fantasy story I'm writing.  They'll be useless, forgotten relics of a dead age suffering from a global melancholy and apathy.

Tirigon wrote...

No manner of willpower will keep you fighting if your head is lopped off or your heart is split in twain.  That he managed to avoid those mortal wounds would speak to some degree of his skill, and give me room to  that his was not lesser.  Merely less obvious.  
He was better at "tanking," so to speak.

There are enough real-life stories about people being able to do incredible things if they are determined enough to do so.

And there are stories of people who failed inspite of their determination.  Tianneman Square, for example
But that's not really relevant.  I'm simply positing that Hurin's ability to survive a battle better than his elven 'superiors' was an edge he had over them, and that it's an insult to his character* to portray it as something other than his own brand of skill.  Elves have more flair, perhaps, which makes them look that much better as they practice.  But if they can't overcome an opponent that a man could, then their battle prowess is clearly not superior.

 It's just prettier.

The vampires in Twilight suck, but the story is nice though


Hurin wasn´t as such stronger as the elves; after all, he finally was captured, though it costed incredible numbers of orcs and trolls their life. The Gondolin elves however did survive, aside from a few exceptions. Hurin was just more heroic to stay, instead of trying to escape, what the elves did.
The way I understood the Silmarillion is in short: The elves are superior in terms of beauty, skill (in everything), wisdom and so forth.
The humans are superior insofar as they are more heroic, more honest etc, in short, they have the better character (Though there are, of course, humans who are ****s, too).

None of which shoes up in LOTR.  Human are, generally speaking, *less* honest and less brave than the elves-in-general.  Heroes notwithstanding.

Also, I still don't get how humans are "more free" other than the assertion that they are.  It keeps getting circular.  

[Curlain]

One of the things you have to bear in mind with Tolkien and his mythology is that the idea of ages and fate are central to it. The elves both as a whole and indivdual are bound to this world and to their fate, it draws heavily on Anglo-Saxon (such as Beowulf), Germanic and Scandavic folklore (which was one of Tolkien's lines of reaseach as a Professor at Oxford University), and their rather fatalistic elements and concepts. It was believed that one could not escape their fate, that the line of their (the hero, villian or other part character, such as Beowulf and the dragon) life had been written and had to stocially face their appointed fate and place. In some respects, the dragon in Beowulf is not the villan so much as working out it's function as the dragon and the fate of Beowulf.

This comes strongly into the conception of the elves - they are bound to their fate, they in the end cannot rise above it.  However humans were given the gift to struggle and make their own fate if they used the fire within given to them. The elves have the greater overall gifts, but humanity is given the best gift.

Humanity was also given the gift of death, which before Morgoth cast his Shadow over man was not a thing of darkness and fear. It allows humans to leave the bounds of the Earth once their time is reached, and the elves do not know where human spirits go (possibly to Illuvatar/Eru, the God of Tolkien's world) but that they are not bound to the Circle and fate of the world like Elves are, but are free of it, both before and after.

In the end, humanity in Tolkien's conception are given the gift of freedom, in choice, in fate ultimately from the fate of the world.

Modifié par Curlain, 12 décembre 2009 - 11:00 .

[MR-9]

Yeah, a lot (I dare say most) fantasy has its roots in non-fiction. It's hard to write about something that is unlike anything you've ever witnessed.