361 réponses à ce sujet

[Veracruz]

th3warr1or wrote...

Which is exactly why I don't like Thedas' Elves lol. My impression of elves ever since I could read was Tolkien's version. Badass archers, who own everyone at just about everything.

Booooooooooooooooring.

[Kalcalan]

Roxlimn wrote...

Tolkien Elves were not the embodiment of magic, and they were not all expressly tall - that would be the Tall Kin Elves, which differ from Tolkien Elves in that they were all uniformly tall. Neither Elf concept was very sociable, though - that would be the Talking Elves.

Talking elves? What are you talking about? What setting are you taking into consideration?

[P_k_r]

Lol Roxlimn



Good to see some people who can see beyond the "lol Tolkien elves are ghey", they are actually a pretty original and deep species, far from the one sided jerks we can observe in nowadays commercial fantasy.

[JaegerBane]

th3warr1or wrote...

Which is exactly why I don't like Thedas' Elves lol. My impression of elves ever since I could read was Tolkien's version. Badass archers, who own everyone at just about everything.

And funnily enough, the reason why I disliked Middle Earth Elves. They were basically an entire race of Mary Sues.

I don't necessarily mind the odd Mary Sue in a story, but having a single perfect race who are amazing at everything but in the end, don't do a great deal never really made much sense to me.

[Talvrae]

Deathstyk85 wrote...

Seifz wrote...

Well, the Elves in Thedas used to be like Tolkien's Elves (minus the tallness) before the Humans stole their stuff.

well before they got their asses kicked and forgot how to be immortal lol.

That's what the Dalish say, there is no evidence that's true
and no i dont favor Tolkien elf

[JaegerBane]

Talvrae wrote...
That's what the Dalish say, there is no evidence that's true
and no i dont favor Tolkien elf

To be fair, I think those rather impressive ruins count as some evidence.

[MerinTB]

JaegerBane wrote...

th3warr1or wrote...

Which is exactly why I don't like Thedas' Elves lol. My impression of elves ever since I could read was Tolkien's version. Badass archers, who own everyone at just about everything.

And funnily enough, the reason why I disliked Middle Earth Elves. They were basically an entire race of Mary Sues.

I don't necessarily mind the odd Mary Sue in a story, but having a single perfect race who are amazing at everything but in the end, don't do a great deal never really made much sense to me.

They were Tolkien's Mary Sue, in fact.

He was a philologist and an anti-industrialization zealot.  He loved language and tried a few times to create the "perfect" language, and then he gave his "perfect" language to the "most perfect" beings in his self-constructed fantasy world.  His "perfect" beings, the ones who hated industry and loved the land, were dying out and being pushed out by industry.

The man had such an ego and so many issues (who could be a friend of C.S. Lewis and NOT have issues?) it so clearly comes through his work.

This isn't meant to be a dig on those who love LotR.  I really liked the movies. I just found Tolkien's writing style unreadable and his agenda heavy-handed.

[FlintlockJazz]

MerinTB wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

th3warr1or wrote...

Which is exactly why I don't like Thedas' Elves lol. My impression of elves ever since I could read was Tolkien's version. Badass archers, who own everyone at just about everything.

And funnily enough, the reason why I disliked Middle Earth Elves. They were basically an entire race of Mary Sues.

I don't necessarily mind the odd Mary Sue in a story, but having a single perfect race who are amazing at everything but in the end, don't do a great deal never really made much sense to me.

They were Tolkien's Mary Sue, in fact.

He was a philologist and an anti-industrialization zealot.  He loved language and tried a few times to create the "perfect" language, and then he gave his "perfect" language to the "most perfect" beings in his self-constructed fantasy world.  His "perfect" beings, the ones who hated industry and loved the land, were dying out and being pushed out by industry.

The man had such an ego and so many issues (who could be a friend of C.S. Lewis and NOT have issues?) it so clearly comes through his work.

This isn't meant to be a dig on those who love LotR.  I really liked the movies. I just found Tolkien's writing style unreadable and his agenda heavy-handed.

Well, to be fair some of his fears of industrilisation did come true in some respects, and the Elves in Tolkien's works are still not the same as the generic 'High Elves' we get in modern fantasy.  They were also not perfect, and the whole point of them going West was because their time was over and that Man needed to rise up (though why considering how pathetic mankind is in reality makes me wonder).

[JaegerBane]

MerinTB wrote...

They were Tolkien's Mary Sue, in fact.

He was a philologist and an anti-industrialization zealot.  He loved language and tried a few times to create the "perfect" language, and then he gave his "perfect" language to the "most perfect" beings in his self-constructed fantasy world.  His "perfect" beings, the ones who hated industry and loved the land, were dying out and being pushed out by industry.

The man had such an ego and so many issues (who could be a friend of C.S. Lewis and NOT have issues?) it so clearly comes through his work.

This isn't meant to be a dig on those who love LotR.  I really liked the movies. I just found Tolkien's writing style unreadable and his agenda heavy-handed.

I hear you - the whole anti-industry vibe was something I didn't particularly appreciate in the books. He made some interesting commentary about destruction of the environment but when he started going down the path of anyone who loved the trees and farmed the land was amazing and awesome and beautiful and anyone who went for industry was horrible and brutal and deformed, it was, as you say, too heavy-handed for me.

And let's not get into C.S. Lewis, shall we? The less said about that bible-basher, the better

[Curlain]

What's wrong with C.S. Lewis as such, all authors are influenced by their beliefs and world view (such as Robert Pullman the other way), so him being a Christian and having woven redemptive elements that bare similarity to the Christian story into his Narnia books now means Bible-bashing O_o, I thought that just belonged to actual Bible bashers conerning you on the street (I know he wrote some more acedemic books defending ideas in the Christian faith as well, but again, those were books, to be either brought or not as you wish, not my definition of a bible-basher). I don't know I guess I liked his Narnia books a kid, oh well.

Tolkien's elves were far from perfect, Feanor essentially caused the Noldor's explusion from their version of heaven, they tended to live in cities rather then pure forests (some even underground like dwarves, the human hero Turin lived with such a group), and their history in Elder times features their increasing defeats and loses at the hands of Morgoth, so I don't think their were either always depicted as morally perfect (again the story of Turin was good for showing some elves in a far from upstanding light) or all powerful. Still they were often his image of a perfect race, that's true.

Modifié par Curlain, 06 décembre 2009 - 06:12 .

[MerinTB]

Curlain wrote...

What's wrong with C.S. Lewis as such

It's a dramatization and all but -

watch Shadowlands.

It's being NICE to him.

[FlintlockJazz]

Curlain wrote...

What's wrong with C.S. Lewis as such, all authors are influenced by their beliefs and world view (such as Robert Pullman the other way), so him being a Christian and having woven redemptive elements that bare similarity to the Christian story into his Narnia books now means Bible-bashing O_o, I thought that just belonged to actual Bible bashers conerning you on the street (I know he wrote some more acedemic books defending ideas in the Christian faith as well, but again, those were books, to be either brought or not as you wish, not my definition of a bible-basher). I don't know I guess I liked his Narnia books a kid, oh well.

Tolkien's elves were far from perfect, Feanor essentially caused the Noldor's explusion from their version of heaven, they tended to live in cities rather then pure forests (some even underground like dwarves, the human hero Turin lived with such a group), and their history in Elder times features their increasing defeats and loses at the hands of Morgoth, so I don't think their were either always depicted as morally perfect (again the story of Turin was good for showing some elves in a far from upstanding light) or all powerful. Still they were often his image of a perfect race, that's true.

I agree, especially with the CS Lewis bit, they were good books no matter what and people obviously liked them. 

The Golden Compass (called Northern Lights or whatever over here) on the other hand I found dire, and that was before I found out it was supposed to be some sort of Athiests' opposition to the Narnia books.  I never before wanted a little girl to die horribly before in my life until I read that book, and I never finished it because I just got so bored of it, which is unusual for me.  Once I found out, quite a while later, about the whole athiest thing I kind of understood why the people who had recommended them to me had done so: as athiest fundamentalists they are obsessed with anything remotely athiest being automatically good, whereas the Narnia books at least could stand on their own as entertaining stories whether or not they had religious undertones (hell, you could argue that that's the reason why people follow religion, because they are at least entertaining stories for them). 

As an Agnostic (a true Agnostic and not one of them Athiests pretending to be an Agnostic in an attempt to trick Agnostics into siding up with the Athiests), I find that there is prejudice and hypocrisy on both sides.  While watching both sides from my fence high above the ground looking down upon them from my height of moral superiority, I often see no difference between the most vehement religious fundamentalist and the most vehement athiest fundamentalist.  Then again, maybe I just resent being told what I can and can't believe in by anyone.

[MerinTB]

FlintlockJazz wrote...
anti-atheist rant deleted

Wow, let's not start this.

C.S. Lewis was a screwed up man, regardless of his religious belief system.

I couldn't read Narnia nor LotR (well, I did finish LotR but I forced myself (long story)) and enjoy them -
but at least the Peter Jackson films were great based on the LotR materials.
The Golden Compass, another book I probably won't read (though my wife loves it), had a decent movie as well.

That Narnia movie, however, was boring as crap.  And everyone lives at the end anyway so why care about the big fight?  Whee.

Anywho, Tolkien's elves were just too prissy-perfect.  The one joy I got out of reading the book was constantly hoping Ghimli would beat Legolas at their kill-count.

[Roxlimn]

Prissy Perfect? Of course not. They were very strong, but neither prissy nor perfect - you would be talking about the Towel King Elves, who by their mastery of all thing bathroom-related are as prissy and perfect as can be. Of course, we can all understand the confusion...

[FlintlockJazz]

MerinTB wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...
anti-atheist rant deleted

Wow, let's not start this.

C.S. Lewis was a screwed up man, regardless of his religious belief system.

I couldn't read Narnia nor LotR (well, I did finish LotR but I forced myself (long story)) and enjoy them -
but at least the Peter Jackson films were great based on the LotR materials.
The Golden Compass, another book I probably won't read (though my wife loves it), had a decent movie as well.

That Narnia movie, however, was boring as crap.  And everyone lives at the end anyway so why care about the big fight?  Whee.

Anywho,
Tolkien's elves were just too prissy-perfect.  The one joy I got out of
reading the book was constantly hoping Ghimli would beat Legolas at
their kill-count.

I don't read a book based on
the author's beliefs but on how entertaining I find the book, and I
found the Narnia books entertaining, whereas I found a book that many
people loved for being the 'anti-narnia' to be utterly boring, despite
whatever the author intended, with the point being that the author's
views are irrelevant if they cannot write an interesting story. 

As for it being an 'anti-athiest rant' (seriously, couldn't you have just used some other phrase instead of one that sounds like you're attacking me?), well others including yourself brought in the whole 'religion' aspect to this thread, and I write in response to what others have put so if you didn't want to get into that aspect you should not have brought it up.

[Roxlimn]

I found the Narnia books endearing and entertaining, even if I found the content borderline heretical.

[Templar Vilmon]

Let's see, I've played a half elf in NWN 2, a night elf in WOW, a dark elf in Warhammer Online, and now I've just started a City Elf rogue. Of all the "elves" I've played in video games, I really liked the twist that the DA:O series put on generic fantasy elves.



As far as Tolkien having issues, I think anyone who survived some of the worst trench battles of WW I was going to come out the other side a bit scarred.

[MerinTB]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...
anti-atheist rant deleted

Wow, let's not start this.

C.S. Lewis was a screwed up man, regardless of his religious belief system.

I couldn't read Narnia nor LotR (well, I did finish LotR but I forced myself (long story)) and enjoy them -
but at least the Peter Jackson films were great based on the LotR materials.
The Golden Compass, another book I probably won't read (though my wife loves it), had a decent movie as well.

That Narnia movie, however, was boring as crap.  And everyone lives at the end anyway so why care about the big fight?  Whee.

Anywho,
Tolkien's elves were just too prissy-perfect.  The one joy I got out of
reading the book was constantly hoping Ghimli would beat Legolas at
their kill-count.

I don't read a book based on
the author's beliefs but on how entertaining I find the book, and I
found the Narnia books entertaining, whereas I found a book that many
people loved for being the 'anti-narnia' to be utterly boring, despite
whatever the author intended, with the point being that the author's
views are irrelevant if they cannot write an interesting story. 

As for it being an 'anti-athiest rant' (seriously, couldn't you have just used some other phrase instead of one that sounds like you're attacking me?), well others including yourself brought in the whole 'religion' aspect to this thread, and I write in response to what others have put so if you didn't want to get into that aspect you should not have brought it up.

1 - Golden Compass was not written as an anti-Narnia book.  Some people chose to quantify it as such, but Pullman himself said he wrote it as an inverse of Milton's Paradise Lost.
2 - I don't read books based on the writer's beliefs, but the writer's beliefs shine through often and can (like Tolkien, like Koontz) ruin what could have been a good story.
3 - Your rant was anti-atheist because the only people you slung mud at were atheists, while couched in the "both sides have intolerance" cover to make it seem reasonable:
"athiest fundamentalists they are obsessed with anything remotely athiest being automatically good" - ""not one of them Athiests pretending to be an Agnostic in an attempt to trick Agnostics into siding up with the Athiests"
those are both pretty blatant.
4 - I did not bring up religion in the least - you read into my posts based on what someone else wrote religion.  I said Tolkien was a philologist (that's someone who studies LANGUAGE, not a theologist who studies religion) and an anti-INDUSTRIALIST (again, nothing religious here.)  I brought up his friendship with Lewis because, from what I know of C.S. Lewis, the man lived a life focused on pain and loss and THAT is screwed up - if that was in part due to his religious beliefs I don't know but I didn't make that judgement call.

No, sir, you came in on your "high fence" passing judgement and assuming (or setting up a strawman) that I was making some kind of anti-religious statement.

I was making a "Narnia and LotR books are unreadable" statement, and a "Golden Compass and LotR movies were good while Narnia movie sucked" statement.  And a "I probably will never read Golden Compass" statement as well.

Prior to this post, show me where I brought up religion in the context of this discussion?  I brought up C.S. Lewis, but not for a religious discussion.

Modifié par MerinTB, 06 décembre 2009 - 07:04 .

[th3warr1or]

Basically, I just don't like Thedas' elves because they're weak.

[FlintlockJazz]

MerinTB wrote...

1 - Golden Compass was not written as an anti-Narnia book.  Some people chose to quantify it as such
2 - I don't read books based on the writer's beliefs, but the writer's beliefs shine through often and can (like Tolkien, like Koontz) ruin what could have been a good story.
3 - Your rant was anti-atheist because the only people you slung mud at were atheists, while couched in the "both sides have intolerance" cover to make it seem reasonable:
"athiest fundamentalists they are obsessed with anything remotely athiest being automatically good" - ""not one of them Athiests pretending to be an Agnostic in an attempt to trick Agnostics into siding up with the Athiests"
those are both pretty blatant.
4 - I did not bring up religion in the least - you read into my posts based on what someone else wrote religion.  I said Tolkien was a philologist (that's someone who studies LANGUAGE, not a theologist who studies religion) and an anti-INDUSTRIALIST (again, nothing religious here.)  I brought up his friendship with Lewis because, from what I know of C.S. Lewis, the man lived a life focused on pain and loss and THAT is screwed up - if that was in part due to his religious beliefs I don't know but I didn't make that judgement call.

No, sir, you came in on your "high fence" passing judgement and assuming (or setting up a strawman) that I was making some kind of anti-religious statement.

I was making a "Narnia and LotR books are unreadable" statement, and a "Golden Compass and LotR movies were good while Narnia movie sucked" statement.  And a "I probably will never read Golden Compass" statement as well.

Prior to this post, show me where I brought up religion in the context of this discussion?  I brought up C.S. Lewis, but not for a religious discussion.

1.  As you said yourself you never read it, you wouldn't know would you?  There are some strong anti-religious themes in the book and the author himself has attacked the Narnia books and has marketed his book as being such.  In addition, I did say that I stopped reading it before I even found out that it was intended as such, while I saw the anti-religion stuff in there while reading I didn't really care one way or the other as it was a boring read, which was the whole point of my post that you seem to have missed.

2.  Then what the hell has CS Lewis' beliefs got to do with what was being discussed?  And I disagree, some stories are ruined by it, some are made better by it and others are just not affected.  I don't agree with Narnia being one of the former, I don't expect you to agree with me on this one but that was kinda the point.

3.  I see you completely missed out on the "maybe religions are so popular because they make entertaining stories" bit then?  Yes, there was a slant against athiesm, but that was because the example I was using (Golden Compass) was about athiesm, and was trying to show the opposite side, since many of the athiest fundamentalists (notice that I was refering to athiest fundamentalists, not to athiests in general) don't realise they are guilty of the very things they accuse religion of, and if there's one thing I don't like it's hypocrisy.

4.  You accused me of making an 'anti-athiest rant' from the get go, I did not even refer to you at all until your response, so don't accuse me of throwing the first grenade mate.  You brought up CS Lewis due to his beliefs, and I responded to someone else to agree with them and to explain why I agreed with them, and then you attacked me. 

As for being on a 'high fence', I'm glad you picked up on my dig at myself I made in my own post, I'm fully aware of my own fallibilities and mud slinging ability thank you.  Now lets just agree to disagree and respect each others postings from now on instead okay?

Modifié par FlintlockJazz, 06 décembre 2009 - 07:24 .

[LdyShayna]

Keep in mind that this is a Dragon Age discussion forum. While comparing someone's works to what is in Dragon Age is one thing, if you wish to discuss the religious aspects of various writers, or comparing different books that are utterly unrelated to Dragon Age, please take it to some other forum. Thanks!

[Tsuga C]

Grrrrrrr! Sick 'em, LdyShayna! Grrrr!

[Aesir Rising]

MerinTB wrote...
  Anywho, Tolkien's elves were just too prissy-perfect. 

Yikes.  The elves you see in the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit are there because they were exiled.  They were exiled because the Valar (the Middle-Earth gods) tossed them out of their lands because a) they rebelled against the Valar, and the elves were murdering each other during The Kin-Slaying because they went to war against each other and against the Valar over the right to possess the Silmarils.

All those elves that figure prominently in the movie?  Exiled rebel elf-murderers or children of those that did commit those crimes.  Sure, they still had values and morals.  But you know how all those elves in the books and movies seemed slightly sad or melancholy?  Yeah, now you know why.

Modifié par Aesir Rising, 06 décembre 2009 - 08:04 .

[Slaign]

I never saw the appeal of a Superman character. It's superficial to me. No depth to it, I can't relate to a perfect character.

Still, I don't want my character to be so real as to not be special. I want flaws, I want issues. Plus, just because the character is special doesn't mean the whole society has to be.

So I like what DA did with Elves. I tend to prefer Dalish elves because they are more militant, not so passive. But I like both Origin stories. I think the City Elf origin is a little cooler, but I like the Dalish themselves more.

[Staylost]

Oh sure.



Of course I prefer immortal, hearty, super wise, killing machines with hyper-senses to the whiny DA elves.



But Tolkien's elves don't belong in a game. If realized as he describes them, they would be something like godmode.