|
Zombies magazine posted:snape's redemption being viewed as fully exonerating by some people is particularly embarrassing since even joanne came out and was like "yeah i mean, he still sucks? he's a Personally, I would not name my child after someone who sucks
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2025 15:14
|
|
grey character 
|
|
| # ? Jan 18, 2026 07:54 |
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:Personally, I would not name my child after someone who sucks Naming my kid John Mayer
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2025 15:16
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:Personally, I would not name my child after someone who sucks if he was just Albus he would have been too perfect
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2025 15:20
|
|
|
YaketySass posted:if he was just Albus he would have been too perfect Nvm naming my kid Ghandi Goebbels
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2025 15:33
|
|
|
Dumbledore liked to suck on candies, of course he was supposed to be gay representation jeez
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2025 16:20
|
|
|
caspergers posted:When I'm feeling contrarian I bitch about the line "There wasn't a witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin" cuz Sirius Black was in Gryffindor Wasn’t Peter Pettigrew also a Gryffindor, though? Maybe Hagrid is an unreliable relayer of information.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2025 17:50
|
|
|
caspergers posted:When I'm feeling contrarian I bitch about the line "There wasn't a witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin" cuz Sirius Black was in Gryffindor That’s first book whimsical kid story logic, that clearly doesn’t jive with reality. I suppose one can read that as ”kids are stupid and exaggerate”.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2025 18:51
|
|
|
On that note, I do like Slughorn's inclusion in Book 6. The Slytherin House we see is basically completely contaminated by Voldemort's influence and all the kids are the sons of Death Eaters or whatever. Slughorn is supremely selfish, somewhat cowardly and bigoted, but he isn't a villain. He doesn't want genocide, he's nice enough to you if he likes you, and he will even fight if given enough persuasion. That is what Slytherin House is in its more "uncorrupted form" - ambitious, prideful, vain, but not to the extent of making you an evil, murderous bastard. And for all the poo poo I give the movies, they were probably right to tone down Slughorn being a prick. It's a bit much in the book itself, even if he isn't evil. Also as I've gotten older, I've gotten very tired of the Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter approach to heroism where the hero is defined by their reluctance to be a hero. "A hero can't have pride! They can't have ambition! They are only here because circumstances forced it on them and they're such good, humble people that they will step up in this time of crisis." Maybe a hero should have pride and ambition and a desire to lead? Within limits, of course, but it's still just such a naive (and Christian) view that good leadership requires being forced to be a leader. NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Oct 7, 2025 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2025 19:15
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:Wasn’t Peter Pettigrew also a Gryffindor, though? Maybe Hagrid is an unreliable relayer of information. I mean when Hagrid says that he still thinks Pettigrew is both dead and an innocent who died tragically to the villainous Sirius Black. Who is uh also a Griffindor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2025 19:17
|
|
|
Harry was just the first person Hagrid could give that speech to without being interrupted with “go home Hagrid you’re drunk”
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2025 19:42
|
|
|
Zore posted:I mean when Hagrid says that he still thinks Pettigrew is both dead and an innocent who died tragically to the villainous Sirius Black. Gryffindor-on-Gryffindor violence doesn't count. NikkolasKing posted:On that note, I do like Slughorn's inclusion in Book 6. The Slytherin House we see is basically completely contaminated by Voldemort's influence and all the kids are the sons of Death Eaters or whatever. Slughorn is supremely selfish, somewhat cowardly and bigoted, but he isn't a villain. He doesn't want genocide, he's nice enough to you if he likes you, and he will even fight if given enough persuasion. The Slytherins don't seem all that ambitious either outside of Riddle, they're either born into wealth or fine being lackeys. I guess Hermione has pride and ambition to a degree, and it's treated as a bit mockable too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2025 19:46
|
|
|
I'm repeating what's been said before, but a lot of what makes the earlier books better is that the political Manichaeism comes across not as concrete reality but as an oversimplification from and by biased adults talking down to kids.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2025 19:49
|
|
|
YaketySass posted:Gryffindor-on-Gryffindor violence doesn't count. lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2025 20:26
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Also as I've gotten older, I've gotten very tired of the Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter approach to heroism where the hero is defined by their reluctance to be a hero. "A hero can't have pride! They can't have ambition! They are only here because circumstances forced it on them and they're such good, humble people that they will step up in this time of crisis." Maybe a hero should have pride and ambition and a desire to lead? Within limits, of course, but it's still just such a naive (and Christian) view that good leadership requires being forced to be a leader. You are exactly describing Aragorn's character in the books. Aragorn's reluctance to take his throne is an invention of the films, in the books he only hangs back at first to avoid adding political strife in Minas Tirith to all the other problems it's facing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gq1KWWyt-I
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2025 20:52
|
|
|
Yeah but Aragorn's the king by birth even if he still has to work at it. It's rarer to have a hero who actually wants to reach a social position they're not entitled to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2025 21:06
|
|
|
It was pretty up in the air whether he was entitled to it or not. He was the rightful king of Arnor, which no longer existed, but had a tenuous claim at best to Gondor. He earned his acknowledgement as king through acts of healing and leadership.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2025 21:24
|
|
|
Weren't the High Kings of Arnor kings of both Arnor and Gondor? Given Gondorian line of the Numenorian royal family is extinguished isn't Aragorn's claim extremely strong and nto at all tenuous? Unless you want to argue that Gondor formally abolished the monarchy or something but I mean even Denethor says that Gondor would never accept the Stewards as kings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2025 21:35
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Also as I've gotten older, I've gotten very tired of the Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter approach to heroism where the hero is defined by their reluctance to be a hero. "A hero can't have pride! They can't have ambition! They are only here because circumstances forced it on them and they're such good, humble people that they will step up in this time of crisis." Maybe a hero should have pride and ambition and a desire to lead? Within limits, of course, but it's still just such a naive (and Christian) view that good leadership requires being forced to be a leader. This is not a Christian thing. Edit: at least, not exclusively. Plato posted:He who does not desire power is fit to hold it Douglas Adams posted:It is a well-known fact that those people who most want to rule people are…those least suited to do it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2025 21:46
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:Weren't the High Kings of Arnor kings of both Arnor and Gondor? Given Gondorian line of the Numenorian royal family is extinguished isn't Aragorn's claim extremely strong and nto at all tenuous? Unless you want to argue that Gondor formally abolished the monarchy or something but I mean even Denethor says that Gondor would never accept the Stewards as kings. No, they're separate, one to each son. There's deep cut extended universe stuff somewhere in the History of Middle-earth books about the kings of Arnor trying for Gondor when the royal line there died out and the legalities the Stewards used to tell them to gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2025 22:03
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:This is not a Christian thing. Edit: at least, not exclusively. I mean it's basic on-it's-face obvious, really. There are pretty much literally only three possible motives for wanting power: 1. I will use it to help others! 2. I will use it to crush my enemies! 3. I will use it to enrich myself! The issue is of course that motives 2 and especially 3 will generally present themselves to others as 1 because "I will use the power you give me to help you!" is an easier sell - pre Trump, anyway - than "gently caress you, give me your poo poo." So yeah, generally speaking it's just basic and obvious that anyone who desires power is suspect since they are probably more likely than not to not want that power, at least primarily, to help you. Runcible Cat posted:No, they're separate, one to each son. There's deep cut extended universe stuff somewhere in the History of Middle-earth books about the kings of Arnor trying for Gondor when the royal line there died out and the legalities the Stewards used to tell them to gently caress off. Ahh, yes, that's right. What book/s was that in? Just HoME?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2025 22:08
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:Weren't the High Kings of Arnor kings of both Arnor and Gondor? Given Gondorian line of the Numenorian royal family is extinguished isn't Aragorn's claim extremely strong and nto at all tenuous? Unless you want to argue that Gondor formally abolished the monarchy or something but I mean even Denethor says that Gondor would never accept the Stewards as kings. Elendil was High King and ruled from Arnor. Anarion was king of Gondor under him. They both died at the siege of Barad-dur, so Isildur became king of Gondor and of Arnor, but never made it back to claim the title of High King. Isildur's heirs ruled Arnor until its destruction, and styled themselves High King but had no real power over Gondor, while Anarion's heirs ruled in Gondor until the last of the line got himself captured by the Witch-King. So the family line was split, and had Aragorn tried to claim the throne just on the basis of his ancestry, he'd have been refused by Denethor and would have risked provoking civil war from people more closely related to Anarion's line. He had to prove his worthiness in his own right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2025 22:14
|
|
|
Dabir posted:You are exactly describing Aragorn's character in the books. Aragorn's reluctance to take his throne is an invention of the films, in the books he only hangs back at first to avoid adding political strife in Minas Tirith to all the other problems it's facing. Frodo is the hero, not Aragorn. Military might meant absolutely nothing because Sauron had prepared for far too long and far too well. Aragorn was just a distraction. It's a major difference between The Silmarillion and LOTR where we have gone from gods and demigods and legendary heroes deciding the fate of the world in continent-destroying wars to one humble hobbit who saves the world through showing compassion and pity. Aragon's Numenorean blood really didn't matter one bit to true victory. YaketySass posted:Yeah but Aragorn's the king by birth even if he still has to work at it. It's rarer to have a hero who actually wants to reach a social position they're not entitled to. Exactly. The Faramir/Boromir contrast is a pretty blatant example of what I'm getting at, too. Why is Faramir able to resist the Ring? Because he accepts that he's an underling for life and does not dare to question if he should ever be King. quote:‘And this I remember of Boromir as a boy, when we together learned the tale of our sires and the history of our city, that always it displeased him that his father was not king. ‘‘How many hundreds of years needs it to make a steward a king, if the king returns not?’’ he asked. ‘‘Few years, maybe, in other places of less royalty,’’ my father answered. ‘‘In Gondor ten thousand years would not suffice.’’ Alas! poor Boromir. Does that not tell you something of him?’ The Ring literally is Sin. What is the gravest of sins? Pride. Boromir had the audacity to think he could be King just because he has all the experience in this area and Aragorn is just some dude with 1/1000000th elf blood. Grundulum posted:This is not a Christian thing. Edit: at least, not exclusively. There's a lot of overlap between Platonic teachings and Christianity, hence one reason they've been grouped together for so long. But I mainly called out Christianity here because Tolkien was obviously a very devout Catholic and Rowling is a Christian too so far as I know. I think that very specifically Christian ethos dominates their work. NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Oct 7, 2025 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2025 23:31
|
|
|
Very over-simplistic way of looking at it. Tolkien's world has room for many kinds of heroism. If all the stuff Aragorn and the Rohirrim and so on were doing wasn't important, he wouldn't have dedicated half the loving book to telling us about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2025 00:44
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Frodo is the hero, not Aragorn. Military might meant absolutely nothing because Sauron had prepared for far too long and far too well. Aragorn was just a distraction. Catholics also spent a lot of time and energy trying to get Roman and Greek philosophy folded into their moral codes (looking at you Thomas Aquinas), so it makes sense a lot of their teachings line up with Plato.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2025 01:11
|
|
|
i have it on good authority that gondor needs no king
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2025 02:02
|
|
|
Air Skwirl posted:Catholics also spent a lot of time and energy trying to get Roman and Greek philosophy folded into their moral codes (looking at you Thomas Aquinas), so it makes sense a lot of their teachings line up with Plato. Christians absolutely did twist any Greek phil they could to fit into their worldview and theology, but there are some genuine similarities. It's been several years now since my own foray into philosophy and I started with Plato. (as everyone should) This part from the Crito should sound very familiar to most of us: quote:Socrates: Do we say that we should never willingly act unjustly, or that we should in some instances and not in others? Or is acting unjustly never Meanwhile in the Bible.... "You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." In the new Ancient History thread they were discussing ancient law codes or whatever. Maybe I should actually go read that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2025 02:32
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Frodo is the hero, not Aragorn. Excuse me, Sam is the hero, not Frodo
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2025 02:57
|
|
|
Wolfechu posted:Excuse me, Sam is the hero, not Frodo Uh, who actually killed Sauron and ended the threat? That’d be Gollum, tyvm.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2025 04:25
|
|
|
Sam's an excellent example of what NikkolasKing's talking about: he's considered tte most admirable character in the story, and his main qualities are his humility and devotion to his social superior (with an intensity that reads as gay to a modern audience). He's also the only main character of the book who's working class. He does get to become mayor and Frodo's heir at the end, but that's part of the happy ending. Contrast Ron, a much less popular character. And I agree, Ron sucks. But I've joked before that part of what makes him unpopular is that he refuses to simply be Harry's Sam like he's supposed to. He's a sidekick to a hero who's rich and famous, and while he can usually forget about it in the name of friendship it's also a source of conflict, said conflict typically ending with him deferring to Harry again. Meanwhile Harry gets to see the downsides of celebrity and heroism and can tell himself he'd rather be nobody special. It's a classic twofer for a modern hero where they get to be exceptional on the outside and "just a normal guy" on the inside.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2025 05:56
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:In the new Ancient History thread they were discussing ancient law codes or whatever. Maybe I should actually go read that. Be prepared to be unnerved by the Hittite legal system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2025 07:01
|
|
|
If harry had been okay with being a leader, maybe he would have continued running the Learn To Not Get Murdered By Fascists Club instead of disbanding the club to play sports for a year
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2025 07:42
|
|
|
in the first book when the hat told Harry he has ambition (really?) and could be great in Slytherin was probably his and Slytherin house's most interesting moment so of course Rowling later said the only reason the Hat said that was because it was detecting the fragment of Voldemort's soul in Harry
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2025 07:53
|
|
|
hatler particles
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2025 08:23
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:Ahh, yes, that's right. What book/s was that in? Just HoME? Actually I'm wrong; it's covered extensively in LotR Appendix A: quote:'On the death of Ondoher and his sons, Arvedui of the North-kingdom claimed the crown of Gondor, as the direct descendant of Isildur, and as the husband of Firiel, only surviving child of Ondoher. The claim was rejected. In this Pelendur, the Steward of King Ondoher, played the chief part.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2025 10:47
|
|
|
Runcible Cat posted:Actually I'm wrong; it's covered extensively in LotR Appendix A: Yes, that's all well and good, but did Tolkien ever describe the plumbing of Gondor?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2025 12:20
|
|
|
Buttchocks posted:Yes, that's all well and good, but did Tolkien ever describe the plumbing of Gondor? Dwarves are always constipated (their greed will make them hold onto what they should let go), Men poo poo where they stand, Elves are too cool to poop loving fight me you weenie - Tolkien
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2025 12:26
|
|
|
YaketySass posted:Contrast Ron, a much less popular character. I'm not confident this is actually true.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2025 15:31
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:I'm not confident this is actually true. If I understand things correctly, Ron was far and away the most popular character until the movies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2025 15:55
|
|
|
I always disliked Ron, but that was mostly because of his constant bickering with Hermione which I guess was somehow supposed to show a deep love?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2025 15:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jan 18, 2026 07:54 |
|
|
Hermione likes to argue, and Ron's the only one willing to put up with it because he enjoys it too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2025 16:18
|
|