|
Post by Nurumaiel on Oct 15, 2003 19:51:26 GMT -5
My entire views on the movie would be rather too long to post, so I'll go through it bit by bit (not in order, however), and I'll begin by pointing out something that might get us started: The Fellowship of the Ring I found mainly satisfactory, and though there were one or two things that made me wince, the only thing that really irked me was Aragorn sending Frodo off with his blessing. A simple reason for why this annoyed me is this is not what happened in the book. Though I assume you all know this already, in the book Frodo silently slips away and while Aragorn and Sam are looking for him, Sam trails too far behind and eventually uses his brains enough to realize where Frodo has gone. Aragorn climbs to the chair, but then he hears the horn of Boromir and goes to his rescue. It is my belief that if Boromir had not called for help, Aragorn would have sought Frodo out and, if he had found him, would have spoken to him and continued on with him to Mordor. Boromir called because he was in need of help. If he had not been in need of help he would not have called, which would mean he felt he could settle the Uruk-hai himself (or, to bring it further, that they were none), and so Merry and Pippin would not have been captured. Aragorn debated with himself whether he should follow Frodo or go to the rescue of Merry and Pippin. He came to the conclusion that Frodo had brains and Sam's help, and that they were not in any immediate danger, while Merry and Pippin had no help and were in immediate danger, so he decided to go after Merry and Pippin. But if Merry and Pippin had not been taken by the Uruk-hai, Aragorn would have followed Frodo. I highly doubt that he would go. In the FOTR, the movie, Aragorn found Frodo after the latter had just removed the Ring, and was briefly tempted. He then 'let Frodo go,' as he tells Legolas later. But at this time the Uruk-hai had not even attacked, and Aragorn had really no logical reason to let Frodo go. Frodo hadn't even asked Aragorn to let him go. So then why did Aragorn let him go? I would go on, but dinner calls and I'll give others a chance to read and agree/disagree as they choose.
|
|
|
Post by Nurumaiel on Nov 28, 2003 19:51:18 GMT -5
Feeling a little guilty for being late, Nurumaiel and Dinodas hurried in and slipped towards the bar silently, hoping they wouldn't be overly noticed, as it was a bit strange for an Elf to arrive with a Hobbit as her escort (or so apparently). Nuru was especially uncomfortable, and hoped that Robin would arrive soon.
Dinodas was dressed very typically for a hobbit, and it would almost seem as though he hadn't dressed formally at all. Nuru was dressed in the same that she had worn for Thanksgiving that year... it was nothing very special, but it differed from the others. Her pants were nothing fancy, her hair was tucked up inside a hat, and she was wearing the Aran sweater that belonged to her father. (By the way, she wasn't wearing makeup. Nuru never does).
"Chocolate for both of us, please," Dinodas said to Alatariel after a greeting. "Hot chocolate," he added, to make sure she understood. He had baffled a few waiters in the past by calling it simply 'chocolate.'
Nuru gave Alatariel a little smile. The two of them had spoken with each other before, but they could not be considered good friends (not in the sense that they were enemies, but because they didn't know each other very well). Alatariel prepared the chocolate swiftly, and Nuru smiled as she tasted it. "Absolutely delicious," she complimented. Dinodas looked as though he thought the same, but he said nothing, as his eyes kept travelling towards the door. Perhaps he was just as uncomfortable looking as though he was escorting an Elf as Nuru was looking like a Hobbit was escorting her.
|
|
|
Post by Nurumaiel on May 31, 2004 18:33:24 GMT -5
I agree with what dragoneyes says (how come whenever I say your name I think of The Long Winter?). If there were no families there would eventually be no people, because there would be no children, and without children everyone else would get older and older, die, and there would be no one younger to continue life. Families are terribly relevant. Without families there would be no society. I personally disagree with all forms of marriage besides real marriage between one man and woman and that bond for the rest of their lives, but alas that so many divorce or don't ever marry at all. While I don't consider non-marriages as marriages and proper families, I still do think broken families are families. They married, they had children, and so they were a family. The deep sorrow is that they broke, though they remain a family. If I do marry rather than become a nun I will also go for a traditional family as dragoneyes (I see Hal Cotton in my head right now) will, with the difference that I will actually be married as I'm a Catholic. I intend to marry a good Catholic man, have as many children as God wills (hopefully that means at least six, though I'd prefer more like ten [higher?]), and never ever think that my family was irrevelant.
|
|
|
Post by Nurumaiel on May 29, 2004 13:09:36 GMT -5
And that's all.... for now.
|
|
|
Post by Nurumaiel on May 31, 2004 18:43:28 GMT -5
You've raised an interesting point, dragoneyes. It also depends highly on what the subject is to say who knows best. While considering the example of music, most adults I know could teach me a lot about the guitar but when it comes to tin whistle they're clueless and I know exactly what I'm doing.
And life experience, too. Where one lives their life, in example. I've lived most of my life within my large Catholic family that isn't in the least broken, but someone older than me might not know anything about large families or the Catholic Faith even though they're older than I am.
I think dragoneyes has hit the nail right on the head. 'Who knows best' doesn't really depend on how old someone is, though that can be relevant, but on what the subject of 'who knows best' is and how and where the person has lived and what they have experienced.
|
|
|
Post by Nurumaiel on May 29, 2004 13:43:29 GMT -5
I don't really know how to answer this one way or another. The majority of the time the older generation is right because of their life experience. However there are exceptions.
Take St. Dominic Savio, for instance. One must agree with me that he was much wiser than many adults.
Wisdom usually comes with living, so the older generation often takes the advantage, but then again certain young people live more fully in one day than many adults could in hundreds of years because they actually live, look, think, and seek to understand.
St. Thomas Aquinas also springs to my mind, though he lived to be an adult, unlike Dominic Savio.
There's no one way about it. Many times adults are wiser than young people, but sometimes young people are wiser than adults.
|
|
|
Post by Nurumaiel on May 31, 2004 18:23:27 GMT -5
I don't understand how... unless you were just being sarcastic? That would make more sense. No, I don't really think so. We have the ability to, I believe, but generally humans have made the world much sweeter if they're not making the world sweeter (and if that makes any sense at all!) Now about the bird clipping... I don't know anything about clipping wings, but you say it's just like cutting fingernails. Not real 'altering.' It isn't life-changing. The wings will grow back. And in this case your example doesn't work very well for the debate because you're clipping your bird's wings for its convenience, not yours. So, Istawen, cheers to you for that. *little bow* But debarking a dog, for example, I consider different. If the dog were in some way hurting itself and endangering itself through barking, debarking it would not be terrible. That would be to help it. But to debark it because it barks a lot and is annoying would not seem right. It seems rather selfish and greedy to me, as if it doesn't matter what we do to the dog as long as we have perfect comfort and leisure. 'Altering' an animal for its protection and welfare does not seem to me wrong. Not many people consider it wrong to amputate a human's fingers, toes, arms, legs, etc. because of something such as blood poisoning, because that isn't harming them, it's helping them. But if one harms and hurts animals just so they can be more comfortable and everything can be more convenient for them, that seems wrong and I must say rather disgusts me (I say it without meaning to offend anyone).
|
|
|
Post by Nurumaiel on May 29, 2004 13:38:18 GMT -5
I agree with lordoffools. It seems absolute ridiculous and horrendously cruel to me to, for the sake of our own foolish convenience (what is it with most humans that they can't take even the tiniest bit of suffering without a thousand complaints?), cause animals confusion and pain. Isn't a dog going to be confused and frightened if it realizes it can't bark anymore? Won't a bird feel the same if it finds it can't fly? Wouldn't any sane human being feel frightened if they found that one day they suddenly couldn't walk, couldn't see, couldn't hear, couldn't speak... It doesn't really matter if you can alter the animals without causing much physical pain in the process. It's still cruel to take their lives in your hands and treat them as though they were a wooden toy you wanted to change so it would work better, or a story you found needed editting.
In short, the good God gave each creature everything it has for a purpose and it is no business of ours to hurt them by taking it away. Goodness, I don't know what I'd do if someone tried to 'alter' my baby brother just because he screams very noisily at times. Sure, humans are of more worth than animals but it's disgusting to treat any form of life in such a way. The mere thought is appalling.
|
|
|
Post by Nurumaiel on Oct 22, 2004 20:10:43 GMT -5
Elbereth, if you reflect on what I said earlier, I said that the mother was the most crucial to the baby, not in the child's entire lifetime. Babies have a natural instinct to want their mother first and foremost, and the mothers are the source of food, etc. Again I say, the mothers are so very important to a baby that it cannot be stressed how very important they are. But I am not saying that through the child's whole life the choice should always be 'mother' over 'father.' I am saying that a baby finds the mother a lot more crucial than the father. I think you will agree with me that a little baby girl isn't going to be talking about things with her father. (Understand, please, that I am teasing you when I say this.) But there are fine living examples of children past babyhood who had only their father and they became wonderful adults. St. Therese (and I am NOT trying to through religion into the debate; pretend I just said 'Therese;' I added 'St.' the make her a specific Therese)'s mother died when she was very young, though she was past her babyhood years. She was raised by her father (though she did have four older sisters) and grew up to be wonderful: in fact, a saint (or, if you please, a person of exceptional kindness, goodness, and virtue).
|
|
|
Post by Nurumaiel on Oct 1, 2004 16:44:36 GMT -5
Dragoneyes, It depends on what you mean by 'fine.' Sure, the child won't die, but a mother's care is really a very crucial thing for a very young child. And again, they may not die in daycare, but it doesn't mean it's the best thing. Essentially, I am agreeing with you. It's not unheard of that a child is raised by it's father and grows up fine (goodness, sometimes the mother is dead and can't do a thing); that is, grows up to be a fine fellow. But mothers really are special to the babies. After all, the mother's are the ones who gave birth to the babes in the first place, and if they're about they nurse, etc. About this house we refer to them as 'Mamma-babies.' Or maybe our babies are just spoiled and get their Mamma too much. You misunderstand me. This is a very good reason why the mother should try to avoid going to work when her children are babies (if possible). I'm making a point that it doesn't mean the woman is sacrificing all her peace and happiness, but that she will also benefit from it. So, yes, this does have to do with the current matter, though I apologize for expressing myself in an unclear manner. And you hear right. Not that I have any experience, aside from the experiences of being an elder sister, but one only has to watch my mamma to see how hard it is, and then again how much of a hero a woman can be in the task of raising children! A girl who shares my dream! I only know two others.. I mean, who have said it openly. The next group says nothing on the matter, and the next group is wholly against raising children. It's the dream of my life. I can't even begin to imagine how awful that would be. But these days doesn't mean in the future, does it? You're not marrying age yet, are you? I mean, not the usual marrying age (how come most of the girls I know are getting married at about 17 or 18?). Maybe things will get better. Oh dear. I will run away from my off-topic-ness, and so then run away entirely to get something to eat. I congratulate myself (conceited?), however, on being very open and liberal on my views of this subject, which can be hastily taken to the extremes on either side. I know my own dream is to stay at home all the day with my children, but it doesn't make me condemn working women! I know people who condemn working women, and people who condemn woman who stay at home with the children (they're classified as miserable woman who have no freedom in their lives). I congratulate all of you for not taking it to extremes and going about condemning the opposite side. It is a pleasant thing. A toast to you, whether you take alcohol, ginger ale, coffee, or tea. (Apologies... I spent a late night toasting to various things and I'm not quite out of the inclination to toast yet... it's flattering, though, isn't it? ;D )
|
|
|
Post by Nurumaiel on Sept 24, 2004 0:27:41 GMT -5
Yes, Novnarwen, just so, but look what I said earlier:
We're not really supposed to be talking about the fathers.
Yet, in reply to what you've said, I will speak on a subject that is rather off-topic and I will say:
I do agree. The children are the father's first duty, too. That's usually why he works. To provide for the family. It's good, very good, for the children to have their father around, but the children need their mother. Especially younger children. The mother is the primary carekeeper. They depend upon their mother most of all. Mothers are depended upon for food, etc., and formula cannot be compared to the mother's milk.
Now, when the child gets older, it's not as crucial. It might be odd for them, being primarily taken care of the mother and then abruptly having the father as the main caretaker, but they could get used to it, because their fathers wouldn't be absolute strangers to them. Still, they should have at least one parent around them, be it father or mother.
Personally I think it's best for both the parents to be around, but nowadays it's a really difficult thing to be done. I'm blessed enough to have a father who works at home, but in my younger years he had to go off to work like most men. That, I think, is where 'then' has advantages over 'now.' In days gone by the fathers would work at home, as farmers, or carpenters, or some such trade, and they'd own their little business and teach their sons the trade, and both parents would be about.
So, Novnarwen, I am indeed agreeing with you, but I'm explaining what I meant by the statement. Babies and little children need their mothers as the primary carekeepers, even if it's nice for the father to be about. When the children are older, the parents could reverse roles, though I don't think it's a good thing for both of them to work away from home, unless one of them has a job that is involved with their children. At all times, the children are the first duty of the parents. But, again, babies and little children need their mothers to take care of them a lot more than they need their fathers.
|
|
|
Post by Nurumaiel on Sept 20, 2004 12:56:55 GMT -5
Traditionally, yes, a woman's place is in the home, but things have been changing somewhat. There is one thing that hasn't changed though: a mother of a child is the child's mother, and the children need their mother. Children need their father, too, of course, but children need their mother. I know several lovely woman who go to work, but they all have jobs that in some way involve them with their children (usually working at the school their children attend). If I were pushed in a situation where I had to work, I would do my level best to get a job where I'd still be with my children most of the time (that is to say, when I do have children, and that is to say, if I get married in opposed to entering a religious order).
The children are a mother's first duty.
Also, it must be taken to account that there is no higher and more honourable job than the raising of children. I wonder if I go so far as to say the job of raising children is the best and highest job in the world, even higher than the jobs which usually get a lot of praise (being a soldier, firefighter, etc.). A mother brings life into the world, raises that life to be a good person, and saves that life from the death it would face if it were tossed in the gutter. It's hard work, too. My mother is raising seven children, one of them delayed and with a lot of medical situations, all of them homeschooled, and she hardly ever gets a free moment. Yet I have heard comments from mothers who just saw their last little baby out of high school, and they say that though it was hard they're a-weeping now because they miss it so much.
Single woman, of course, can work as they like, for they don't have any responsibilities in the home. Mothers, too, I would allow to work, providing that they recall that their first duty in their children. The right to work and leave your children behind doesn't really matter. Faith, a soldier could whine and cry that he has a right to run off and have some fun when he's supposed to be on duty, but he would get a very favourable answer, because his first and foremost duty is his work, what he's been ordered to do. A mother has much of the same thing... she wants to go off and leave the hard task, watching her children, but it's her duty to watch her children and she has to push aside personal pleasures.
Points to consider: --- A woman can work, but should not if it means neglecting her children in any way, because her children are her first duty and they depend on her a lot. --- The job of a mother is the highest and most honourable job --- The job of a mother is actually a very wonderful and enjoyable job, though sadly lots of mothers don't realize it until their children are all grown
As far as fathers go, I'll avoid that, as it isn't the subject of the debate. But I will say this: after the first few children a woman gets used to carrying a baby around and watching after the children, but a young woman with her first baby has a rough time of it. Babies ALWAYS want to be carried and petted and loved, and when my newest little brother was born I thought my arms were going to fall off after just one hour of taking care of him (mamma had to pay a lot of attention to the medically impaired child, so we took turns watching the baby; still, she had the main task of it!). It's nice for first-time mothers to have their husband about to relieve them of their burden for a few minutes. You pick a baby up and cry out, 'He's as light as a feather!' but after a few hours of carrying him with you everywhere you go, up and down and around and around, he feels like he's ten times heavier than you are. So, as far as fathers go, their main task is to work and provide for the family, but when they get home from work it would be nice if they weren't object to holding the baby to relieve his poor little lassie of the burden and strain for a bit.
As for me, if I don't enter a religious order, I intend to get married and have as many children as God blesses me with (and hopefully He wants me to have many!), and then stay at home with them whenever possible, and homeschool them as well, and not even blink because I don't want to lose that precious time with them. Oh, it will be hard, and mayhaps at times I'd rather be out doing work and having more 'fun,' but I'd always bring to mind that I have the most honourable work on the earth, and that soldiers of any kind have to stay on duty. You don't need to be a soldier to be a war-hero. There are many kinds of heroes, and many kinds of wars, and the most heroic heroes I know are the mothers who raised big families without a breath of complaint, without backing away even when things seemed hardest, and who stuck to their duty, and who eventually realized that motherhood is beautiful, beautiful, and even more beautiful.
|
|
|
Post by Nurumaiel on May 8, 2003 17:06:10 GMT -5
EXTRACT OF CHAPTER THREE Miss Mirabella Banks
"Er… yes. But, I say, Bingo, how do we know it's this Mirabella Banks? I've never seen the dead hobbit in my life before, and I've never heard of Mirabella Banks."
"Haven't you?" the Shirriff's voice had a sharp tone in it. "We could identify her for you in much detail. We learned, you see, from reliable sources, just who she was, and everything about her relations."
"Hurrah!" said Bingo, clapping and leaping towards Bridger. "Allow me to congratulate you, Shirriff, for your admirable work in such a short time. Now, identify her in detail."
Griffo had turned very pale and he sighed turning his face. "No need to," he said. "I'll admit it. I know who Mirabella Banks is, and the body we found was indeed hers." He looked back to them, great pain and grief in his eyes and on his face. "She was my daughter."
"There, you see, he knows who she is," said Bingo, completely unfeeling for poor Griffo. "I guessed as soon as he said he'd never seen her in his life, because, as we know, that's what they all say. I, you know, specialize in the art of storytelling and murders have been - "
Bridger cleared his throat as a polite way of interrupting Bingo. "Perhaps, Mr. Hill, you would like something to drink? I think, sir," he said, addressing Bingo this time (whose name was unknown to the Shirriff), "that it would be much easier to talk over a drink."
"Yes, yes, I'll get something."
"No, no need to do that. We'll just go to the Green Dragon."
|
|
|
Post by Nurumaiel on May 8, 2003 17:00:52 GMT -5
EXTRACT OF CHAPTER TWO Ale and Fire
Bingo interrupted him rather rudely, but he didn't care. He knew how Griffo could ramble on sometimes, and that was most certainly something he did not want. Maybe later, when he wanted the story told again in great detail, but right now he wanted nothing said from Griffo but an answer to one of his own questions.
"Why couldn't you get a mug of ale at the Wood? That's a much shorter walk than all the way to Bywater."
"Well… I…" Griffo hesitated, then he leaned forward and said quietly, "I wanted to see you, Bingo… about all this."
"HA!" Bingo yelled, leaping to his feet. His pipe, forgotten for the moment, dropped to his chair. Pacing back and forth, he rubbed his hands together in satisfaction. "Ho, ho, ho!" he said, grinning broadly. "So you think I'm all that clever, do you? So good with burglaries and murders?"
"Burglaries and… er, Bingo, I don't quite understand."
"Oh." Bingo stopped pacing and looked at Griffo with a little frown. "Of course you wouldn't. You're from Bindbale Wood, after all. But here in Bywater I'm known as an excellent story-teller… and I specialize in mysteries."
|
|
|
Post by Nurumaiel on May 8, 2003 16:58:05 GMT -5
From now on as I finish chapters I'll give out extracts. I don't want to hand out all of it until it's finished, so...
Let me know what you think.
EXTRACT OF CHAPTER ONE The Pile of Leaves
His keen eyes spotted a large pile of leaves beyond the clearing, in a dark little place in the woods. "Now I wonder who could have wanted to put the leaves there," he said softly to himself. Not that it really matters… it just seems to be the tradition of those in Bindbale to put the leaves in the clearing, where they always have. And all these hobbits like to follow tradition. He grinned. Except for myself, of course.
Making up his mind to investigate this, he turned, then stopped. Later he would investigate. That was the biggest pile of leaves yet, and he wanted to go kick it down. If he kicked the top layer off, he'd still have the bottom layer to kick, and that would leave him with two piles of leaves. With that thought eagerly in mind, he scurried towards the pile, slipping on the carpet he had created, laughing delightedly to himself each time he fell. The old hobbit women who sat stitching together in their gardens spoke in perfect truth when they said sometimes Griffo Hill didn't act his fifty-two years!
Griffo came to the pile of leaves and stared at it for a moment, trying to fix the image in his head to last through the long winter that was to come. It was almost too beautiful a pile to destroy. Someone had obviously arranged it with the greatest care.
"All right, then," he said, taking a deep breath. "Die!" And he kicked at the top of the leaves. He never got around to kicking the bottom of the pile that still remained, however. With a little cry he stumbled back, leaning against a tree trunk and breathing heavily, staring in wide-eyed horror and shock down at the leaves. Lying in them, just where he had kicked the leaves off, was a young hobbit woman, her open, staring eyes wider than Griffo's own, filled with terror… and a knife was plunged into her heart.
|
|