|
Post by Nurumaiel on Sept 22, 2004 17:16:10 GMT -5
Well, Lossie, I'll put this forth again:
We're not born having committed Adam's sin and therefore having personal guilt upon us, but when the first sin was committed it reduced the race of man in general to a fallen state. So when we are born we are born men, and so we are born into a fallen state.
God is capable of stopping such things, and I'd never say that God let a baby die just to test the parents. More than likely He wanted the baby with Him. But even if the baby was taken away for a beautiful cause, the parents will still suffer, will they not? And whether the suffering is put upon them for a test or not, it is a test. If you tell a friend of yours that you'd risk your life for him and then a killer runs at your friend, you have the choice to risk your life for him or sit back and watch him die. It doesn't mean that your friend hired the serial killer for the purpose of testing you, but you're tested all the same?
And, really, I should know after watching my parents. The second baby in the family, my older sister, died an early death, my twin brothers died and early death, and the second youngest in the family was in the hospital for almost seven months with only the smallest chance of living. I'd never say God 'did all that to us' just to test my parents, but it was a test anyway, and they passed with flying colours, though it did cause them pain.
|
|
|
Post by Nurumaiel on Sept 12, 2004 21:38:15 GMT -5
As far as the IRA goes... it's well and good to be a rebel, as long as terrorist attacks don't come along. I detest it then, even if it is 'getting back,' and I detest revenge in any form. 'Getting their own back,' however, would be all right, considering that the land belonged to them in the first place. The Irish did suffer at the hands of the English, it must be admitted. The Great Famine in the 1840's is a good example of how the Irish suffered by the British Goverment. For an account on that incident, The Great Hunger by Cecil Woodham-Smith is excellent. It isn't in the least biased (I could detect no hint of, 'The poor, wonderful Irish oppressed and murdered by those cruel English monsters.'); in fact I cringed several times when the Irish's own faults were pointed out. But the English weren't the only ones to make the Irish suffer. Also around the time of the Great Famine when so many Irish were arriving in the States, the Americans were quite unfair to them. The main thing that inspired people to act unfairly towards the Irish, it seems, was the fact that they were Catholics. Americans in earlier days referred to the Irish as 'Popish snakes.' Too patriotic? Well, I sympathize, dearie. I'm entirely too loyal to Ireland, I think, and I hate to think that there are wicked Irish people, and when I hear of a wicked Irish person I run about ardently declaring that he couldn't have really been Irish; he must have been an imposter! I try desperately, however, to let the fact that the Irish aren't entirely unerring be before me, and not think they're perfect in all ways. And never fear, the English aren't awful monsters... all of the time! They have done wrongs, it must be admitted, as most other countries have at some time or other. Must I, with the fact before me that the Irish aren't perfect, be so humbled as to be compelled to admit that many Irish people are most unfair to the English as they reflect on past misdeeds without taking into account the here and now? I personally believe that Ireland wouldn't have become half the country it is now if it hadn't been for what the English did for (and to, admittedly) them. If the English are monsters, I'm a bit of a monster myself, for I have (though only to the smallest degree) English blood in me. Folk from Kent, to be precise. But, dearie, you brought up the subject of the English in your post defending them. Only teasing, of course. I love to discuss the subject (patriotic discussions are much fun, even if the patriots are from different countries that often opposed each other), and.... since this is way off topic, maybe you'd be interested in carrying on the conversation by PM? I've heard enough of the Irish side of the story to fill me up for years to come, but I've never heard anything from the English standpoint, and I'd be quite interested to. Perhaps while we're at it we could think of those long, wintery days gone by. Tell me... does the word 'winter' still thrill you?
|
|
|
Post by Nurumaiel on Sept 8, 2004 16:54:27 GMT -5
Hmm... well... I've heard two different opinions on the movie which I have been interested in seeing for awhile now.
I'm of Scottish descent, so you'd expect me to panic if I heard that the movie wasn't historically accurate, but I'm actually not that fussy over such things. It's just a bit of a disappointment (and I still think someone should make an astounding film about Bonnie Prince Charlie!).
BUT, BKnight, you offend my Scottish pride hideously when you talk about skirts and ridiculous bagpipes! There is a world of difference between a kilt and a skirt, and.... *trails off at the end of the post, then breaks into radiant smile* I know, aren't bagpipes lovely? I do hate the stereotype Scots that are put in various cartoons/films. The kind that make kilts, bagpipes, and Highland dancing something for fools.
Your good review heartens me, and I think I shall look into seeing Braveheart.
I have one question, though: after William Wallace's wife dies, does he eventually meet and fall in love with another lassie? I wouldn't be surprised if he did, but I would be pleasantly surprised if he didn't. And don't tell me any more than is absolutely necessary to answer my question.
I think I'll watch the movie, regardless, however...
But I STILL think someone should make an astounding movie about Bonnie Prince Charlie (yes, and entitle it 'Sound the Pibroch')!
|
|
|
Post by Nurumaiel on Jan 6, 2004 22:25:06 GMT -5
Firondoiel, your taste in movies is absolutely amazing and wonderful! I recently saw North by Northwest and I thought it was pretty good, but maybe I'd get a better idea on second viewing? Rebecca had me trembling from the frightening suspense! You say Romeo and Juliet (the old version).... what year was it? I haven't the faintest idea how many versions were made, but when I was about six I saw an older version that I very much enjoyed. Lossie, pity! Highwaymen..... that would make a grand story (I have another highwayman in mind which would make a wonderful movie), though I think it's a shame no movie was ever made about the Plunkett I was referring to (Joseph Mary Plunkett of the Easter Rising). It seems unlikely that there wouldn't be such a movie, but some of the best material is often passed by. However, I would love to have more details about this movie you speak of..... namely when and where? One new movie added to the list... Yojimbo was absolutely astounding. I waiting for the opportunity to watch Throne of Blood, considering the director, one of the actors, and that it's based off Macbeth.... Macbeth says it all, doesn't it? This thread was made for listing best and worst movies... any rule against discussing them?
|
|
|
Post by Nurumaiel on Oct 27, 2003 12:10:28 GMT -5
One of Lossie's favorite movies:
Would that movie have anything to do with the Irish poet? If so, you'll have to let me know more about it!
|
|
|
Post by Nurumaiel on Oct 19, 2003 15:12:28 GMT -5
Really, I haven't seen any bad movies that could be considered my worst. I have seen a movie I'm not too fond of, but I refrain from mentioning it because no doubt there are some fans...
But as for the ones I love...
I think LOTR is obvious.
Seven Samurai, naturally.
Madadayo I watched just recently and really enjoyed.
Thanks, Lossie, for reminding me of El Cid, even if our opinions on that differ. Or maybe there's more than one version?
Therese, though it isn't even out yet.
I haven't seen the whole thing and I haven't watched it in a long time, but what I remember of Henry V was pretty good.
And, of course, Chariots of Fire.
And how could I ever forget Fiddler on the Roof?
Now I have to wait and see if the doctor is in Master and Commander or not.... What would the story be without him? *sighs*
There may be more, but I'll have to think on it. I'll make a list and copy it down.
|
|
|
Post by Nurumaiel on Apr 21, 2003 12:17:47 GMT -5
All right, here we go.....
I am one of the few that like Faramir, and sometimes it's hard because just about everyone disagrees with me, but since I believe in my opinion I stick to it!
My story has basically put all my thoughts into words... not very well, mind you, but that's only the first draft. It's been mistaken for a story where Faramir tries to change himself, etc. That's not the way it is.
Bekah already knows this, because we've discussed it over email. The last thing my book is is an interpretation of the book Faramir. When I wrote that story, I had to pretend Faramir first came into existence when Peter Jackson decided to make a movie. I couldn't let the book influence my writing at all.
Here's an exert of an email I sent to Bekah:
Let's say that my father and my eldest brother were working on a computer game together (like they currently are) and then he is killed/dies. My second eldest brother I would imagine would instantly offer to take his brother's work for his father. Faramir in my story was not trying to to be Boromir. He could never be Boromir no matter how hard he tried. He was trying to make up for the death of his brother. Then this hobbit comes with this great weapon, the Ring. Faramir, just as he is in the book, is tempted, and as Boyens goes too far he becomes greatly tempted. He makes the excuse that he's bringing the Ring to Gondor because Boromir is dead and that's what Boromir would do.... that that is his, Faramir's, duty to his father. But then he realizes that his duty is not to his father in this case.... his duty is to his home, Middle-Earth, and he can't serve his home unless he disobeys what his father would command.
Faramir isn't trying to change himself to make his father happy: he thinks it is his duty to bring the Ring to his father. And he then realizes that in this situation his duty is not to his father, but to Middle-Earth (I'm basically repeating what I said above, but who cares?).
And that's how my story is, and also how my feelings of Faramir in the movie are. Osgiliath was, in a word, unnecessary, but, whether the rest of you do or not:
I look at Osgiliath as a scene, not part of Faramir. And then Faramir becomes all right, which he otherwise wouldn't have been. If the scene Osgiliath hadn't been in the movie, neither would have been his line "The Ring will go to Gondor." I see Faramir as a victim of Boyens who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and was therefore inserted into the scene. But the Osgiliath scene is not part of Faramir... Faramir is a part of the Osgiliath scene.
With all respect, Nurumaiel
|
|
|
Post by Nurumaiel on Sept 16, 2004 12:23:19 GMT -5
Wren, True, in comparison to authoresses of our time Austen might not be at the very top, but I voted 'Excellent' because I did not want to compare a writer of then with a writer of now. That is to say, during her time she was considered one of the best (and still is by some), and the poll was not taking into account the comparison with modern writers, or I don't believe so. Of course, it is mainly a matter of taste, and I have been reputed for having the oddest taste in all things, from books to clothes. Yet I am encouraged to hear that there is another that didn't find her books entirely boring, even if you don't think of her quite as highly as I do. But, Wren, for reading another of her works, go for Sense and Sensibility. I had such a difficult time putting that book down! Though, er.... Lucy Steeles rather got on my nerves, but she was rather the type of character intended to do just that.
|
|
|
Post by Nurumaiel on Sept 8, 2004 17:07:09 GMT -5
Goodness GRACIOUS! I'm guessing most of you (if not all) are girls in your teenage years? If so, I am not surprised you dislike Jane Austen; most teenage girls do, though they didn't used to. I'd imagine you would dislike the Bronte sisters as well. Lots of girls find Lord of the Rings boring as well; I find this equally as shocking.
I voted her as a most excellent female authoress, because frankly she is. This has been agreed on for a long time... I would not say she was bad just because I don't like her style; yet, as it is, I love her style. It's challenging, it's something that most modern people aren't used to (though I grew up on it), and the messages it gave were excellent for my character. I recall reading Sense and Sensibility and learning so much of what was good character and what wasn't. The contrasts between Elinor and Lucy Steeles, between Willoughby and Colonel Brandon... you'd find one that was noble and good while the other wasn't, and one was intelligent and sensible while the other was silly and lacking in intelligence.
Oooh... but... I would not recommend anyone to start on Emma. I personally don't care much for Emma myself. The ordeal of reading Emma can be compared to the ordeal of reading Great Expectations. A very awful ordeal. Start with Pride and Prejudice or Sense and Sensebility, but don't go to Emma until you've read some previous works of Jane Austen. Emma, as a character, is rather... *shudders*
Do I take it, InklingElf, that you're on my side and you like Jane Austen? Or are my fears at last being realized as I slowly discover I am one of the sole survivors of those who appreciate her work? *trails away weeping*
|
|
|
Post by Nurumaiel on Sept 16, 2004 12:37:59 GMT -5
I tried to find a site that had a biography of this dear writer, and I could find only one that was accurate as well as informative. However in one paragraph the writer of the biography manages to tell in one or two sentences what happens in each book, namely the end of the book I love the best, Freckles. If you don't want that good story and few others spoiled, skip over paragraph 5 (I am not counting book quotations as paragraphs)! The site: Gene Stratton PorterI was introduced to her not too long ago by a dear friend of mine who loved her works. I read first A Girl of the Limberlost, which was beautiful and charming. After that I read Freckles, which immediately became my favourite of all her works. Currently I am reading The Harvester and Keeper of the Bees, which are also excellent, though to me they can't compare with Freckles. For those of you who have read one or more books of hers, here's something to start with: --- What do you think of her as a writer? --- If you do like her and her books, why? And if not, why? --- What do you think of her individual works? --- Which is your favourite, and for what reason? --- Any inspirations from the book? Anything learned? Look on the above questions as 'Discussion Starters.' No need to confine yourself to writing in reference to just those questions! For those of you who haven't read any of her works: You really should. I would say that of any other books I have read, they are most akin to the Anne of Green Gables books, though certainly they are unique and different!
|
|
|
Post by Nurumaiel on Sept 27, 2004 12:03:17 GMT -5
That is a weighty accusation, Istawen, a very weighty accusation, and not one that should be made lightly. You are accusing me of detesting most people I know because they are not saints, indeed, you are accusing me of detesting just about everyone in the world, and thinking myself very good indeed. It is not an accusation thrown at me often, in fact it has never been thrown at me before, and I must admit I am surprised that you have accused me of something so grievous as this.
No, I assure you, I have not twisted human into stupid, ugly, and mean. But you give me reason to believe that your idea of human is stupid, ugly, and mean. I do not say that you do, but I say that it is very easy to believe. You have told me that you think Anne and Emily are too perfect, and you have given me no evidence that they had no faults. I find many (but not too many) faults in them, yet you think they are perfect, so it inclines me to think that your idea of perfect is much different than mine. Anne and Emily are very human to me, but they are also good humans.
Again, you accuse me and books of something very unfair. You say I am a little idiot for loving books where the characters are good, and that the books are foolish because the characters are good. I suppose I am a fool for enjoying, say, the New Testament in the Bible because the main character is perfect.
No, they have not. I apologize for contradicting you so blatantly, but I see nothing else to do when, again, you misunderstand me and unfairly accuse me. These books have taught me that human nature is capable of good and beautiful things, whatever faults they may have. That the wickedest person in the world could be good if God helped them.
And, then, I think our ideas of 'perfect' are different. You think that Emily and Anne are perfect; I do not. I think they are good, but I do not think they are perfect. I find numerous faults within them, though none that would be a bad influence on a little girl. Perhaps you do not see faults in them that I see, or perhaps our ideas of what is a fault and what is not is very much different.
Within the same paragraph of accusations, you accuse me of yet another thing, and that is not knowing what I am talking about. That is exactly why I detest ugly heroines. You detest heroines that are absolutely perfect (and so do I, for, aside from Christ, there has been nobody who is absolutely perfect, without shoving a Catholic idea upon you) because you find no one who is perfect in real life, and I detest heroines who are ugly because I find no girl who is ugly in real life. I do not contradict myself.
This does not strike me as a helpful recommendation, but it strikes me as a pointed insult, and at this point I will withdraw from the debate, for it is fast turning into a quarrel. I have been accused of many different things, among them the accusation that I do not know what I am talking about when I in fact do, and furthermore I have been insulted in a manner that would cause anyone (save perhaps Elsie Dinsmore) offense. I withdraw with all apologies if I have offended you in any way, and I beg you to let the debate rest at that, for I have no wish to further take part in it, and it is clear that our ideas of what a fault is and what a perfect character is are entirely different, and opinions cannot be amply argued.
I thank you for all the good that has come out of the debate, and I apologize for all the bad.
|
|
|
Post by Nurumaiel on Sept 26, 2004 13:33:36 GMT -5
But then you are upset that Anne married the man she loved? I see that happen all the time in real life.
(off-topic: Ooops.... I just realized that in my previous email I referred to you once by the wrong name. Sincerest apologies!)
You know, I haven't met a girl that isn't beautiful. She may not be a Hollywood star, but all girls I have met are beautiful, unless they're covered with so much makeup that it's like they don't have faces anymore, or unless they scowl so much that they're look plain unpleasant.
In fact I know a girl who is extremely talented, extremely beautiful (she doesn't think so), extremely graceful, and so on and so forth. I cannot say there is nobody with those attributes in real life, for I do know someone.
I think the main thing here is that we have different tastes in characters. Also, it must be taken into account that some books aren't written to provide characters that real people can relate with and be just like. Some books are more to make a point on something. The characters have a specific fault that is focused on very much, and the other faults are rarely mentioned. The character suffers from that one fault, and the book teaches you about that one fault and it's dangers. And then in another book a different fault will be taught about. Jane Austen's books are also very much like this. The characters have one fault that is mainly focused on, and they suffer from that fault, and people learn about that fault. My mother and I were discussing Austen's books yesterday, and she spoke of how much it taught her when she was a young girl. She learned from the primary fault of Lizzy, or of Marianne, or another character, and she learned from the faults of the more minor characters, who were often silly, or inclined to gossip, or rude, etc.
Another thing to consider is that the Anne books aren't primarily older children's books. They're for little girls, and I don't think it's a good thing to give little girls 'heroes' that aren't very good people. They're little (naturally), and very prone to imitate their 'heroes,' and so you want their heroes to be very good people. When I was a little girl my mother read books to me that had very good and talented characters, such as the Anne books, or stories of the saints, or other such books, and so when I wanted to be 'just like her' I would be striving to be just like someone who was exceptionally good. Now that I'm older I read books where the characters aren't very good for the most part (and I think it's rotten, too, because I still feel like a little girl), but I still really appreciate what those good characters did for me when I was very young.
No, not necessarily. Without turning this into a debate about Christianity, I will bring up a point that involves it. Christians are supposed to imitate Jesus, Who was perfect. It's not a bad thing to imitate exceptionally good and talented people.
No, you don't have to be intelligent in the same fields as they are. I'd bet a lot that you're more talented at writing than Anne is (if you recall the story she wrote about Cordelia and Geraldine; leaves me rolling on the floor laughing every time). What they did was have their specific talents that God gave them, and work to improve themselves in those fields that they were talented in. Anybody can do the same. And even if a person is given a certain amount of intelligence, it doesn't mean that they can't expand their knowleadge and sharpen their wits.
I apologize if I made the impression that I was assuming that. I was merely confused at what your position on a good character is. Now that you have informed me of your tastes, you may rest assured that I understand them and do not think anything unkind or unfair of you. Let me close with a courtly bow.
*courtly bow*
|
|
|
Post by Nurumaiel on Sept 25, 2004 16:11:41 GMT -5
Imladris, It depends on what you mean by 'treated like dirt.' She didn't treat him like dirt, not in the least, but she didn't want to marry him. And it was acknowledged that she was a very silly little girl. She didn't want to marry Gilbert because she had dreams of a very romantic man. When Gilbert was sick and dying she realized then that she loved him. Often enough one doesn't realize how precious and dear something or someone is to them until one is about to lose that something or someone. Real life does work that way. How many examples can be given of a girl loving a man more than anyone else in the world and just not realizing it because she had grown up with silly dreams?
And I hope you are prepared to defend your statement that Emily was perfect, because I disagree with you deeply. Of course she was good, and talented, too, but she couldn't write poetry worth a penny until she was lectured on it again, and again, and again. Of course she fits into the modern idea of a Mary-Sue: she was beautiful, she was good, and she was talented (though she had to develop those talents). But the modern idea of a Mary-Sue is the most absurd thing in the world, else I know a lot of them in real life, and each one is the sweetest in the world. I detest books where the heroines are ugly, stupid, and mean. I enjoy books that give people inspirational main characters who they can look up to and try to imitate. Well, foolishness and folly, Emily was nothing good and talented compared to the saints, and I adore their stories. Who wants to read books that make one angry because the main character is a stupid fool? And then who enjoys a book that has a good main character that they can learn from?
Faith, I don't meet many people who dislike Frodo because he was good-hearted, talented, Elf-friend, and so on and so forth. Whatever is wrong with a character who is good?
Truly, though, Istawen, I don't understand what your position on a good character is. You don't like Anne because she has a lot of faults, and you don't like Emily because you claim she doesn't have any.
Wren, I'm sure my mamma could sympathize. I believe I was about ten or eleven when she read the books aloud to me, and by then she had a really hard time of it because I didn't think she went fast enough! I'd steal them away and read them myself in my spare time.
The movies were very enjoyable, but I think they were only mildly disappointing, though I have to say I intensely disliked Anne of Green Gables: The Continuing Story. I think they were trying to throw a bit of Rilla of Ingleside in there, but it didn't work.
|
|
|
Post by Nurumaiel on Sept 16, 2004 20:20:53 GMT -5
An excellent series of books indeed! My grandmother read these books to my mother, my mother read them to me, and I intend to read them to my girls and likewise encourage them to read them to their girls and on and on and on. These books I would highly recommend for any age. Perhaps young girls would get the most pleasure out of them, but I've never ceased loving them and I've read them over hundreds (though I don't mean that literally) of times. The Emily of New Moon books, the Pat of Silver Bush books, as well as the individual titles of The Blue Castle and A Tangled Web were also very good, and all by the same authoress, L.M. Montgomery. Here are some links on the writer that might be of interest: www.uxbridge.com/people/maud.htmlwww.gov.pe.ca/lmm/index.php3www.lmmontgomery.ca/lmmi/new.shtml
|
|
|
Post by Nurumaiel on Sept 8, 2004 16:42:21 GMT -5
Ahem! For my signature, I chose a quote from one of the cleverest men ever made.... G.K. Chesterton: It was a toss-up between that and another which I shall not reveal... Later I will let the wise words of Chesterton on the subject of thieves and robbers honour my signature space. For now it shall remain a mystery.
|
|