My God, It Was Horrible (Part III)

[Gandalf The Grey]

That is so cool! Often the horse does not have a problem, its handlers do. If you approach it in the right way and offer it your friendship, it will most always oblige happily. I am not a talented rider, but I always take a special interest in horses that have been given up. As a kid I used to dream of going to the slaughterhouse and saving all the horses that were brought there because they 'couldn't be handled'... I'd love to hear the whole story about Cocoa, would you PM or e-mail it to me? We could do some horse-talk together.

Methinks you undervalue yourself, Sarde!

While you claim to have no riding talent, your reply shows otherwise, and contains fitting insight. * bows *

It may take me a little while to respond via PM, since I am currently setting up a new RPG over at TTF's sister site MERPG. But look out for me, especially at unlikely times! I'll be happy to transcribe Cocoa's story more fully than I've done, in your honor, and look forward to sharing a bit of equestrian conversation with you.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

You must be short of time also: you quoted all my posting, and had time only to refer briefly to one point in it!
But if Joe DID have the time, then he WOULD hide and pine?!
If the world was entirely populated by your Joes, all the authors, biographers, and historians would be out of a job.
And where does Will Rogers come into all of this?

Actually I was trying not to narrow in on one person. I was only responding in a general sense about a general idea.

The average Joe IS an average Joe because he does not hide from the world. If he hid from the world he would cease to be the average Joe.

I never said authors and the like were worthless. I feel that pining for an imaginary world that they write about is a waste of talent. Get out and interact is my point.

There is an old addage that goes like this: If you are trying to do something you are not accomplishing it. You must do, or do not, there is no try.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

My Dear Foe-Hammer:

Now if you'd have been talking about a sheep crashing through the windshield instead of a barn owl, I'd suspect you were trying to pull the wool over my eyes.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

I'm curious about the Will Rogers thing too. I'm sure there is a deep significance in the use of Will Rogers as an example of how one should live one's life, but dashed if I know what it is.

Foe Hammer, I, at least, am not 'hiding' from the world by 'refusing to interact with it'. In fact I make a point of sharing my dazzling wit and sparkling personality with everyone I come in contact with. But I insist on interacting with the world on my terms. Yes, I do use literature, particularly fantasy literature, as a form of escapism. Yes, I did at one time refuse to interact with the world at all, and spent the years between eleven and fourteen years old in books. I'm sorry I didn't have the strength of character to stand up to the girls who ostracised me because I was homeschooled and fat and didn't wear make up or dress the way they did or have a crush on Jonathan Taylor Thomas, or whoever was popular at the time. But I'm not sorry that I read books instead of changing myself to fit in to their idea of what a teenage girl's life should be. I do not regret all of the time I have spent absorbed in fantasy worlds; in fact I credit the reading I did with saving me from depression. I was miserably unhappy for a while, but it was temporary, and now that I am past that point I feel that I am well prepared to deal with your 'real world', without sacrificing my individuality and submitting to a life of conformity.

I don't hide from the world. But when the world tells me that I need to be something I'm not in order to suit it, then I turn my back and ignore it. I'm not here to meet the expectations of anyone other than God, and that's between Him and me.

The pressure placed on all of us to conform to a cookie cutter template of perfection is, IMHO, a sin. Criticizing one because they are gay, fat, black, be-specteculed etc is wrong, but I think ACCEPTING that label on yourself is worse. Enter Will Rogers..... WR was by no stretch of the imagination a conformist. He didn't focus on what he was not, he focused on ideals that defined him in spite of his short-comings. His message was so powerful that his societiel short-comings were a non-factor. Not because society decided to give him a break, but because it had no choice but to accept truth where it found it.

 

[joxy]

Criticizing one because they are....is wrong, but I think ACCEPTING that label on yourself is worse.
Enter Will Rogers....

That statement is one of the best I've ever seen around here- or anywhere else. Those who ACCEPT the label simply play into the hands of the labellers - and we all know where that can lead to.
But now we're back with the rodeo rider turned journalist turned film actor turned writer - is he really all THAT well-known,
and well-remembered from seventy years ago, even in the USA?

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

That statement is one of the best I've ever seen around here- or anywhere else. Those who ACCEPT the label simply play into the hands of the labellers - and we all know where that can lead to.
But now we're back with the rodeo rider turned journalist turned film actor turned writer - is he really all THAT well-known,
and well-remembered from seventy years ago, even in the USA?

Yes, Will Rogers is still remembered and revered as a sort of "home-spun" philosopher a la Mark Twain. However, if one believes that society accepted Rogers' truths because it had to, then one would be wrong. American society accepted those truths because we were still honest enough those days individually and as a culture to do so. There have been other cultures and societies (Germany under the Nazis and other nations under Communism) who have determined to accept only what fit into their particular ideology - and the truth be damned! It takes an intellectually honest person and culture to accept truth. Frankly, given the current climate of "political correctness" in the West (wherein no one may say something negative about "protected minorities" or "sensitive subjects" even if it is the truth), I wonder if Rogers would be as welcome today as he was in the 1930s!

 

[Foe-Hammer]

However, if one believes that society accepted Rogers' truths because it had to, then one would be wrong. American society accepted those truths because we were still honest enough those days individually and as a culture to do so.

Don't kid yourself MM, our society was plenty bad back then and is plenty good today. If it weren't as bad, then WR would never have HAD to voice his opinions. Here is an example....

"There is always more hatreds formed at any meeting than there is friendships, no matter what they agree too they know they should have done better. The Nations in this world that get along and never have any trouble are the ones that never meet in conference at all."

Our society had more faith in God but it was also more prejudiced, bigoted, and close minded. It seems that every gain we make in human understanding, we lose a little faith. Kind of a natural balance and that is where I see Gods plan for mankind because eventually we realize that our capacity for compassion comes from God.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Ah, but "political correctness" feeds on our capacity for compassion. We are told that saying something "negative" about at least some people or groups is "unkind" and/or "intolerant" even when it is the truth. This kind of thing "shuts down" honest and useful debate and tends to make certain socio-economic or political ideas sacrosanct - that is, impossible to debate or question. Hence, those who question the welfare state are said to "hate" the poor or the elderly or children while those who, for religious reasons, believe that homosexual activity is immoral are called "homophobes" and bigots. In some instances, people who voice politically incorrect opinions are accused of "hate speech" and every effort is made to silence them in direct contradiction of First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and religion. And all of this is done in the name of kindness, compassion and the struggle against intolerance and bigotry.

Certainly, some people are in fact bigoted and intolerant. However, not all intolerance is evil! I would not wish to become "tolerant" of evil and wickedness or cruelty and dishonesty. Intolerance of such unacceptable behavior should be cultivated, not condemned. Sometimes in our current culture, we have become so "tolerant" that we are virtually unable to respond properly to unacceptable and anti-social behavior since to do so is considered itself "anti-social".

That is what I meant by saying that Will Rogers might have had problems with his humor these days - unless, of course, he followed the politically correct agenda presently demanded by so many in our establishment.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

I believe that our society's consience is in a constant state of flux. Until we can get past hating people for what they are (black, gay, etc) we cannot discuss it on it's own merits. We cannot get past hate until we all can have compassion for one anothers differences.

I believe that WR would find the exact right way to battle the stupidities of our day ( IE political correctness), just as he did with his days problems.

 

[Thorin]

Oh my heck! I haven't been on this thread for awhile and when I saw Foe-Hammer's name as a recent poster I came on hoping to see a Maggot/Foe-Hammer debate of old concerning the love and hate relationship with Jackson's movies....

Instead I find Will Rogers and bigotry in our society??? What is with you people?? Get back on topic!

Foe-Hammer get back to being your beligerent self, slamming all of Maggot's good and logical posts with your sarcastic nonsense!!

Seriously folks. Shouldn't we be getting back on topic? This is what newbie's do!

 

[Morgan LeFay]

Yeah, and I'll be the newbie who'll do it.
I was reading books during the time all the movies was coming out (yes, it took me three years, but it'll stay for a lifetime), so there was a great mess in my mind(a movie - a book - a book - a movie - a book[TTT again] - a movie - a book). But I've learnt that we must be tolerate, some things that I like in book (i.e. scouring of the Shire) just won't work in the movies and we must reconcile with it. I really love the movies, cause I hold off books and didn't think about the things that were not there (I still hope we'll se some of them at EE). Yes, there are things that I really dislike, but I'll conceal them.

 

[Thorin]

Yeah, and I'll be the newbie who'll do it.
But I've learnt that we must be tolerate, some things that I like in book (i.e. scouring of the Shire) just won't work in the movies and we must reconcile with it.

Actually, I meant that it was newbies who go off topic (Forgive the stereotype) But thanks for putting it back on.

Actually, the SoS would have worked well had Jackson kept the focus on hobbits instead of on Aragorn. Things like Bombadil and all the singing and poetry wouldn't have worked no doubt.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

Actually, the SoS would have worked well had Jackson kept the focus on hobbits instead of on Aragorn. Things like Bombadil and all the singing and poetry wouldn't have worked no doubt.

Yeah, right! Lets criticize PJ for not focusing MORE on a bunch of hobbits in a book labeled "The Return of The King". Just another example of PJ doing a better job with the story than JRR did.

And most of MM's posts are veiled insults and are not "good and logical".

 

[joxy]

Lets criticize PJ for not focusing MORE on a bunch of hobbits in a book labeled "The Return of The King". Just another example of PJ doing a better job with the story than JRR did.

And most of MM's posts are veiled insults and are not "good and logical".

Possibly doing a better job with the TITLE, or "label" as you call it, but Tolkien was never very happy with the titles anyway.
The STORY is a very different matter. T always made it clear that the hobbits WERE his main subject.
And let's have none of this nonsense about "veiled" and "insults".

 

[aragil]

Short of cutting out Aragorn altogether, how could RotK possibly have been more centered on the Hobbits???

Frodo and Sam were the heart and soul of that movie. Aragorn got two scenes in the last 20 minutes, one of which shows him and the entire city of Minas Tirith bowing to Merry, Pippin, Sam and Frodo!! What amount of focus on the Hobbits would have made you happy, Thorin?

 

[Foe-Hammer]

Possibly doing a better job with the TITLE, or "label" as you call it, but Tolkien was never very happy with the titles anyway.
The STORY is a very different matter. T always made it clear that the hobbits WERE his main subject.
And let's have none of this nonsense about "veiled" and "insults".

Hey, I was just trying to please Thorin.

 

[Thorin]

Short of cutting out Aragorn altogether, how could RotK possibly have been more centered on the Hobbits???

Frodo and Sam were the heart and soul of that movie. Aragorn got two scenes in the last 20 minutes, one of which shows him and the entire city of Minas Tirith bowing to Merry, Pippin, Sam and Frodo!! What amount of focus on the Hobbits would have made you happy, Thorin?

I guess Iwas thinking of the theme and focus throughout the three movies. Yes, RoTK did focus on the hobbits (at least F&S) much better. However throwing in the Scouring of the Shire with only the third movie to focus maturely on the hobbits would have been like throwing Arwen in the third without any introduction. Having her meet the fellowship, sneak up on Aragorn with a sword, ride to the Fords, defy the nazgul and bring down the flood solved that nicely.......PPLLLTHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Sorry, I just had to say that! I needed a good laugh.

When M&P are shown to be nothing but buffoons, cutting out of the Conspiracy by having the idiots stumble on them accidentally, having FrodoWood act weak in character and in his portrayal and the continual focus on wimpy, weak Aragorn and the subplot of he and his elven lover (who he dumps), how could we expect something like the SoS to work, anti-climax or not to the wedding/coronation of the king? Cutting it out was a blessing to purists in this context.

Had PJ included more of Tolkien's focus on the hobbits, the SoS would have been a great climax in its own right. The focus was not on them but continually on Aragorn throughout the first two movies (and badly done at that).

 

[Foe-Hammer]

Since we must assume that every hobbit left in the shire were a bunch of bumbling buffons because jrr insisted that they were all too cowardly to put up much of a fight for their "beloved shire", then why do you complain so about pj furthering that idea with M&P?

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Since we must assume that every hobbit left in the shire were a bunch of bumbling buffons because jrr insisted that they were all too cowardly to put up much of a fight for their "beloved shire", then why do you complain so about pj furthering that idea with M&P?

Dear me, F.H. Someday I really must read that book you keep talking about! It sounds a hoot!

 

[Foe-Hammer]

Dear me, F.H. Someday I really must read that book you keep talking about! It sounds a hoot!

I too, am anxious for you to read it so I wont have to continue explaining all this to you.