Thursday, May 31, 2007

As imperfect as the prequels may've been, lightsabres and Star Destroyers are still fucking cool I says and I want to see this;



Interesting aspect ratio for a television series.

In another part of the fantasy epic spectrum, I was flipping through Return of the King yesterday and I caught this line;

Something struck Sam violently in the back, his legs were knocked from under him and he was flung aside, striking his head against the stony floor, as a dark shape sprang over him.

And, as you may recall, I wrote a few days ago;

I thought perhaps I might escape the strange and infuriating chaos when something heavy shoved me from behind and, striking my head against a rock, I lost consciousness for a moment.

So I think this clearly indicates that I am the reincarnation of J.R.R. Tolkien. Where the fuck are my royalties? Is J.R.R. Tolkien going to have to choke a bitch?

From the Lord of the Rings wiki entry on Eru Il├║vatar;

Tolkien understood Eru not as a "fictional deity" but as a name in a fictional language for the actual monotheistic God, although in a mythological or fictional context. In a draft of a letter of 1954 to Peter Hastings, manager of the Newman Bookshop (a Catholic bookshop in Oxford), Tolkien defended non-orthodox aspects as rightly within the scope of his mythos, as an exploration of the infinite "potential variety" of God (The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, No. 153). Regarding the possibility of reincarnation of Elves, Hastings had written:

God has not used that device in any of the creations of which we have knowledge, and it seems to me to be stepping beyond the position of a sub-creator to produce it as an actual working thing, because a sub-creator, when dealing with the relations between creator and created, should use those channels which he knows the creator to have used already


Tolkien's reply contains an explanation of his view of the relation of (divine) Creation to (human) sub-creation:

We differ entirely about the nature of the relation of sub-creation to Creation. I should have said that liberation "from the channels the creator is known to have used already" is the fundamental function of "sub-creation", a tribute to the infinity of His potential variety [...] I am not a metaphysician; but I should have thought it a curious metaphysic — there is not one but many, indeed potentially innumerable ones — that declared the channels known (in such a finite corner as we have any inkling of) to have been used, are the only possible ones, or efficacious, or possibly acceptable to and by Him!

No comments:

Post a Comment