![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
What is the Lord of the Rings than the original D&D campaign wherein an adventuring party consisting of several halfling rogues, a wizard, an elven ranger, a human ranger, and a Dwarf barbarian travel together fighting monsters on their way to destroy a lich's phylactery?
Just let the dead stay dead already.
Sep. 2nd, 2022 05:27 pmAbout the new LOTR prequel series:
I'm all for diversity in fantasy. I'm even for diversity in Tolkein's story. I applaud diversity in media, can't get enough of it because it's new and interesting. So the diversity isn't the issue for me. The issue is that a children's book (The Hobbit) got stretched into three movies and was a burning sack of g@rbage. This new series is just a shameless, soulless cash-grab by another evil corporation.
The Hobbit was to LOTR as the Star Wars prequels were to Star Wars, and this new series is just going to be all the other new Star Wars movies all over again, where most of the griping is going to be from r@cists and s3xists griping about women and minorities existing in a story that is no longer all about cis white men, which like the Star Wars sequels is already causing people to ignore valid criticisms of the series for having been written by a bunch of suits. The things I've been hearing about the story and the effects so far don't bode well to me.
I'm putting my money on the series being hot g@rbage soup full of meaningless fan service and horrible writing just like the mess that was the Hobbit trilogy, but even worse now that Bezos's pet monkeys have their grubby little paws all over it. It's gonna be Disney's milking to d3ath of Star Wars all over again, because corporations can't just let things go.
LOTR was great, it had its three movies to tell its story and was over. It should've been allowed to remain that way. But no, they resurrected its c0rp$3 and made it shamble around for three movies in a gr0ss mockery of the original trilogy, and they're doing it again. They saw how well the diversity controversy worked at covering up the r0tt1ng flesh of the Star Wars sequels, so they're relying on that again.
Whether you're for or against diversity in fiction, focusing on that angle is just playing into their hands. This series is going to be hot g@rbage baking in the California sun, but people are still gonna watch it and make Bezos billions of more dollars because they didn't learn their lesson from the absolute clvsterfvck that was the Star Wars sequels. Which is just going to further encourage big evil mega-corporations to reanimate even more completed stories and make them moan and shuffle around while parts fall off of them.
PS = I'm also astonished they're doing the same thing to Game of Thrones after that series caught fire and crashed into a boiling lake of rotting human corpse juice.
PPS = I couldn't be arsed to undo the stupid censorship I had to use to get around Facebook's miles-high tower of bullshit they don't like.
I'm all for diversity in fantasy. I'm even for diversity in Tolkein's story. I applaud diversity in media, can't get enough of it because it's new and interesting. So the diversity isn't the issue for me. The issue is that a children's book (The Hobbit) got stretched into three movies and was a burning sack of g@rbage. This new series is just a shameless, soulless cash-grab by another evil corporation.
The Hobbit was to LOTR as the Star Wars prequels were to Star Wars, and this new series is just going to be all the other new Star Wars movies all over again, where most of the griping is going to be from r@cists and s3xists griping about women and minorities existing in a story that is no longer all about cis white men, which like the Star Wars sequels is already causing people to ignore valid criticisms of the series for having been written by a bunch of suits. The things I've been hearing about the story and the effects so far don't bode well to me.
I'm putting my money on the series being hot g@rbage soup full of meaningless fan service and horrible writing just like the mess that was the Hobbit trilogy, but even worse now that Bezos's pet monkeys have their grubby little paws all over it. It's gonna be Disney's milking to d3ath of Star Wars all over again, because corporations can't just let things go.
LOTR was great, it had its three movies to tell its story and was over. It should've been allowed to remain that way. But no, they resurrected its c0rp$3 and made it shamble around for three movies in a gr0ss mockery of the original trilogy, and they're doing it again. They saw how well the diversity controversy worked at covering up the r0tt1ng flesh of the Star Wars sequels, so they're relying on that again.
Whether you're for or against diversity in fiction, focusing on that angle is just playing into their hands. This series is going to be hot g@rbage baking in the California sun, but people are still gonna watch it and make Bezos billions of more dollars because they didn't learn their lesson from the absolute clvsterfvck that was the Star Wars sequels. Which is just going to further encourage big evil mega-corporations to reanimate even more completed stories and make them moan and shuffle around while parts fall off of them.
PS = I'm also astonished they're doing the same thing to Game of Thrones after that series caught fire and crashed into a boiling lake of rotting human corpse juice.
PPS = I couldn't be arsed to undo the stupid censorship I had to use to get around Facebook's miles-high tower of bullshit they don't like.
Okay, so. Remember "The Wizard of Oz"? Seen that movie? Of course you have. Now I want you to remember that the titular Wizard (of Oz) sent a young girl, a talking scarecrow, a talking tin man, and a cowardly talking lion to go kill the wicked witch of the west and bring back a trophy. That's messed up, right? Of course it is. And they do it, and it's traumatic AF.
Now that you're thinking about that whole ridiculous situation, I want you to know two things:
First, in the books, Oz was a real place, Dorothy really went there for real in the flesh, it wasn't in any way a dream. So within the context of the story, a real flesh-and-blood adult man sent a real-life young girl and her three friends to murder his dangerous, powerful, evil rival and bring back a trophy. Not a dream, so it's even more messed up than if it had been a dream. Not the nonsense of a dream, but an actual sociopath weaponizing a minor.
Secondly, and this is the most important part: in the book that this happened in, Dorothy was not sixteen. She was SIX. Yes, Dorothy in the first book was a mere SIX years old. An adult man... (inhales) sent a LITERAL CHILD -- a KINDERGARTENER no less... with a straw man, a tin man, and a cowardly lion... to go murder a powerful evil witch... and bring back a trophy. So in addition to being a sociopath, the Wizard is now also the multiverse's biggest coward ever. And in fact... is there a word stronger than "sociopath" to describe the monstrous act of weaponizing a KINDERGARTEN-AGE GIRL against a person who has already attempted to murder said little girl on several occasions in the story... AFTER SHE WENT TO HIM FOR HELP WITH SAID MURDEROUS WITCH. Help that he REFUSED TO GIVE HER.
And yes, he was just an ordinary man and not actually a wizard, making him a liar to boot. And yes, an ordinary human man versus a powerful evil witch is not a fair fight. But the Wizard was still an adult man who wielded power over the people of the Emerald City and possibly much more of Oz. And he was an inventor. He could have used his power to gather an army to storm the witch's castle, or even send the Oz version of Seal Team Six in against her and her forces, but no, instead he sent Seal Team Six-Year-Old.
He could've invented war balloons to attack the witch, in addition to armies. But no, i'M tHe Wizard, i'M gONnA thROW A SIX YeaR olD liTTlE GIRL at an ANCIeNt AND POWErFuL eviL WiTCh AnD hope For The bEsT.
No bloody wonder he was trying to escape in his balloon: he fully expected they'd fail, and the Wicked Witch would announce to the world that the Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz responded to a small child's call for help by saying "YOU kill her, little girl; I'm much too busy being the worst human being ever born!" right before murdering half the population of Oz with her fancy new magical shoes.
It's like in Pokemon, that scene where someone summarized it by saying "Ash threw a rat at a god. And won." The Wizard threw a toddler at a powerfully magical war criminal, and won. Only difference is, Ash expected to win and the Wizard didn't. And Dorothy only won because the witch was deathly allergic to water. (Or more realistically some cleaning agent added to the bucket of water.)
Knowing all this, is there anyone in fiction more loathsome and detestable than the Wizard of Oz?
Now that you're thinking about that whole ridiculous situation, I want you to know two things:
First, in the books, Oz was a real place, Dorothy really went there for real in the flesh, it wasn't in any way a dream. So within the context of the story, a real flesh-and-blood adult man sent a real-life young girl and her three friends to murder his dangerous, powerful, evil rival and bring back a trophy. Not a dream, so it's even more messed up than if it had been a dream. Not the nonsense of a dream, but an actual sociopath weaponizing a minor.
Secondly, and this is the most important part: in the book that this happened in, Dorothy was not sixteen. She was SIX. Yes, Dorothy in the first book was a mere SIX years old. An adult man... (inhales) sent a LITERAL CHILD -- a KINDERGARTENER no less... with a straw man, a tin man, and a cowardly lion... to go murder a powerful evil witch... and bring back a trophy. So in addition to being a sociopath, the Wizard is now also the multiverse's biggest coward ever. And in fact... is there a word stronger than "sociopath" to describe the monstrous act of weaponizing a KINDERGARTEN-AGE GIRL against a person who has already attempted to murder said little girl on several occasions in the story... AFTER SHE WENT TO HIM FOR HELP WITH SAID MURDEROUS WITCH. Help that he REFUSED TO GIVE HER.
And yes, he was just an ordinary man and not actually a wizard, making him a liar to boot. And yes, an ordinary human man versus a powerful evil witch is not a fair fight. But the Wizard was still an adult man who wielded power over the people of the Emerald City and possibly much more of Oz. And he was an inventor. He could have used his power to gather an army to storm the witch's castle, or even send the Oz version of Seal Team Six in against her and her forces, but no, instead he sent Seal Team Six-Year-Old.
He could've invented war balloons to attack the witch, in addition to armies. But no, i'M tHe Wizard, i'M gONnA thROW A SIX YeaR olD liTTlE GIRL at an ANCIeNt AND POWErFuL eviL WiTCh AnD hope For The bEsT.
No bloody wonder he was trying to escape in his balloon: he fully expected they'd fail, and the Wicked Witch would announce to the world that the Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz responded to a small child's call for help by saying "YOU kill her, little girl; I'm much too busy being the worst human being ever born!" right before murdering half the population of Oz with her fancy new magical shoes.
It's like in Pokemon, that scene where someone summarized it by saying "Ash threw a rat at a god. And won." The Wizard threw a toddler at a powerfully magical war criminal, and won. Only difference is, Ash expected to win and the Wizard didn't. And Dorothy only won because the witch was deathly allergic to water. (Or more realistically some cleaning agent added to the bucket of water.)
Knowing all this, is there anyone in fiction more loathsome and detestable than the Wizard of Oz?
Boot to the head
Aug. 18th, 2021 10:35 pmPurely hypothetical, because I haven't the skills for it nor the patience to learn said skills, but if I had the skills to be a hacker, I would use those skills to boot certain people from the Internet. Anti-maskers, anti-vaxxers, Nazis, racists, other bigots, a whole lot of Republicans, and others. When found, I would lock their social media accounts down so hard they'd never be able to reclaim the accounts, do the same to their email accounts, remotely control their computer and install something on it to basically turn the computer into an expensive paperweight, cancel their cable and Internet service, cancel their phone service, and then send copies of their most vile posts to their employers to get them fired. Oh, and if they were especially heinous, I'd doxx them on 4chan and elsewhere.
And if they managed somehow to recover their accounts, I'd hack into their government records and get them declared legally dead. That would be a hell of a mess for them to try to get corrected!
(Sigh) That'd be so cool. Alas...
And if they managed somehow to recover their accounts, I'd hack into their government records and get them declared legally dead. That would be a hell of a mess for them to try to get corrected!
(Sigh) That'd be so cool. Alas...
Screw J.K. Rowling! Slytherin rocks!
Nov. 21st, 2010 03:51 amI love the Harry Potter books, but I have a real beef with how J.K. Rowling portrayed Slytherin house in the books. First of all, all the villains come from Slytherin house, except for Peter Pettigrew, who isn't even a villain, just a coward. So, it's all about ambition, is it? Ambitious people are all villains? There weren't any decent people from Slytherin except Slughorn, the token "good Slytherin." And "ambitious" as how they judge evil is hardly fair, look at Percy Weasley! A right asshole, yes, and a bit too trusting of authority figures, but I would never classify him as evil.
Secondly, everyone from every other one of the houses were good? No villains from Ravenclaw? Seriously? Ravenclaw, the house full of braniacs, never produced any evil geniuses, mad alchemists, or any other kind of villain? And Gryffindor, home of the brave and the people rejected from other houses, only ever produced one sniveling coward of a villain? Uh huh. And Hufflepuff? It takes a lot of hard work to be evil. Completely unrealistic, that there were no villains from anywhere other than Slytherin house.
Thirdly, I hate how all the Quidditch players on Slytherin team (except Malfoy) are these enormous brainless goons. An apt description of many jocks for sure, but this makes Slytherin look like a bunch of idiots. Surely, ambitious people wanting to win would be clever about it, knowing the rules inside and out, working on ways to ride the line instead of outright cheating. IE, taking advantage of loopholes, being sneaky about things, avoiding fouls from blatant cheating.
Besides, the whole notion of a school promoting cheating via Slytherin house where "[Slytherins] will use any means to achieve their ends" is pretty frakking stupid to begin with. Seriously, the cheating surprises them for what reason?
And most importantly, the whole way they choose who is in which house is frakked up anyway. Who the heck knows who they will be when they grow up? People change all the time. Someone might start out listless and unfocused and end up finding focus later in life. I shudder to think where the hat would have put me. In school, I loved to learn but detested homework, had no ambition, and was not a particularly brave person. I have changed much since then, gaining ambition but still struggling with doing the work. Judging by the apparent fact that Gryffindor seems to be where they stick people who don't really fit the descriptions of the other houses, I'd probably have ended up in Gryffindor.
Also, some poor small kid may be ambitious enough for Slytherin and yet completely unable to cope with the inevitable bullying. (Look at Snape as an example. He found a group to attach himself to, but still... in fact, given that the group he attached himself to were led by a magical Charles Manson, this may add to my point.)
Further, how does the hat choose which house a brainy yet ambitious person goes in? Why didn't Hermione end up in Ravenclaw? Also, I would think the Sorting Hat would need more than a few minutes to decide. A better system would be to have some sort of pre-sorting house where the Hat can take a week or so to mull over the options for each student before deciding their final destination. Which would have the added benefit of all the first years getting to know each other outside the restrictions of being in different Houses, which would encourage networking and friendship among the Houses.
There isn't enough focus on Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff anyway, for my taste. My favorite character in the whole book is Luna Lovegood, and she's a Ravenclaw. And why she didn't end up if Gryffindor is anyone's guess. She never struck me as particularly brainy; not an idiot for sure, but why Luna and not Hermione? Though it could be that her intelligence was hidden somewhat by her peculiarities.
My preferred vision of Slytherin is one where people would learn to make something of their lives. Instead of where the dunces and evil people end up, Slytherin would be where the future shapers of tomorrow would go. Slytherin house would look for people with creativity, vision, and untapped potential. Slytherin would be where people who, through one means or another, will grow up to have power in the world. Whether in obvious ways like becoming powerful political figures or business owners, or more subtle ways like famous authors or famous artists. Slytherin would be the house to take kids who don't know how much potential they have, and mold them into great human beings whose names will be on the lips of others for centuries to come. Ravenclaw may have the brainy bookworm type, but Slytherins would be intelligent too! We'd be sly and crafty; our House would shape us to be driven, determined, confident, and self aware. It would teach us all the best things about the Left Hand Path, such as can be found in "Uncle Setnakt's Essential Guide To The Left Hand Path," where ambition would meet ethics and be given a moral compass. Not the same moral compass as the Right Hand Path, to be sure, but a more balanced approach. One that does not defend all laws as good just because they are laws, and also does not promote lawlessness; Slytherin house would, like a responsible Left Hand Path, teach that laws are tools, and if a law is broken, to work to fix it or replace it. Or, if a law is irreparably broken, such as one denying oppressed persons the right to marry, to work towards getting that law removed. And like a truly balanced Left-Hand Path, Slytherin house would teach that hatred is a self-defeating poison, and anger good only in small doses. As such, I don't think people like Tom Riddle would have made the cut in *my* version of Slytherin.
With this ideal in mind, I wear my Slytherin scarf with pride. (Literally. I own an actual Slytherin scarf.)
Secondly, everyone from every other one of the houses were good? No villains from Ravenclaw? Seriously? Ravenclaw, the house full of braniacs, never produced any evil geniuses, mad alchemists, or any other kind of villain? And Gryffindor, home of the brave and the people rejected from other houses, only ever produced one sniveling coward of a villain? Uh huh. And Hufflepuff? It takes a lot of hard work to be evil. Completely unrealistic, that there were no villains from anywhere other than Slytherin house.
Thirdly, I hate how all the Quidditch players on Slytherin team (except Malfoy) are these enormous brainless goons. An apt description of many jocks for sure, but this makes Slytherin look like a bunch of idiots. Surely, ambitious people wanting to win would be clever about it, knowing the rules inside and out, working on ways to ride the line instead of outright cheating. IE, taking advantage of loopholes, being sneaky about things, avoiding fouls from blatant cheating.
Besides, the whole notion of a school promoting cheating via Slytherin house where "[Slytherins] will use any means to achieve their ends" is pretty frakking stupid to begin with. Seriously, the cheating surprises them for what reason?
And most importantly, the whole way they choose who is in which house is frakked up anyway. Who the heck knows who they will be when they grow up? People change all the time. Someone might start out listless and unfocused and end up finding focus later in life. I shudder to think where the hat would have put me. In school, I loved to learn but detested homework, had no ambition, and was not a particularly brave person. I have changed much since then, gaining ambition but still struggling with doing the work. Judging by the apparent fact that Gryffindor seems to be where they stick people who don't really fit the descriptions of the other houses, I'd probably have ended up in Gryffindor.
Also, some poor small kid may be ambitious enough for Slytherin and yet completely unable to cope with the inevitable bullying. (Look at Snape as an example. He found a group to attach himself to, but still... in fact, given that the group he attached himself to were led by a magical Charles Manson, this may add to my point.)
Further, how does the hat choose which house a brainy yet ambitious person goes in? Why didn't Hermione end up in Ravenclaw? Also, I would think the Sorting Hat would need more than a few minutes to decide. A better system would be to have some sort of pre-sorting house where the Hat can take a week or so to mull over the options for each student before deciding their final destination. Which would have the added benefit of all the first years getting to know each other outside the restrictions of being in different Houses, which would encourage networking and friendship among the Houses.
There isn't enough focus on Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff anyway, for my taste. My favorite character in the whole book is Luna Lovegood, and she's a Ravenclaw. And why she didn't end up if Gryffindor is anyone's guess. She never struck me as particularly brainy; not an idiot for sure, but why Luna and not Hermione? Though it could be that her intelligence was hidden somewhat by her peculiarities.
My preferred vision of Slytherin is one where people would learn to make something of their lives. Instead of where the dunces and evil people end up, Slytherin would be where the future shapers of tomorrow would go. Slytherin house would look for people with creativity, vision, and untapped potential. Slytherin would be where people who, through one means or another, will grow up to have power in the world. Whether in obvious ways like becoming powerful political figures or business owners, or more subtle ways like famous authors or famous artists. Slytherin would be the house to take kids who don't know how much potential they have, and mold them into great human beings whose names will be on the lips of others for centuries to come. Ravenclaw may have the brainy bookworm type, but Slytherins would be intelligent too! We'd be sly and crafty; our House would shape us to be driven, determined, confident, and self aware. It would teach us all the best things about the Left Hand Path, such as can be found in "Uncle Setnakt's Essential Guide To The Left Hand Path," where ambition would meet ethics and be given a moral compass. Not the same moral compass as the Right Hand Path, to be sure, but a more balanced approach. One that does not defend all laws as good just because they are laws, and also does not promote lawlessness; Slytherin house would, like a responsible Left Hand Path, teach that laws are tools, and if a law is broken, to work to fix it or replace it. Or, if a law is irreparably broken, such as one denying oppressed persons the right to marry, to work towards getting that law removed. And like a truly balanced Left-Hand Path, Slytherin house would teach that hatred is a self-defeating poison, and anger good only in small doses. As such, I don't think people like Tom Riddle would have made the cut in *my* version of Slytherin.
With this ideal in mind, I wear my Slytherin scarf with pride. (Literally. I own an actual Slytherin scarf.)
