After persevering through that, perhaps you need a hug?
http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp02282010.shtml

It's a minor detail, but it always makes me smile: Butterbur commenting that his beer has been 'uncommonly good' since Gandalf 'said a good word' about it.

In other words, Gandalf actually did cast a spell on Butterbur's beer.

Oh cut the passive-aggressive horseshit.

"I think your comments suck, but I in no way imply that you should shut up".

I've kept out of arctic_hare's Xander criticism threads because I disagree in kind, not in principle with her assessment of the character; but I am getting a mite sick of the people who just can't let her have her own opinion without trying to drag her down.

And arctic_hare: I concur with Tess below. Don't stop posting; even if I disagree sometimes, I enjoy your posts.

To the other posters: sorry for throwing fuel on the flames, but I just couldn't take it anymore.

What makes me crack up is Ioreth's assessment of Aragorn: "Not too soft in his speech, mind you".

Yep, she still remembers the tongue-lashing the personnel in the Houses of the Healing got from him. And even if she is as loquacious as ever, her assessment is correct: Aragorn is a man who does good deeds, even if he is harsh in words.

I've mentioned this before, but it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine, because so many critics have been harping on his good qualities as if he were some sort of Mary Sue.

Yes, they do. And if I as a straight guy can see it clearly, then I shudder to think how many hints at it I'm missing but that are obvious to the gay guys that have to live with it every day.

A side note, because you mention it: I've always hated the fact that 'perfect happiness' was defined as 'having sex'.

Sure it's great to engage in sex with someone you really love, but in an actual relationship that's not the only moment of happiness you'll have.

By distinctly tying happiness to sex I think the writers have devalued happiness and made the whole concept shallow.

I think you are right. Gandalf's entire speech is filled with a sense of 'We don't know the grand design, we just have to do the Good that is in front of us, even if we have to sacrifice ourselves'.

It is a very Christian point of view, but like you, I like that Tolkien is subtle in it.

On the other hand, this is not surprising. He has explicitly said that he dislikes authors who hit readers over the head with a message.

It is something Tolkien was well aware of. Remember his specialty was Old English, and by extension the related language of Old Norse, and he extensively studied the surviving works of the old Germanic heroic poetry.

And one thing keeps coming back, as Tom Shippey points out in his 'Author of the Century': the courage expected of a Germanic warrior. After death, if they've been found worthy, they can expect to wait in Valhalla for the final battle; a battle that is prophesied to be hopeless: Ragnarok.

And yet they are expected to act like valorous, honourable warriors nonetheless, because opposing the Frost Giants, even if it is hopeless, is the right thing to do.

Shippey does point out that Tolkien, as a good Catholic, could not take this belief 100% seriously, but you can see in The Lord of the Rings that he is trying to square the Germanic belief in what good, honourable behaviour is with his Catholicity, by framing it into peoples' duty to oppose Evil at all costs.

And once again we get proof that Aragorn is not the boring flawless Good Guy(tm) that people make him out to be.

I really love the way he lays on the sarcasm as thick as possible (va snpg, Vbergu rkcyvpvgyl pnyyf onpx gb guvf zbzrag va n yngre puncgre, fnlvat gung ur vf abg tragyr va uvf fcrrpu)

I think 'bonkers' wouldn't have done it either.

Strictly speaking, you are not using a synonym for mental disorders to give something a negative slant. In your context it would mean "this is how I imagine someone with delusions to view the world". That does not, however, make this usage OK, because in the end it is still you as a (presumably) mentally healthy person imposing your idea of what mental disorders are.

And as long as there are perfectly serviceable synonyms like 'weird' or 'strange' around, why bother taking the risk of offending someone?

Of course, in some English dialects, 'queer' would have been perfectly acceptable.