posted
I recently watched a filmed re-enactment of an ancient Roman battle (very very amateur production) in which an officer commanded his archers to "fire".
Was the word "fire" used as a verb meaning "shoot" before guns were used in warfare? If not, when (and with what type of gun) did it come into usage?
-------------------- "Your name is Thurmon Mermon?" Posts: 244 | From: Chicago, IL | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Special Cam, Specialist: I'm only going on my housemate's word, but I don't think it does.
He is an archery nerd and he was mocking 'Gladiator' for saying "fire."
But i'm not sure what they would have said instead
What they should have said instead was "Hado i philinn".
(Difficult one - 50 points for reference)
-------------------- Q. What's the difference between a Computer saleman and a Used Car Salesman? A. The Used Car Salesman knows when he is lying. Posts: 421 | From: Victoria, Australia | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Acc. to Etymonline the use of the word "fire" as in to "fire a gun" does indeed come from lighting the gunpowder on fire and is first attested to in 1530. Before that they may have just said "release" or something similar -- in whatever language they were speaking.
(On the other hand, you can't fault movies or books about ancient civilizations for translating the imperative for the command as "Fire!". That's what we call it now and it has, since 1530, lost any relationship to lighting gunpowder on fire.)
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: He is an archery nerd and he was mocking 'Gladiator' for saying "fire."
Heh, did he also mock it for them speaking English instead of Latin or Greek?
Seriously, I think this is an excellent question, Rexodus. I'd suggest sending it in to Uncle Evan.
-------------------- Mr. Sagan did not go too fars, If you just took the time to scan its, You'd count billions and billions of stars, And billions and billions of planets. Posts: 332 | From: Kansas City, MO | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If historical depictions in movies can be trusted, then archery volleys were triggered with the command: "Loose!"
I don't know if that's based on any factual evidence, or if the filmmakers (I've seen it various places) noticed the oddity of saying "Fire!" pre-gunpowder and decided to concoct an alternative.
Posts: 389 | From: Anchorage, AK | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have a definitive answer, but Richard Cornwell researches his books pretty well, and in his 'Archer's Tale', the English longbow men were given the command 'loose' or 'loose arrows.' He cites as his archery authority none other than Cornelius Fudge. Or, for those of us from an earlier generation, Tristan from 'All Creatures Great and Small.' [Well, actually it's the actor Robert Hardy, who also happens to be an acknowledged expert on the longbow and its historical employment.]
As for the term 'fire', IIRC the term originated with the matchlock, and the order for that weapon was 'give fire to the pan', which was the cue to insert the lit slowmatch into the flash pan (or priming pan). The matchlock was invented in the mid-1400s, and I assume that command was developed shortly thereafter. It is possible, however, that this command originated with the Gonne (or Hand Gonne of Hand Cannon) which was invented about 1300 AD and which, in its later versions, also used flash pan technology.
-------------------- Once a Warrior Prince Posts: 496 | From: California | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tristan from 'All Creatures Great and Small.' Well, actually it's the actor Robert Hardy...
Robert Hardy (Fudge) played Siegfried. Tristan was played by Peter Davison (a former Dr Who).
End of nitpick!
-------------------- I want you to lay down your life, Perkins. We need a futile gesture at this stage. It will raise the whole tone of the war. Posts: 4495 | From: Surrey, UK | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GI Joe: I don't have a definitive answer, but Richard Cornwell researches his books pretty well, and in his 'Archer's Tale', the English longbow men were given the command 'loose' or 'loose arrows.'
That was what the teacher said in archery class in high school: Nock arrows . . . draw . . . aim . . . loose.(okay, I went to school after 1300, but not so long after . . . )
-------------------- Patrick Posts: 576 | From: Illinois | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm glad someone brought this up, it's always been a bit of a pet peeve of mine. I was particularly bothered seeing the commands "fire" and "fire at will" given to Orc archers in the Lord of the Rings movies. Does anyone remember if it was used in the books? I can't recall. If so, it seems a bit sloppy of Tolkien not to catch such a error.
-------------------- "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -Buddha Posts: 32 | From: Bronx, NY | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to nitpick on you a bit more, because you have not yet had enough
quote:Originally posted by GI Joe: I don't have a definitive answer, but Richard Cornwell researches his books pretty well, and in his 'Archer's Tale'...
That is Bernard Cornwell. And Archer's Tale is a great read if you want to envision how life was like in those days.
Posts: 2064 | From: New Brunswick, Canada | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quack: I'm glad someone brought this up, it's always been a bit of a pet peeve of mine. I was particularly bothered seeing the commands "fire" and "fire at will" given to Orc archers in the Lord of the Rings movies. Does anyone remember if it was used in the books? I can't recall. If so, it seems a bit sloppy of Tolkien not to catch such a error.
How is it an error to use a term with which he was familiar in a world he made up?
I can see objecting to its use before 1530 in a historical drama, but it is absurd to say that an author who creates his society is to be deplored for using words in his society that would not have been in use in Real Life during an approximately equivalent time period.
Seaboe
-------------------- Education is not the filling of a hard drive, but the lighting of a bulb. -- Yeats via Esprise Me Posts: 5562 | From: Seattle, WA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quack: I'm glad someone brought this up, it's always been a bit of a pet peeve of mine. I was particularly bothered seeing the commands "fire" and "fire at will" given to Orc archers in the Lord of the Rings movies. Does anyone remember if it was used in the books? I can't recall. If so, it seems a bit sloppy of Tolkien not to catch such a error.
How is it an error to use a term with which he was familiar in a world he made up?
I can see objecting to its use before 1530 in a historical drama, but it is absurd to say that an author who creates his society is to be deplored for using words in his society that would not have been in use in Real Life during an approximately equivalent time period.
Seaboe
First, does the command "fire!" appear in the books? Quack's original complaint was its use in the movie. If it wasn't in the book, but was in the movie, then it is Peter Jackson's fault for adding dialog that is not "period" specific.
Also, I don't think that expecting an author's world to have some internal logic is absurd. The point isn't that it isn't period correct but that it wouldn't make sense to say "fire" when there is no fire involved in shooting arrows. It would be like having the White Witch of Narnia use the phrase "it does not compute". Since computers are not part of the universe, it leaves one to wonder how that phrase got into that universe.
-------------------- IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GenYus: ...First, does the command "fire!" appear in the books? Quack's original complaint was its use in the movie. If it wasn't in the book, but was in the movie, then it is Peter Jackson's fault for adding dialog that is not "period" specific.
Also, I don't think that expecting an author's world to have some internal logic is absurd. The point isn't that it isn't period correct but that it wouldn't make sense to say "fire" when there is no fire involved in shooting arrows. It would be like having the White Witch of Narnia use the phrase "it does not compute". Since computers are not part of the universe, it leaves one to wonder how that phrase got into that universe.
But pretty much everything in Tolkein is presumably translated and updated. Presumably, the common language was not 20th century english. It's not written to be linguistically acurate for the time and place. Rather it is written to be read by 20th century readers.
quote:Originally posted by Quack: ...it seems a bit sloppy of Tolkien not to catch such a error.
How is it an error to use a term with which he was familiar in a world he made up?
I can see objecting to its use before 1530 in a historical drama, but it is absurd to say that an author who creates his society is to be deplored for using words in his society that would not have been in use in Real Life during an approximately equivalent time period.
First, does the command "fire!" appear in the books? Quack's original complaint was its use in the movie. If it wasn't in the book, but was in the movie, then it is Peter Jackson's fault for adding dialog that is not "period" specific.
Note the part of Quack's post I've left above. Tolkien was long dead before Jackson made the movies. It is this part of the complaint that I find to be nonsense.
quote:Also, I don't think that expecting an author's world to have some internal logic is absurd.
Agreed. But I think this is going far past the idea of "some internal logic" to insist that a word Tolkien may never have thought about is being misused.
quote:The point isn't that it isn't period correct but that it wouldn't make sense to say "fire" when there is no fire involved in shooting arrows. It would be like having the White Witch of Narnia use the phrase "it does not compute". Since computers are not part of the universe, it leaves one to wonder how that phrase got into that universe.
I think this is a more acceptable objection than that Tolkien "mis-used" the word, or that it destroys the internal logic of the author's world. I don't agree that this particular word ("fire" in the context of a volley of arrows) needs an societal explanation but YMMV. I agree that using the phrase "does not compute" (even if its pre-computer era meaning) would need a societal explanation.
Basically, AFAIC, complaining about historical inaccuracies in fantasy is a fool's game.
Seaboe
-------------------- Education is not the filling of a hard drive, but the lighting of a bulb. -- Yeats via Esprise Me Posts: 5562 | From: Seattle, WA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tolkien was a professor of language and not only created a fantasy universe, but the languages of that. Fir example, when we read dialogue in these books, this is, effectively, a translation to English of the various languages spoken in Middle Earth.
As someone here already pointed out, the word for "shoot" and the word for "arrow" have similar roots in various slavic languages. This is not a modern construct, as the word "fire" is used in english to denote the loosing of *any* projectile. It is not so ridiculous that this would be said in this fashion as it may be the translation of another language.
That said, I don't have my copy of Tolkien's works close at hand to verify this, but really, does it matter?
-------------------- "The fate of *billions* depends on you! Hahahahaha....sorry." Lord Raiden - Mortal Kombat Posts: 1587 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
An interesting side-fact is that in Russian the word for "shoot" and the word for "arrow" have the same root.
Yes, but the second and the third Russian words that are used as a military command to open fire definitely have the same root with "fire" and "burn" respectively.
Posts: 246 | From: Toronto, ON / Kyiv, Ukraine | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by UEL: Just to nitpick on you a bit more, because you have not yet had enough
quote:Originally posted by GI Joe: I don't have a definitive answer, but Richard Cornwell researches his books pretty well, and in his 'Archer's Tale'...
That is Bernard Cornwell. And Archer's Tale is a great read if you want to envision how life was like in those days.
Man, that'll teach me to try to post something late at night! Right you are, especially about how good the book and its sequels are.
-------------------- Once a Warrior Prince Posts: 496 | From: California | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Seaboe Muffinchucker Note the part of Quack's post I've left above. Tolkien was long dead before Jackson made the movies. It is this part of the complaint that I find to be nonsense.
And note the part of my post that you omitted:
quote:Does anyone remember if it was used in the books? I can't recall. If so, it seems a bit sloppy of Tolkien not to catch such a error.
I was asking a question about Tolkien, not registering a "complaint". I don't understand how an honest question can be "nonsense", nor how the date of Tolkien's death is relevant to anything in this argument.
quote:I think this is a more acceptable objection than that Tolkien "mis-used" the word, or that it destroys the internal logic of the author's world. I don't agree that this particular word ("fire" in the context of a volley of arrows) needs an societal explanation but YMMV. I agree that using the phrase "does not compute" (even if its pre-computer era meaning) would need a societal explanation.
Basically, AFAIC, complaining about historical inaccuracies in fantasy is a fool's game.
Seaboe
I disagree. Even in a fantasy, things must remain within the context of that fantasy's time. If indeed the command "fire" only appeared with the use of firearms (which we admittedly haven't established yet), then it is clearly an anachronism in a story where firearms don't yet exist. It would be no different than the hobbits walking into the Prancing Pony and ordering a hot dog with their ale. Such anachronisms can instantly destroy the fantasy in which the reader (or viewer, in the case of movies)had been immersed.
-------------------- "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -Buddha Posts: 32 | From: Bronx, NY | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As we used to say, when I was a Civil War reenactor, at the command "Fire at will!"
"Which one is Will?"
-------------------- "It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid,than to open it and remove all doubt."- Mark Twain Posts: 426 | From: Tucson, AZ (The Old Pueblo) | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quack: I disagree. Even in a fantasy, things must remain within the context of that fantasy's time. If indeed the command "fire" only appeared with the use of firearms (which we admittedly haven't established yet), then it is clearly an anachronism in a story where firearms don't yet exist. It would be no different than the hobbits walking into the Prancing Pony and ordering a hot dog with their ale. Such anachronisms can instantly destroy the fantasy in which the reader (or viewer, in the case of movies)had been immersed.
Clearly, neither of us is going to convince the other.
But that doesn't mean I'm not going to comment.
The fantasy's "time" is anything the author wants it to be.
If the author, for example, wishes to set her story in a fantasy ancient Greece where pocket watches are carried and guns are used, neither are anachronisms.
If the author wishes to create a society that appears to be medieval but uses terms such as "fire" referring to weapons volleys and "compute" referring to mathmatical equations, you are perfectly welcome to object.
But they are not anachronisms. Just because the society appears to be medieval, does not make it medieval.
Personally, I would see nothing wrong with the hobbits walking into the Prancing Pony and requesting a hot dog with their ale. Or a hamburger, for that matter, yet the city of Hamburg does not and never has existed in Tolkien's universe.
Seaboe
-------------------- Education is not the filling of a hard drive, but the lighting of a bulb. -- Yeats via Esprise Me Posts: 5562 | From: Seattle, WA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Seaboe Muffinchucker Note the part of Quack's post I've left above. Tolkien was long dead before Jackson made the movies. It is this part of the complaint that I find to be nonsense.
And note the part of my post that you omitted:
quote:Does anyone remember if it was used in the books? I can't recall. If so, it seems a bit sloppy of Tolkien not to catch such a error.
I was asking a question about Tolkien, not registering a "complaint". I don't understand how an honest question can be "nonsense", nor how the date of Tolkien's death is relevant to anything in this argument.
Please return to my initial post where I quoted your entire comment.
Regarding that third sentence
quote:If so, it seems a bit sloppy of Tolkien not to catch such a error.
If you are stating that Tolkien using it is sloppy, you are complaining, IMO.
If you intended to say only that Jackson was sloppy for using a term Tolkien did not use, well, that's not what you said in that sentence.
And as I read it (clearly, I misinterpreted) there was an implication that if Jackson had made the error, it was sloppy of Tolkien not to catch it. Which he could not have done because he was long dead. Again, this is apparently not what you meant, and therefore the fact of his death is not relevant.
Seaboe
-------------------- Education is not the filling of a hard drive, but the lighting of a bulb. -- Yeats via Esprise Me Posts: 5562 | From: Seattle, WA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quack: I disagree. Even in a fantasy, things must remain within the context of that fantasy's time. If indeed the command "fire" only appeared with the use of firearms (which we admittedly haven't established yet), then it is clearly an anachronism in a story where firearms don't yet exist. It would be no different than the hobbits walking into the Prancing Pony and ordering a hot dog with their ale. Such anachronisms can instantly destroy the fantasy in which the reader (or viewer, in the case of movies)had been immersed.
Clearly, neither of us is going to convince the other.
But that doesn't mean I'm not going to comment.
The fantasy's "time" is anything the author wants it to be.
If the author, for example, wishes to set her story in a fantasy ancient Greece where pocket watches are carried and guns are used, neither are anachronisms.
If the author wishes to create a society that appears to be medieval but uses terms such as "fire" referring to weapons volleys and "compute" referring to mathmatical equations, you are perfectly welcome to object.
But they are not anachronisms. Just because the society appears to be medieval, does not make it medieval.
Personally, I would see nothing wrong with the hobbits walking into the Prancing Pony and requesting a hot dog with their ale. Or a hamburger, for that matter, yet the city of Hamburg does not and never has existed in Tolkien's universe.
Seaboe
I think it isn't anachronism but the appearance of anachronism that is the issue here. While anything is "correct" given that the setting is entirely made up in the author's mind, the reader (or viewer) is going to make certain assumptions based on what historical time period the fantasy is closest too. So if the fantasy is set in a time period when warfare is steel swords and chain mail, then they are going think of what existed in the Middle Ages. If the warfare is chipped-flint spears and bone armor, then they are going to think of prehistoric times.
A really good author will make his prose match what most people would expect from that time*. If the person has to mentally stop and think, "that sounds out-of-place, but I guess it is okay since the author made up the whole universe" then the author has not done his job fully.
*If there are going to be seemingly anachronistic things, then the author should make the framework fit them. For example, high-technology could be fit into a pre-historic framework if the author aludes to some cataclismic event which caused society to fall (or aliens bringing the technology).
-------------------- IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I think about this argument, I think we've got a terminology disagreement.
I don't believe it's possible for a fantasy to be anachronistic or even appear to be so within the confines of its setting, because the term 'anachonism' exists only in connection with events that happened in OTL (Our Time Line).
However, I do believe that fantasy authors can and often do fail to provide proper background for the differences between their world and OTL that cause the reader to stop short and go "WTF?"
GenYus and Quack are calling the cause of these moments 'anachronisms'; see paragraph 2 above.
I call these poor writing--either consistently poor writing (where you end up wondering how in the world the book ever got published), or the occasional slip that happens even to the best of authors.
Seaboe
-------------------- Education is not the filling of a hard drive, but the lighting of a bulb. -- Yeats via Esprise Me Posts: 5562 | From: Seattle, WA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In regards to this debate, I'd like to point out what BeachLife said earlier:
quote:But pretty much everything in Tolkein is presumably translated and updated. Presumably, the common language was not 20th century english. It's not written to be linguistically acurate for the time and place. Rather it is written to be read by 20th century readers.
Writing in 20th-century English necessitates the use of words whose meanings evolved within Our Time Line. Those meanings could have arisen through any number of historical accidents, and similar events may or may not have occurred in the fictional time line. It's a matter of translation.
Robert Graves does the same thing in "I, Claudius" although he explains it in a preface. He employs the African term "assegai" to describe the spears used by Germanic warriors, not because early Germanic tribes had contact with sub-Saharan Africa, but because in 20th-century English the best way to describe a long, light projectile distinct from a Roman spear or javelin is by using the word "assegai".
-------------------- "Your name is Thurmon Mermon?" Posts: 244 | From: Chicago, IL | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Tolkien's books are a good example of what the people mean here. The German version e.g. has a new translation which appears to be more linguistically correct to Tolkiens original work. Well, I cannot argue with that, as I am not a linguist. Still it includes words that just "feel" wrong and want me throw away the book. Said prancing pony is called an "Imbiss" which would best be translated back to English as a "snack bar". And while this may be correct up to a degree, just as "fast food" would be a correct term to use about the food made by the kitchens set up close to "ancient" Chinese workplaces, it seems out of place. I actually doubt whether I personally would have given "fire" a second thought, but I can see how people get distracted.
About setting up alternate universes with stories: yes, you can do a lot of that, alright. But my stance on it would be: anything that isn't needed for the story should be as "accurate" as possible - and I am using the word "accurate" here as a conglomerate of human real life experience and established "clichés". If you really need it for your story that the capital of the USA is called "Awhoppaawhoppa", then so be it. If it doesn't make any difference at all, then let it be Washington, please. Take for example the abysmal movie "U572" (not sure about the number anymore). It does get all it's history wrong, even at places where it isn't necessary. Okay, it was probably meant as an uberpatriotic movie anyway, but still.
Especially in a genre I may call "humorous fantasy", though it's not really fantasy at all, you have loads of examples where stuff like that happens with a reason. Take "MYTH Inc." by Aspring, take all the Discworld by Pratchett. Pratchett, btw, is very conscious of those problems. I once read an article about him thinking about some term (I think it was "Assassin" - literally marihuana smoker) that must, due to internal logic, be different on discworld. But then, how many people would stop at Assassin, and how many more wouldn't know what to do with the alternate expression that would have to be created and introduced. He went with Assassin (or whatever "real" term was at question). Personally I would think, here, where words have a "non fitting" etymology, but are not so much identified by the etymology, but more by today's meaning, it would be better to use the "modern" word.
-------------------- Movie characters never make typing mistakes. Posts: 586 | From: Hamburg, Germany | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rexodus: I recently watched a filmed re-enactment of an ancient Roman battle (very very amateur production) in which an officer commanded his archers to "fire".
Was the word "fire" used as a verb meaning "shoot" before guns were used in warfare? If not, when (and with what type of gun) did it come into usage?
I think Ganzfield's 18 Jan post establishes that the command 'fire' did derive from the use of firearms, and therefore originated in the early 16th century, or perhaps a few years earlier. Its use as a command to shoot prior to that period would not be authentic (but - arguably - might be acceptable artistic license in a play or movie).
Prior to that it is likely that one of two commands were used in older forms of English. We already discussed 'loose,' which is first recorded c.1225 as meaning "to set free," and would seem perfectly logical for use with bows, catapults and similar pre-gunpowder missile-throwing devices. Or it is likely that the simple and obvious term 'shoot' was used. In Old English it was used to mean "send forth swiftly" and "wound with missiles." [Online Etymology Dictionary]
I recall seeing the command 'let fly' used in a book, but can't remember which one, so I have no idea how authentic its use might have been.
-------------------- Once a Warrior Prince Posts: 496 | From: California | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dudley Pope, in a general history of guns, quoted from a manual for musketeers from around the time of the English Civil War, which gave the precise steps for preparing and loading the musket. It ended the steps with, "Give fire". Whether or not that was the actual command I don't know, but it makes sense that the command "Fire!" is a simple contraction of "Give fire".
Now, on the vocabulary issue... I watch a lot of fantasy movies and read numerous fantasy books, and I don't know which annoys me more - out-of-place modernisms or attempts to speak "Foresoothly" (to use some SCA jargon) when the writer has no idea.
For the first, something like the Dungeons and Dragons movie comes to mind, with phrases such as "Check this out!" or "You win, game over!" and the use of "OK". The problem with this is that it damages the illusion - it just sounds, well, wrong.
On the other hand, consider just about any Lin Carter novel (especially his Thongor saga) or the dialogue in the John-Wayne-as-Genghis-Khan epic "The Conqueror" - such as "Ha, our little brother amuses himself!" These too can sound totally wrong.
-------------------- You fool! That's not a warrior, that's a banana! - a surreal moment in a role-playing game Posts: 2480 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tolkien has tobacco and potatoes in Lord of the Rings, supposedly thousands of years before America was discovered. And he even has a firework display that looks like a steam train at Bilbo's party, though how the hobbits were supposed to know what a steam train looked like is anybody's guess. I am amazed at Jackson's restraint in not including that particular item.
-------------------- 'I don't care what they say about me as long as they spell my name right.' P.T. Barnam Posts: 128 | From: Staffordshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I happen to have a copy of the LotR book handy. Houghton Mifflin one-volume edition published at the same time as the movies, so I'm assuming it has all the "corrections" from both Tolkien and son. My editions from the 60s (and I assume they aren't "corrected") are somewhere in storage and I don't want to pull them out.
I'm only in Fellowship, and I don't want to go searching through the rest of the books as it has been several years since I read them and I'm not entirly sure where to skim.
I didn't see any reference to Gandalf making a train in his fireworks. I do see: birds singing, trees and flowers, butterflies, pillars, eagles, sailing ships, swans, thunderstorm and rain, spears, and finally the dragon.
When the Fellowship is fighting off the wolves before entering Moria, Legolas "loosed his bow" and they mention the "singing of the bow." In Moria, "Legolas shot two [orcs] through the throat." No mention of the word Fire.
I don't have any problems with the Hobbits having tobacco and potatoes, as they are geographically and culturally seperate from much of the rest of the world, and it establishes them as being "folksy." I don't recall any other people having either item unless they traded with Hobbits.
-------------------- If the sum of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the square on the other two sides, why is a mouse when it spins? Posts: 90 | From: Cleveland, OH | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think use of time-inappropriate language gets so used because not enough people recognize it to complain. There are a lot of scripts out there that could (in my opinion) really have benefitted from someone intelligent going over it with a red pen. 'Fire' used as a term to shoot is so prevalent in historical type films because it is so prealent in other films and society, such that the average viewer/reader just comes to accept that 'fire' mens 'shoot', whatever the context.
I think it's going to take more intelligent people standing up and complaining about it before filmmakers make more intelligent films, and actually do some research.
The one part of LotR that stood out as a cringing moment for me was when one of the Uruk-Hai, after killing the Orc that was trying to eat Merry and Pippin says "Looks like meat's back on the menu, boys!"
Menu? Although, i can imagine Saruman sitting them down in groups and giving them ettiquette lessons in between fighting and hand-painting lessons.
Oh, and they're not smoking tobacco... it's "weed".
As for words like "fire" in Fantasy... in a different universe, i can imagine the word evolving from a different origin as it did in our world. So unless it's very out of place (referencing a video game or person, maybe) i can usually let it go. There are some words in english that come from a root that has barely any modern connection to it. I do think the "menu" comment was a bit sloppy though.
Posts: 225 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
WingedBear, that stuff they smoke is called "Pipe Weed" are you sure it's Tobacco?
P&LL, Syl
-------------------- Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. — Voltaire Posts: 1944 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
LotR, single volume paperback, Unwin (second impression, 1979), p.40:
"They all ducked, and many fell flat on their faces. The dragon passed like an express train, turned a somersault, and burst over Bywater with a deafening explosion."
Since this edition post-dates Tolkien's death, and if it's not in the current one, it would appear that somebody - his son presumably - has been tampering with the text. Still, as a metaphor it's pretty poor - how often do trains turn somersault then explode? And when they do, is it really appropriate for a celebration?
-------------------- 'I don't care what they say about me as long as they spell my name right.' P.T. Barnam Posts: 128 | From: Staffordshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
