RobAnybody
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 1,945
Well, I mean, I am. Or I was. That's where I started on this. If we agree on that point, then.. what are we debating at this point? I'll still respond to what you wrote so you don't feel I'm ignoring you...Of course none of that proves she used a sword ; I'm not arguing the sword debate right now (I'll come back to it in a moment).
If we are literally reduced to simply quibbling over the definition of "self-willed", then I don't care. Use the definition you prefer.She was headstrong. Tolkien described her using a synonym, self-willed (not strong willed, which you are attempting to misread it into), defined as such by the Oxford : "determined to do what you want without caring about other people, synonym: Headstrong". That's not a positive. This is an explicit character flaw that Tolkien attributed to her. You do not get to "interpret" that away or try and turn it into a positive, because it clearly is not.
Quote this passage & I'll respond to it. I don't recall it off the top of my head & am not trying to Google-fu here. This may be an excellent point in your favor, but I'm not willing to accept your characterization of the event without reading the text since you've misrepresented many passages you quoted thus far as implying something they don't.She was willing to go to the end of the Earth to pursue with vengeance those who wronged her loved ones: that's exactly how Tolkien describes her reacting to the sacking of Alqualonde (family on her mother's side) by Feanor.
Yep, agreed. And as I said before, there's no evidence she didn't transform into a dragon & smite her enemies mightily. There's no evidence she didn't shoot laser beams out of her eyes. There's no evidence she didn't whip out a lightsaber. "There's no evidence against it" is not a compelling argument to me. Emphasis: *to me*. It's totally fine if your threshold is lower & "no one said it didn't happen, therefore it's all good" works for you. I'm not trying to convince you to change your mind. I'm explaining *my objection*. You are telling me my opinion is wrong.For Galadriel's sword-wielding to be lore-breaking, we need to establish that there's lore it contradicts in the first place. Where is that lore? So far, you've only established that there's no evidence she wielded a sword. That's not established lore. That's merely the absence of lore.
If you'd stopped after the first sentence, we would literally agree with each other. All I ever did was express *my* opinion of show-Galadriel & why "sword-Galadriel" doesn't work for me (seriously: go back to the "if you squint" post) - you could have said "well that's your opinion & I accept it" or led with "You're allowed to not like sword-Galadriel. She's not what you imagined Galadriel to be", or heck, not even responded, & let it be. Instead you tried to convince me my opinion, which you just acknowledged is ok, was wrong &... now we're here.You're allowed to not like sword-Galadriel. She's not what you imagined Galadriel to be. But unless you have actual lore to point to that she is breaking, it's your expectations, not Tolkien's lore, that are broken.
Still respect your knowledge of the lore, fwiw.