Another interesting one, and I always earn something new from them. I loved AP's notion of not correcting people who only knew words from reading! My parents took me to a non English speaking country when I was young and I grew up reading avidly but having no one to discuss the things I read with. I think I was 19 when I found out the name 'Chloe' was not pronounced 'Shloe' and it was very embarrassing at the time.
The Scapegoat theme of “The Lottery” reminded me of the (in)famous "First they came ..." poem by German Pastor Martin Niemöller about his WW2 experiences, as well as Rene Girard’s “Mimetic Theory”, building on the (literally) “Scapegoat Mechanism” of Kenneth Burke: That human beings have a desire for that others has or wants, resulting in a perpetual conflict between them, to a point where one person is singled out as the scapegoat, the cause of their conflict, and is judged, expelled or killed by the others as the solution of the conflict, restoring temporary order in the group, until conflict arises again…
Thank you for using numerical symbolism in the title of your videos for tracking purposes... Consudering the Lottery was written in 1948, there are also several other interpretations in relation to WWII.
This one might be the most interesting in the series. Every time that I thing of symbols from literature it is almost always of the glasses from Lord of the Flies. Technology and power comes to mind along with the pig's head for religion although the latter is maybe more in a subtle way. I'm sure there are more but it has been many years since I last read it. Looking forward to more of these videos.
And the same symbol could have different meanings to different people depending on their circumstances. For example, AP's background could symbolize Education or Knowledge to some and the inability to assemble the dreaded Billy bookcases from Ikea to others. 😆
Thanks for watching. Some of the topics may be more interesting than others, but we are trying to cover all the fundamentals. So I am glad that you enjoyed this one at least.
What a great discussion! This is definitely something I’ve thought about before but not been able to express as eloquently as you two gentlemen. However you’ve also made me realise just how much of our everyday life and language is steeped in symbolism! It’s rather fascinating to think about and I’ll be on the lookout for more from now on. Also, top notch thumbnail!
This is a bit random, but another example I see brought up often that's related to the discussion of the ring and direct allegory are the White Walkers in ASOIAF. The fact that they aren't written to directly represent Climate Change doesn't mean the connection is invalid, it's just that the entire meaning is broader than that. GRRM wasn't consciously creating a one-to-one equivalency between the two things, but climate change might be an example of the broader group of things that White Walkers could be said to represent.
I would struggle to see 'climate change' as the reading/meaning of the White Walkers... their element being ice, cold, death, so it would lean more into Ice Age, Death, Supernatural threat representing the power of nature/otherworldly aspect outside of the control of men and in contrast to the focus on the importance that characters place on the mundane, political expressions of power. So their existence underlines the impermanence and triviality of the struggle for the iron throne, and how it is unimportant in the grand scheme of things. But existential threat more important than political point scoring and manoeuvring, sure, climate change fits with that. I just don't think it is a neat fit.
C.S. Lewis commented that fantasy creatures like ogres, elves, etc. "wear their souls on the outside." Such characters can be fully developed fictional personalities and convey a particular quality while not being reduced to a Bunyan like symbol. Re: the orcs. Their redemption is an especially intriguing question since they were elves whom Morgoth corrupted. Tolkien's view, the view of scripture, was that nothing begins evil; good is original and itself; evil is derivative, corrupted goodness. So, there should have been redemption available for orcs in middle earth. Whether they would refuse it or not is another question. I also remember reading that the redemptive Christ figure is divided in Tolkien between Frodo and Aragorn. So, two characters together might be required to provide one symbolic whole if the author's really good.
Lewis' comment has unfortunate shades of Physiognomy, and a continuation of that position that morality was physically manifest. While not particularly harmful in and of itself in fiction, it unfortunately propagated in the real world... andvthat led to (and still leads to) a whole host of problems. Tolkien never did solve the orc problem, and it remains one of the fascinating things about the exploration of morality in LotR.
@@EricMcLuen Tolkien was keen on secondary world integrity, and wrote his trilogy from a definite Christian-Catholic worldview, so one would expect him to intend his metaphysics/spiritual dimensions to Middle Earth, even if more implicit than explicit, to be consistent. The origin of the Orcs themselves reflects this Christian worldview. Evil - Morgoth in this case - cannot create; it can only corrupt, or parody. So Morgoth took Eru Iluvatar's good creation of elves and warped them for his purpose. Tolkien's elves themselves can be considered unfallen humanity: mortal (elves can be killed and Genesis in Hebrew stresses Adam and Eve's bodies are mortal in constitution) yet, under the proper conditions, undying (again like Adam and Eve). So, these elves were apparently victimized to become orcs and thus seem to be candidates for redemption as much as anyone else in Middle Earth, even moreso. I've never read that the elves who became orcs were complicit in their fate or that it befell them due to a moral failing in their characters (unlike those who took Sauron's rings). If it's there, I really want to know. I want to understand this better myself.
I wouldn't quite state it as Tolkien being keen on 'secondary world integrity', especially as his intent was a mythic version of our world, not a secondary world. But he certainly liked the idea of cohesive mythological approaches. He unfortunately passed before he finished and had ironed out all the kinks. The creation story of the orcs changed from being evil creations of Morgoth fashioned from slime and mud, to being elves captured, tortured and corrupted by Morgoth, to beasts given form and twisted by Morgoth... and he never had the chance to finalise his vision because it is the problem of inherent evil in a Catholic derived cosmology. He believed that evil cannot create, so he couldn't go with slime origins. Corrupted elves means that as Elves are immortal, once 'killed' in orc form their immortal souls could be re-awoken, or they could be redeemed while orcs which is problematic for their narrative purpose and use in the stories, and also for how the heroes (including elves) celebrate killing them... and if they are beasts, they are clearly sapient, sentient, and possessing a consciousness and free will, therefore should be able to be redeemed... He never solved this to his satisfaction. He was still working on it.
@@ACriticalDragon Thanx for the informative response. I learned a lot about Tokien and his orcs! Even though Tolkien's Middle Earth is our earth in the distant past with a shared subsequent history (as his uncompleted time travel story makes clear), as a fictional world in which fantasy elements exist alongside mundane ones, Middle Earth is aesthetically a "secondary world" for him. What he lays out in literary theory on secondary world creation in his essay "On Fairy Stories" he follows creatively in LOTR. His fantasy criteria for secondary world creation is on display in LOTR.
The dragon is, of course, a well known symbol for evil, greed, nefariousness, and naughtiness -- none more so than the Draconus Criticus!
That seems a remarkably narrow interpretation of the symbolic meaning ... hmm more nefarious plots, methinks. 😂😂
So, what does your cape represent Philip? 😅
@@Paul_van_Doleweerd I believe it might signify concealment, duplicity, and nefarious intent... 😂
@@Paul_van_Doleweerd Obviously, a cape represents heroism. Superman? Batman? Cape = hero.
No single meaning indeed, in fact, mutually exclusive meanings!
Another interesting one, and I always earn something new from them. I loved AP's notion of not correcting people who only knew words from reading! My parents took me to a non English speaking country when I was young and I grew up reading avidly but having no one to discuss the things I read with. I think I was 19 when I found out the name 'Chloe' was not pronounced 'Shloe' and it was very embarrassing at the time.
I need a dual stream with these two guys and Ricard and Austin over at To2Ramble.
The Scapegoat theme of “The Lottery” reminded me of the (in)famous "First they came ..." poem by German Pastor Martin Niemöller about his WW2 experiences, as well as Rene Girard’s “Mimetic Theory”, building on the (literally) “Scapegoat Mechanism” of Kenneth Burke: That human beings have a desire for that others has or wants, resulting in a perpetual conflict between them, to a point where one person is singled out as the scapegoat, the cause of their conflict, and is judged, expelled or killed by the others as the solution of the conflict, restoring temporary order in the group, until conflict arises again…
Wonderful conversation, and I laughed out loud several times!
"I know how to spell it!" 🤣🤣
More proof that Philip is indeed the villainiest villain to ever villain. 🤣🤣
With that intro, I'd hoped you'd call yourself Dr. Fantasy 😏😜
Really enjoying this series!
I am glad that you are enjoying it... even if I know you are secretly an acolyte of the nefarious Nemesis.
Betrayed by my own kin. Oh the humanity.
Thank you for using numerical symbolism in the title of your videos for tracking purposes...
Consudering the Lottery was written in 1948, there are also several other interpretations in relation to WWII.
Yup. But some of those aspects are a little dark and distressing for a short video on symbolism in general.
This one might be the most interesting in the series. Every time that I thing of symbols from literature it is almost always of the glasses from Lord of the Flies. Technology and power comes to mind along with the pig's head for religion although the latter is maybe more in a subtle way. I'm sure there are more but it has been many years since I last read it. Looking forward to more of these videos.
And the same symbol could have different meanings to different people depending on their circumstances. For example, AP's background could symbolize Education or Knowledge to some and the inability to assemble the dreaded Billy bookcases from Ikea to others.
😆
Thanks for watching. Some of the topics may be more interesting than others, but we are trying to cover all the fundamentals. So I am glad that you enjoyed this one at least.
What a great discussion! This is definitely something I’ve thought about before but not been able to express as eloquently as you two gentlemen. However you’ve also made me realise just how much of our everyday life and language is steeped in symbolism! It’s rather fascinating to think about and I’ll be on the lookout for more from now on.
Also, top notch thumbnail!
I am glad that you enjoyed the thumbnail, but gladder still that you are enjoying the videos. Thanks for watching.
This is a bit random, but another example I see brought up often that's related to the discussion of the ring and direct allegory are the White Walkers in ASOIAF. The fact that they aren't written to directly represent Climate Change doesn't mean the connection is invalid, it's just that the entire meaning is broader than that. GRRM wasn't consciously creating a one-to-one equivalency between the two things, but climate change might be an example of the broader group of things that White Walkers could be said to represent.
I would struggle to see 'climate change' as the reading/meaning of the White Walkers... their element being ice, cold, death, so it would lean more into Ice Age, Death, Supernatural threat representing the power of nature/otherworldly aspect outside of the control of men and in contrast to the focus on the importance that characters place on the mundane, political expressions of power. So their existence underlines the impermanence and triviality of the struggle for the iron throne, and how it is unimportant in the grand scheme of things.
But existential threat more important than political point scoring and manoeuvring, sure, climate change fits with that. I just don't think it is a neat fit.
@@ACriticalDragon I think you're probably right.
C.S. Lewis commented that fantasy creatures like ogres, elves, etc. "wear their souls on the outside." Such characters can be fully developed fictional personalities and convey a particular quality while not being reduced to a Bunyan like symbol. Re: the orcs. Their redemption is an especially intriguing question since they were elves whom Morgoth corrupted. Tolkien's view, the view of scripture, was that nothing begins evil; good is original and itself; evil is derivative, corrupted goodness. So, there should have been redemption available for orcs in middle earth. Whether they would refuse it or not is another question. I also remember reading that the redemptive Christ figure is divided in Tolkien between Frodo and Aragorn. So, two characters together might be required to provide one symbolic whole if the author's really good.
Lewis' comment has unfortunate shades of Physiognomy, and a continuation of that position that morality was physically manifest. While not particularly harmful in and of itself in fiction, it unfortunately propagated in the real world... andvthat led to (and still leads to) a whole host of problems.
Tolkien never did solve the orc problem, and it remains one of the fascinating things about the exploration of morality in LotR.
Harkening back to a prior video about reader interpretations...
Did Tolkein see this as a problem, or is sometimes an orc just an orc?
@@EricMcLuen Tolkien was keen on secondary world integrity, and wrote his trilogy from a definite Christian-Catholic worldview, so one would expect him to intend his metaphysics/spiritual dimensions to Middle Earth, even if more implicit than explicit, to be consistent. The origin of the Orcs themselves reflects this Christian worldview. Evil - Morgoth in this case - cannot create; it can only corrupt, or parody. So Morgoth took Eru Iluvatar's good creation of elves and warped them for his purpose. Tolkien's elves themselves can be considered unfallen humanity: mortal (elves can be killed and Genesis in Hebrew stresses Adam and Eve's bodies are mortal in constitution) yet, under the proper conditions, undying (again like Adam and Eve). So, these elves were apparently victimized to become orcs and thus seem to be candidates for redemption as much as anyone else in Middle Earth, even moreso. I've never read that the elves who became orcs were complicit in their fate or that it befell them due to a moral failing in their characters (unlike those who took Sauron's rings). If it's there, I really want to know. I want to understand this better myself.
I wouldn't quite state it as Tolkien being keen on 'secondary world integrity', especially as his intent was a mythic version of our world, not a secondary world. But he certainly liked the idea of cohesive mythological approaches. He unfortunately passed before he finished and had ironed out all the kinks. The creation story of the orcs changed from being evil creations of Morgoth fashioned from slime and mud, to being elves captured, tortured and corrupted by Morgoth, to beasts given form and twisted by Morgoth... and he never had the chance to finalise his vision because it is the problem of inherent evil in a Catholic derived cosmology. He believed that evil cannot create, so he couldn't go with slime origins. Corrupted elves means that as Elves are immortal, once 'killed' in orc form their immortal souls could be re-awoken, or they could be redeemed while orcs which is problematic for their narrative purpose and use in the stories, and also for how the heroes (including elves) celebrate killing them... and if they are beasts, they are clearly sapient, sentient, and possessing a consciousness and free will, therefore should be able to be redeemed... He never solved this to his satisfaction. He was still working on it.
@@ACriticalDragon Thanx for the informative response. I learned a lot about Tokien and his orcs! Even though Tolkien's Middle Earth is our earth in the distant past with a shared subsequent history (as his uncompleted time travel story makes clear), as a fictional world in which fantasy elements exist alongside mundane ones, Middle Earth is aesthetically a "secondary world" for him. What he lays out in literary theory on secondary world creation in his essay "On Fairy Stories" he follows creatively in LOTR. His fantasy criteria for secondary world creation is on display in LOTR.