Taters to Taters

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Boro

I drew the first 20 but tossed some that didn't make any sense to have like "chewy"

You tossed "chewy"?

I think something so absurd would be bound to be fun. (Or actually Lembas could've been played with complete seriousness.)

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by the phantom

You tossed "chewy"?

I think something so absurd would be bound to be fun. (Or actually Lembas could've been played with complete seriousness.)

I could always add it back on if there is a round 21, or insert add it randomly in before, ya know.

[the phantom]

Now, on to violent...

To be perfectly honest I did not play my best card for this one. I judged it would very likely be the most appropriate card on the list from a true and objective point of view (and looking at the list I'd say I was right), however I wasn't certain that Lottie would judge so straightforward and also figured no one would play a bad card this round, thus stiff competition. So I saved that card.

Now, onto the cards that were played. I'd say Lottie has a difficult choice. For what it's worth here are my musings...

VIOLENT, BUT NOT THE FIRST IMAGE THAT POPS TO MIND

MENEGROTH- Violence did happen at Menegroth a couple times, but that isn't its natural state, nor is that the image that leaps to mind. Rather, one thinks of the beautiful halls and the majesty of Elwe and Melian.

BATTLE OF BYWATER- It'd be silly of me to say a battle isn't violent, but after the grand scale of the war against Sauron this little skirmish pales, not to mention the constant restraint of violence preached by Frodo before, during, and after the battle. Plus- Hobbits. It just doesn't resonate.

BEORN- Certainly the thought of him crashing through the Goblin lines to slay Bolg spells violence, but I would feel unfair labeling him as such, as he's capable of great kindness as well. If the tater was "amusingly rude" then I'd be more on board.

TAR-MINASTIR- The only real connection to violence is that one time he sent soldiers to protect the Elves from Sauron, and he didn't even go in person.

GORGOROTH- Barren, extreme, depressing, etc. are the words that pop to mind first. In the war at the end of the second age violence was certainly done upon Gorgoroth, but for hundreds of years before and after it was either empty or owned by Sauron rather than being a land in contention.

CONTENDERS

UNGOLIANT- Perhaps gnawing and hungry are more perfect, but her desire to consume things certainly led to violence against everyone she encountered, and frankly her devouring ways are violent in themselves (biting/ripping/crushing). She has to be considered.

TULKAS- An interesting selection as the representation of positive force, or violence for the sake of good- a reminder that violence need not have only negative associations.

BATTLE OF PELENNOR FIELDS- It was a massive battle and a great deal of destruction and death took place. It's not what leaves the lasting impression (rather the glorious Rohirrim rescue and the joy at the unveiling of the fleet's flags etc. leave an overall positive feeling), but the sheer number of casualties cannot be discounted.

EOL- His hostility towards the Noldor, his semi-abduction of a Noldorin princess (obviously his lust overcame his Noldor-hate), and finally the attempted murder of his son and resulting murder of his wife right in the throne-room of Gondolin and subsequent execution via being tossed off a cliff... This card was well selected.

AR-PHARAZON- A similarly good selection here, with his hostility towards Elves/Valar/the Faithful, his forced marriage to the rightful queen, his military building and conquering of Sauron, and his eventual attempt to seize Valinor from Manwe and company resulting in a violent reshaping of the seas... Violent definitely fits him.

[Gwathagor]

I believe both Barad-dur and Mt. Doom were located on Gorgoroth. If the plateau wasn't violent itself, it certainly contained great violence, being both an unstable, volcanically active area and the lair of a demonic supervillain who is arguably responsible for most of the violence that occurred in Middle-earth.

I would also argue that Beorn is considerably more violent than Eol on pretty much all levels. Higher kill count. Uses claws and fangs, rather than poison darts. Impales victims remains on front gate. Is essentially part wild animal. And I can't imagine that transformation being particularly peaceful either...

[Loslote]

In RL, my judging style involves a lot of taking cards and flinging them over my shoulders saying "no" in a bored tone. Ergo:

Ungoliant: Mmmmmmno.
Menegroth: No.
Tulkas: I'm getting a delightful image of a smiling giant skipping through a field of daisies, bashing in Orc-heads with a warhammer while humming the Little Bunny Foo Foo song. Tulkas stays for now.
Battle of Pelennor Fields: Mmmmmmm...maybe.
Battle of Bywater: For now, it stays, but more for the amusing factor of war-hobbits than any real violence-related reasons.
Eol: OH yes he stays.
Ar-Pharazon: I've always seen him as a bit of a puppet-figure. No.
Beorn: Not cuddly enough to make 'violent' amusing, not evil enough to make 'violent' horrifically appropriate. He bores me. No.
Tar-Minastir: Yeah no.
Gorgoroth: No.

The contenders thus far: Tulkas, the Battle of Pelennor Fields, the Battle of Bywater, and Eol.

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

Higher kill count.

Awwww, come on, that's a boring way to go about it! Eol's violence was so much more...gloriously unpredictable. You knew he was gonna do something, but what he ended up doing was always unexpected anyway. ^.^

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Gwath

I believe both Barad-dur and Mt. Doom were located on Gorgoroth. If the plateau wasn't violent itself, it certainly contained great violence, being both an unstable, volcanically active area and the lair of a demonic supervillain who is arguably responsible for most of the violence that occurred in Middle-earth.

I like the geological justification for Gorgoroth, but as far as tying it directly to the elsewhere-occuring deeds of Sauron due to proximity to his fortress... That would be like choosing the Misty Mts for "Quick" due to the fact that the speedy Great Eagles happened to make nests in a couple spots in the midst of the range.

I don't like the idea of having too many tie-ins. To choose Gorgoroth it itself must be defined as violent rather than equating ->
Gorgoroth = Barad-Dur = Sauron = His armies = Violence

Originally Posted by Gwath

I would also argue that Beorn is considerably more violent than Eol on pretty much all levels. Higher kill count. Uses claws and fangs, rather than poison darts. Impales victims remains on front gate. Is essentially part wild animal. And I can't imagine that transformation being particularly peaceful either...

If we're going by kill count then why the heck support Beorn? Pelennor Fields dwarfs his kill count, and frankly everyone's kill count put together.

Plus, violence includes an aspect of attitude and potential. If a repeat murderer is locked in a cell and thus can no longer kill people, is he no longer violent? (Since he's not actively engaging in violence.) Obviously, the answer is no. Attitude and potential counts.

Thus with your example of comparing Beorn to Eol, while Eol did not spend a great deal of time killing things, there was a constant underlying threat of force in the captivity of his wife and son, not to mention his use of violence was, as Lottie said, so interestingly inappropriate and unpredictable. Similarly, Beorn may have had a higher "kill count" than Ungoliant, but surely given the opportunity she had the attitude to rack up higher numbers.

And as far as "claws and fangs" go, method of expression is unimportant. I mean honestly, is a kitten that plays pouncing games more violent than Gothmog due to the kitten using claws and teeth and Gothmog utilizing weapons? Preposterous! Violence is force, and that can come across in varied ways, and the tip of an arrow is an equally effective transfer of force compared to claws. The word isn't "wild" or "animal".

Beorn is just too funny and likable at other moments, I think.

[Gwathagor]

A predatory animal like a bear is, by its nature, thoroughly and essentially violent. Its entire existence revolves and depends on killing other creatures. It begins and ends in blood, and this was, at some level, a part of Beorn's identity.

Eol, on the other hand, only ended his life with violence. He was a resentful, manipulative being gone wrong, not a suppressed serial killer.

[Nogrod]

Violent (furious, vicious, destructive)

Battles are violent by definition, so a battle offered here as an example of violence should have more to offer than the Battle of Bywater - unless you took the sarcastic mode. But also more than the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. Like everything else also battles waned as the ages piled up and the main battle of the third age is more or less but child's play compared to those of the second or first age: think of the Valar and Maiar clashing in the first wars - or all the great Noldorin heroes clashing with Balrogs and other Maiar creatures - and the numbers of elves, men, dwarves, orcs, creatures of any kind going down in those battles. Compared with those the Battle of the Pelennor Fields is child's row at the sandbox.

I would discard the battles then.

I would also discard Menegroth and the plains of Gorgoroth as they were just places and places are not violent but creatures doing things in those places.

What tp said about Tar Atanamir is to the point. But with Ar Pharazôn I'd have to disagree with him and remind you that he wasn't that violent as a person. You could say he was lots of bad stuff, also vicious and destructive, but one should fill the main adjective (violent) first and then get support from the other ones - if the judge is willing to consider them. So I'd discard the Númenorians as well.

That would leave me four choices to whom violence would fit.

Ungoliant
Tulkas
Eol
Beorn

So how about the other / supporting / explanatory / widening adjectives?

Eöl could be said to be vicious in a way and maybe furious, and destructive... well, maybe. But it is clear he has those qualities on a lesser level compared to the other candidates.

Tulkas and Beorn are furious and destructive but not so much vicious. But what they lack in viciousness they gain monumentally by their erraticness or unpredictableness. Both seemed to have this berserk-rage when they didn't quite control themselves - remember Gandalf telling Bilbo & the dwarves not to go out when Beorn was there in a Bear-form but on their peril.

Ungoliant, not surprisingly, seems to fit all the adjectives. Her fury was such that she even challenged Melkor himself, her destructiviness such that she drained all the light from the world - and vicious enough to spawn a whole race of spiders in her bitter hatred against not only the goodies but baddies as well...

Although if one just stresses "violence" I'd pick Tulkas or Beorn. But Ungoliant looks like the perfect pick otherwise.

[Nogrod]

It looks like I and tp have some differences of view regarding Eöl and Beorn.

Let me put it this way then.

Eöl was so violent he tried to kill one person - a child with a poisoned spear (what was it about going for someone of your size?) but ended up killing his wife being not able to even do that. Meanwhile Beorn more or less single-handedly won the battle of the Five Armies... skinning wargs and hanging orc-heads on pikes for his passtime when there was not a major battle around.

So talking about violence then?


That said, I do refer to my earlier post and say I like Tulkas as a candidate - and Ungoliant sure looks like the perfect one (all adjectives considered).

EDIT: X'd (and agreed) with Gwath...

[Gwathagor]

Yeah, if it was me judging, I would definitely pick Ungoliant.

[Nogrod]

If I was judging I would have this head-ache -producing three-way tie between Ungoliant, Tulkas and Beorn.

Ungoliant fits all the four adjectives while Tulkas and Beorn "fail" with viciousness. But then again what we're after is something that is essentially "violent". So one thing you should ask yourself before choosing is whether that one you consider picking is "essentially violent", that it's essence is in its violence?

Looked at from that POV it becomes harder to make a choice. Ungoliant is the "light-eater", the gluttonous package of later fury and hatred. No one can say she is not violent, but violence is probably not her deepest describing quality.

With Tulkas you have this Thor-like Godness, the "Hammer of Justice" at the essence that might or might not weigh more than his way of reaching those ends with violence and open confrontation.

With Beorn you have this doppelgänger-role, this Janus-face where the other side is a vegetarian Mr. Nice and the other is the Berserker-Bear whose wrath breaks down whole armies (or skins the poor Wargs).


So to me it would be a tough call.