Originally Posted by Anja
I am sorry to see another newcomer treated so poorly, ragashee. It seems to be a few people's idea of sport. Fairly unattractive for people who want admiration for their intelligence from my perspective.
Welcome to the forum.
Thanks for your comment, I appreciate it
Though I must say it mostly amused me when most of the people who decided to post against me on this chose to display their ignorance rather than provide a properly reasoned argument to the contrary. They only made themselves look silly in the main (Jennifer being the honourable exception, as she actually put forward a reasonable and welll informed point of view which was worth engaging with rather than trying to shore up a flimsy argument with the
ad homineum fallacy and usubstantiated opinion).
I think this thread did show me a typological phenomenon which is new for me, however, which can only add to my education as much as it added to my surprise when I encountered it:
I never expected in my wildest dreams to see INT's hunt their prey in
packs. But now I have.
fds
I think an INFP would be likely to make the antagonist as human as possible and even love their bad characters to a degree and place flaws into their protagonist. Writing would be about trying to understand the greater world through replicating it as closely as possible in the fanatasy world.
Good point. This is essentially what he did, though it is very rarely made as explicit in the more widely read books as in the Silmarillion, in which the background and history of Middle-earth is worked out. It is the characters who initially have the greatest power, and potential at least to achieve something positive, such as Feanor the elf or Melkor the (demigod) who ultimately cause the greatest harm by allowing themselves to be ruined by their own pride and impatience at having their own superior gifts held in check, which ultimately turns them to evil. It is the most beautiful (and holy) objects in the world, the Simarils of the title, which cause continuous pain, suffering, and destruction because of the desire they stir in others to posess them; yet this is does not diminish either their beauty or their holiness, nor the capacity to appreciate these qualities of those who will comit cold-blooded murder out of desire for them. Oaths sworn upon honourable principles by good people and adhered to steadfastly lead them to commit savage atrocities, and ultimately to their own destruction, yet the oath does not entirely lose its original high purpose, and those bound by it are as much victims as evildoers, still retaining many of their original good qualities, and therefore the reader's sympathy. Good and evil are never simply taken for granted, but their development in the individual psyches of the characters worked out in meticulous detail. For me it highights deep psychological truths and complexities, despite, or maybe because of its lack of everyday realism.
I think I've said enough for now to make my general point - I thought it would be helpful to explain it somewhat, as I know you hadn't read it. Did that seem something like the kind of book you were talking about?