Your video, Barrow Bomb, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 11 Badge!

Nice. I heard my "You have new mail waiting your attention" wave file play when that barrow landed on the ground!

Mainly gaming jargon for getting a hostile mob to chase after you while it is peppered with attacks. Has been used recently to refer to the same tactic in mixed martial arts .>> ^messenger:

What does "kite" mean, as a verb? Is it a special technique or just gaming jargon for "lead"?>> ^Skeeve:
There is another player playing a "pacifist" character who is at least level 25. He kites dragons to towns to kill them and kites dungeon bosses into traps. He figures he could beat the main quest with only a single kill - the final boss.
The Draugr Overlord in Bleak Falls Barrow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKW6vYe_1Qg

What does "kite" mean, as a verb? Is it a special technique or just gaming jargon for "lead"?>> ^Skeeve:

There is another player playing a "pacifist" character who is at least level 25. He kites dragons to towns to kill them and kites dungeon bosses into traps. He figures he could beat the main quest with only a single kill - the final boss.
The Draugr Overlord in Bleak Falls Barrow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKW6vYe_1Qg

There is another player playing a "pacifist" character who is at least level 25. He kites dragons to towns to kill them and kites dungeon bosses into traps. He figures he could beat the main quest with only a single kill - the final boss.

The Draugr Overlord in Bleak Falls Barrow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKW6vYe_1Qg

Tolkiens pacing was terrible

I'll dispute that. Story pacing is highly dependant on the reader's level of immersion, and Tolkien was attempting a deeply immersive story where the 'pacing' was largely irrelevant. Many people are quite jaded in this regard, and if the plot isn't moving along at a brisk pace they lose interest. That isn't necessarily the fault of the author, but a matter of a lack of tolerance/patience on the reader. No work of literature can satisfy every reader in that regard - so the end result of whether a book is properly paced is highly individualistic. You have writers on both extremes. Some move so fast that the reader feels like the story is choppy and shallow. Then you have guys like Jordan who spend so much time on so much background that the plot is almost utterly lost. I think Tolkien strikes a masterful middle-ground where he provides depth of background and detail, while not having so much that the average reader feels the plot is moving too slowly. Again, that isn't universal because everyone is different - but the fact that LOTR has endured the test of time and remained a classic proves that it is an assessment that applies to 'most' people.

and some of the characters (looking at you, Tom Bombadil) add nothing to the story.

Depends on what you mean by nothing. The Old Forest, Bombadil, and the Barrow Downs are chapters that some people don't get. If the hobbits had just gone straight to Bree then a lot of people would be happier. It can be argued, but Bombadil gives some background to Middle Earth that Tolkien felt was important. For him (JRR) the work was a literary exercise in establishing what he felt were 'lost' Anglo-Saxon mythology. Iarwin Ben-Adar was part of that world for him, and a part that he felt mattered. He is referenced in the Council of Elrond, and here and there in other parts of LOTR. He may fill no vital plot function, but he certainly adds to the story (not to mention background on the Northern Kingdom, and the Westernesse blades).

The first half of book 6 is essentially "Sam and Frodo keep walking to mount doom", but it really drags.

I felt quite the opposite. I thought that the chapters of Sam & Frodo walking to Mt. Doom were rather a breakneck pace compared to what was happening. But at that point JRR is breaking down both Frodo and Sam physically and spiritually, so it can't just be a rapid "Poof! We're at Mt Doom now!" thing. It had to be a hot, blistering, difficult slog. For it to only be 2 chapters was actually pretty breif I thought. Escaping Cirith Ungol took a chapter - then two chapters were them walking and Mt. Doom itself. All in all I thought it went pretty fast.

It all depends on what folks like, really. Some people can't stand it when Tolkien takes 2 pages here and there to describe the landscape of the Woody End, or a couple pages there to talk about some bit of Rohan's history, or whatever. Some people love it. I personally felt that JK Rowling's pacing blew chunks because she spent tons of time focusing on bullcrap character junk (mostly Harry whining). But some readers just eat that stuff up, so I have to allow that my personal tastes cloud my judgement on Rowling's pacing. It's a matter of taste. What seems irrelevant to you may be pure gold to someone else.

Jackson and Walsh's story is better structured

Don't get me started on Jackson & Walsh. I liked the LOTR movies generally, but these two ham-hands did some pretty awful writing considering the pure perfection of the source material. One example: Aragorn's perfect speech, "We shall make such a chase as will be accounted a marvel among the three kindreds - elves, dwarves, and men. Forth, the Three Hunters!" was changed to the god-awful, "Let's hunt some orc!" I could literally go on for hours listing scripting crime after crime. Jackson/Walsh were NOT either masterful writers, or pacers. When they stuck to the story and didn't jam thier fumble-witted fingers into the pie it was great. The more they took "creative license", the worse it got.

>> ^Sagemind:

I understand what he is saying, and aside from all the course language, he has a point.
(because youth today is far too "entitled" and he's right as to how they got that way.)
BUT
His argument falls apart because the economy has changed. If the economy was the same as it was even 20 years ago (never-mind 35-40 years ago in the 70s) and this attitude of youth existed, then I'd completely agree - but it isn't. Today's economy says I can't feed my family and own my own house, even with two full-time incomes in the household. I work damn hard, I'm not a slacker.
I may not run my own company but, my job, as it is today, and would have been 20 years ago, would have paid the bills and allowed some extra cash to take my family on a holiday once a year. My wife would have been able to stay home with the kids, at least part-time.
I bought a house. It cost me $400,000. Ten years ago, the same house was valued at $140,000-170,000.
Twenty-one years ago, when my house was built, it cost $100,000 brand new. Wages, on the other hand, haven't changed all that much. As I left high school, people with good jobs were making $19-25 an hour working at the mill. Today, the wages are much the same. No one is making 300% more for the same job they were doing 20 years ago. So why has housing gone up, why has everything gone up(fuel, food etc.)? The truth is I can't afford a $400,000 house, no regular person can, but what choice do I have, the cheapest rental I could find was $200 more than what my mortgage payment is.
It's the economy, it's the banks, It's globalization, It's International Trade, It's Corporations buying up all the little guys and then jacking up the prices, paying employees less and paying all the politicians to stay out of their way.
His analogy about seeing Mr. Rich and respecting him in the old days and slamming him today also doesn't stand. Today, very few people own their own business and are successfully wealthy. Most small businesses are barley hanging on, operating in the shadows of the companies like Wal-Mart. Most small businesses need to barrow money to set up shop. These businesses pay more tax and interest than they ever did.
In the sixty's to late eighties, both of my uncles owned their own businesses. They were very successful and made a decent living and had many employees. Life was good. That bubble popped in the late eighties to nineties not because business was decreasing but because new governments raised business and property taxes to the point that, they both had to close up their shops. Taxes more than doubled over night and the interest on banking skyrocketed.
So Adam's rant is fun. It makes a good point about entitlement and winy brats wanting reward without working for it but that's it. It doesn't explain Occupy of the financial state every one is in now.
Period.


we should be happy that all the increases in wage/salary/benefit that we should have been getting over the last 30yrs have been going to a small group of individuals

we should be happy that money is allowing for the degradation of rights and civil liberties

we should be happy that every noble endeavor should be stifled and made irrelevant for the sole reason of monetary gain

we should be happy that our elected officials blatantly lie to our faces, and serve only their greed, and thus the whims of those with money... and not so much individuals as much as corporate interests... corporations who while now given the same "rights" as humans, bear none of the responsibility... either to their local communities or to the nation they are now a "citizen" of

we should be happy that education is becoming something you pay off over your life as opposed to something nutured and pushed by your nation, because it's how we seize the future and progress as a society... better we become ignorant and uneducated so that we are easier to control and are reduced to grunt manual servitude to our feudal lords

we should be happy the rich get bailed out; are allowed to gamble with our money consequence free... then because of it, we lose our home and our children lose their future

better we lose our right to privacy than be subjected to invisible boogeymen
better we lose our freedom of speech than be allowed to exercise it

i honestly hope not... but I can't help feeling the road back to sanity starts with the rolling heads of politicians and bankers... and I don't mean that metaphorically

i honestly hope they have the humanity to overcome their greed... because no amount of money will overcome the fury of the masses... right now the bear is waking up... best not poke it with a stick

I understand what he is saying, and aside from all the course language, he has a point.
(because youth today is far too "entitled" and he's right as to how they got that way.)

BUT

His argument falls apart because the economy has changed. If the economy was the same as it was even 20 years ago (never-mind 35-40 years ago in the 70s) and this attitude of youth existed, then I'd completely agree - but it isn't. Today's economy says I can't feed my family and own my own house, even with two full-time incomes in the household. I work damn hard, I'm not a slacker.

I may not run my own company but, my job, as it is today, and would have been 20 years ago, would have paid the bills and allowed some extra cash to take my family on a holiday once a year. My wife would have been able to stay home with the kids, at least part-time.

I bought a house. It cost me $400,000. Ten years ago, the same house was valued at $140,000-170,000.
Twenty-one years ago, when my house was built, it cost $100,000 brand new. Wages, on the other hand, haven't changed all that much. As I left high school, people with good jobs were making $19-25 an hour working at the mill. Today, the wages are much the same. No one is making 300% more for the same job they were doing 20 years ago. So why has housing gone up, why has everything gone up(fuel, food etc.)? The truth is I can't afford a $400,000 house, no regular person can, but what choice do I have, the cheapest rental I could find was $200 more than what my mortgage payment is.

It's the economy, it's the banks, It's globalization, It's International Trade, It's Corporations buying up all the little guys and then jacking up the prices, paying employees less and paying all the politicians to stay out of their way.

His analogy about seeing Mr. Rich and respecting him in the old days and slamming him today also doesn't stand. Today, very few people own their own business and are successfully wealthy. Most small businesses are barley hanging on, operating in the shadows of the companies like Wal-Mart. Most small businesses need to barrow money to set up shop. These businesses pay more tax and interest than they ever did.

In the sixty's to late eighties, both of my uncles owned their own businesses. They were very successful and made a decent living and had many employees. Life was good. That bubble popped in the late eighties to nineties not because business was decreasing but because new governments raised business and property taxes to the point that, they both had to close up their shops. Taxes more than doubled over night and the interest on banking skyrocketed.

So Adam's rant is fun. It makes a good point about entitlement and winy brats wanting reward without working for it but that's it. It doesn't explain Occupy of the financial state every one is in now.
Period.

This is my lawnmower blowing a gasket and other various catastrophic anomalies. Little Did I know when my cousin Cletus asked to barrow it did I know it would end up on tv.

@robdot & @shuac

In Canada and Greenland[1][14][17][20] the term Eskimo is widely held to be pejorative[20][11] and has fallen out of favour, largely supplanted by the term Inuit. However, while Inuit describes all of the Eskimo peoples in Canada and Greenland, that is not true in Alaska and Siberia. In Alaska the term Eskimo is commonly used, because it includes both Yupik and Inupiat, while Inuit is not accepted as a collective term or even specifically used for Inupiat (who technically are Inuit). No universal replacement term for Eskimo, inclusive of all Inuit and Yupik people, is accepted across the geographical area inhabited by the Inuit and Yupik peoples.[1]

Since the 1970s in Canada and Greenland Eskimo has widely been considered offensive, as mentioned above. In 1977, the Inuit Circumpolar Conference meeting in Barrow, Alaska, officially adopted Inuit as a designation for all circumpolar native peoples, regardless of their local view on an appropriate term. As a result the Canadian government usage has replaced the (locally) defunct term Eskimo with Inuit (Inuk in singular). The preferred term in Canada's Central Arctic is Inuinnaq,[21] and in the eastern Canadian Arctic Inuit. The language is often called Inuktitut, though other local designations are also used.

While I agree that certain terms (Indian, Midget, etc) are stupid to take offense to, but when they actually have a conference and agree upon something they prefer to be called, I can respect that, and respect their wishes.

They did not just say "No, you can't say that anymore, that's our word" or "I find this term offensive" they made a name for their race as a whole.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Fantastic post. I spent six months in Pt. Barrow- and can attest that it must have taken incredible ingenuity to stay alive without modern conveniences like snowmobiles and shipped in heating oil.

^Deathcow: No, the natives had already been displaced prior to the building of your home. Kinda like me saying it's ok to wear clothing made through child labour because I didn't put them in the factories.

'as far as I can tell' - I'm sure you've been trying real hard.

'Did their tiny population...' - Collectively, yes they did. Either them or the Klinkit. I know it's easier to pretend that that land didn't belong to an indigenous people prior to European contact, but that would be naive.

Look at how ^Dag is much more respectful and tactful in getting his point across.

^Dag: Very well said. The same issues exist for Inuit (Inupiat are Inuit) across Canada and Greenland today. I have a pretty good idea of what you would have experienced and witnessed up there (many of my teachers in high school were fresh out of University and were shocked at much of what they saw).

I believe a culture is responsible for it's own survival (mine included) if it's given enough time to adapt to the world it finds itself in. I grew up hunting with snowmobiles and with rifles, nothing wrong with that. It is folly to think that a culture must remain static or become assimilated. Adaptation is the key to cultural survival and success.

I agree on the status quo too - I relentlessly rail against the status quo back home, and of the dangers of complacency. I understand perfectly well what you (and deathcow) are trying to say about the feasibility of small populations trying to acquire a 'modern' lifestyle in the Arctic, while preserving aspects of their culture. Believe it or not, IRL I'm not the flippant, immature person I can come across as on VS, and I spend a large portion of my time thinking about ways to address these kinds of issues.

Drop me a PM sometime - I'd be interested in having a mature discussion about your experiences in Barrow.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I spent some time teaching in Point Barrow (on the arctic sea) right after university. It was kind of depressing - and not just for the lack of daylight.

The native Inupiat culture seemed to fading pretty fast. Satellite dishes, pointed at the horizon were everywhere. Lot's and lots of heavy drinking, shooting and caribou hunts on snow mobiles with high power rifles.

I'm not sure what the answer is to helping these cultures survive and not completely corrupting / assimilating them into modern society - but in my experience at least, the status quo didn't seem to be working very well.

Eli, the barrow boy
Of the old town
Sells coal and marigolds
And he cries out
All down the day

Below the tamarack
He is crying:
“Corn cobs and candle wax for the buying”
All down the day

“Would I could afford to buy my love a fine robe
Made of gold and silk Arabian thread
But she is dead and gone and lying in a pine grove
And I must push my barrow all the day
And I must push my barrow all the day”

Eli, the barrow boy
When they found him
Dressed all in corduroy
He had drowned in
The river down the way

They laid his body down in a church yard
But still when the moon is out
With his push cart
He calls down the day

“Would I could afford to buy my love a fine gown
Made of gold and silk Arabian thread
But, I am dead and gone and lying in a church ground
Still I push my barrow all the day
Still I push my barrow all the day”