|
|
| Is Leia being ridiculous, or does this actually make sense? |
| Leia is being so silly. Urgals Murgals! |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Leia is being totally insightful. What is with these Urgals!? |
|
20% |
[ 1 ] |
| OH MY GOSH, A POLL! YAY, GOLD!! *click* |
|
80% |
[ 4 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:26 am
okay, so in brisingr, we get to see a lot more of the urgals and that one cool urgal dude... Nar Garzog? something like that. sweatdrop anyway, when eragon interagates him and all, he's all open to eragon cause he wants eragon to trust him. but he keeps on saying that the urgals kill human villages because the urgal women won't mate with them if they don't. i didn't really think anything of it until my dad (who's read all they books because of yours truly) brought up one day. seriously, what is paolini saying here? it's like he's blaming all the urgals fighting problems on the women! Nar Garzog whats-his-face also says they kill villages in self defence because the humans will kill they urgals if the urgals don't kill the humans first and visa versa. (gee, that was a confusing sentence. whee sorry) so he does mention that but it seems that he mostly just blames it on the women and that they started the problem and yada yada. doesn't this seem kinda sexist? really, what is paolini saying? or is he not saying anything and i'm just being kinda paranoid? i don't know, folks, the urgals just bother me. what do you think?
-Leia
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 4:27 pm
COME ON, FOLKS!!!!! THE TOPIC ISN'T THAT BAD!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 12:56 pm
Wow, I'm honestly stuck...if you asks me, it souinds like he was using a combo of primitive cultures and ways that some wild animals choose mates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 4:14 am
Actually, I think Paolini's just unconsciously making a big fat parody of the human courting process. In the olden days, anyways... Well, no, even now, women are still the "cause" of many, many conflicts among men. Mankind in general in fact. Because just as you'll have a guy in the center of a catfight, you'll have a girl in the middle of a murder. Somewhere, not always directly involved, but they're there.
Paolini's just holding up a mirror to our faces and saying "Hey, hey men do really stupid things for women. But that's okay. Because it's all for love. Or reproduction." (Obviously one's more romantic than the other, but hey, we deal, we deal.)
If Christopher had wanted to make a sexist point, he would have been much more direct about it, and wouldn't have forced you to read between the lines between the lines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 10:03 pm
I think it is along the lines of he needed a dominant warrior culture, and in such a culture, the men do no wrong. Furthermore, women look for men that can provide and protect them and their young in such a culture, so the killing of the villagers is a test of manhood. In modern times, it is considered very sexist, but what man doesn't blame his girl for something and visa-versa? Consider also that it is not set in modern times, so such behavior is not sexist: it is normal for such a culture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:49 pm
hmm, well, i don't think he ment for it to be taken this way. i think he wasn't trying to point fingers at the woman (it just doesn't seem like CP to me.) but i think that he should say something a little more on the womens thought process. it sounds like they're careless, bloodthirsty jerks! okay, maybe not that extreme. this sounds like one of Christpophers goofs. the goof of leaning on a support that's nots strong enough to hold up that part of the house.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:19 pm
Like I said, it's like some primitive human cultures...and there are some girls today who like the big buff guys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 9:19 am
You know, I just realized that we're all trying to rationalize a fictive world with fictional creatures and problems. This is moderately amusing to me. But I digress.
In the animal kingdom--which we are admittedly part of--different animals have different standards of beauty and strength and reproductive prowess. The Urgals just fit in that bit wide web of everything animalistic. And it's like I said; Paolini's not making sexist remarks. He's modelling the Urgals, and the Kulls, I assume, after human behaviour. He's just using their brutish mindsets and attributes to exaggerate several elements of their personality.
Besides, isn't it reasonable to fight for the best woman? It's a matter of procreation, in the end, after all, and what will produce the best, strongest offspring. <:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
