notwoutmyanalprobe

joined 9 months ago
[–] notwoutmyanalprobe@alien.top 1 points 9 months ago

You don't realize it yet, but we agree more than we don't. I said it's not an instruction manual, but it can be, if your intention is to have more power over other people. Decent people don't find a lot of inspiration in these laws. But they can still ring true, because the world is a very imperfect place and people with pathological personalities exist.

There's a reason Lord Acton said "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Power is a nasty business, and if you're not knowledgable about its machinations, you can fall victim to it. But power can mean many things, including the power to do good, or even to stop other people from having power over you.

[–] notwoutmyanalprobe@alien.top 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

It's not what they literally sound like, it's whether you as the reader take them literally or not. The day you start thinking for yourself and stop relying on everything to be soon fed to you, you'll start seeing things like this book much differently.

[–] notwoutmyanalprobe@alien.top 0 points 9 months ago (4 children)

What you've quoted is only an instruction manual if you take it literally. And the world is far too complicated a place for everything to be taken literally. We still have agency over what we do with the information we take in.

I remember reading this book on a plane years ago and the person next to me had the same misgivings as you. You're reading about power? So that must mean you want more power? Why would you want more power? Who do you want power over? Etc.

It never occurred to this person that perhaps other people have had power over me, I got taken advantage of, and I wanted to understand how that happened. It's not paranoia to want to understand how humans are wired a little bit better.

[–] notwoutmyanalprobe@alien.top 0 points 9 months ago (6 children)

I always find it amusing that people think The 48 Laws of Power is an instruction manual. I've read that book several times, and I never once got that impression. The book is amoral, it doesn't take a stand for or against anything. Most of what people find objectionable about the book, they find objectionable in actual people who have used these tactics to do terrible things. Which definitely has happened, for thousands of years, long before that book came into existence.

 

I was forced to read the Fellowship of the Ring in eighth grade, and I hated every goddamn word of it. I knew there was something in there I probably liked, but the pressure, time constraints, and looming chapter quizzes sucked any enjoyment there was to be had from that book.

Years later the movies came out, and as we all know they were incredible. I will never forget seeing the battle of Minas Tirith on the big screen, but I've also made so many wonderful memories over the years watching and rewatching those films with friends.

I developed a love for reading once school ended (go figure), but the lingering hatred for the Lord of the Rings books was too strong for me to jump back in to them. Then a few months ago I saw the trilogy on a bookshelf at my parent's house, and figured they wouldn't mind if I borrowed them.

I'm about 150 pages in, and man... it is so enjoyable to read these books today, after all these years. I still wish I could have enjoyed them as a young man, but I am soaking in the experience of truly reading The Lord of the Rings for the first time.

Some observations on the book as opposed to the movies:

  1. The pace is so much different. The first movie starts with a frantic pace, which I loved. The adventure shoots out the gate the day Frodo chances on the ring, every sequence in the film has clear and high stakes, and every scene bleeds into the next. The book is nothing like that. Tolkien sets the lore, the slow pace gives the story depth, and you feel immersed in the world he creates. It's been quite a surprise for me to approach the stories this way, and I really enjoy it so far.
  2. The Hobbits are much more mature, fully realized characters than they are in the movie. Don't get me wrong, I thought they were portrayed incredibly well by Elijah Wood and the likes, but in the films the Hobbits are a bit more whimsical and kinda tailor made for movies. Frodo is the lead, Pippin and Merry are the comic relief, and Sam is the glue that holds it together. But in the books, Merry and Pippin are far smarter and less bumbling than they are in the movies. Sam is still a loyal companion, but he has fears and flaws. All four just seem smarter, more capable, and fully realized than they are in the movie.
  3. Extra characters. I love the bickering of the Hobbits in the Shire, it makes it feel like an old folk's home, but moreover they just have the sort of traits that make characters whole. The Black Riders are far more shadowy and creeping in the books, especially in Frodo's dreams. They meet Gildor and the elves long before they even arrive in Rivendell - I loved that scene! And Fatty Bolger, Tom Bombadil... what great characters. There's so much more to enjoy in the book already.

I'll share more of my impressions after I finish all three if this post is interesting to people. But the main takeaway for me so far is... man, reading is so much more enjoyable when there's no one breathing down your neck. I'm so fortunate I get to read these books, and I wish I had earlier.