Klingan Posted September 21, 2007 Report Share Posted September 21, 2007 Scientists, wringing their hands over the identity of the famed "hobbit" fossil, have found a new clue in the wrist. Since the discovery of the bones in Indonesia in 2003, researchers have wrangled over whether the find was an ancient human ancestor or simply a modern human suffering from a genetic disorder. Now, a study of the bones in the creature's left wrist lends weight to the human ancestor theory, according to a report in Friday's issue of the journal Science. Read more here. I've not had very much time for posting those news for a while, I'm having tons of work at university at the moment. I could not stay away from this one thou! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephele Posted September 21, 2007 Report Share Posted September 21, 2007 Is there anyone else here, besides me, who finds it disturbing that someone might name a newly discovered species of human ancestor after an irritating race of tubby, furry-footed creatures from a series of fantasy novels? I suppose the choice was a whimsical one (I shudder at calling it "cute"), but I've never been a Tolkien fan. And, frankly, I hate Hobbits. Do we actually have scientists to thank for this -- or was some media-meister responsible? -- Nephele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klingan Posted September 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2007 It's a little disturbing to be honest but I don't find it much worse then The iron age Mickey Mouse that have been under that name for a while too. It's most likely a great advantage for archaeologists to be able to refer a recent find to a popular name. More publicity will give you more founds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephele Posted September 21, 2007 Report Share Posted September 21, 2007 It's a little disturbing to be honest but I don't find it much worse then The iron age Mickey Mouse that have been under that name for a while too. Yes, but at least archaeologist Jerry Rosengren from Lund University is insisting that critter is a lion -- not a Disney mouse. Oh, wait. I can see the correction in the newspaper headlines now: "Iron Age Lion King Found". It's most likely a great advantage for archaeologists to be able to refer a recent find to a popular name. More publicity will give you more founds. Perhaps, but I wouldn't count on a Tolkien connection to generate additional funding for science. I thought Lord-of-the-Ringers mostly spend their money at fantasy conventions, furtively seeking out Elijah Woods/Orlando Bloom slash fanfic. -- Nephele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlapse Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 Mediocre yellow journalism is the standard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladius Hispaniensis Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 I've never been a Tolkien fan. Shame on you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephele Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 I've never been a Tolkien fan. Shame on you Eh. While I admire Tolkien's ability to construct artificial languages, I find his novels tiresome. And I'm fairly understating my disdain for Hobbits when I say they are "irritating". -- Nephele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klingan Posted September 23, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 A lot of people fins his books tiresome, mostly it's his rather detailed environment descriptions they say. I like them personally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladius Hispaniensis Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Ave I am an avid book reader, both fiction and non-fiction. Lord of the Rings is the only book I ever read where I was actually disappointed when the book ended. I'm usually relieved to finish a book so I can just go on to the next one. In this case, however, I just wanted the story to just keep going on and an. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DecimusCaesar Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 I was reading articles about Homo floresiensis a few months ago, and at that time it hadn't yet been given a proper classification...so its interesting to see that finally - a few years after the discovery- we seem to be reaching a synthesis on what Homo floresiensis actually was. On another note, I have to agree with Nephele that I find the name 'Hobbit' to describe this specimen rather annoying. It isn't that I despise the Lord of the Rings or anything, its just that I find the term grating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Augusta Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 I've never been a Tolkien fan. Shame on you Eh. While I admire Tolkien's ability to construct artificial languages, I find his novels tiresome. And I'm fairly understating my disdain for Hobbits when I say they are "irritating". -- Nephele Thank goodness someone else finds Tolkien tiresome to read. Although I enjoyed the films, I can remember settling down with Lord of the Rings about 30 years ago, and I haven't finished it to this day! It was silly really, as I got to about the last couple of chapters, but by this time I had lost the will to live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Manicus Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 Thank goodness someone else finds Tolkien tiresome to read. Although I enjoyed the films, I can remember settling down with Lord of the Rings about 30 years ago, and I haven't finished it to this day! It was silly really, as I got to about the last couple of chapters, but by this time I had lost the will to live. Same here. When I start a book though I hate not to finish it. This one couldn't end quickly enough. The movies? Loved 'em. The book? Not so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephele Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 Thank goodness someone else finds Tolkien tiresome to read. Although I enjoyed the films, I can remember settling down with Lord of the Rings about 30 years ago, and I haven't finished it to this day! It was silly really, as I got to about the last couple of chapters, but by this time I had lost the will to live. Same here. When I start a book though I hate not to finish it. This one couldn't end quickly enough. The movies? Loved 'em. The book? Not so much. Funny how you can enjoy a movie and hate the book -- or vice versa. With me, it's Harry Potter. I quite enjoy the Potter movies, but couldn't get through the first of the books. Something about Rowling's style that I find too precious to endure. As for the vice versa... I've never really been overly keen for the movie Spartacus, but the book by Howard Fast (which I recently read) I found riveting. Whoa, we've really gone off topic here. Sorry if my abhorence of Hobbits started all this! -- Nephele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladius Hispaniensis Posted September 25, 2007 Report Share Posted September 25, 2007 Don't mean to sound patronizing here, but when you read fantasy like LOTR, you really have to transport yourself into another world away from mundane reality and just imagine those things are possible - then the enjoyment starts. It's not like reading Tolstoy or Dickens where you can readily identify with characters and situations. It's rather like watching the old Twilight Zone series. Only enjoyable if you temporarily live in a world where those things are possible. One of my relatives used to scoff at them but I always thought he was such a nit wit. I felt that if he was on such a reality fetish why didn't he just look out the window? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephele Posted September 25, 2007 Report Share Posted September 25, 2007 (edited) Don't mean to sound patronizing here, but when you read fantasy like LOTR, you really have to transport yourself into another world away from mundane reality and just imagine those things are possible - then the enjoyment starts. It's not like reading Tolstoy or Dickens where you can readily identify with characters and situations. It's rather like watching the old Twilight Zone series. Only enjoyable if you temporarily live in a world where those things are possible. One of my relatives used to scoff at them but I always thought he was such a nit wit. I felt that if he was on such a reality fetish why didn't he just look out the window? Oh, I have no trouble at all transporting myself into another world, when I'm engrossed in a good book -- be it fantasy or not. In fact, there are many authors of fantasy and science fiction whose works I enjoy immensely: Ray Bradbury, Jonathan Swift, Ursula K. Le Guin, Diana Wynne Jones, C.J. Cherryh, Marion Zimmer Bradley, and Mary Stewart, to name a few. Since I'm pressed to name favorites right now, I'll say that my all-time favorite science fiction writer is James White, whose wonderfully imaginative Hospital Station series is nothing less than classic science fiction. Plus, my man happens to be an author of science fiction, fantasy, and horror, so I certainly appreciate the genre. A good fantasy novel requires more than creative world-building, however. Good characterization is essential -- whether your story is set on Alpha Prime or in Albuquerque. Sorry, but I never found Tolkien's characters to be particularly interesting -- or compelling. -- Nephele EDIT: Note to Mods. You may want to split off this thread. We've really gone off topic now! Edited September 25, 2007 by Nephele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.