C.T. Phipps

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About C.T. Phipps

  • Rank
    Council Member
  • Birthday 12/19/1980

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Ashland, Ky
  • Interests
    Being married to my beautiful wife. Writing. Urban Fantasy. Horror. Sci-fi. Epic Fantasy. Horror. Zombies. You know, the usual.

Recent Profile Visitors

5,411 profile views
  1. Just finished reading GHOSTS OF TOMORROW by Michael R. Fletcher. Best cyberpunk since Snow Crash.
  2. I think the scene was there to establish the world as one of casual cruelty and horror. However, I actually was most impressed with the fact.
  3. No. Then double no. Not in Tolkien's text, certainly where its infamous. Yes, that was unrealistic and tidy. Re: The Faithful and Assassination That is a ludicrous leap of logic. "They do not believe in assassinating people=unquestioned authority." Especially as they immigrate to found realms which do NOT follow Ar-Pharazon's authority and do not participate in his ill-advised military expedition like the rest of Numenor but become separatists. I'm also confused at your argument which seems circular. "The kings word is law except for all the times kings are foolish and awful with the text showing they're idiots." Also, all the times Tolkien has his heroes go against them like, oh, Bilbo and Thorin or BEREN AND LUTHIEN.
  4. I agree. Tolkien's monarchies were fairly stable affairs, to the point that Ar-Pharazon taking his cousin's place via marriage was considered to be extraordinarily noteworthy. The Stewards ruled Gondor with seemingly little challenge until Aragorn made his claim toward their position and that was helpfully resolved by Faramir bowing out from challenging him. That's another area where things end surprisingly cleanly. I'd argue your point, however, with rebels, though given the nature of conflicting loyalty is the reason for Gondor and Arnor's existence as they were nations in rebellion due to their refusal to follow Ar-Pharazon into Satanism as well as war on Heaven. They don't attempt to topple Ar-Pharazon. yes, but the simple fact is that's a bit like stating Australia and The United States didn't attempt to invade London. They were far off colonies and Ar-Pharazon is the most powerful human monarch in all of history. Bard, notably, also seizes power from the Master but once we get to the point of arguing, "But he's not REALLY Bard's liege" we've reached the point of how various rebellions justify themselves in history.
  5. Borros got a PROMISE to marry one of his daughters. Which is as good as gold until Robb Stark becomes an oathbreaker on the deal.
  6. Sapkowski has been saying that he'll write another book for years. Mind you, I do hope he got a better piece of pie for this than he did with the video games. But the "tie-in fiction" idea is amazing because you have to be INCREDIBLY unobservant to say that if you've played the games. They beat you over the head with relationships and characters who Geralt knows that you've never met before in the games. I mean it's doubly-ironic because the games really are "fix-fic" for people who hated the Witcher books ending the way it did. It's basically a trio of games where Frodo awakens after coming back from the Gray Havens or Kirk gets up off the rocky planet and goes to visit all of his old friends. It's just most Americans never read the books they're fanfic for. I think the show could be a megasuccess, though. http://www.grimdarkmagazine.com/why-the-witcher-netflix-series-may-be-the-next-grimdark-super-show/
  7. Not really but there's no wandering packs of monsters running around like there is in the Inn at the beginning. That's new.
  8. Penny Arcade has issues but I should point out, stopped clock, their two comics on KC are spot on. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/600x315/b7/3b/bc/b73bbc9c94de3a16a30b120dee904990.jpg But i will say we already know how it's going to end: * Kvothe finds out he's a Lackless * Kvothe finds out Lackless knows about the ancient conspiracy to save the world by any means. * Kvothe finds clue to fight Chandarians. * Magic comes back. * Ambrose becomes King, Kvothe kills him. * Denna dumps his ass because he ruined the world. I also predict Denna will marry Ambrose in a scene reminiscent of the opening of Gallavant.
  9. Isn't Rothfuss also contracted for a television show? One which potentially end before he finishes?
  10. If I was a Lord of Westeros, call me House Phipps with a Bull Terrier at a Computer, I would side with Rhaenyra. However, for all the calls that the Hightower-Aegon II coup would fail at a council, I should point out the Councils of Westeros have ALWAYS ended up backing primogeniture lines. This despite there being numerous women who would have done a better job than their male relatives. I may well be wrong but it seems like much of her position would be undermined at that sort of arena. After all, the Kinslaying Aegon II is remembered as a King of Westeros while Rhaenyra is not remembered as a Queen, just mother of the next King. Much like Empress Maud. I also think Baratheon support like the fact the Tyrells stayed out of the conflict is based on the fact he got a better deal-nothing more, nothing less.
  11. Also, the idea Tolkien didn't intend to use Hobbits as modern reader surrogates on the world in both the Hobbit and LOTR is preposterous.
  12. Indeed, There's also practical reasons which get ignored as well that Rhaenyra has a claim which is legitimate from the perspective of having been her father's wish and the only reason against it is sexism. However, the fact remains very few people in the kingdom really WANTED Rhaenyra on the throne not just because it weakened their own claims to their houses but because of questions of parental inheritance, the fact her husband was a psychopathic pirate, and primogeniture was decided by the consent of the governed (sort of) very recently. They could have possibly avoided this with another council. Westeros has it's own version of the kingsmoot really even if they're considerably rarer. But Rhaenyra was wise to avoid that (sort of) since there's no way in hell she would have won.
  13. I just trust the Booknest.EU, Bookwraiths, and the Fantasy Book Critic for my reviews. It's a trifecta of my tastes.
  14. No you're pretty accurate that Deus Ex Machina cleaned up things for our heroes very well. A more complicated story is the occupation of Mordor, making peace with its peoples, dealing with the fact they worship Satan, and maybe even overcoming Gondorian racism. In a more modern story, you have the potential for orcs integrating into society and becoming ancestors of humans. Which I DOUBT Tolkien was going for. Albeit, that would fit with my theory humans of today aren't the humans of yesteryear and we all have elements of his races in us. Humans do love war, machines, and industry like orcs.
  15. Mind you that's the complexity of the story that if you renounce power to avoid suffering for innocents, there's no guarantee that will not cause even more suffering for the innocent. While I really didn't like the series, the Kingpriest Trilogy by Dragonlance did have one really good moment when the hero refuses the Crown of Istar and denounces the spirit which offered him to it--leading to his humble priest companion to take it. Only later in life did he realize the spirit was a HOLY one and that it had offered him it because he was the man best equipped for it. In the case of Daenerys and Arianne, is there anyone better to rule than them? Even if blood must come of it? Edit: And when I said DOTD I was actually referring to Martin's handling of Rhaenyra Targaryen who is the example of George R.R. Martin showing a "power hungry" queen with all of her flaws. There's no existential threat to justify Rhaenyra's takeover (unlike Danny) so her actions are viewed much more critically. Yes, she had a "right" to the Iron Throne but she was a pretty awful person at times just like her husband. The war for her ascension also ended up causing untold suffering for small gain.