E-text Chapter 8: Fog on the Barrow-downs
Prembone
character's name... Anyway, for now I'm going with changing the
character's *name* to "Moribund, a.k.a. Morrie," but definitely
retaining his *occupation* as a mobster. I think that should work
quite well with Aris' story, including his puns on "we don't do 'merry'"
and his dreams of the Shirriffs coming after him. If we all end up
agreeing on this, then Ojevind can change his reference accordingly in
Chapter 2, introducing the character as "Moribund the Mobster, known as
Morrie" to his friends, enemies, whatever. But I'm not waiting till we
all settle the issue; for now, I'm posting the chapter as I have it. As
someone else pointed out, textual inconsistencies are half the fun.
Speaking of textual inconsistencies: The central inspiration of this
chapter came from my observation of a seeming contradiction between
Ojevind's depiction of Frodo as "remaining wed to celibacy" and
Steuard's depiction of him as having a reputation among the Elves for
"adventures with Cassiopiea Took." In the process of reconciling these
story elements, I also uncovered a little more info about how the Ring
does and does not work. ;-) Hope you all enjoy my exegetical efforts.
Portions of this installment have been inspired by my addiction to
Altoids, the Curiously Strong mints.
Prembone
*****
CHAPTER EIGHT: FOG ON THE BARROW-DOWNS
That night they heard no noises. But either in his dreams or out of
them, he could not tell which, Frodo heard a sweet singing running in
his mind: a song that seemed to come like a pale light behind a grey
rain-curtain, and growing stronger to turn the veil all to glass and
silver, until at last it was rolled back, and a far green country opened
before him under a swift sunrise.
The vision melted, and Frodo awoke feeling a rather depressing sense
of predestination. *Everything is fixed, and you can't change it,*
echoed the ethereal chorus in his memory.
"You're a fool, Frodo Baggins," muttered Frodo, shaking his head and
looking about for some sign of breakfast. Instead, Sam was immediately
at his side, stroking Frodo's hand, kissing Frodo's hand, and sucking
Frodo's fingers, as was his wont. "Good boy, Sam," praised Frodo,
tossing Sam a scooby-snack. "How about some breakfast, then?"
After breakfast, the four Hobbits made ready to say farewell to their
host. Their quiet ponies were almost frisky, shimmying and shagging
restlessly. Tom came out of the house and waved his doll and danced
upon the doorstep, bidding the Hobbits to go speedily and reminding them
to beware of the dread Barrow-wights that haunted the Downs at night.
"They're always after my lucky charms!" he explained.
Duly warned, the Hobbits thanked Tom for his advice and trotted their
panting ponies away, in haste to be out of hearing range before Tom
started singing again. They rode off along a path that wound away from
behind the house, and went slanting up and over a high, green hill.
They had just dismounted to lead their ponies up the steep slope, when
suddenly Frodo stopped.
"Goldberry!" he cried. "My fair lady, clad all in terrycloth! We
have never said farewell to her, nor seen her since that evening!" He
was so distressed that he turned back.
Morrie rolled his eyes. "No wonder he's still a virgin," he muttered.
"What?" exclaimed Pipsqueak, looking sharply at Morrie.
"Am not," shot back Frodo.
"Are too," Morrie snidely insisted.
"Now see here--" began Sam, but Pipsqueak cut him off.
"Whatever do you mean, Morrie? What about Cassiopiea,
and...well...and...well, what about Cassiopiea?"
"For the love of Elbereth!" implored Frodo. "Please, you two, just
drop it!"
"Yes, I hear you're quite adept at *dropping* it, cousin," sneered
Morrie. He raised an eyebrow and glanced significantly at Pipsqueak.
Pipsqueak gasped. "You mean--?" He glanced at Frodo, who at the
moment could easily have been mistaken for a poppy in Farmer Maggot's
fields, and grinned back at Morrie. "Go on!" he said, laughing.
"It's true," said Morrie. "'Limp as last night's noodles left out in
the rain,' is how your cousin Cassie put it."
"Well, then, whyever did she keep--ohhh, the power of the Ring, I
suppose."
"Yes, poor Cassie. Apparently the Ring only bestows the power to
seduce; the power to perform is up to the wearer."
"Enough!" cried Frodo, his face contorted in anguish. "All right! I
admit it! I can't--*perform* with a lass. I don't know why; it's not
that I haven't tried. Do you have any idea how humiliating it is to be
the only fifty-year-old virgin in all of Hobbiton?"
"The Shire."
"What!" snapped Frodo defensively.
"The Shire," Morrie drolly repeated, smirking. "As far as I know,
you're the only fifty-year-old virgin in the whole of the Shire."
"Including Bucklebeltland," suggested Pipsqueak helpfully.
"For that matter, Frodo, you're probably the only virgin over *thirty*
in all the Shire--"
"Including Buckle--"
"I take your point!" Frodo stalked off up and over the hill.
"Now see what you've done," reproved Sam, jabbing a finger into
Pipsqueak's chest.
"Sam, please," sniffed Morrie, swatting Sam's hand away from
Pipsqueak. "It's not proper to treat your betters in so familiar a
fashion."
"Never you mind 'proper,' Mr. Moribund, sir. You and Mr. Paragraph
here made poor Mr. Frodo feel bad, and I'll not be standing for it, and
that's a fact!"
Morrie and Pipsqueak burst into laughter. "Well, then," leered
Morrie, as Sam scowled and stamped his foot in protest, "why don't you
go find poor Mr. Frodo and make him feel *gooood*,
Sammy-Sammy-Sam-Saaammmm?"
"Maybe I'll do just that," retorted Sam, who wouldn't recognize
subtext if it smacked him upside the head. As if to further prove the
point, he shouted, "Coming, Mr. Frodo! Coming!" while Morrie and
Pipsqueak fell to the grass, rolling and laughing hysterically.
***
Damn the lot of them.
Frodo grinned to himself. It sounded so fine, he said it aloud:
"*Damn* the lot of them!" (To say that Frodo was socially retarded
would be somewhat of an understatement.)
Damn them all. He ought to cast them all to the dread Barrow-wights
and invite the beasts to have at their lucky charms. Frodo imagined his
so-called friends lying dead and dismembered, while he himself escaped,
alive and free. Gandalf would admit there had been nothing else he
could do.
Just then a familiar, low voice interrupted his sadistic reverie:
"Mr. Frodo, sir?"
Not Sam, amended Frodo. Morrie and Pipsqueak, without a regret, but
not Sam. "Yes, Sam," he said, turning and smiling fondly; for suddenly
it struck him that he was, indeed, very fond of the young Hobbit.
Sam blushed and lowered his gaze. "Aw, Mr. Frodo, I was thinking,
maybe, you could use a bit of cheering up." He took Frodo's hand into
his own, held it up to his cheek. "You always do like it when I hold
your hand," he said shyly.
"I do, indeed," said Frodo, caressing Sam's cheek with his fingertips.
"However did you get in the habit of doing it, anyway?"
"Oh, I don't know, sir." Sam shrugged, and slipped his mouth over the
nearest fingertip. "Maybe it's just you have such beautiful hands."
A shadow fell over Frodo's face. "Morrie said I'm ugly," he said,
looking away.
"You never were," protested Sam. "Why, you're the fairest Hobbit in
all the Shire, as beautiful as any Elf."
"Really?" Frodo glanced back doubtfully at Sam.
"Really and truly, sir. Mr. Morrie's just jealous, on account that he
looks like the wrong end of a pony with a bad case of the Bywater
blasts."
Frodo burst out laughing. "You always could make me laugh, dear Sam,"
he said, leaning against Sam.
"Aw." Again the color rose in Sam's face. "He just knows he can't
hold a candle to you, and that's--" He stopped short, suddenly
self-conscious.
"A fact?" Frodo's eyes shone brightly at Sam. Sam glanced up at him,
and nodded. "Fact is, sir, I always wondered how it was so handsome a
Hobbit never did wed--oh, I'm sorry, sir!" cried Sam, aghast.
Frodo winced, but patted Sam's hand reassuringly, bestowing a light
kiss upon it for good measure. "It's all right, Sam," he said. "I seem
to be cursed, doomed by forces beyond my control never to know the bliss
of conjugal relations." Sighing wistfully, Frodo lifted his eyes to the
hills; whence would come his help?
"Well, come along, Sam." Frodo looked back to Sam, and gave him a
shadowed smile. "I suppose we'd better find Morrie and Pipsqueak and be
heading out of here before it gets dark. They may be asses, but they
are my cousins, all the same."
"And they may prove useful yet, sir," added Sam, walking hand in hand
with Frodo back over the hill to where they had left Morrie and
Pipsqueak.
***
Riding over the hills, and eating their fill, the warm sun and the
scent of turf, lying a little too long after lunch to linger over
bottles of elderberry wine, sucked drop by drop from slender fingers:
these things are, perhaps, enough to explain what happened. However
that may be, the Hobbits woke suddenly and uncomfortably from a sleep
they never meant to take. Extricating their entwined limbs, they sprang
to their feet in alarm: The setting sun throbbed crimson as it sank
below the horizon. *Red sky at night, sailor's delight*, hissed the
wind, chilling the companions to their very bones.
In defiance of all principles of meteorology, known and unknown, a
thick fog rolled in from nowhere, quickly enshrouding the Hobbits and
isolating them one from another.
"Sam?" called Frodo shakily. "Sam? Morrie? Pipsqueak?"
He thought he heard a dim, answering call of *Frodo* but he could not
be sure. "Sam? Sam, where are you? Morrie, Pipsqueak? Please answer
me! Where are you?" Blindly he stumbled through the fog and the dark,
his curls plastered damply against his brow.
*Hey sailorrrrr....*
Frodo halted. "Sam?" he queried in a quavering voice.
*Hey, sailor, where are you going?*
"Who are you?" demanded Frodo. "And what have you done with Sam?"
Falling silent, he waited, but there was no answer, only the slither of
the wind beneath the fog.
"Sam! Where *are* you?" Frodo cried out miserably.
***
There was no reply. He was suddenly aware that it was getting very
cold, and the wind was growing stronger, dispersing the mists as
improbably quickly as they had descended. A glance showed him that he
was now standing on a high hilltop, which he must have climbed in his
frantic chase, which would explain why his clothes and hair were soaked
with perspiration. Out of the east a biting wind was blowing. To his
right there loomed against the westward stars a dark black shape. A
great barrow stood there.
"Where are you?" he cried again, both angry and afraid.
"Here!" said a voice deep and mellow and strangely seductive. "I am
waiting for you!"
"No!" said Frodo; but he did not run away. Trembling, he looked up to
see a tall, dark, and handsome figure silhouetted against the stars. It
leaned over him, and Frodo felt his knees grow weak. He thought he saw
an appraising glimmer in the two pale eyes gazing intently down into his
own, and he stood transfixed, silently yearning for he knew not what.
Then strong, manly hands seized him, and a body hard as iron bore
against him, pressing him insistently to the ground, and he remembered
no more.
***
He awoke feeling curiously sticky, and, even more curiously, strangely
satiated. He had no desire to move, but was content to lie as he found
himself: naked, on the ground, his clothes scattered around him, a
crushed cigarette butt smoldering in a bare patch of dirt. Languidly
Frodo reached over and twisted the cigarette butt into the ground,
snuffing it.
Hmm. He'd never been one for smoking, but now he felt a sudden and
powerful craving for a good pipe full of weed. Damn. Frodo supposed
that he would have to bestir himself to find where his companions had
got to; Sam alone could be counted on to pack half a year's crop of leaf
whenever he undertook so much as a trip to the post office. Hopefully,
thought Frodo, he hadn't smoked it all by now.
Groaning, he stretched and sat up and set about reclothing himself,
pausing to wipe off the curiously sticky night dew which had condensed
upon certain regions of his skin. He looked about in vain for his pony.
Double-damn.
"Sam! Morrie! Pipsqueak!" called Frodo. "Where are you? Sam!
Morrie! Pipsqueak! Hullo! Rise and shine! Here comes the sun, and I
say, it's all right!"
From the barrow emerged Sam, Morrie, and Pipsqueak, blinking, bemused,
and naked as the day they were born. "Mr. Frodo?" murmured Sam, gazing
blearily in Frodo's direction. "Mr. Frodo, I had the queerest dream."
"Hm. So did I," said Frodo, straining to hold back a wide grin. "I
say, Sam, you wouldn't happen to have any pipeweed about you, would
you?"
"Pipeweed?" repeated Sam. "You, sir? I mean, begging your pardon,
sir, but no, it's in my pack, on the pony--" Sam snapped to, looked
about, as if only then becoming cognizant of their situation. "Now
where in tarnation are those ponies, anyway? And why am I standing here
in my birthday suit--why, and Mr. Pipsqueak--and Mr. Morrie, too!"
"Don't fret, Sam; it suits you well," laughed Frodo. Then Frodo
suddenly blushed, and wondered why.
"Well, it doesn't suit me at all!" cried Pipsqueak indignantly. "We
must find our ponies, and our packs. Either that or you must lend us
some of your clothing, Frodo."
"I haven't any to lend, except what I'm wearing," said Frodo. "I am
afraid my pony has likewise wandered, and with it my pack."
"Oh, this is terrible!" wailed Pipsqueak. "We can't go walking to
Bree stark naked!"
"Hm," said Morrie, pointedly regarding Pipsqueak's nether regions.
"Those of us with a little more to show off have no reason to be
embarrassed."
"Even I am not lacking in that respect," Frodo observed.
"Thank you very much, noble cousin." Pipsqueak crossed his arms and
sulked.
"Payback's a bitch," grunted Sam, thrusting his hips forward so to
better show off his considerable assets.
"Now, Sam," chided Frodo teasingly, "there's no need to flaunt it.
Anyway, none of this is helping us to find the ponies; I suppose we'll
have to call on Tom Bombadil again."
"Oh, no," groaned Pipsqueak.
"Here." Frodo reached into his pocket and produced a handkerchief.
"Cover up," he said, handing it to Pipsqueak.
Pipsqueak glowered at him, but he took the handkerchief, all the same.
"Thank you," he sullenly muttered. Meanwhile, Frodo cupped his hands
about his mouth and called out:
Ho! Tom Bombadil, Tom Bombadillo!
The ground makes a cold bed, and stones a hard pillow!
Our ponies have wandered! Bring your help near
So we can high-tail it out of here!
And, sure as deus ex machina is a fantasy writer's best friend, came
the answering call:
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry old fellow!
There's simply no end to the things he does know!
Come, ponies, and fly to your bareback riders!
Bring backpacks with breeches to cover backsiders!
Morrie and Pipsqueak exchanged erudite expressions of aesthetic angst,
but Sam was simply delighted. "Sheer poetry," he sighed, beaming
blissfully. Laughing and singing, Tom Bombadil greeted the Hobbits.
"Run naked in the grass, my merry friends, and let the light of day warm
heart and limb! Run naked, run naked, I say! Cast away that thin rag,"
he whipped the handkerchief from Pipsqueak's clutching hands, "and run
naked, I say!"
A rather curious thing to exhort of grown men, one would think, yet
Frodo and Sam and Morrie and Pipsqueak followed Bombadil's directive
without question. Frodo again cast his clothing aside, running about
nude with his friends under the morning sun because, we are given to
understand, it is the natural thing for Hobbits to be so carefree and
innocent and unashamed, even though heretofore we have been led to
believe that Shire Hobbits were quintessential starched-and-buttoned
Victorian Brits who were as likely as Queen Victoria herself to be found
cavorting naked in the grass.
"And here are your ponies!" said Bombadil, as the ponies trotted gaily
over the crest of the hill behind him, each running to its respective
rider. The Hobbits opened their packs and clothed themselves, while
Bombadil gave them directions to the road that would lead them to Bree.
"And in Bree you will find an old brothel called The Prancing Pony;
Barliman Butterball is its worthy keeper, and his buxom wife Bella the
fetching mistress of the house. There you will find food and drink, and
a warm fire, and a warm wench or two to keep you the night; and the
morning will speed you on your way. Be bold, but wary! Keep gay your
hearts, and ride to meet your fortune!" Then he turned and tossed up
his doll and caught it again, leaping and skipping and dancing away back
over the hill whence he had come.
"Well, Mr. Frodo," remarked Sam, "I am sorry to take leave of Master
Bombadil, but I won't deny I'll be glad to see this brothel he spoke of.
I wonder if it'll be like the Green Dragon back home? D'you suppose
they have Hobbit wenches, or only wenches of the Big Folk?"
"There are Hobbits in Bree," said Morrie, "as well as Big Folk. Take
your pick! I myself have partaken of both varieties, with perfect
satisfaction."
"Well, now, Mr. Frodo," Sam heartily exclaimed. "This Prancing Pony
might just be the place to turn your luck for the better! I daresay
you'll no longer be a virgin on the morrow."
"Be that as it may," Frodo sharply hissed, "please, *please* watch
your tongues, and remember not to mention that I have never known a
woman in conjugal embrace!"
"Oh, no, of course not, Mr. Frodo. Right, Mr. Morrie? Mr.
Pipsqueak?"
"Oh, certainly. Of course." They snickered, and began to sing ribald
songs as they rode toward the soft, sultry red lights of Bree.
***************************
Hope I haven't ruined your plans for the Prancing Pony, David. ;-)
--
Prembone
The Prembone Pages: Humor, Opinion, Parody, Satire
http://prembone.tsx.org/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Aris Katsaris
Prembone <prem...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8fus4j$s95$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Well, just when it looked like we'd settled the question of the "Merry"
> character's name... Anyway, for now I'm going with changing the
> character's *name* to "Moribund, a.k.a. Morrie," but definitely
> retaining his *occupation* as a mobster. I think that should work
> quite well with Aris' story, including his puns on "we don't do 'merry'"
> and his dreams of the Shirriffs coming after him. If we all end up
> agreeing on this, then Ojevind can change his reference accordingly in
> Chapter 2, introducing the character as "Moribund the Mobster, known as
> Morrie" to his friends, enemies, whatever. But I'm not waiting till we
> all settle the issue; for now, I'm posting the chapter as I have it. As
> someone else pointed out, textual inconsistencies are half the fun.
Hmm... I have to say I don't understand the reason for this change. Is
"Moribund aka Morrie" a reference I don't get? Otherwise what's the
point of changing the name from something that's a joke (and "Mobster"
is a joke no matter how good or bad) to something that's not one?
And what's the point of changing past chapters to change a detail that
influences nothing? (Atleast if it was back to "Merry" I'd get the point but
it's not)
Hmm... since Prembone has posted her chapter I suppose there's no
problem with making public my idea: I had rather hoped that in this
chapter, Tom Bombadil (instead of renaming the ponies) would rename
the *hobbits* turning Pipsqueak and Mobster into Pippin and Merry (or
perhaps Peepin' and Morrie :-)
Aris Katsaris
Prembone
"Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote:
> Hmm... I have to say I don't understand the reason for this change.
Mainly because several of us thought that "Mobster" sucked as a name
(sorry, Ojevind), whereupon someone suggested the name "Moribund," with
a nickname of "Morrie," as an apropos name for a mobster. "Moribund"
means "at the point of death," and sounds close enough to "Meriadoc" to
make a reasonable play on the original name.
> Is
> "Moribund aka Morrie" a reference I don't get? Otherwise what's the
> point of changing the name from something that's a joke (and "Mobster"
> is a joke no matter how good or bad) to something that's not one?
It's still a joke, just a more subtle one. ;-) "Morrie" sounds like a
stereotypically gangster-like name, and the basic joke is that he *is* a
mobster, not necessarily that he has "Mobster" as his name. In sum, we
like making the character *a* mobster, but not using the too-obvious
"Mobster" as his actual name.
> And what's the point of changing past chapters to change a detail that
> influences nothing?
Well, it's a matter of fixing a name we don't like to one we do, and
since Ojevind was the originator of "Mobster," and since he agreed to
"Moribund/Morrie" as a substitute, I'd say it's OK to make the change,
and do it now, while it's still early in the game.
FWIW, I definitely like "Moribund/Morrie" MUCH better than my original
suggestion of going back to "Meriadoc/Merry." Plus, I think your pun of
"I don't do 'merry'" works better with the character being a mobster
named "Morrie."
But enough of that. Did you like the story? ;-)
Aris Katsaris
Aris Katsaris <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote in message
news:8fuuqu$24g$1...@newssrv.otenet.gr...
> > character's name... Anyway, for now I'm going with changing the
> > character's *name* to "Moribund, a.k.a. Morrie," but definitely
> > retaining his *occupation* as a mobster. I think that should work
> > quite well with Aris' story, including his puns on "we don't do 'merry'"
> > and his dreams of the Shirriffs coming after him. If we all end up
> > agreeing on this, then Ojevind can change his reference accordingly in
> > Chapter 2, introducing the character as "Moribund the Mobster, known as
> > Morrie" to his friends, enemies, whatever. But I'm not waiting till we
> > all settle the issue; for now, I'm posting the chapter as I have it. As
> > someone else pointed out, textual inconsistencies are half the fun.
>
> "Moribund aka Morrie" a reference I don't get? Otherwise what's the
> point of changing the name from something that's a joke (and "Mobster"
> is a joke no matter how good or bad) to something that's not one?
but
> it's not)
>
> Hmm... since Prembone has posted her chapter I suppose there's no
> problem with making public my idea: I had rather hoped that in this
> chapter, Tom Bombadil (instead of renaming the ponies) would rename
> the *hobbits* turning Pipsqueak and Mobster into Pippin and Merry (or
> perhaps Peepin' and Morrie :-)
Moreover, may I suggest that we create a process through which such kind
of changes can be implemented or *not* implemented with certainty?
For example, it was suggested that someone who wants something in an
earlier chapter changed, should email every author whose chapter would
be influenced no matter how slightly by this change, and gain permission
from everyone... This was obviously not done here...
Anyway could perhaps someone (Steuard for example) coordinate all the
needed emails and at need make a judgment call on whether a change
shall pass...
If everyone keeps changing past details simply because he/she doesn't
like them this project is soon going to self-destroy itself...
I also suggest that no further chapters be posted until the Morrie/Mobster
situation is clarified...
Aris Katsaris
Prembone
"Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote:
> Perhaps... Though I'd have perhaps used it if I knew that
> his name was going to be Morrie... :-)
>
> --
> Morrie gave her a humorless look. "Madam, I'm a
> Brandybuck. We don't do 'merry'. "
> Those who had a problem in distinguishing between
> the two pronounciations, generally found themselves
> quickly facing much more important problems indeed.
> --
>
> Or something like that...
Yes, that was what I had in mind. ;-) You could probably work that
change into the text. In fact, it's pretty good, and (assuming the
change to "Morrie" goes through) I think you should!
> And btw, the poems that call to Tom Bombadil are different...
I know. ;-) Frodo was improvising.
> and though I hate to get rid of the word 'armadillo'
Don't. I liked it!
> I freely confess that your version
> is by far the better...
That's because it was composed by Frodo instead of by Tom Bombadil, of
course. ;-)
> I suppose I should go and change that too...
No, don't. I like the idea of taking advantage of the "Morrie"/"Merry"
play on pronunciation, but the use of a different song by Frodo was
deliberate. Besides, it gives us more opportunity to make bad takeoffs
of the originals!
> > But enough of that. Did you like the story? ;-)
>
> <g> I liked it quite a bit... though I admit that a couple of the
jokes were
> more sexual than I like - but I may be a bit prudish in this.
Whereas I am one of the Charter Members of the Tilde Club, q.v.
http://home.earthlink.net/~prembone/mythtakes/tilde.html Which reminds
me that I have material to add to it which is *seriously* overdue,
including a link to that Tolkien slash site.
Anyway, I hope I kept it within Steu's guidlines: innuendo, but no
explicit depictions. The jokes are only sexual to those "in the know."
To those of tender minds and ages, the references will only seem silly,
or confusing. Actually, they may seem silly and confusing, in
general....ah, well. Besides, it was the early-chapters people who set
the tone, with all the references to the Ring's power of seduction,
escapades with Cassiopiea and all. Blame them. ;-)
> I especially liked Frodo being tempted to cast his friends to the
> Barrow-wights...
Heh. I have to admit that's probably my favorite bit in the whole
chapter, though my spin on romance-novel cliche's with the Barrow-wight
comes into a close second.
> <sigh> As for Mobster I suppose I'm more opposed to the *change*
rather
> than to the name of Morrie. (I may be a bit conservative in this? :-)
I dated someone of that temperament, once. Drove me nuts. ;-) My own
inclination is: If I don't like something, CHANGE IT! -- or at least
see if I can. Hell, I wrote an entire 42-chapter sequel to LOTR because
I didn't like the way Tolkien ended it. (Don't get me started on
why...PLEASE. The rest of the newsgroup will thank you. Trust me on
this one.) I figure it doesn't hurt to ask, or try, or filibuster, or
lie down on a train track and threaten not to move until I get my way,
or..... ;-)
Anyway, the vote idea sounds fair enough to me. Just don't forget to
admire my handiwork in the process. ;-)
Humble as always,
Jonas Thorell
Prembone wrote:
> Portions of this installment have been inspired by my addiction to
> Altoids, the Curiously Strong mints.
Bravo! But I think you got the inspiration from alt.sex.furry-feet or
something ;-)
/Jonas
the softrat
wrote:
>Portions of this installment have been inspired by my addiction to
>Altoids, the Curiously Strong mints.
Is this the "00's" version of the "Twinkie defense"?
the softrat
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
Let them fight that battle in peace.
Jonas Thorell
> I dated someone of that temperament, once. Drove me nuts. ;-) My own
> inclination is: If I don't like something, CHANGE IT! -- or at least
> see if I can. Hell, I wrote an entire 42-chapter sequel to LOTR because
> I didn't like the way Tolkien ended it.
You didn't consider talking to the shrink first ;-) Sounds a bit more
obsessive than can be considered healthy. Then again, why I am
writing this in this forum...If you're here you've got to be
obsessed...(well, it doesn't hurt anyway).
That sequel wouldn't have anything to do with getting Frodo away
from Eressea would it? Either way, I'd love to read it. There's
that obsession again...
/Jonas
Steuard Jensen
> Okay. Let's do it democratically and have a vote for this. Ojevind,
> Steuard, Kent, Bruce, Conrad:
> Do you vote in favour of the change or against it? (btw, I suggest
> that you vote on whether you'd *like* the change, not whether you
> would *agree* to the change.)
Incidentally, I'd ask that everyone send their votes to me over email
(and perhaps only over email); private ballots can be considerably
more fair than public ones. I'll handle the details... and I _would_
suggest a _brief_ moratorium on new chapters until we get this
settled. Incidentally, I'm going to require at least 4/6 votes in
favor of the change before I "approve" it, and I'll be hesitant even
then. (And if I get even one "Absolutely not" vote, that closes the
matter right there.)
Steuard Jensen
the softrat
(Steuard Jensen) wrote:
>Incidentally, I'd ask that everyone send their votes to me over email
<snip>
>matter right there.)
> Steuard Jensen
Oh, Goody! I'm off the hook! We'll diddle about this one for weeks....
the softrat
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
People must not do things for fun. We are not here for fun.
There is no reference to fun in any Act of Parliament.
the softrat
wrote:
>Like hell. While you're waiting, you could get a head start on the
>Appendices. Didn't I hear that you were writing those, too?
PPPPPPPTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHHHHBBBBBBBBBBBTTTTTTTTTPPPPPPPPP!
(A very juicy one!)
(Just for you!)
the softrat
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
Invalid thought detected. Close all mental processes and restart
body.
Aris Katsaris
> In article <8fuuqu$24g$1...@newssrv.otenet.gr>,
> "Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote:
>
> > Hmm... I have to say I don't understand the reason for this change.
>
> (sorry, Ojevind), whereupon someone suggested the name "Moribund," with
> a nickname of "Morrie," as an apropos name for a mobster. "Moribund"
> means "at the point of death," and sounds close enough to "Meriadoc" to
> make a reasonable play on the original name.
>
> > "Moribund aka Morrie" a reference I don't get? Otherwise what's the
> > point of changing the name from something that's a joke (and "Mobster"
> > is a joke no matter how good or bad) to something that's not one?
>
> stereotypically gangster-like name, and the basic joke is that he *is* a
> mobster, not necessarily that he has "Mobster" as his name. In sum, we
> like making the character *a* mobster, but not using the too-obvious
> "Mobster" as his actual name.
I think that the name 'mobster' was first invented, and then we decided that
this was also his occupation... It wasn't vice versa...
> > And what's the point of changing past chapters to change a detail that
> > influences nothing?
>
> Well, it's a matter of fixing a name we don't like to one we do, and
> since Ojevind was the originator of "Mobster," and since he agreed to
> "Moribund/Morrie" as a substitute, I'd say it's OK to make the change,
> and do it now, while it's still early in the game.
>
> FWIW, I definitely like "Moribund/Morrie" MUCH better than my original
> suggestion of going back to "Meriadoc/Merry." Plus, I think your pun of
> "I don't do 'merry'" works better with the character being a mobster
> named "Morrie."
Perhaps... Though I'd have perhaps used it if I knew that
his name was going to be Morrie... :-)
--
Morrie gave her a humorless look. "Madam, I'm a
Brandybuck. We don't do 'merry'. "
Those who had a problem in distinguishing between
the two pronounciations, generally found themselves
quickly facing much more important problems indeed.
--
Or something like that...
And btw, the poems that call to Tom Bombadil are different... and though
I hate to get rid of the word 'armadillo' I freely confess that your version
is
by far the better... I suppose I should go and change that too...
> But enough of that. Did you like the story? ;-)
<g> I liked it quite a bit... though I admit that a couple of the jokes were
more sexual than I like - but I may be a bit prudish in this.
I especially liked Frodo being tempted to cast his friends to the
Barrow-wights...
<sigh> As for Mobster I suppose I'm more opposed to the *change* rather
than to the name of Morrie. (I may be a bit conservative in this? :-)
I'll agree to the change and alter my chapter accordingly if the majority
of the 6 people that mentioned "Mobster" in their chapters vote in favour of
Morrie.
Okay. Let's do it democratically and have a vote for this.
Ojevind, Steuard, Kent, Bruce, Conrad:
Do you vote in favour of the change or against it? (btw, I suggest that you
vote on
whether you'd *like* the change, not whether you would *agree* to the
change.)
Aris Katsaris
Prembone
"Jonas Thorell" <jon...@bahnhof.se> wrote:
> That sequel wouldn't have anything to do with getting Frodo away
> from Eressea would it?
How'd you guess? ;-)
> Either way, I'd love to read it. There's
> that obsession again...
Well, at the moment I'm working on a book developing those themes with
my own characters and settings, which should be ready to submit to
publishers by the end of the summer. Bits of it are reminiscent of
Frodo (indeed, I'd want the knowledgable reader to see the parallels)
but it ends up being a VERY different story....if I ever finish getting
it written. ;-) (I will; don't worry.) But since I'm pirating my own
fanfic for material for the present book (why waste all that effort?)
I'm kind of hesistant to put the fanfic version out for public
consumption, at this point. I'll keep a copy, in case anyone ever does
a HOPE (History of Prembone's Efforts) series.
Prembone
the softrat <sof...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Oh, Goody! I'm off the hook!
Like hell. While you're waiting, you could get a head start on the
Appendices. Didn't I hear that you were writing those, too?
--
Prembone
> Oh, Goody! I'm off the hook!
Like hell. While you're waiting, you could get a head start on the
Appendices. Didn't I hear that you were writing those, too?
--
Wilbur07
>character's name... Anyway, for now I'm going with changing the
>character's *name* to "Moribund, a.k.a. Morrie," but definitely
>retaining his *occupation* as a mobster.
Okay, before you guys get into further arguments lemme suggest that Arghorn be
named King Elessar Telcontar, or Longwank in the Common tongue . . .
Lego-Lass and Gimme, could even be Legless and Gimpy -- and Gimpy could be the
son of Groyn of course, who we meet at the Council of Allblonde. Question is,
do you want a whole bunch of silly names a la BOTR or Ian Fleming, or keep the
old names with an eye-popper here and there? Personally, I like the idea of
Longwank; the men of Numenor being exceptionally endowed with thrice the span
of normal men.
Btw, Bravo! to Conrad, Aris and Karyn! Keep this up and you might be able to
recruit me for a chapter (if there's any room).
Mark Constantino
Aris Katsaris
> In article <8fv4ds$58v$1...@newssrv.otenet.gr>,
> "Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps... Though I'd have perhaps used it if I knew that
> > his name was going to be Morrie... :-)
> >
> > --
> > Morrie gave her a humorless look. "Madam, I'm a
> > Brandybuck. We don't do 'merry'. "
> > Those who had a problem in distinguishing between
> > the two pronounciations, generally found themselves
> > quickly facing much more important problems indeed.
> > --
> >
> > Or something like that...
>
> change into the text. In fact, it's pretty good, and (assuming the
> change to "Morrie" goes through) I think you should!
:-) Thanks. Okay, if it goes through, I will!
> > And btw, the poems that call to Tom Bombadil are different...
>
> I know. ;-) Frodo was improvising.
>
> > and though I hate to get rid of the word 'armadillo'
>
> Don't. I liked it!
>
> > I freely confess that your version
> > is by far the better...
>
> That's because it was composed by Frodo instead of by Tom Bombadil, of
> course. ;-)
Hey that really, really fits - which reminds that I also loved the scene in
your
chapter after Tom Bombadil appears as well as his insistence at them to run
naked (not to mention the "aesthetic angst" - LOL!)
[snip]
> > <sigh> As for Mobster I suppose I'm more opposed to the *change*
> rather
> > than to the name of Morrie. (I may be a bit conservative in this? :-)
>
> I dated someone of that temperament, once. Drove me nuts. ;-) My own
> inclination is: If I don't like something, CHANGE IT! -- or at least
> see if I can. Hell, I wrote an entire 42-chapter sequel to LOTR because
> I didn't like the way Tolkien ended it. (Don't get me started on
> why...PLEASE. The rest of the newsgroup will thank you. Trust me on
> this one.) I figure it doesn't hurt to ask, or try, or filibuster, or
> lie down on a train track and threaten not to move until I get my way,
> or..... ;-)
Ouch... a *42-chapter* sequel? Ouch, gal...
Aris Katsaris
PaulB
writes:
>The vision melted, and Frodo awoke feeling a rather depressing sense
>of predestination. *Everything is fixed, and you can't change it,*
>echoed the ethereal chorus in his memory.
>
> "You're a fool, Frodo Baggins,"
A very fine reference, if I do say so myself (and I do). :-D
(Although it does make me feel a bit old.)
Breathe
Peace
PB
"... the essence of myth [is] that it have no taint of allegory to the maker
and yet should suggest incipient allegories to the reader..."
C. S. Lewis, having read "The Lay of Leithian"
Jonas Thorell
> > That sequel wouldn't have anything to do with getting Frodo away
> > from Eressea would it?
> How'd you guess? ;-)
Just a hunch...
> it written. ;-) (I will; don't worry.) But since I'm pirating my own
> fanfic for material for the present book (why waste all that effort?)
> I'm kind of hesistant to put the fanfic version out for public
> consumption, at this point.
Too bad but hey, understandable. Tell us if you change your
mind though.
>I'll keep a copy, in case anyone ever does
> a HOPE (History of Prembone's Efforts) series.
Ah, but you'll know you will never know either way.
Honour like that never goes to those that still lives
and breathes...
/Jonas
All the Tea in China Blue
There seem to be two major forms of depression: too much serotonin and too
little. Serotonin is manufactured in the intestine lining. Depressives
tend to be either sugar avoiders (to reduce serotonin) or sugar consumers
(to increase it). Depression is also referred to anger turned inwards. The
difference between suicide and homocide is which way the anger is
directed: within or without. Insane is not "mad" or "loony" or raving
spittle in a straitjacket. The brain runs as a number of subsystems; in
most people the subsystems are integrated into a single personality. And
some people dissassociated, the subsystem become uncoordinated, even
conflicting. An extreme case is multiple personalities. In less extreme
cases, a person may be aware of her actions but that awareness is
dissassociated from any control: as if the personality is floating six
inches outside the skull watching the whole thing like movie.
But don't let that bother you. There's no such thing as mental illness,
some people are just too weak.
No doubt, you'll also be happy to know that, instead of any kind medical
treatment, Dan White was given capital punishment with a self-adminsterred
lethal injection.
--
CACS: Collective Against Consensual Sanity v0.123
Now a text site map! http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/cacs/
While PacBell is broken, contact will be intermittent.
David Sulger
Prembone wrote:
>Hope I haven't ruined your plans
>for the Prancing Pony, David.
Well, actually, I was going to have
the Ring manifest its powers in the
common room of the Prancing Pony by
giving Frodo a huge erection, but
you made him impotent, so I can't do
that now....
Oh, well. I came up with a new idea
for it anyway.
--Dave
Aris Katsaris
>Carl Blondin <cbl...@po-box.mcgill.ca> wrote in message
news:3923F05F.AAF732D9@po->box.mcgill.ca...
>
>Wilbur07 wrote:
>>Well, just when it looked like we'd settled the question of the "Merry"
>>character's name... Anyway, for now I'm going with changing the
>>character's *name* to "Moribund, a.k.a. Morrie," but definitely
>>retaining his *occupation* as a mobster.
>Okay, before you guys get into further arguments lemme suggest that Arghorn
be
>named King Elessar Telcontar, or Longwank in the Common tongue . . .
>Lego-Lass and Gimme, could even be Legless and Gimpy -- and Gimpy could be
the
.son of Groyn of course, who we meet at the Council of Allblonde. Question
is, .
>do you want a whole bunch of silly names a la BOTR or Ian Fleming, or keep
the
>old names with an eye-popper here and there? Personally, I like the idea
of
>Longwank; the men of Numenor being exceptionally endowed with thrice the
span
>of normal men.
>You'll just have to wait a bit to see what happens with those names. I'm
in charge of the council de >El Rond (which has been changed from
spanish/french to quebec french) and I already have >some ideas for most of
the names.
>Carl
ugh... I know I have no right to say what you'll do with your chapter... but
I rather hope that on the whole we keep the original names. Remember that
these are names that we'll have to hear repeated for the rest of all the
three books, and any such "humorous" changes will become tiresome after a
while... Every pun's novelty passes quickly - and after a while they simply
become tiresome... Until now we had only the names of Merry and Pippin
changed, and I hoped that changes in names would be likewise infrequent...
Aris Katsaris
Flame of the West
> "Enough!" cried Frodo, his face contorted in anguish. "All right! I
> admit it! I can't--*perform* with a lass. I don't know why; it's not
> that I haven't tried. Do you have any idea how humiliating it is to be
> the only fifty-year-old virgin in all of Hobbiton?"
<snip>
> He awoke feeling curiously sticky, and, even more curiously, strangely
> satiated. He had no desire to move, but was content to lie as he found
> himself: naked, on the ground, his clothes scattered around him, a
> crushed cigarette butt smoldering in a bare patch of dirt. Languidly
> Frodo reached over and twisted the cigarette butt into the ground,
> snuffing it.
<snip>
> "Thank you very much, noble cousin." Pipsqueak crossed his arms and
> sulked.
What a shame. A promising start to a clever LotR satire, gone
awry and descended into puerile junior-high-school-locker-room
humor. And not even a tilde to warn readers of the high smut
content.
--
-- FotW
Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-Earth.
Flame of the West
> Well, actually, I was going to have
> the Ring manifest its powers in the
> common room of the Prancing Pony by
> giving Frodo a huge erection, but
> you made him impotent, so I can't do
> that now....
This business of satirizing LotR with immature
locker-room sexual humor has already been
done, you know, in BotR. I suspect you folks
have the creativity to do better than that.
Indeed, several chapters already have, most
recently the Tom Bombadil chapter.
Morgil
>This business of satirizing LotR with immature
>locker-room sexual humor has already been
>done, you know, in BotR. I suspect you folks
>have the creativity to do better than that.
>Indeed, several chapters already have, most
>recently the Tom Bombadil chapter.
>
earlier chapters.
Morgil
Morgil
>What a shame. A promising start to a clever LotR satire, gone
>awry and descended into puerile junior-high-school-locker-room
>humor. And not even a tilde to warn readers of the high smut
>content.
>
story changed to pure sex-talk. Did hobbits even get their swords?
And to think what could have been done with Barrow-Wights! They
could have been ghosts of the long-dead comedians who attacked
travellers with deadly one-liners, for exemple.
I惴 really sorry to say this since I too have fell in love with Prembone
since I found out she was a female, but would re-writing be an impossible
thought? It愀 just that it愀 so different from other chapters and little bit
too daring for younger readers(or at least their parents).
Morgil
Flame of the West
> I´m really sorry to say this since I too have fell in love with Prembone
> since I found out she was a female, but would re-writing be an impossible
> thought? It´s just that it´s so different from other chapters and little bit
> too daring for younger readers(or at least their parents).
Since Prembone is writing a novel, she *must* be capable of
writing a chapter that fits in with the rest of them. Could she
be persuaded to do a rewrite?
Wilbur07
>writing a chapter that fits in with the rest of them. Could she
>be persuaded to do a rewrite?
For that matter, I wish JRRT would have done a rewrite of the first Book, or
the last 5 books in LOTR, as the style definitely shifts somewhere thereabouts
and the chapters don't fit with each other.
Come on people! Just because *you* don't like certain chapters doesn't mean
other people don't. And that stylistic excuse is out of left field -- look at
*all* the e-text chapters and you'll see that they all diverge from each other.
Mark Constantino
Prembone
106.sntc01.pacbell.net>,
mlin...@hotmail.com (All the Tea in China Blue) wrote:
> / Is this the "00's" version of the "Twinkie defense"?
>
> There seem to be two major forms of depression: too much serotonin
and too
Actually, the explanation is simple: The phrase "curiously sticky"
popped into my mind as I was winding down for the night, and I suspect
it was my subconscious punning on the Altoids slogan "curiously
strong." In any case, the phrase struck me as curiously humorous, and
I ended up staying up ridiculously late to sketch my first draft of the
chapter.
But if I do decide to go postal, I can always blame it on consuming too
many Altoids: "Obsessive Tolkien Worshipers found bludgeoned to death
by giant-size tins of Altoids, the curiously strong mints."
That was a joke. Please do not report me to the FBI.
Prembone
jsol...@erols.com wrote:
> What a shame. A promising start to a clever LotR satire, gone
> awry and descended into puerile junior-high-school-locker-room
> humor. And not even a tilde to warn readers of the high smut
> content.
Uhhhhh....hello? Apparently you were reading some other satire,
because the one I was handed had established from the start that the
power of the Ring was to enable the bearer to seduce whomever said
bearer desired sexually. If that bothers you, take it up with my
predecessors. Also, simply being sexual humor doesn't de facto make
it "puerile," "juvenile," or "smut."
And no tilde was necessary, because all of the sexual references were
quite euphemistic and implicit, only "catchable" by those who would be
old enough to recognize them. Actually, the story ended up being
funnier that way: a quaintly insinuated "curiously sticky" is worth a
thousand explicitly-written descriptions of someone getting laid.
Finally, there was plenty of satirization in my chapter that had
nothing to do with sex, and the fact that some of it was sexually-
oriented makes it no less a satirical commentary on Tolkien's work, and
on the cultural elements being satirized. Disagree with my opinions on
sex, if you must, but besmirch not my literary genius.
Prembone
>
> Well, actually, I was going to have
> the Ring manifest its powers in the
> common room of the Prancing Pony by
> giving Frodo a huge erection,
Sheesh! (Laughing.) And you would have thereby drawn forth cries of
indignation about besmutting Tolkien's Sacred Text! (Genuflect when
you speak His Holy Name.) At least I tried to be, ah, euphemistic and
indirect in my references.
> but
> you made him impotent, so I can't do
> that now....
I confess I was disappointed you didn't do anything with the Prancing
Pony being a brothel ;-) but I enjoyed your chapter, all the same.
Prembone
the softrat <sof...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2000 01:16:43 GMT, Prembone <prem...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
> >Appendices. Didn't I hear that you were writing those, too?
>
>
> (A very juicy one!)
>
> (Just for you!)
Heh. Sounds like you've got a wicked case of the Bywater blasts. Eat
some bananas (whoops, was that tilde?) and rice. You're welcome.
Prembone
pbac...@aol.comnojunk (PaulB) wrote:
> In article <8fus4j$s95$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Prembone <prembone@my-
deja.com>
> writes:
>
> >The vision melted, and Frodo awoke feeling a rather depressing sense
> >of predestination. *Everything is fixed, and you can't change it,*
> >echoed the ethereal chorus in his memory.
> >
> > "You're a fool, Frodo Baggins,"
>
> A very fine reference, if I do say so myself (and I do). :-D
> (Although it does make me feel a bit old.)
I already e-mailed you about this (deja.com being down when I first
read it) but for the benefit of the others: Thank you for noticing. ;-
) I was particularly proud of that little JCSS allusion.
BTW, Jesus Christ, Superstar is *loaded* with good texts, if any other
oldies among us should feel inspired to incorporate some of it in their
chapters. Oh, but then we'll have Tim Rice screaming "copyright
infringement," and I guess he'll have to split the royalties from this
project with the Tolkien Estate, and.....
O. Sharp
: Uhhhhh....hello? Apparently you were reading some other satire,
: because the one I was handed had established from the start that the
: power of the Ring was to enable the bearer to seduce whomever said
Well, actually I had a broader definition in mind; the "quick and easy
seduction" wasn't exclusively sexual but more broadly based. Hence
Gandalf's warnings in Chapter One: "...and no real estate deals. And no
political aspirations!" The sexual aspects were just the most obviously
used powers available (as Cassiopiea Took found out, or rather did not
find out). But I wrote it specifically to give others material to build
off of, and others have most assuredly been doing that, so I'm content.
As to the desirability of a rewrite of Chapter Eight: I, at least, find
that there are some things in _each_ chapter that make me laugh out loud,
and other things that I find I want to immediately cross out and rewrite.
(Even my own chapter has this effect on me.) But that wild diversity of
style makes it a more challenging and entertaining project, not less.
As has been noted, the editing of the original was a bit uneven too. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
o...@netcom.com ...Ioreth, for example. I'd cut Ioreth in a New York
second. :)
Prembone
"O. Sharp" <o...@netcom.com> wrote:
> Prembone <prem...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> : Uhhhhh....hello? Apparently you were reading some other satire,
> : because the one I was handed had established from the start that the
> : power of the Ring was to enable the bearer to seduce whomever said
> : bearer desired sexually. [snippp]
>
> Well, actually I had a broader definition in mind; the "quick and
easy
> seduction" wasn't exclusively sexual but more broadly based. Hence
> Gandalf's warnings in Chapter One: "...and no real estate deals.
True. If the chapter had presented more opportunities along those
lines, I might have used it, but my observation of the conflict between
Ojevind's "wed to celibacy" and Steuard's "adventures with Cassiopiea,"
coupled with the fact that the Barrow-wight scene lent itself perfectly
to being a send-up of romance novel scenes of passion, ended up setting
the direction for my parody of Chapter 8. It didn't help that everyone
kept *returning* to the sexual-conquest theme. ;-)
BTW, I hope everyone noticed how nicely I kept Morrie's
characterization as a "ruthless as a society hostess" mobster.
> But I wrote it specifically to give others material to build
> off of, and others have most assuredly been doing that, so I'm
content.
Hell, I'm content if they simply catch some of the "very subtle jokes"
(Crash Test Dummies) in my chapter, e.g., the JCSS ref.
> As to the desirability of a rewrite of Chapter Eight: I, at least,
find
> that there are some things in _each_ chapter that make me laugh out
loud,
> and other things that I find I want to immediately cross out and
rewrite.
Ditto.
> (Even my own chapter has this effect on me.)
Ditto again, usually, though so far I haven't reached that point with
this latest effort of mine. But with most of what I write, yes.
> But that wild diversity of
> style makes it a more challenging and entertaining project, not less.
Anybody seriously expecting consistency in this project is sadly
mistaken. ;-) It's hard enough to maintain consistency when you're
the only author, let alone one of many writing in tandem. I'm amazed
it's holding together as well as it is.
And I would also point out that my chapter contains a lot more
consistency/connection points with previous chapters than some have
given me credit for.
> As has been noted, the editing of the original was a bit uneven
too. :)
Yep! So the unevenness inherent in tandem (or serial, whatever)
writing is merely enhancing our authenticity.
> o...@netcom.com ...Ioreth, for example. I'd cut Ioreth in a New
York
> second. :)
Tom Bombadil's top of my list.
Flame of the West
> Uhhhhh....hello? Apparently you were reading some other satire,
> because the one I was handed had established from the start that the
> power of the Ring was to enable the bearer to seduce whomever said
> bearer desired sexually.
As was pointed out, it conveyed several powers, only the sexual ones
of which seemed to make any impression on you.
> If that bothers you, take it up with my
> predecessors. Also, simply being sexual humor doesn't de facto make
> it "puerile," "juvenile," or "smut."
Rolling on the ground laughing, Ha-ha-Frodo-can't-do-it is so juvenile
it's embarrassing.
> And no tilde was necessary, because all of the sexual references were
> quite euphemistic and implicit, only "catchable" by those who would be
> old enough to recognize them.
OK, let's see:
-- "Enough!" cried Frodo, his face contorted in anguish. "All right! I
-- admit it! I can't--*perform* with a lass. I don't know why; it's not
-- that I haven't tried. Do you have any idea how humiliating it is to be
-- the only fifty-year-old virgin in all of Hobbiton?"
I've met barroom bouncers with more subtlety than that.
> Actually, the story ended up being funnier that way:
I didn't think so, but I guess the important thing is that *you* were
amused.
> Finally, there was plenty of satirization in my chapter that had
> nothing to do with sex,
It was virtually obsessed with sex. We have:
- Frodo can't do it
- Frodo and Sam get vaguely queer
- Frodo gets buggered and likes it
- Pipsqueak hasn't got much
- The Prancing Pony is a brothel
- The hobbits spend half the chapter naked.
> and the fact that some of it was sexually-
> oriented makes it no less a satirical commentary on Tolkien's work, and
> on the cultural elements being satirized.
There was a little satire in there, but it was overwhelmed
by all the smutty references.
> Disagree with my opinions on
> sex, if you must, but besmirch not my literary genius.
I don't know what your "opinions" are; presumably you're
for it, as are most people. As for your literary genius,
there was some genuinely funny stuff there. You obviously
have talent, but I think you are wasting it by swamping the
genuinely funny stuff in all the junior-high-school-locker-room
humor.
Jonas Thorell
> Rolling on the ground laughing, Ha-ha-Frodo-can't-do-it is so juvenile
> it's embarrassing.
If so, much fiction (movies and books alike) is juvenile. Not
necessarily exactly like that. Sign of the times perhaps.
> I didn't think so, but I guess the important thing is that *you* were
> amused.
That's the one you have to write for. If you start thinking
"Let's see, what will my possible audience think of
this" then you can drop the effort in writing it at all.
It's not going to get good in anyones mind if you start
censoring yourself.
> - Frodo can't do it
> - Frodo and Sam get vaguely queer
I've seen accusations of that to the genuine Lord of the
Rings as well. I don't know if it was Prembone's intention
to tie that accussation into the parody though.
> - Frodo gets buggered and likes it
> - Pipsqueak hasn't got much
> - The Prancing Pony is a brothel
> - The hobbits spend half the chapter naked.
Outside the barrow-wights home, yes. They were naked
in the original there too.
> > Disagree with my opinions on
> > sex, if you must, but besmirch not my literary genius.
> I don't know what your "opinions" are; presumably you're
> for it, as are most people.
Then what's your problem? That one jokes about sex?
Nothing is too sacred to joke about IMHO. Or if you
don't want to read references to sex, read Donald Duck.
>As for your literary genius,
> there was some genuinely funny stuff there. You obviously
> have talent, but I think you are wasting it by swamping the
> genuinely funny stuff in all the junior-high-school-locker-room
> humor.
Ah, that's the problem. Everyone must have your humour otherwise
it's juvenile junior-high humour and not humour at all?
Have to insert the re-made ringwerse here...I don't know who made
it but it was posted here 6-7 months ago.
"Three Rings for the Elven-Knobs under their vests
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their balls of stone
Nine for mortal woman on their breasts
One for the dark lord on his dark bone
In the land of proboscis where your privates lie
One ring for both your balls, one ring to prick them
One ring to dangle there and in the darkness your partner will say "What the
bloody hell was that"
/Jonas
David Sulger
>I confess I was disappointed you didn't
>do anything with the Prancing Pony
>being a brothel ;-) but I enjoyed your
>chapter, all the same.
Probably because I didn't notice the brothel part until _after_ I posted
my chapter. I might of missed it while I was trying to figure out how
to work both Frodo's impotence _and_ Bella into my chapter. It's
probably for the best, 'cause otherwise my plans would have been
needlessly complicated. Besides, we can simply explain the discrepancy
by saying that Tom didn't know what the hell he was talking about.
--Dave
David Sulger
<jon...@bahnhof.se> wrote:> Or if you don't want to read>references to sex,
read Donald>Duck.That's a bad example. Donald Duck doesn't have any
pants.--Dave
Steuard Jensen
> OK, but I like to have Steuards opinnion about this. He did put out
> some guidelines for the writers and one was to "Keep the story
> fairly mild". If he says this chapter is mild enough, then I guess
> there is no reason to demand a rewrite.
Well, I've been delayed in replying to this because I've been off
thinking long and hard about it (and talking to some concerned
parties, including Prembone). Here's my take on the situation:
1) I think that Prembone's chapter is consistent with the guidelines
that I set forth for the project. It _is_ considerably closer to
being tilde material than I would have gone, and I knew as I read
it that a number of readers (and contributors) would probably be
bothered by it to one degree or another. (In fact, that worry
detracted from my enjoyment on my first reading; once I'd managed
to separate the concerns about everyone else from my own reaction,
I enjoyed the chapter a good bit more.) I think this is about the
most sexual humor that I'd be able to accept in a chapter, but I
can accept it.
2) I've suggested a couple of minor modifications and clarifications
to Prembone, which she may or may not decide to use. I think that
if she made all of those changes, most people with negative
reactions to her chapter could even enjoy it. If, as seems more
likely, she only makes one or two modifications, then some people
will be a _bit_ happier, anyway. We can't please everyone, and I
do _not_ want to interfere with the style or content of individual
authors at all unless it's very necessary. (The one modification
that I do hope Prembone makes is something to make the nature of
the barrow wight scene clearer: some people have apparently seen it
as describing a rape instead of parodying every trashy romance
novel ever written; the latter was her intent.)
3) I think things will go smoother all around if future chapters come
less close to the line than this one does. Most significantly,
more people will enjoy the project as a whole if it remains closer
to "neutral ground" on sexual issues; I think that's a reasonably
important goal. However, I'm not changing the rules or the
standards: every volunteer must make their own decision on what to
write and how to write it. Yes, some people will object to some
chapters, but that's inevitable in a project like this. (Those
fond of sex-related humor have my permission to complain when
chapters don't contain enough innuendo for their taste. :) ) I
firmly believe that the final result will be most successful if
everyone writes what really feels best to them for each scene.
So, is that enough of an opinion for you? :) (Yikes! I didn't have
time for all that. You're all on your own for a couple of days while
I get this massive homework set done.)
Steuard Jensen
Jonas Thorell
>> Or if you don't want to read references to
>> sex, read Donald Duck.
>That's a bad example. Donald Duck doesn't have any
> pants.
I have a picture that says otherwise...but okay, Mickey Mouse
then...
/Jonas
Prembone
or...@webtv.net (David Sulger) wrote:
> Besides, we can simply explain the
discrepancy
> by saying that Tom didn't know what the hell he was talking about.
Or that with all of the distractions the boys didn't get a chance to
sample all of the available amenities. ;-)
You might be interested in knowing that originally I meant to take
Chapter 9, not 8, in which case TPP would have at least had "wenches,"
if not been a full-scale brothel. While Pippin flirted stupidly with a
couple of comely Hobbit lasses, I would have centered the conflict
around Frodo following a "come-hither" wench (who looks distinctly like
a "squint-eyed Southerner) into a back room, suddenly losing his nerve,
while the woman keeps grabbing for the Ring, trying to steal it from
him. I can't remember the details, since it was just an early musing in
my mind, but the irony is that the sexual humor would probably have
remained wholly hetero, in which case nobody would have said I was "too
tilde." Oh, well.
Something about best-laid plans comes to mind...
--
Prembone
The Prembone Pages: Humor, Opinion, Parody, Satire
http://prembone.tsx.org/
Prembone
jsol...@erols.com wrote:
> As was pointed out, it conveyed several powers, only the sexual ones
> of which seemed to make any impression on you.
They were the ones most relevant to the chapter at hand, as well as the
ones that kept recurring in previous chapters. But of course the other
references were safely heterosexual, so I guess that makes them all
right, hey.
> > If that bothers you, take it up with my
> > predecessors. Also, simply being sexual humor doesn't de facto make
> > it "puerile," "juvenile," or "smut."
>
> Rolling on the ground laughing, Ha-ha-Frodo-can't-do-it is so juvenile
> it's embarrassing.
You obviously missed the point (not surprising), which is that it was a
way to explain how Frodo could remain "wed to celibacy" and yet have
"adventures with Cassiopiea Took" that the Elves found "amusing." It
may console you to know that I myself would never, ever laugh at the
Erectilely Challenged.
> > Actually, the story ended up being funnier that way:
>
> I didn't think so, but I guess the important thing is that *you* were
> amused.
Now you're catching on.
> - Frodo gets buggered and likes it
He does? All we know is that some sort of sexual activity took place
between Frodo and the Barrow-wight. It may have been frottage, which I
will not further define as this is a nontilde thread, which was (so I'm
told) popular in Victorian England. This is, in fact, what I had in
mind, but the reader is certainly free to read into it whatever pleases
them personally.
> - The hobbits spend half the chapter naked.
Nudity in and of itself is not sexual, nor was it intended to be in the
case of the other three Hobbits. They simply lose their clothes, as
they do in Tolkien's original, and The Almighty Tolkien himself had them
running naked on the grass, so you can't (legitimately) complain about
THAT bit.
Frodo is the only one who actually had a "side adventure" with a
Barrow-wight. Apparently the BW stripped the other three and, finding
them not to his liking, temporarily made them unconscious, in a dream
state, while he sought out Frodo. The "queer dream" on Sam's part
simply meant queer in Tolkien's usage, i.e., "strange." The pun was on
Frodo's part.
Prembone
David Sulger <or...@webtv.net> wrote:
>That's a bad example. Donald Duck doesn't have
any
> pants.
Tsk. Disgusting. And people let their children see that smut?
Prembone
> That's the one you have to write for. If you start thinking
> "Let's see, what will my possible audience think of
> this" then you can drop the effort in writing it at all.
> It's not going to get good in anyones mind if you start
> censoring yourself.
My sentiments exactly, especially when it comes to parody and satire:
Everything's fair game.
>
> > - Frodo can't do it
> > - Frodo and Sam get vaguely queer
>
> I've seen accusations of that to the genuine Lord of the
> Rings as well. I don't know if it was Prembone's intention
> to tie that accussation into the parody though.
YES!!! Forgive me for shouting, but I *thought* it was obvious: I was
parodying the tired old rumors about Frodo and Sam, not to mention The
Almighty Tolkien's fondness for using the word "queer" in LOTR, at least
in the first book. (And don't get me started on the rumors I've read
about Tolkien himself...) Anyway, I was SATIRIZING the F/S gay thing,
folks. Lampooning. Having fun with it. Making light of it. Etcetera.
It has nothing to do with religion or morals, and everything to do with
parodying a common motif in Tolkien fandom.
> > - The hobbits spend half the chapter naked.
>
> Outside the barrow-wights home, yes. They were naked
> in the original there too.
And as I pointed out in my own reply to Flame, no sexual activity was
implied or intended vis-a-vis the other three. They were simply
stripped, as in the original -- unless you count "flimsy rags" as being
properly covered, and Bombadil soon divested them of those, anyway.
> One ring to dangle there and in the darkness your partner will say
"What the
> bloody hell was that"
I'm not sure if I should laugh or say "ouch"....
Morgil
Thank you for clearing the situation. Your words were wise,
and I hope that people will take them under consideration.
There will be no more complaining from me(for a while),
and hopefully Prembone will forgive me as time goes by.
However, since I´m getting involved in the project this way,
I think it would be proper that I should have to write a chapter
also, so that everybody could criticize me in turn. English is
not my first, and not even second language, but I think I could
manage. I hope you will see me worthy of this task.
Yours,
Morgil
Jonas Thorell
> > That's the one you have to write for. If you start thinking
> > "Let's see, what will my possible audience think of
> > this" then you can drop the effort in writing it at all.
> > It's not going to get good in anyones mind if you start
> > censoring yourself.
> My sentiments exactly, especially when it comes to parody and satire:
> Everything's fair game.
I'm not sure I agree that it is especially true with regards to
parody and satire but then again, I'm not good at writing
that sort of thing unfortunately. It would probably end
up as a parody of parody if I tried...
> > > - Frodo and Sam get vaguely queer
> > I've seen accusations of that to the genuine Lord of the
> > Rings as well. I don't know if it was Prembone's intention
> > to tie that accussation into the parody though.
> YES!!! Forgive me for shouting, but I *thought* it was obvious:
It was for me but didn't want to put words in your mouth.
> > One ring to dangle there and in the darkness your partner will say
>> "What the bloody hell was that"
> I'm not sure if I should laugh or say "ouch"....
If you're into S & M, why not both...
/Jonas
the softrat
Given the heat and misunderstanding you have spawned in your
production of Chapter 8 of the LotR E-Text, I think you should review
your plans for publishing anything you have written. It is fine to
write for your own pleasure, however if you write for others, remember
that communication is one of the main goals, not "Look, Daddy, what I
have done!" You have manifestly failed to communicate. You have to
expend a great deal of energy to defend what you have written and why.
If you are sure of your artistic accomplishments, they should not need
shrill defense. Ignore the critics. You certainly aren't enlightening
them as all this discussion demonstrates. Why waste our time and your
time this way?
You, of course, have the right to publish whatever you please. You
also have the right to never bathe. Is this the only way you can get
attention: by being a roaring pain-in-the-ass? Why admit that
publicly?
Now you may think that I should not talk. However I do get both public
and private support for what I write, here and other places, and the
preponderance of the comments are positive. I should say at least two
thirds. In any case, I am not planning to publish anything at this
time.
Your opponent,
the softrat
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
A conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking.
(Arthur Bloch)
David Sulger
>You might be interested in knowing that
>originally I meant to take Chapter 9, not
>8, in which case TPP would have at least
>had "wenches," if not been a full-scale
>brothel. While Pippin flirted stupidly with
>a couple of comely Hobbit lasses,
Yeah, but I got my initial inspiration for 9 as soon as I read the first
chapter. Upon reading Bilbo's stunt at the end of the speech, I knew
what Pippin "had" to do at the inn, which appears in my chapter. That's
why I volunteered for it so quickly.
--Dave
David Sulger
>It may have been frottage, which I will
>not further define as this is a nontilde
>thread, which was (so I'm told) popular in
>Victorian England.
They must have been even more repressed than I thought to enjoy
something like that.
--Dave
Flame of the West
> I can't remember the details, since it was just an early musing in
> my mind, but the irony is that the sexual humor would probably have
> remained wholly hetero, in which case nobody would have said I was "too
> tilde." Oh, well.
As it is, you might want to rename Chapter 8
"Fag on the Barrow-downs." ;-)
Flame of the West
> > Rolling on the ground laughing, Ha-ha-Frodo-can't-do-it is so juvenile
> > it's embarrassing.
>
> If so, much fiction (movies and books alike) is juvenile. Not
> necessarily exactly like that. Sign of the times perhaps.
True, alas.
> > - Frodo can't do it
> > - Frodo and Sam get vaguely queer
>
> I've seen accusations of that to the genuine Lord of the
> Rings as well.
Only by untutored fools who know nothing about JRR Tolkien.
I've never seen such nonsense here and I daresay I never will.
> > - The hobbits spend half the chapter naked.
>
> Outside the barrow-wights home, yes. They were naked
> in the original there too.
For maybe half a page, with no one dwelling on it.
> Then what's your problem? That one jokes about sex?
> Nothing is too sacred to joke about IMHO.
The problem is that locker-room humor isn't even funny.
At lease not if you've matured beyond the level of
Beavis and Butt-Head.
> Or if you
> don't want to read references to sex, read Donald Duck.
Or LotR maybe?
> Ah, that's the problem. Everyone must have your humour otherwise
> it's juvenile junior-high humour and not humour at all?
Exactly backwards. It's not stupid because I dislike it,
rather I dislike it because it's stupid.
Creole
of us. We drive you insane, but we appreciate you at the same time. :)
Creole
Prembone
"Jonas Thorell" <jon...@bahnhof.se> wrote:
> It would probably end
> up as a parody of parody if I tried...
Could be interesting. Don't censor yourself. ;-) Give it a try.
> > YES!!! Forgive me for shouting, but I *thought* it was obvious:
>
> It was for me but didn't want to put words in your mouth.
Among other things. (Bad, wicked, naughty Prem!)
> > > One ring to dangle there and in the darkness your partner will say
> >> "What the bloody hell was that"
>
> > I'm not sure if I should laugh or say "ouch"....
>
> If you're into S & M, why not both...
I'm not, so I'll say "pass" instead and go out in search of some lightly
scented massage oil...
Jonas Thorell
> > It would probably end
> > up as a parody of parody if I tried...
> Could be interesting. Don't censor yourself. ;-) Give it a try.
Actually, I have given that a thought but I have as yet to decide
which chapter to trash...It should be "The voice of Saruman"
then but that is some time into the future...Steuard, are you
reading this? Or "The cracks of doom" perhaps...
> > > YES!!! Forgive me for shouting, but I *thought* it was obvious:
> > It was for me but didn't want to put words in your mouth.
> Among other things. (Bad, wicked, naughty Prem!)
Where's that tilde when you need it...
> > If you're into S & M, why not both...
> I'm not, so I'll say "pass" instead and go out in search of some lightly
> scented massage oil...
Could go well together with these nice pair of handcuffs and a nice
leather-outfit...
/Jonas
Jonas Thorell
> Given the heat and misunderstanding you have spawned in your
> production of Chapter 8 of the LotR E-Text, I think you should review
> your plans for publishing anything you have written.
Why should she? If she finds it suitable for publishing that's enough
(if she can persuade a publisher to it that is). Not having read
any of her works other than this chapter I'm not really in position to
judge either way.
The only heat and misunderstanding I've seen regarding her
chapter comes from you and Flame Of the West. Two persons, not
counting the lurkers and the posts that I've not seen (I had to hunt down
chapter 9 on Deja News. It still hasn't shown up here).
>It is fine to
> write for your own pleasure, however if you write for others, remember
> that communication is one of the main goals, not "Look, Daddy, what I
> have done!" You have manifestly failed to communicate. You have to
> expend a great deal of energy to defend what you have written and why.
Because of some prude holier-than-though busy-bodies, that's why.
Reminds me of a comment by a Eminem (a rap-musician for those
who don't know) in a interview a couple of months ago. He complained
about Britney Spears not wearing a bra...give me a break!. If you have
nothing more to complain about than a singer not wearing a bra or sexual
content in a parody WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU? Sorry for shouting but
there must be more pressing things to complain about. What about
wars, dictators, environmental needs, drug abuse, diseases
and poverty to start with?
> If you are sure of your artistic accomplishments, they should not need
> shrill defense. Ignore the critics. You certainly aren't enlightening
> them as all this discussion demonstrates. Why waste our time and your
> time this way?
What would you feel like if your work was being trashed by people
that hasn't even understood it?
> Now you may think that I should not talk. However I do get both public
> and private support for what I write, here and other places, and the
> preponderance of the comments are positive.
I can't comment on the private part but...there have been a few
comments about Prembone's chapter and I for one wouldn't
say that her chapter has only received negative support in
public. On the contrary, in fact.
>I should say at least two thirds. In any case, I am not planning to publish
>anything at this time.
I think you have missed something crucial when it comes to the creative
process. Whether you publish something or not is irrelevant. All the people
I know that in one way or the other is creative (be it in writing novels,
poetry, music or whatever) do it _for their own sake_. Their outmust goal
is not to be published. Their reward lies in the creation for its own sake.
If someone else finds it good, that's just a bonus. If you write something
just to make some easy money you're bound to be disappointed and
disillusioned. There are very few writers that can live of it so they must
be doing it for some other reason. And that reason is in most cases
because _they love doing it_.
/Jonas
Eruadan
or...@webtv.net (David Sulger) wrote:
> They must have been even more repressed than I thought to enjoy
> something like that.
That one actually sent me to the dictionary. And I thought I was
fairly well educated... And I was expecting something rather
wicked from it... ;)
Eruadan
--
<*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*>
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, because to them
you are small, insignificant, and taste good with ketchup
smokyb...@my-deja.com
jsol...@erols.com wrote:
> Prembone wrote:
>
> > I can't remember the details, since it was just an early musing in
> > my mind, but the irony is that the sexual humor would probably have
> > remained wholly hetero, in which case nobody would have said I
was "too
> > tilde." Oh, well.
>
> As it is, you might want to rename Chapter 8
> "Fag on the Barrow-downs." ;-)
>
"F*ck on the Barrow Downs"
;)
Flame of the West
> Bad, wicked, naughty Prem!
She must be punished, and here in the Castle RABT
there is but one punishment...
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
Yeah, but I got my initial inspiration for 9 as soon as I read the first
chapter. Upon reading Bilbo's stunt at the end of the speech, I knew
what Pippin "had" to do at the inn, which appears in my chapter. That's
why I volunteered for it so quickly.
I am glad you did. That was pure genius!
Öjevind
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
>
>Because of some prude holier-than-though busy-bodies, that's why.
>Reminds me of a comment by a Eminem (a rap-musician for those
>who don't know) in a interview a couple of months ago. He complained
>about Britney Spears not wearing a bra...give me a break!. If you have
>nothing more to complain about than a singer not wearing a bra or sexual
>content in a parody WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU? Sorry for shouting but
>there must be more pressing things to complain about. What about
>wars, dictators, environmental needs, drug abuse, diseases
>and poverty to start with?
People have no right to dislike a piece of writing because there are
pollution, disease and poverty in this world? And how did Britney Spears or
her breasts get involved in this? Simmer down, for Heavens sake!
Öjevind
the softrat
wrote:
>I think you have missed something crucial when it comes to the creative
>process. Whether you publish something or not is irrelevant. All the people
>I know that in one way or the other is creative (be it in writing novels,
>poetry, music or whatever) do it _for their own sake_. Their outmust goal
>is not to be published. Their reward lies in the creation for its own sake.
>If someone else finds it good, that's just a bonus. If you write something
>just to make some easy money you're bound to be disappointed and
>disillusioned. There are very few writers that can live of it so they must
>be doing it for some other reason. And that reason is in most cases
>because _they love doing it_.
Jonas, most of the 'creative' people I have known have had no talents,
no taste, and no ability. The lack of these rather essential
attributes has not stopped them from producing their produce and then
whining when no one paid any attention until they had made a lot of
noise. Meanwhile they talked caustically about the people who didn't
'appreciate' their work. They wanted to make money, sure, but their
greatest need was to be noticed and thought brilliant. My, did they
cry when it just didn't 'happen'. Some of these people were so
desperate that they became 'performance artists'. "Here! Think me
great or I'll rub your face in it!" I prefer the Tolkien model:
humble, surprised, and honored when people *did* appreciate their
creative work.
It was impossible to tell if these people 'loved' what they did. They
bitched and complained about *everything*. When it finally got through
to some of them that the world was *not* going to pay attention, they
did not continue doing 'what they loved'. They just dropped out and
became full-time dopers or alkys or head-shop clerks. None of them
ever rose out of the herd.
I do not want you to think that I have just described every 'creative'
person I have known. Far from it. But the people I have not described
don't deserve the quotation marks either. Most of them *did* appear to
love what they did. They loved it so much that they did not take
valuable time away from it to defend themselves against criticism. Of
course most of them really didn't have to either. And most of them
acknowledged that there was more than one viewpoint and that they did
*not* want to force their creations upon anyone. Actually they wanted
to share their creations only with people who *enjoyed* them as they
did. And they were very appreciative of such people.
the softrat
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
"There's no such thing as an innocent user" (Dark Avenger, in a
Wired interview)
Jonas Thorell
You're misunderstanding me. If I wasn't clear, sorry. Sure they can
dislike a piece of writing anyway but that wasn't the point. The point
is: why get so bloody upset about explicit sex and/or innuendo to
it in a novel or parody or whatever when there are much more urgent
things to get upset up? If sex is described somewhere it won't change
much for anyone. War will (not the writing of it of course). And as for the
book in question, Lord of the Rings and the parody...Wrong to write about
sex but the descriptions on how people gets slaughtered in large amounts is
okay? Some sick logic there that I simply just don't understand.
As for Britney Spears...maybe a bad example but it was supposed to show
the same double-standard. People singing of gang wars and drugdealings
should IMHO be very careful about who they accuse of "sending the wrong
message". Let them sing and write about whatever they want and dress
themselves however they want (both artists mentioned).
And I don't believe in fairy-tales about Heaven.
/Jonas
Jonas Thorell
> > > - Frodo and Sam get vaguely queer
> > I've seen accusations of that to the genuine Lord of the
> > Rings as well.
> Only by untutored fools who know nothing about JRR Tolkien.
> I've never seen such nonsense here and I daresay I never will.
Then you haven't had your eyes opened. Even if it hadn't been
mentioned here, does that matter? It can be used successfully
in parody anyway.
> > Outside the barrow-wights home, yes. They were naked
> > in the original there too.
> For maybe half a page, with no one dwelling on it.
You don't think that the reason you think Prembone's
rendition of the same chapter includes too much
nudity is because it's much shorter? The original is
some 15-20 pages approximately. Hers is one or
two.
> > Or if you
> > don't want to read references to sex, read Donald Duck.
> Or LotR maybe?
Oh no. There's sex in LotR. Much more subtle but it is there.
Certainly more than in Donald Duck. Point is, there's sex in
just about every piece of litterature ever written.
> Exactly backwards. It's not stupid because I dislike it,
> rather I dislike it because it's stupid.
What was first: the chicken or the egg?
/Jonas
Jonas Thorell
> Jonas, most of the 'creative' people I have known have had no talents,
> no taste, and no ability.
Certainly. Those types exists too and is probably the most common
one.
> great or I'll rub your face in it!" I prefer the Tolkien model:
> humble, surprised, and honored when people *did* appreciate their
> creative work.
Agreed.
> bitched and complained about *everything*. When it finally got through
> to some of them that the world was *not* going to pay attention, they
> did not continue doing 'what they loved'. They just dropped out and
> became full-time dopers or alkys or head-shop clerks. None of them
> ever rose out of the herd.
In my view, those people were in it for the wrong reason. I'm not the
greatest writer that ever lived to put it mildly but at least I know that.
I still write though but admitedly not as much as I used to due to
limited time. That it isn't good enough to be pusblished doesn't bother
me one iota.
> I do not want you to think that I have just described every 'creative'
> person I have known. Far from it. But the people I have not described
> don't deserve the quotation marks either.
Exactly.
>Most of them *did* appear to
> love what they did. They loved it so much that they did not take
> valuable time away from it to defend themselves against criticism.
Exactly what is wrong with defending oneself against criticism?
If nothing else it can give you valuable insight. Maybe it wasn't
as good as I thought and it could be better if I do as my
"opponent" thinks. Of course, that requires that you are not
too proud to change your mind about it.
>Of
> course most of them really didn't have to either. And most of them
> acknowledged that there was more than one viewpoint and that they did
> *not* want to force their creations upon anyone.
Who has said anything about forcing anyone? Considering that it
still revolves around Prembones chapter: if you don't like it then don't
read it. Very simple.
> "There's no such thing as an innocent user" (Dark Avenger, in a
> Wired interview)
Exactly...
/Jonas
Prembone
> > As it is, you might want to rename Chapter 8
> > "Fag on the Barrow-downs." ;-)
> >
> Or
>
> "F*ck on the Barrow Downs"
>
> ;)
Oh, hey, yeah, with that title, nobody will ever guess that it isn't the
real e-text. ;-)
--
Prembone
The Prembone Pages: Humor, Opinion, Parody, Satire
http://prembone.tsx.org/
Flame of the West
> > Only by untutored fools who know nothing about JRR Tolkien.
> > I've never seen such nonsense here and I daresay I never will.
>
> Then you haven't had your eyes opened. Even if it hadn't been
> mentioned here, does that matter? It can be used successfully
> in parody anyway.
Why parody something that no one asserts?
> Oh no. There's sex in LotR. Much more subtle but it is there.
That's the way (uh-huh-uh-huh) I like it (uh-huh-uh-huh).
Flame of the West
> > People have no right to dislike a piece of writing because there are
> > pollution, disease and poverty in this world? And how did Britney Spears
> > or her breasts get involved in this? Simmer down, for Heavens sake!
>
> You're misunderstanding me. If I wasn't clear, sorry. Sure they can
> dislike a piece of writing anyway but that wasn't the point. The point
> is: why get so bloody upset about explicit sex and/or innuendo to
> it in a novel or parody or whatever when there are much more urgent
> things to get upset up?
I don't think Öje is misunderstanding you at all. That was the same
point he was replying to.
> Wrong to write about
> sex but the descriptions on how people gets slaughtered in large amounts is
> okay? Some sick logic there that I simply just don't understand.
OK, try and follow this. Writing about love is to writing about sex, as
writing about war is to writing about injury and death in full and
explicit detail. Tolkien writes about love and war, but doesn't pummel
us with explicit sex or explicit injury scenes. Now do you understand?
> And I don't believe in fairy-tales about Heaven.
Me neither. I prefer the hard facts about Heaven.
Flame of the West
> If you are sure of your artistic accomplishments, they should not need
> shrill defense. Ignore the critics. You certainly aren't enlightening
> them as all this discussion demonstrates. Why waste our time and your
> time this way?
I get the impression that Prembone enjoys talking about
the creative process. Nothing wrong with that.
Flame of the West
>
> the softrat wrote:
>
> The only heat and misunderstanding I've seen regarding her
> chapter comes from you and Flame Of the West.
Yo softrat, welcome to the Land of Right-Wing Prudes!
> Because of some prude holier-than-though busy-bodies, that's why.
> Reminds me of a comment by a Eminem (a rap-musician for those
> who don't know) in a interview a couple of months ago. He complained
> about Britney Spears not wearing a bra...give me a break!.
And you wonder why we get off-topic so often.
> If you have
> nothing more to complain about than a singer not wearing a bra or sexual
> content in a parody WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU? Sorry for shouting but
> there must be more pressing things to complain about. What about
> wars, dictators, environmental needs, drug abuse, diseases
> and poverty to start with?
But I'm IN FAVOR of all those things! (Including Britney Spears not
wearing a bra.)
David Sulger
>you've as much right as the rest of us to
>waste Usenet bandwidth.
And that's a right I enjoy exercising.
--Dave
Conrad Dunkerson
news:nCbX4.3$nS2....@dummy.bahnhof.se...
> What was first: the chicken or the egg?
The egg.
It just wasn't a 'chicken' egg until the thing hatching out of it
had evolved into a chicken.
Prembone
jsol...@erols.com wrote:
> Jonas Thorell wrote:
>
> > > Only by untutored fools who know nothing about JRR Tolkien.
> > > I've never seen such nonsense here and I daresay I never will.
> >
> > Then you haven't had your eyes opened. Even if it hadn't been
> > mentioned here, does that matter? It can be used successfully
> > in parody anyway.
>
> Why parody something that no one asserts?
Where the hell have YOU been, Flame? ;-) If I had a dime for every
time someone asserted (especially on the internet) that Frodo and Sam
were you-know-what, I could quit my corporate job and spend my days
lounging in coffeehouses.
Prembone
--
"Clearly the person who accepts the Church as an infallible guide
will believe whatever the Church teaches." -- Thomas Aquinas
"There's a sucker born every minute." -- P. T. Barnum
Prembone
>
> >It may have been frottage, which I will
> >not further define as this is a nontilde
> >thread, which was (so I'm told) popular in
> >Victorian England.
>
> something like that.
Whatever gets you where you want to go. ;-)
Prem
Prembone
the softrat <sof...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Madam Prembone,
Mighty polite for someone who labels himself my opponent. ;-)
> Given the heat and misunderstanding you have spawned
I myself did not "spawn" them. They were the reactions of the
individuals in question to what I wrote, generated by themselves.
> in your
> production of Chapter 8 of the LotR E-Text, I think you should review
> your plans for publishing anything you have written.
Are you out of your ever-lovin' (or hatin', as the case may be) mind???
I wrote; they responded, for good and for ill. I stimulated controversy,
discussion, debate, not to mention more than a little laughter in those
who *did* understand and appreciate the chapter. That's nothing to
worry about; on the contrary. If writing elicits mass ignoring, THEN
it's time to worry.
> It is fine to
> write for your own pleasure, however if you write for others, remember
> that communication is one of the main goals
I'm quite aware of this. I am also aware that communication depends as
much upon the perception and interpretation and background assumptions
(worldview) of the reader as it does upon the skill of the writer. When
misinterpretations and misunderstandings arise, as inevitably they will,
I like to deal with them by discussing and arguing them into the ground,
until (hopefully) mutual understanding, even if not agreement, is
attained.
Even the best writing is still subject to misunderstanding. Look how
many different interpretations of LOTR arise on this group. Can you say
"Balrog Wings"?
> Ignore the critics.
If I think they're not worth my time, trust me, I do. But Flame
(however much I might disagree with his worldview) has a brain, and I
figure that a clarification or two is not wasted upon him. It never
hurts to try.
> You certainly aren't enlightening
> them as all this discussion demonstrates.
It only demonstrates the dialectic of communication. ;-)
> Why waste our time and your time this way?
Why waste anyone's time and bandwidth arguing about the writings of a
guy who's been dead for almost three decades and therefore can't give us
any definitive, authorial answers to our questions?
> You, of course, have the right to publish whatever you please. You
> also have the right to never bathe.
OK, there's a logical fallacy in there, somewhere, but I'll let it pass.
(In case anyone wants to know, I *do* bathe, daily.)
> Is this the only way you can get
> attention: by being a roaring pain-in-the-ass?
No, I just wrote a little story, and some of these people insisted on
arguing about it. Who am I to argue? ;-)
> Now you may think that I should not talk.
Nah. I don't always agree with you, but you've as much right as the
rest of us to waste Usenet bandwidth.
> However I do get both public
> and private support for what I write, here and other places, and the
> preponderance of the comments are positive.
So do I, on both counts, shocking and strange as you might find that.
The negative ones just have a way of being more....memorable. And the
things I've been told in private about the criticisms of my Chapter 8
are probably best left unspoken, in the interest of keeping the peace on
this group.
> I should say at least two thirds.
Which leaves the other one third that is *not* positive. So how does
that make you different from the rest of us mere mortals? ;-)
> In any case, I am not planning to publish anything at this
> time.
I'll be sure to warn you when my own book is published, so you know not
to bother buying it.
> Your opponent,
I really wish you'd reconsider that. Think I'm an idiot, think I'm a
fool, but let's at least agree to disagree and keep the peace, and not
forget that in real life we're both ordinary human beings (well, maybe
I'm a *bit* extraordinary) who laugh, cry, eat, sleep, live, love, work,
play, and are very sympathetically vulnerable when the latest round of
the Bywater Blasts comes our way.
Prembone
(realizing my new sig quotes might contradict the above idealism, but
inconsistency is part of the glory of being Human...)
Prembone
jsol...@erols.com wrote:
> the softrat wrote:
>
> > If you are sure of your artistic accomplishments, they should not
need
enlightening
> > them as all this discussion demonstrates. Why waste our time and
your
> > time this way?
>
> I get the impression that Prembone enjoys talking about
> the creative process.
Alas, 'tis true. Just ask the members of the preview group for my
novel. ;-) ...which, BTW, is as excellent a demonstration of "different
people bring different perceptions and interpretations to the same text"
as you will ever hope to find.
> Nothing wrong with that.
Not at all. It's part of the Creative Process.
> Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-Earth.
I have my own spin on this, but I figure my present sig quotes are
provocative enough, so I'll go easy on ya. ;-)
Prembone
Prembone
>
> Me neither. I prefer the hard facts about Heaven.
As soon as someone finds some, they'll send them your way. ;-)
Prembone
jsol...@erols.com wrote:
> But I'm IN FAVOR of all those things! (Including Britney Spears not
> wearing a bra.)
And if you decide you want to be REINCARNATED as a bra, you've just
qualified yourself to run for Governor of Minnesota!!!
Prembone
...but the offer only stands if you specifically want to be a 38DD
bra.
Jonas Thorell
> > Then you haven't had your eyes opened. Even if it hadn't been
> > mentioned here, does that matter? It can be used successfully
> > in parody anyway.
> Why parody something that no one asserts?
If it comes up in Tolkien discussions now and then (here or
otherwise) I think it has merit to parody it. I'm not
saying Prembone's way of doing it was the best or worst
but it is one way of accomplishing it.
> > Oh no. There's sex in LotR. Much more subtle but it is there.
> That's the way (uh-huh-uh-huh) I like it (uh-huh-uh-huh).
I've seen doorposts making better Beavis and Butthead
impersonations.
And don't try to tell me that there is no sex in Tolkien's work.
Comparing the sex in his own stories to the sex in Prembones
version is like comparing night and day but it is there. Or
maybe I should say: it is there if you want to read it that way.
Not explicit mind you but neither was Prembone's.
/Jonas
Jonas Thorell
> > You're misunderstanding me. If I wasn't clear, sorry. Sure they can
> > dislike a piece of writing anyway but that wasn't the point. The point
> > is: why get so bloody upset about explicit sex and/or innuendo to
> > it in a novel or parody or whatever when there are much more urgent
> > things to get upset up?
> I don't think Öje is misunderstanding you at all. That was the same
> point he was replying to.
Maybe I was the one misunderstanding then. I still don't understand
why Prembone's chapter is bringing out so much debate over
something as natural as sex though. It is after all something almost
everyone sooner or later takes part in
> > Wrong to write about sex but the descriptions on how people gets
> >slaughtered in large amounts is okay? Some sick logic there that I simply
> >just don't understand.
> OK, try and follow this. Writing about love is to writing about sex, as
> writing about war is to writing about injury and death in full and
> explicit detail. Tolkien writes about love and war, but doesn't pummel
> us with explicit sex or explicit injury scenes. Now do you understand?
He doesn't pummel us with explicit sex, no. Explict injury scenes,
yes he does. Frodo lost one finger, Beren lost a hand, Gandalf got
scorched in fire, Sauron lost a finger, Frodo got stabbed by a
nazgul knife, Hama's body was hewn, Saruman got knifed to
death, heads were being flung into Minas Tirith, Ents went up
in fire, one of Feanors sons (don't remember which one at
the moment) got his hand pierced by an arrow.
Do you need more examples?
And as for explicit sex...as if Prembone's chapter was
that. Far from it. As far as sexual content goes it was
pretty tame. I've seen more explicit descriptions of
sex in the average sex-column in newspapers and
magazines (magazines directed at teenagers no less).
> > And I don't believe in fairy-tales about Heaven.
> Me neither. I prefer the hard facts about Heaven.
Agreed. The fact that it doesn't exist.
/Jonas
Jonas Thorell
> > What was first: the chicken or the egg?
> The egg.
> It just wasn't a 'chicken' egg until the thing hatching out of it
> had evolved into a chicken.
The evolution on over-drive or what...did the thing hatching
evolve into a chicken while in the egg...
/Jonas
Jonas Thorell
> And you wonder why we get off-topic so often.
No. I wonder more about the fact that we do it so
seldom. Most things regarding Tolkien's work
must have been discussed over and over countless
of times by now. Probably one of the reason why
this e-text project got started in the first place
(apart from it being fun).
> > If you have
> > nothing more to complain about than a singer not wearing a bra or sexual
> > content in a parody WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU? Sorry for shouting but
> > there must be more pressing things to complain about. What about
> > wars, dictators, environmental needs, drug abuse, diseases
> > and poverty to start with?
> But I'm IN FAVOR of all those things! (Including Britney Spears not
> wearing a bra.)
You're in favor of people getting killed in wars, dictators oppressing their
subjects, that people gets addicted to drugs and diseases killing of
people? Let's just say that I disagree strongly...but I am in favour
of people getting laid if that's what they want (which it probably is).
But if you are in favour of all these things: why complain about the
sexual content in Prembone's chapter?
/Jonas
Steuard Jensen
> He dows? All we know is that some sort of sexual activity took place
> between Frodo and the Barrow-wight. It may have been frottage,
> which I will not further define as this is a nontilde thread, which
> what I had in mind, but the reader is certainly free to read into it
> whatever pleases them personally.
frot*tage \fro-'tazh\ n [F, fr. _frotter_ to rub] (1935): the
technique of creating a design by rubbing (as with a pencil) over an
object placed underneath the paper; _also_, a composition so made.
Sounds uncomfortable! :)
Steuard "Why, what do you mean my dictionary is incomplete?" Jensen
Masked Man
wrote:
|> Me neither. I prefer the hard facts about Heaven.
|
|Agreed. The fact that it doesn't exist.
Masked Man------>I'll give you half a loaf: if you believe truly it
doesn't exist, for you it doesn't exist, because it cannot. The good
news is that for those who believe it exists, it must exist.
--
Who was that masked man?
Jonas Thorell
> |> Me neither. I prefer the hard facts about Heaven.
> |Agreed. The fact that it doesn't exist.
> Masked Man------>I'll give you half a loaf: if you believe truly it
> doesn't exist, for you it doesn't exist, because it cannot. The good
> news is that for those who believe it exists, it must exist.
Now you've lost me. I'm afraid I don't understand whether
I believe in heaven or not makes any difference to its
existance. Valinor isn't going to be any more real if I suddenly
should believe it really does.
Either it exists or it doesn't and if it doesn't exist it doesn't matter
how many that believes otherwise. It still doesn't exist.
/Jonas
Raven
news:8gkld8$8db$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> And if you decide you want to be REINCARNATED as a bra, you've just
> qualified yourself to run for Governor of Minnesota!!!
I certainly would not! Imagine, if as a straight woman you can:
clinging to a pair of breasts, and then being torn off by some *other*
man, watching *him* do the shagging!
Now you can also guess why I, single, don't watch porn. :-)
Korppi.
Flame of the West
> Alas, 'tis true. Just ask the members of the preview group for my
> novel. ;-) ...which, BTW, is as excellent a demonstration of "different
> people bring different perceptions and interpretations to the same text"
> as you will ever hope to find.
Perhaps, just as an experiment, you could work the Gandalf vs.
Balrog paragraph into your next chapter, and see how many
of them conclude that Balrogs really do have wings. ;-)
--
-- FotW
Flame of the West
> > > And I don't believe in fairy-tales about Heaven.
>
> > Me neither. I prefer the hard facts about Heaven.
>
> Agreed. The fact that it doesn't exist.
Oops. With an attitude like that, you'd best worry
about whether *Hell* exists.
Flame of the West
> He doesn't pummel us with explicit sex, no. Explict injury scenes,
> yes he does. Frodo lost one finger, Beren lost a hand, Gandalf got
> scorched in fire, Sauron lost a finger, Frodo got stabbed by a
> nazgul knife, Hama's body was hewn, Saruman got knifed to
> death, heads were being flung into Minas Tirith, Ents went up
> in fire, one of Feanors sons (don't remember which one at
> the moment) got his hand pierced by an arrow.
But none of them had horror-movie explicitness, of the
blood flowing out, etc.
> And as for explicit sex...as if Prembone's chapter was
> that. Far from it. As far as sexual content goes it was
> pretty tame. I've seen more explicit descriptions of
> sex in the average sex-column in newspapers and
> magazines (magazines directed at teenagers no less).
I know that, and indeed I think Prembone thought she
was being tame. But not everyone inbibes of our
modern sex-drenched popular culture. Saying that
it wasn't up to Cosmo level doesn't mean it meets
many people's standards of delicacy.
Flame of the West
> What was first: the chicken or the egg?
Which came first: the balrog or the wing?
Flame of the West
> > What was first: the chicken or the egg?
>
> The egg.
>
> It just wasn't a 'chicken' egg until the thing hatching out of it
> had evolved into a chicken.
Not to start yet another argument, but I've heard it
asserted that the chicken came first because the
creation of birds was in Genesis.
So I guess your answer to the question depends on
whether you're an evolutionist or a creationist.
Flame of the West
> > That's the way (uh-huh-uh-huh) I like it (uh-huh-uh-huh).
>
> I've seen doorposts making better Beavis and Butthead
> impersonations.
"That's the way I like it", KC and the Sunshine Band, 1976.
Flame of the West
> And if you decide you want to be REINCARNATED as a bra, you've just
> qualified yourself to run for Governor of Minnesota!!!
I think he ought to be reincarnated as a seat cushion, given
that he's spending THIS life as an ass. ;-)
> "Clearly the person who accepts the Church as an infallible guide
> will believe whatever the Church teaches." -- Thomas Aquinas
>
> "There's a sucker born every minute." -- P. T. Barnum
I agree with *both* these sentiments, although I don't
connect them the way I suspect you do.
Flame of the West
> > But I'm IN FAVOR of all those things! (Including Britney Spears not
> > wearing a bra.)
>
> You're in favor of people getting killed in wars, dictators oppressing their
> subjects, that people gets addicted to drugs and diseases killing of
> people?
Just kidding, of course.
Jonas Thorell
> > Agreed. The fact that it doesn't exist.
> Oops. With an attitude like that, you'd best worry
> about whether *Hell* exists.
That I'm most certainly not worried about. Satan
and hell are just scaremongering to get people
to be true to God.
God is supposed to be full or mercy, right? Why
should he then deny anyone entry into heaven
because they made some bad choices during
their lifetime? If he does deny people that then he isn't the
kind of God whose heaven I would want to get into
anyway. Okay, he doesn't show much of his
supposed good sides either.
Only lots of rules and no mercy.
Spending the rest of eternity with a senile God that
doesn't even have the ability to forgive? No thanks.
And in defense of Satan: we haven't heard his side
of the story. Only Gods and as we know, the winner
writes the history. Maybe God is the evil one?
/Jonas
Jonas Thorell
> > What was first: the chicken or the egg?
> Which came first: the balrog or the wing?
A moot point since the Balrog didn't have wings.
/Jonas
Jonas Thorell
> But none of them had horror-movie explicitness, of the
> blood flowing out, etc.
That depends on what you think explicit is. No, he
doesn't describe the blood flowing out but it can
be disturbing to certain people anyway. It doesn't
have to show blood to be scary. Look at the
Blair-witch. It builds up a scary atmosphere without
it. Psycho is another example of that.
> > And as for explicit sex...as if Prembone's chapter was
> > that. Far from it. As far as sexual content goes it was
> > pretty tame. I've seen more explicit descriptions of
> > sex in the average sex-column in newspapers and
> > magazines (magazines directed at teenagers no less).
> I know that, and indeed I think Prembone thought she
> was being tame.
She was. There was practically no sex in it. Just hints
to it. All relative of course. Compare it with the
other chapters in the e-text project and it's a lot
of it. Not otherwise.
>But not everyone inbibes of our
> modern sex-drenched popular culture. Saying that
> it wasn't up to Cosmo level doesn't mean it meets
> many people's standards of delicacy.
Maybe not but if one takes offense by this text then you
get offended pretty easily if I may say so. There are many
books, movies and songs that would be more offensive
with regards to sex. Just about everyone in fact. No,
that was exaggerating but if you're an average movie-watcher,
average book-reader and an average music-listener you're bound
to get a lot more sex descriptions (more explict and less) than this
text every day.
You may not like that but it does puts this silly discussion into
perspective.
/Jonas
Raven
newse:395fe97e....@news.mindspring.com...
> |> Me neither. I prefer the hard facts about Heaven.
> |Agreed. The fact that it doesn't exist.
> Masked Man------>I'll give you half a loaf: if you believe truly it
> doesn't exist, for you it doesn't exist, because it cannot. The good
> news is that for those who believe it exists, it must exist.
Sorry, but I can't resist: does this principle hold also for the
belief in gravity? If I choose not to believe in it, can I walk off
tall buildings and come to no harm?
Kirina.
Masked Man
wrote:
|Either it exists or it doesn't and if it doesn't exist it doesn't matter
|how many that believes otherwise. It still doesn't exist.
Masked Man----->Well, I meant that only those who believe in heaven
will ever actually see those beliefs realized. And, not all of those.
Those who do not believe in heaven are certain to receive an
altogether different eternal destiny.
Steuard Jensen
> Jonas Thorell wrote:
[Flame wrote:]
> > > Me neither. I prefer the hard facts about Heaven.
> > Agreed. The fact that it doesn't exist.
> Oops. With an attitude like that, you'd best worry
> about whether *Hell* exists.
I hate posting to religious arguments, but this one always bothers
me. More than anything else, my top priority in life is to do only
"good" things (or at least, not to do "evil" ones). (I'm putting
"good" in quotes, because I don't want to get into a discussion of the
philosophical basis for morality just now.) I think that I've been
reasonably successful thus far (though not universally so, sadly). I
like to think that I've led a good life, and that I've contributed
something positive to the world thus far.
I also have not accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, despite
having been presented with the opportunity just about continuously
since I was old enough to make such decisions, which according to some
cousins of mine is enough on its own to doom me to an eternity of
torment in Hell. I won't deny the _possibility_ of some sort of
heaven, but I can say with considerable certainty that I have not any
evidence in my life that has led me to believe that there is such a
place (or state or whatever). From what you've said above, it seems
likely that your church would expect me to end up in hell, too.
(You're Catholic, right? Did your comment quoted above contain a
kernel of truth about Catholic doctrine, or was it mostly for the
humor value?)
At any rate, I think that it would be pretty unfair for a God with a
love of good to send me to hell. I've dedicated my life to what,
presumably, is His favorite cause. If He cares more about whether I
accepted one specific belief structure than He cares about my attitude
and actions in life, well, I don't know what to say. It's a poorer
Creation for it. I don't think I could respect a God who would send a
person like me to hell. Saying that, of course, would make that sort
of God just that much more likely to damn me, but I like to think that
a truly good God would respect me more for it.
Anyway... off topic, but I just keep wondering how my cousins can
think that I deserve eternal torment. Any insight you can share would
be appreciated.
Steuard Jensen