No flammage in 1995
Michael Martinez
===========================================================================
From: Banazir the Jedi Hobbit (hs...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: OT!: The Last Debate
View: Complete Thread (98 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien, rec.arts.books.tolkien
Date: 2003-02-19 22:30:56 PST
Michael O'Neill <o...@indigo.ie> wrote in message news:<3E53DF01...@indigo.ie>...
> Banazir Galbasi wrote:
>> Well, I would say that the consensus is that RABT is a haven for
>> on-topic discussion. Steuard's FAQ is a little mild on this topic,
>> probably because it was written in a kinder, gentler age when OT
>> was not the order of the day even here in AFT. (Either that, or
>> wiser heads prevailed about cross-posting.)
>
> Steuard didn't even appear first IIRC until after the Martinez Flame
> Wars. People in rabt just weren't as touchy as they appear to be now.
Yes and no. As you may recall, I was here to witness the 1999 flame
wars, the 1997 flame wars, and the 1995 flame wars. I was lurking c.
1993 BEFORE AFT/RABT was given to flame wars, and in fact I lurked in
rec.arts.sf-lovers, rec.games.hack, and rec.arts.startrek from when I
was younger than Ermanna is now onward.
The main difference between then and now, from my 13 years'
observation, is not so much the difference in posters' attitudes as
the degree and volume of OT posting. Flame wars 1995-1999 tended to
be over the Mouth of Sauron and the Two Thrains, or comparatively mild
exchanges about interpretations of HoME. From 2000-2001 there were a
lot MORE flames, but they might be about Catholicism or linguistics.
Nowadays, the Mouth of Saddam is referred to more often than the Mouth
of Sauron, and as you can see from the Top 10 Subjects list, the sheer
clamor drowns out any on-topic discussions.
[snip]
===========================================================================
I remember arguing with Lalaith for many days over the Mouth of
Sauron, but I don't remember anyone flaming anyone.
The Flame Wars Which Ruined The Tolkien Groups For Everyone began in
the fall of 1997 when James Giles blew a fuse because I dared cite THE
SILMARILLION, MORGOTH'S RING, and THE HOBBIT in response to some of
the nonsense he kept posting (and he finally admitted he hadn't read
THE SILMARILLION in ten years at one point). He (falsely) alleged
that I frequently claimed to have the only valid interpretation.
Celia Malm then jumped in with a thread full of bullshit, and by the
time she admitted she was wrong to join in a flame war, someone else
jumped on the bandwagon.
The news group slowly descended into mass stupidity and flamation from
there. It never seems to have recovered from the illnesses, which
also quickly spread to alt.fan.tolkien.
All or nearly all the polite, well-reasoned, thoughtful people fled
the Tolkien Flame Groups years ago. A handful of decent people stayed
around but they seem to have vanished now, too.
What's left are the flamers, trolls, idiots who came along later and
believed all the lies and bullshit that were posted in my absence, and
a few newbies and relatively seasoned people who occasionally wonder
what the heck they've gotten into.
Anyway, the debate over the Mouth of Sauron was not a flame war.
Lalaith and I got a little testy at times, but we did not flame each
other. David Salo might have tried to start up trouble, but I think
that was before his time. If I recall correctly, he appeared on the
scene in 1996, participated for a while, flamed me for no sane reason
whatsoever, apologized to the news group, behaved for a while, flamed
me again for no sane reason whatsoever, apologized AGAIN, and then
waited until James and Celia launched the Endless Tolkien Flame War to
dive in every now and then with slurs and insults.
To be honest, the number of people in these groups who have behaved
like totally crazed and obsessed whack-jobs (Mike Scott Rohan,
Ojevind, RLV, Softrat, et. al.) through the past 5-1/2 years probably
never exceeded 10-12. But they sure have been busy sick little
bastards.
Most of the rest of the people, being either gullible, lazy (too lazy
to look up the facts of anything), or both, who have joined in the
flame wars have demonstrated bad judgement, considerable rudeness, and
desire to have their heads verbally handed to them.
Anyway, while it may seem as though the flammage has been here all
along, it hasn't. It only erupted because a couple of people who were
too stubborn to admit they weren't bothering to check their facts (and
at one point Celia Malm did concede that she wasn't going to bother
quoting articles which had been posted in the group -- instead, she
continued to attribute things to me which I had never said) just
didn't have the class to admit they were wrong and shut the fuck up
like they should have as soon as they were proven to be fools who had
gotten in over their heads.
Everything else which followed was mostly fanned on by two people (one
of whom was David Salo). The other person was Conrad Dunkerson, who
was caught red-handed sending emails to people, telling them not to
have anything to do with me and falsely accusing me of being the
instigator in all the flame wars. At least one of those messages was
posted in the news group.
Jaime Frontero
"Michael Martinez" <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote in message
news:3b26e128.03043...@posting.google.com...
> Okay, time to set the record straight:
> wars, the 1997 flame wars, and the 1995 flame wars. I was lurking c.
> 1993 BEFORE AFT/RABT was given to flame wars, and in fact I lurked in
> rec.arts.sf-lovers, rec.games.hack, and rec.arts.startrek from when I
> was younger than Ermanna is now onward.
>
> Sauron, but I don't remember anyone flaming anyone.
>
<oh jeez, just a ton of snipping>
interesting history. is it possible to get an objective re-cap? is it in
one of your lessons?
i've always seen the mouth of sauron as an unavoidable construction, done
better than anyone's done it since (or before)... i mean sauron IS JUST NOT
going to show up; but they're at the gate, he's gotta have someone there
with a mouth to spout his words, and the mouth was pretty much perfect
(comparisons to don quixote aside). good lord, how completely wonderful a
construction -- a creature steeped in magic and evil for all of its
existence, until the goal of total submergence is realized... all that
effort, with a goal of *nothing*.
i always saw the mouth as the personification of the zen of evil. it was
almost as though, in his perfection, he could not have been accused of evil,
himself. he was surely a more perfect creature than sauron; and may have
exceeded morgoth in his surrender.
but hey, don't flame *me*. i'm sure i'm wrong.
j
Michael O'Neill
> Okay, time to set the record straight:
<snip edited and censored highlights>
> All or nearly all the polite, well-reasoned, thoughtful people fled
> the Tolkien Flame Groups years ago. A handful of decent people stayed
> around but they seem to have vanished now, too.
No well-reasoned, thoughtful or decent people left now, eh Michael?
> What's left are the flamers, trolls, idiots who came along later and
> believed all the lies and bullshit that were posted in my absence, and
> a few newbies and relatively seasoned people who occasionally wonder
> what the heck they've gotten into.
<snip mpore edited and censored highlights>
--- Insert well - reasoned thoughtful piece here ---
So you posting this resumé to a group - which, by your own admission is
now composed solely of "flamers, trolls, idiots" and which is in
particular still requented by Softrat, Ojevind Lang, Conrad Dunkerson
and David Salo [not to mention yours truly] - is designed to create WHAT
response, exactly?
--- Insert well - reasoned thoughtful piece here ---
<smiling...>
--- space reserved for well reasoned and toughtful reply ---
SPACE REVERVED
--- space reserved for well reasoned and toughtful reply ---
<still smiling...>
M.
Conrad Dunkerson
> The other person was Conrad Dunkerson, who was caught red-handed
> sending emails to people, telling them not to have anything to do with
> me and falsely accusing me of being the instigator in all the flame wars.
> At least one of those messages was posted in the news group.
Five years ago I sent two e-mails to one person which did not contain
ANY of the things you falsely claim above. And STILL you can't let it
go. Once again you are flaming someone who was not attacking you...
despite your numerous claims that you NEVER do so.
I wasn't even here until I got an e-mail asking me to come back for
some Tolkien discussion. And no, you weren't mentioned - it was sent
before your reappearance.
The truth is that the flame wars which surround you will never end so
long as you continue to go out of your way to restart old arguments.
This nonsense about the e-mail. Your insistence that your view of
Balrog Wings must be the correct one. One and only one interpretation
of the age of the Mouth of Sauron. The silliness about when you
really joined the newsgroups. And on and on. Just stop.
Edward J. Kloczko
--- No kiDDDIIINNNGGGG????
--- So, how's you're wife and kids?
--- No????
--- No wife, no kids???
--- What a pity. I guess your're DNA is a little too... "strange".
--- Have a very bad day, Michael.
EJK
Edward J. Kloczko
Comm'on Conrad, the guy is "Mad", really "mad".
He needs a "head-doctor" and will not stop his stupid posting as long as we
continue to respond to him. Better to ignore him.
Jamie Armstrong
> Okay, time to set the record straight:
>
<sigh>
Somebody mail me when it's over.
Jamie
--
"The more I see of the world, the more am I dissatisfied with it; and
every day confirms my belief of the inconsistency of all human
characters, and of the little dependence that can be placed on the
appearance of either merit or sense."
Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice
Steuard Jensen
<h62sa.160280$gK.2...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>:
> interesting history. is it possible to get an objective re-cap?
I'm hesitant to even try to give one: I wasn't here for the beginning
of the flames, and anything I'd say would undoubtedly offend everyone
on both sides. :) I spent rather a lot of time and efort trying to
bring peace to the groups and push for compromise on varous issues,
and even that came across poorly to some people. In the end, the
beginning of the flames ended up being pretty much moot fairly
quickly: people didn't really agree on who started what, and all those
initial problems were trumped by more recent insults both real and
perceived. It was Bad(TM).
But eventually, we made progress toward peace: Conrad Dunkerson came
out with a peace proposal that virtually everyone signed on to, and
that helped. And over time, some people left the groups on both
sides, and that helped too. There _was_ a period of creativity and
productive discussion for a year or two, but now the groups are in a
bit of a lull, which is partly a natural cyclic effect common to all
old discussion forums and which is partly due to the bloated mass of
off-topic political discussion recently. That, too, will pass. :)
Hopefully, when I get back from my college reunion this weekend, I'l
be able to get a little more decent discussion going. :)
If you're really desperate for more information on the flame wars, one
suggestion I'd give would be to look back at my posts from the period
in question. I made a real effort to be fair and polite at the time,
and while I may not have always succeeded, I was more successful than
a lot of the other primary players in those debates. But better still
is probably to leave the whole thing in the past.
Steuard Jensen
Jamie Armstrong
<snip>
> There _was_ a period of creativity and
> productive discussion for a year or two, but now the groups are in a
> bit of a lull, which is partly a natural cyclic effect common to all
> old discussion forums and which is partly due to the bloated mass of
> off-topic political discussion recently.
Don't forget that at the moment there's a lot of people revising and or
writing dissertations (e.g. me!) who are generally too stressed to post.
Which is why you didn't see me and this conversation never happened...
;)
Jaime Frontero
"Jamie Armstrong" <j.d.ar...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3EB16D9...@durham.ac.uk...
> Steuard Jensen wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
mmm. sounds bad indeed. i mean, if you have to trademark it... well,
peace.
j
Een wilde Ier
<j.d.ar...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>> Okay, time to set the record straight:
>>
><snip>
>
><sigh>
>
>Somebody mail me when it's over.
Could we get Fox News to cover it for all of us, do you think?
David
"I speak better English than this villain Bush"
Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf,
(Former) Iraqi Minister of Information
Flame of the West
> I spent rather a lot of time and efort trying to
> bring peace to the groups and push for compromise on varous issues,
> and even that came across poorly to some people.
Look, your heart was in the right place, but your suggestion
that maybe the Balrog had just ONE wing was ill-advised.
--
-- FotW
The Official Return of the King Protest Site
the softrat
(Conrad Dunkerson) wrote:
>I wasn't even here until I got an e-mail asking me to come back for
>some Tolkien discussion. And no, you weren't mentioned - it was sent
>before your reappearance.
Ha! Since MM and CD reappeared at the same time in the same place, I
am forced to conclude that they are one and the same individual!
PS: The orange and blue pills are really good for this kind of
schizophrenia.
the softrat ==> Careful!
I have a hug and I know how to use it!
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
"A new study shows that licking a frog can cure depression. The
down side is, the minute you stop licking, the frog gets
depressed again." --Jay Leno
Jaime Frontero
"the softrat" <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:vbi3bvoka935rrf7b...@4ax.com...
> On 1 May 2003 05:13:39 -0700, conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net
> (Conrad Dunkerson) wrote:
>
> >I wasn't even here until I got an e-mail asking me to come back for
> >some Tolkien discussion. And no, you weren't mentioned - it was sent
> >before your reappearance.
>
> Ha! Since MM and CD reappeared at the same time in the same place, I
> am forced to conclude that they are one and the same individual!
>
you've given it away with your last bit of deductive reasoning. YOU'RE
REALLY LOIS LANE!
j
Kristian Damm Jensen
<snip>
> Comm'on Conrad, the guy is "Mad", really "mad".
> He needs a "head-doctor" and will not stop his stupid posting as long as we
> continue to respond to him. Better to ignore him.
The way you just did?
--
--
Kristian Damm Jensen | Life is short. If you can't be bothered
kristian-d...@cgey.com | to make your posting readable, I can't
ICQ# 146728724 | be bothered to read it.
the softrat
<postm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>softrat... softrat... *wait just a consarn minute!* i've figured it out!
>you've given it away with your last bit of deductive reasoning. YOU'RE
>REALLY LOIS LANE!
>
the softrat ==> Careful!
I have a hug and I know how to use it!
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of
horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating
dance.
Jaime Frontero
> On Fri, 02 May 2003 03:08:22 GMT, "Jaime Frontero"
> <postm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >softrat... softrat... *wait just a consarn minute!* i've figured it
out!
> >you've given it away with your last bit of deductive reasoning. YOU'RE
> >REALLY LOIS LANE!
> >
> I guess that you missed the picture. DON'T MAKE ME SHOW IT AGAIN!
>
j
Conrad Dunkerson
> Ha! Since MM and CD reappeared at the same time in the same place, I
> am forced to conclude that they are one and the same individual!
Heh.
Love you too Softrat. :]
Conrad Dunkerson
> There _was_ a period of creativity and productive discussion for a year
> or two, but now the groups are in a bit of a lull, which is partly a
> natural cyclic effect common to all old discussion forums and which is
> partly due to the bloated mass of off-topic political discussion recently.
> That, too, will pass. :)
Amen.
<studiously avoiding political discussion to prevent total cognitive breakdown>
> If you're really desperate for more information on the flame wars, one
> suggestion I'd give would be to look back at my posts from the period
> in question.
OR... you could repeatedly whack yourself in the head with a hammer to get
a TRUE understanding of what it was like. Much more efficient.
> I made a real effort to be fair and polite at the time, and while I may
> not have always succeeded, I was more successful than a lot of the other
> primary players in those debates.
Don't believe him. It is well known that Steuard was the satanic mastermind
organizing the whole thing from behind the scenes. He's diabolical really. :>
> But better still is probably to leave the whole thing in the past.
Amen.
the softrat
(Conrad Dunkerson) wrote:
XXXXXXOX
the softrat ==> Careful!
I have a hug and I know how to use it!
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
One tentacle, one vote.
AC
> On 2 May 2003 03:30:32 -0700, conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net
> (Conrad Dunkerson) wrote:
>
>>the softrat <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in message news:<vbi3bvoka935rrf7b...@4ax.com>...
>>
>>> Ha! Since MM and CD reappeared at the same time in the same place, I
>>> am forced to conclude that they are one and the same individual!
>>
>>Heh.
>>
>>Love you too Softrat. :]
>
> XXXXXXOX
Now let's not get all mushy.
--
A. Clausen
AC
But in a nice sort of way.
>
>> But better still is probably to leave the whole thing in the past.
>
> Amen.
--
A. Clausen
O
What's with this "Amen" Conrad?
It this alt.fan.tolkien.religious.comments?
Nope.
Please confine your posts to on Topic discussion.
M.
Born-agin Tolkien Fan
Jette Goldie
"Jaime Frontero" <postm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Rnosa.697325$3D1.387182@sccrnsc01...
Trust me, he's NOT Lois Lane ;-)
He's not even Clark Kent!
--
Jette Goldie
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
INTERACTION - the 63rd Worldcon
"A European Worldcon in Glasgow"
http://interaction.worldcon.org.uk/
Donald Shepherd
alleged...
> On 2 May 2003 03:30:32 -0700, conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net
> (Conrad Dunkerson) wrote:
>
> >the softrat <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in message news:<vbi3bvoka935rrf7b...@4ax.com>...
> >
> >> Ha! Since MM and CD reappeared at the same time in the same place, I
> >> am forced to conclude that they are one and the same individual!
> >
> >Heh.
> >
> >Love you too Softrat. :]
>
> XXXXXXOX
I wouldn't trust that 'O' after it's been hanging around with those
nasty Xs...
Welcome back, Conrad.
--
Donald Shepherd
<donald_...@hotmail.com>
"Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open
sewer and die." - Mel Brooks
the softrat
<j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
>
>"Jaime Frontero" <postm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:Rnosa.697325$3D1.387182@sccrnsc01...
>>
>> "the softrat" <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>> news:n414bvoad2jbv1cgo...@4ax.com...
>> > On Fri, 02 May 2003 03:08:22 GMT, "Jaime Frontero"
>> > <postm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >softrat... softrat... *wait just a consarn minute!* i've figured it
>> out!
>> > >you've given it away with your last bit of deductive reasoning. YOU'RE
>> > >REALLY LOIS LANE!
>> > >
>> > I guess that you missed the picture. DON'T MAKE ME SHOW IT AGAIN!
>> >
>> alas, then. i shall remain clueless...
>
>
>Trust me, he's NOT Lois Lane ;-)
>
>He's not even Clark Kent!
(Dubba-dubba-dubba-dubba dubba-dubba-dubba-dubba
dubba-dubba-dubba-dubba )
RATMAN!
the softrat ==> Careful!
I have a hug and I know how to use it!
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
AFT and RABT: also called "Mordor, but with less sense of aesthetics."
-- Menelvagor, Editor - 'Sauron's Diary'
Jette Goldie
> On Fri, 02 May 2003 20:39:24 GMT, "Jette Goldie"
> <j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
> >
> >"Jaime Frontero" <postm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:Rnosa.697325$3D1.387182@sccrnsc01...
> >>
> >> "the softrat" <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> >> news:n414bvoad2jbv1cgo...@4ax.com...
> >> > On Fri, 02 May 2003 03:08:22 GMT, "Jaime Frontero"
> >> > <postm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >softrat... softrat... *wait just a consarn minute!* i've figured
it
> >> out!
> >> > >you've given it away with your last bit of deductive reasoning.
YOU'RE
> >> > >REALLY LOIS LANE!
> >> > >
> >> > I guess that you missed the picture. DON'T MAKE ME SHOW IT AGAIN!
> >> >
> >> alas, then. i shall remain clueless...
> >
> >
> >Trust me, he's NOT Lois Lane ;-)
> >
> >He's not even Clark Kent!
>
> (Dubba-dubba-dubba-dubba dubba-dubba-dubba-dubba
> dubba-dubba-dubba-dubba )
>
> RATMAN!
LOL!
the softrat
<j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
>>
>> (Dubba-dubba-dubba-dubba dubba-dubba-dubba-dubba
>> dubba-dubba-dubba-dubba )
>>
>> RATMAN!
>
>LOL!
THE_softrat bows.
the softrat ==> Careful!
I have a hug and I know how to use it!
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
"reproduces if added to its quotation." reproduces if added to
its quotation.
Michael Martinez
> <h62sa.160280$gK.2...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>:
> > "Michael Martinez" <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
> > <oh jeez, just a ton of snipping>
>
> > interesting history. is it possible to get an objective re-cap?
>
> I'm hesitant to even try to give one: I wasn't here for the beginning
> of the flames, and anything I'd say would undoubtedly offend everyone
> on both sides. :) I spent rather a lot of time and efort trying to
> bring peace to the groups and push for compromise on varous issues,
> and even that came across poorly to some people. In the end, the
> beginning of the flames ended up being pretty much moot fairly
> quickly: people didn't really agree on who started what, and all those
> initial problems were trumped by more recent insults both real and
> perceived. It was Bad(TM).
Steuard, what sort of drugs are you taking?
Michael Martinez
> Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote in message news:<3b26e128.03043...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > The other person was Conrad Dunkerson, who was caught red-handed
> > sending emails to people, telling them not to have anything to do with
> > me and falsely accusing me of being the instigator in all the flame wars.
> > At least one of those messages was posted in the news group.
>
> Five years ago I sent two e-mails to one person which did not contain
> ANY of the things you falsely claim above.
Gee, Conrad, then why did more than one person admit to having
received emails from you?
As for flaming you, all I did was recap the history of the Tolkien
news group flame wars, in which you and I both figured prominently.
> This nonsense about the e-mail. Your insistence that your view of
> Balrog Wings must be the correct one.
Ah. So, you're resorting to your old tactics of posting lies and
bullshit.
Once again, Conrad, show us even one article I posted insisting that
MY view of the Balrog Wings must be the correct one.
> One and only one interpretation of the age of the Mouth of Sauron.
And show us that, too, while you're at it.
> The silliness about when you really joined the newsgroups.
Nothing silly about the truth, Conrad.
So, tell me. When are YOU going to stop?
Never?
Michael Martinez
> Comm'on Conrad, the guy is "Mad", really "mad".
> He needs a "head-doctor" and will not stop his stupid posting as long as we
> continue to respond to him. Better to ignore him.
This from a whack-job who starts flame wars in numerous fora. YOUR
career on the Internet has been an interesting one to stumble across,
Edward.
Michael Martinez
>
> No well-reasoned, thoughtful or decent people left now, eh Michael?
Considering that one person asked for a recap of the Mouth of Sauron
debate and instead was treated to a fusillade of anti-Michael Martinez
venom from you, Conrad, Edward, and Softrat, I would say this thread
pretty much bears out what I said.
> --- Insert well - reasoned thoughtful piece here ---
You're not exactly certified as either reasonable or thoughtful by
your news group contemporaries (many of whom regard you as sick lying
troll, according to the anti-O'Neill posts I frequently have to wade
through here).
You're a strange one, Michael.
Michael Martinez
> "Michael Martinez" <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote in message
> news:3b26e128.03043...@posting.google.com...
> > I remember arguing with Lalaith for many days over the Mouth of
> > Sauron, but I don't remember anyone flaming anyone.
> >
>
> <oh jeez, just a ton of snipping>
>
> interesting history. is it possible to get an objective re-cap? is it in
> one of your lessons?
>
> i've always seen the mouth of sauron as an unavoidable construction, done
> better than anyone's done it since (or before)... i mean sauron IS JUST NOT
> going to show up; but they're at the gate, he's gotta have someone there
> with a mouth to spout his words, and the mouth was pretty much perfect
> (comparisons to don quixote aside). good lord, how completely wonderful a
> construction -- a creature steeped in magic and evil for all of its
> existence, until the goal of total submergence is realized... all that
> effort, with a goal of *nothing*.
>
> i always saw the mouth as the personification of the zen of evil. it was
> almost as though, in his perfection, he could not have been accused of evil,
> himself. he was surely a more perfect creature than sauron; and may have
> exceeded morgoth in his surrender.
>
> but hey, don't flame *me*. i'm sure i'm wrong.
Wouldn't dream of it.
Hasdrubal Hamilcar
> On Fri, 02 May 2003 20:39:24 GMT, "Jette Goldie"
> <j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
>
>>"Jaime Frontero" <postm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:Rnosa.697325$3D1.387182@sccrnsc01...
>>
>>>"the softrat" <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>>>news:n414bvoad2jbv1cgo...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 02 May 2003 03:08:22 GMT, "Jaime Frontero"
>>>><postm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>softrat... softrat... *wait just a consarn minute!* i've figured it
>>>
>>>out!
>>>
>>>>>you've given it away with your last bit of deductive reasoning. YOU'RE
>>>>>REALLY LOIS LANE!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I guess that you missed the picture. DON'T MAKE ME SHOW IT AGAIN!
>>>>
>>>
>>>alas, then. i shall remain clueless...
>>
>>
>>Trust me, he's NOT Lois Lane ;-)
>>
>>He's not even Clark Kent!
>
>
> (Dubba-dubba-dubba-dubba dubba-dubba-dubba-dubba
> dubba-dubba-dubba-dubba )
>
> RATMAN!
>
>
Reminds me of this cartoon ... about Bush.
'Dum dum da dum ...'
try it several times clicking on Bush and Gore each time.
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/bellringer.html
Hasan
Hasdrubal Hamilcar
> Quoth "Jaime Frontero" <postm...@hotmail.com> in article
> <h62sa.160280$gK.2...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>:
>
>>"Michael Martinez" <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>
>
>>interesting history. is it possible to get an objective re-cap?
>
>
> of the flames, and anything I'd say would undoubtedly offend everyone
> on both sides. :) I spent rather a lot of time and efort trying to
> bring peace to the groups and push for compromise on varous issues,
> and even that came across poorly to some people. In the end, the
> beginning of the flames ended up being pretty much moot fairly
> quickly: people didn't really agree on who started what, and all those
> initial problems were trumped by more recent insults both real and
> perceived. It was Bad(TM).
>
> out with a peace proposal that virtually everyone signed on to, and
> that helped. And over time, some people left the groups on both
> sides, and that helped too. There _was_ a period of creativity and
> productive discussion for a year or two, but now the groups are in a
> bit of a lull, which is partly a natural cyclic effect common to all
> old discussion forums and which is partly due to the bloated mass of
> off-topic political discussion recently. That, too, will pass. :)
> be able to get a little more decent discussion going. :)
>
> If you're really desperate for more information on the flame wars, one
> suggestion I'd give would be to look back at my posts from the period
> and while I may not have always succeeded, I was more successful than
> is probably to leave the whole thing in the past.
>
"A uniter, not a divider."
Check out this cartoon if you need a good laugh!
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/oath.html
Hasan
Michael O'Neill
>
> Michael O'Neill <o...@indigo.ie> wrote in message news:<3EB1617B...@indigo.ie>...
> >
> > No well-reasoned, thoughtful or decent people left now, eh Michael?
>
> Considering that one person asked for a recap of the Mouth of Sauron
> debate and instead was treated to a fusillade of anti-Michael Martinez
> venom from you, Conrad, Edward, and Softrat, I would say this thread
> pretty much bears out what I said.
You posted two essay references recently about which I admitted my
amazement. One was on the Elvish numbering system, the other on the
nature of Eowyn and the Rohirrim.
Does your Newsreader translate "amazement" as "venom"?
Please show any anti-Michael Martinez posts I have made this year, never
mind venemous ones. Just the message-ID will do if you're busy...
> > --- Insert well - reasoned thoughtful piece here ---
>
> You're not exactly certified as either reasonable or thoughtful by
> your news group contemporaries (many of whom regard you as sick lying
> troll, according to the anti-O'Neill posts I frequently have to wade
> through here).
This is a public newsgroup Michael, not a mental institution. No one
certifies people here. What kind of company are you keeping these days,
to refer to people in such terms?
> You're a strange one, Michael.
Strange I may be Michael, yet I don't recall anyone else, apart from
you, calling me either *sick* or *lying*.
TROLLing I admit to. I engage in TROLLing for both education and
entertainment - take note how easy it was to lose the entire contingent
of adolescent American "Tolkien film buffs" by merely posting some
URL-laden 9-11 posts.
But enough about my harmless educational amusements.
Instead, let us return to the substantive issue from my original post -
the question you treated as an unmarked deletion in your reply above:
"So you posting this resumé to a group - which, by your own admission is
now composed solely of "flamers, trolls, idiots" and which is in
particular still requented by Softrat, Ojevind Lang, Conrad Dunkerson
and David Salo [not to mention yours truly] - is designed to create WHAT
response, exactly?"
Unmarked deletions are embarrassing to seasoned posters Michael,
especially when the deleted content was material to the original post
and instead of being answered, it gets deleted. In the flame groups
that's known as snip 'n run, or simply as "running away".
Do I make you frightened or something Michael that, you'd try to run
away from the pertinent question I asked? I should hope not.
You can of course delete this in your reply to this post. I'll just
re-post it until you answer it and tell everyone here why someone who
posted that he was leaving these groups [that would be *YOU* Michael]
has arrived yet again [not your first return, either] and flamed all the
people posting here by stating:
"All or nearly all the polite, well-reasoned, thoughtful people fled the
Tolkien Flame Groups years ago. A handful of decent people stayed
around but they seem to have vanished now, too."
Now that's just not NICE Michael and I think you owe the posters here an
apology for being so rude.
Now let's see.
====================================================
65.69.223.81
Hmmm.
SBC Internet Services - Southwest SBIS-5BLK (NET-65-64-0-0-1)
65.64.0.0 - 65.71.255.255
PPPoX Pool - HSTNTXRBACK11 SBCIS-10161-144845 (NET-65-69-220-0-1)
65.69.220.0 - 65.69.223.255
That would be
http://public.swbell.net/contact.html
and
===================================================
Over to you, Michael.
M.
Michael Martinez
> Michael Martinez wrote:
> >
> > Michael O'Neill <o...@indigo.ie> wrote in message news:<3EB1617B...@indigo.ie>...
> > >
> > > No well-reasoned, thoughtful or decent people left now, eh Michael?
> >
> > Considering that one person asked for a recap of the Mouth of Sauron
> > debate and instead was treated to a fusillade of anti-Michael Martinez
> > venom from you, Conrad, Edward, and Softrat, I would say this thread
> > pretty much bears out what I said.
>
> You posted two essay references recently about which I admitted my
> amazement. One was on the Elvish numbering system, the other on the
> nature of Eowyn and the Rohirrim.
>
> Does your Newsreader translate "amazement" as "venom"?
Remember typing this little gem?
--- space reserved for well reasoned and toughtful reply ---
If you don't want to draw fire, take that friggin' KICK ME sign off your back.
Tamim
O
Encouraging you to post a "well reasoned and toughtful reply" is hardly
a KICK ME sign.
Not does it qualify as "venomous".
So far you have failed to answer my first simple question:
"So you posting this resumé to a group - which, by your own admission is
now composed solely of "flamers, trolls, idiots" and which is in
particular still requented by Softrat, Ojevind Lang, Conrad Dunkerson
and David Salo [not to mention yours truly] - is designed to create WHAT
response, exactly?"
Also you have failed to post proof of your assertion as I requested
earlier:
"Please show any anti-Michael Martinez posts I have made this year,
never mind venemous ones. Just the message-ID will do if you're busy..."
Don't you think you should draw your horns in just a little Michael?
Besides, remember what happened the last time you tried to kick me.
<grin>
M.
Flame of the West
<snip>
MM might not know about your "none" and "O" secret
identities, not having been here for awhile.
--
-- FotW
The Official Return of the King Protest Site
Michael O'Neill
>
> O wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> MM might not know about your "none" and "O" secret
> identities, not having been here for awhile.
MM will probably forget more than I will ever learn about online
identities, but its nice to see your concern.
M.
Suzieflame
>Okay, time to set the record straight:
Yes, lets.
>===========================================================================
>From: Banazir the Jedi Hobbit (hs...@hotmail.com)
>Subject: Re: OT!: The Last Debate
>View: Complete Thread (98 articles)
>Original Format
>Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien, rec.arts.books.tolkien
>Date: 2003-02-19 22:30:56 PST
>
>Michael O'Neill <o...@indigo.ie> wrote in message news:<3E53DF01...@indigo.ie>...
>> Banazir Galbasi wrote:
>>> Well, I would say that the consensus is that RABT is a haven for
>>> on-topic discussion. Steuard's FAQ is a little mild on this topic,
>>> probably because it was written in a kinder, gentler age when OT
>>> was not the order of the day even here in AFT. (Either that, or
>>> wiser heads prevailed about cross-posting.)
>>
>> Steuard didn't even appear first IIRC until after the Martinez Flame
>> Wars. People in rabt just weren't as touchy as they appear to be now.
>
>Yes and no. As you may recall, I was here to witness the 1999 flame
>wars, the 1997 flame wars, and the 1995 flame wars. I was lurking c.
>1993 BEFORE AFT/RABT was given to flame wars, and in fact I lurked in
>rec.arts.sf-lovers, rec.games.hack, and rec.arts.startrek from when I
>was younger than Ermanna is now onward.
>
>The main difference between then and now, from my 13 years'
>observation, is not so much the difference in posters' attitudes as
>the degree and volume of OT posting. Flame wars 1995-1999 tended to
>be over the Mouth of Sauron and the Two Thrains, or comparatively mild
>exchanges about interpretations of HoME. From 2000-2001 there were a
>lot MORE flames, but they might be about Catholicism or linguistics.
>Nowadays, the Mouth of Saddam is referred to more often than the Mouth
>of Sauron, and as you can see from the Top 10 Subjects list, the sheer
>clamor drowns out any on-topic discussions.
>
>[snip]
>===========================================================================
>
>I remember arguing with Lalaith for many days over the Mouth of
>Sauron, but I don't remember anyone flaming anyone.
>
>The Flame Wars Which Ruined The Tolkien Groups For Everyone began in
>the fall of 1997 when James Giles blew a fuse because I dared cite THE
>SILMARILLION, MORGOTH'S RING, and THE HOBBIT in response to some of
>the nonsense he kept posting (and he finally admitted he hadn't read
>THE SILMARILLION in ten years at one point). He (falsely) alleged
>that I frequently claimed to have the only valid interpretation.
>Celia Malm then jumped in with a thread full of bullshit, and by the
>time she admitted she was wrong to join in a flame war, someone else
>jumped on the bandwagon.
>
>The news group slowly descended into mass stupidity and flamation from
>there. It never seems to have recovered from the illnesses, which
>also quickly spread to alt.fan.tolkien.
>
>All or nearly all the polite, well-reasoned, thoughtful people fled
>the Tolkien Flame Groups years ago. A handful of decent people stayed
>around but they seem to have vanished now, too.
>
>What's left are the flamers, trolls, idiots who came along later and
>believed all the lies and bullshit that were posted in my absence, and
>a few newbies and relatively seasoned people who occasionally wonder
>what the heck they've gotten into.
>
>Anyway, the debate over the Mouth of Sauron was not a flame war.
>Lalaith and I got a little testy at times, but we did not flame each
>other. David Salo might have tried to start up trouble, but I think
>that was before his time. If I recall correctly, he appeared on the
>scene in 1996, participated for a while, flamed me for no sane reason
>whatsoever, apologized to the news group, behaved for a while, flamed
>me again for no sane reason whatsoever, apologized AGAIN, and then
>waited until James and Celia launched the Endless Tolkien Flame War to
>dive in every now and then with slurs and insults.
>
>To be honest, the number of people in these groups who have behaved
>like totally crazed and obsessed whack-jobs (Mike Scott Rohan,
>Ojevind, RLV, Softrat, et. al.) through the past 5-1/2 years probably
>never exceeded 10-12. But they sure have been busy sick little
>bastards.
Having met some of those you mention in a pub in Oxford once upon a time, I can
confirm that they are none of the above.
>Most of the rest of the people, being either gullible, lazy (too lazy
>to look up the facts of anything), or both, who have joined in the
>flame wars have demonstrated bad judgement, considerable rudeness, and
>desire to have their heads verbally handed to them.
>
>
>Anyway, while it may seem as though the flammage has been here all
>along, it hasn't. It only erupted because a couple of people who were
>too stubborn to admit they weren't bothering to check their facts (and
>at one point Celia Malm did concede that she wasn't going to bother
>quoting articles which had been posted in the group -- instead, she
>continued to attribute things to me which I had never said) just
>didn't have the class to admit they were wrong and shut the fuck up
>like they should have as soon as they were proven to be fools who had
>gotten in over their heads.
>
>Everything else which followed was mostly fanned on by two people (one
>of whom was David Salo). The other person was Conrad Dunkerson, who
>was caught red-handed sending emails to people, telling them not to
>have anything to do with me and falsely accusing me of being the
>instigator in all the flame wars. At least one of those messages was
>posted in the news group.
Frankly, Martinez, I hold you responsible for everything that happened to aft.
You are the one who dragged the flame groups in with your deliberate cross-post
follow-up trap. As the key flamer form those times, and as the one who spanked
your sorry ass off Usenet, I should know who's to blame, and it's definitely
you.
Suzie
--
Suzieflame
Suzieflame
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>
>> Okay, time to set the record straight:
>
><snip edited and censored highlights>
>
>> All or nearly all the polite, well-reasoned, thoughtful people fled
>> the Tolkien Flame Groups years ago. A handful of decent people stayed
>> around but they seem to have vanished now, too.
>
>No well-reasoned, thoughtful or decent people left now, eh Michael?
>
>> What's left are the flamers, trolls, idiots who came along later and
>> believed all the lies and bullshit that were posted in my absence, and
>> a few newbies and relatively seasoned people who occasionally wonder
>> what the heck they've gotten into.
>
><snip mpore edited and censored highlights>
>
>--- Insert well - reasoned thoughtful piece here ---
>
>So you posting this resumé to a group - which, by your own admission is
>now composed solely of "flamers, trolls, idiots" and which is in
>particular still requented by Softrat, Ojevind Lang, Conrad Dunkerson
>and David Salo [not to mention yours truly] - is designed to create WHAT
>response, exactly?
>
>--- Insert well - reasoned thoughtful piece here ---
>
><smiling...>
>
>--- space reserved for well reasoned and toughtful reply ---
>
> SPACE REVERVED
^^^
You haven't changed, O'Nihil.
>--- space reserved for well reasoned and toughtful reply ---
>
><still smiling...>
>
>M.
Suzie
--
Suzieflame
Michael O'Neill
<snip>
> >
> > SPACE REVERVED
> ^^^
> You haven't changed, O'Nihil.
>
> >--- space reserved for well reasoned and toughtful reply ---
<snip>
PKB dearie.
M.
Michael O'Neill
<snip>
> Frankly, Martinez, I hold you responsible for everything that happened to aft.
> You are the one who dragged the flame groups in with your deliberate cross-post
> follow-up trap. As the key flamer form those times, and as the one who spanked
> your sorry ass off Usenet, I should know who's to blame, and it's definitely
> you.
<snip>
x-post added, just because.
M.
Suzieflame
>Suzieflame wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >
>> > SPACE REVERVED
>> ^^^
>> You haven't changed, O'Nihil.
>>
>> >--- space reserved for well reasoned and toughtful reply ---
^^^^
><snip>
>
>PKB dearie.
>
>M.
<giggle>
Suzie
--
Suzieflame
Michael O'Neill
Like the sig BTW.
Cannes again this summer?
M.
The Xemblinosky Experience
It returns. It still seems slightly stuck on itself.
Is Suzi going to run it off again?
--
-
*** the .sig file of His AssHoliness, Raoul Xemblinosky mhm 15x12 ***
* *
* "sdrojodvbb poha aoisdrh paher-taue804 5toih;qaasdhfmogi asdrjokhj *
* s;odfgha fhoglnasoi aisdopigya8dfj asias8dfn asinwhit8h8o o8d88j *
* hlas-we;fj ejp90r s0fjp;sppfmkjn fdjdprfjfje ejfdiciucuknm8erieu *
* fojd d9884ijhd9jie ;d9d9je! Riwje9j4 98dsjndnnwknlsnmdf ;sisii *
* dfhskhshlklh ri sihhirjlsllrhhsi..." *
* *
* -ZOOGZ RIFT The Liquid Moamo, 04/02/04 *
* *
****************** http://extra.newsguy.com/~shpxurnq *****************
****CAUTION THIS SITE CONTAINS SEXUALLY RELATED MATERIAL!***
Naked pictures of Ms. Bodger:
http://geocities.com/hot_black_coco/
Michael O'Neill
>
> Michael O'Neill wrote:
> > Suzieflame wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>Frankly, Martinez, I hold you responsible for everything that happened to aft.
> >>You are the one who dragged the flame groups in with your deliberate cross-post
> >>follow-up trap. As the key flamer form those times, and as the one who spanked
> >>your sorry ass off Usenet, I should know who's to blame, and it's definitely
> >>you.
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > x-post added, just because.
> >
> > M.
>
> It returns. It still seems slightly stuck on itself.
>
> Is Suzi going to run it off again?
Having invited me, its the least she could do.
M.
Conrad Dunkerson
> As for flaming you, all I did was recap the history of the Tolkien
> news group flame wars, in which you and I both figured prominently.
> So, tell me. When are YOU going to stop?
> Never?
Sorry Michael... I'm not going to play. The truth has been amply
proven in the past and the new people will catch on soon enough.
Flame of the West
> MM will probably forget more than I will ever learn about online
> identities, but its nice to see your concern.
Hmm, I suspect there's some pre-1999 stories lurking
here I haven't heard about. Best to let sleeping dogs
lie, I suppose.
Michael O'Neill
>
>
> > MM will probably forget more than I will ever learn about online
> > identities, but its nice to see your concern.
>
> Hmm, I suspect there's some pre-1999 stories lurking
> here I haven't heard about. Best to let sleeping dogs
> lie, I suppose.
No.
Learn why they got tired.
Google MM and other here if you want some prime examples of flame fests.
For some reason MM was always in the thick of it, as was I usually.
My winning bedside manner, no doubt.
M.
Steuard Jensen
Quoth Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) in article
<3b26e128.03050...@posting.google.com>:
> Steuard, what sort of drugs are you taking?
Well, I take a vitamin pill most evenings, and I use fluoride
toothpaste. I consume caffine a few times a month and various pain
killers a few times a year (if that). Other than that, nothing I can
think of. :)
But I'm not even certain what in my earlier reply might have led you
to suspect that I wasn't in my right mind. Just to give it a quick
run-through for no real reason:
> sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) wrote:
> > Quoth "Jaime Frontero" <postm...@hotmail.com>:
> > > interesting history. is it possible to get an objective re-cap?
> > I'm hesitant to even try to give one:
Not much to object to there: I _was_ hesitant, and decided to make
that clear. Whether I succeeded or not is certainly open for debate!
> > I wasn't here for the beginning of the flames,
Nothing to object to here, either: I was defining my scope of
knowledge.
> > and anything I'd say would undoubtedly offend everyone on both
> > sides. :)
From the replies to my message, it looks like I only managed to offend
you. I apologize for that; I did try not to, but I was in a hurry.
(I've got to admit, though, that my statement was stronger than it
deserved to be: I did not actually worry too much that my summary
would offend people on both sides of the conflict. Not many of the
more easily offended people on the anti-Michael side are around now.)
> > I spent rather a lot of time and effort trying to bring peace to
> > the groups and push for compromise on varous issues,
You have suggested in the past that I wasn't honestly striving for
peace during that period, so I can see that you might take this as
evidence of a drug-addled state. :) And it's possible, even likely,
that I wasn't as impartial as I tried to be at the time; I certainly
did take sides on a lot of issues. But anyone who knew me offline
while I was involved in the flame wars here can testify that I was
_trying_ to bring peace to the groups, and that I probably devoted
more time and effort to that goal than I really had available. You
may or may not believe me, but I assure you that it's true. (Just to
be clear, by the way, I never said I pushed for compromise on _every_
issue!)
> > and even that came across poorly to some people.
By which I was referring to your suggestion that I was only posing as
a peace advocate in order to attack you in a more subtle way. The
fact that it came across that way to you is a clear sign that I didn't
succeed to the extent that I hoped to.
> > In the end, the beginning of the flames ended up being pretty much
> > moot fairly quickly:
I suppose I could be wrong about this. Perhaps everyone in the flame
wars really did remember exactly how they started and what initial
insult or inappropriate comment was behind their dislike of the other
people involved. But references to those initial incidents were less
common (as I remember it) than references to more recent aggravations.
(I note, for example, that in this thread you made reference to some
email about you that Conrad sent at one point, but that that event was
certainly not the beginning of the hostility between the two of you.)
In the end, my impression as a person who did not see the beginning of
the flames was that there was simply a standing hostility between the
two sides, each of which was apt to take the other's actions and
statements in the worst possible way, and neither of which was
particularly concerned with being polite to the other.
> > people didn't really agree on who started what,
This isn't particularly controversial. I know that some people had
claimed that your actions started the whole thing, and that you
claimed that you only responded to nasty actions by others. Hence,
people didn't really agree.
> > and all those initial problems were trumped by more recent insults
> > both real and perceived.
I've already discussed this above. Whether it was true of any given
person's underlying reasons for being hostile to the other side I
don't know, but it was certainly the impression I had after arriving
in the middle of the conflict.
> > It was Bad(TM).
And this isn't in question at all!
Steuard Jensen
O
[proof that he takes MM's concerns seriously]
Sooner or later Steuard, you'll realise that MM has taken a dislike to
you and you won't bother replying.
Salvage your dignity. Ignore him. Perhaps he'll learn to respect your
strength of character.
M.
Michael Martinez
> > > I spent rather a lot of time and effort trying to bring peace to
> > > the groups and push for compromise on varous issues,
>
> You have suggested in the past that I wasn't honestly striving for
> peace during that period, so I can see that you might take this as
> evidence of a drug-addled state.
Steuard, you spent so much time posting bullshit and ignoring the
all-out attacks made against me, excusing them as some sort of
"reasoned disagreements", that you pretty effectively supported every
effort made by the flame brigade to disrupt and destroy the
communities which had developed in the Tolkien news groups.
Like the others, you have NEVER acknowledged your responsibility for
what you have done. You have pretended, time and again, that you
never saw how the flame wars started.
And yet you have the unmitigated gall to post the bullshit you just
did in this discussion, claiming to have seen it all.
Either you're completely sick or just a damn bad liar.
Which is it?
Michael Martinez
> Michael Martinez wrote:
> >
> > Michael O'Neill <o...@indigo.ie> wrote in message news:<3EB48009...@indigo.ie>...
> > > Michael Martinez wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Michael O'Neill <o...@indigo.ie> wrote in message news:<3EB1617B...@indigo.ie>...
> > > > >
> > > > > No well-reasoned, thoughtful or decent people left now, eh Michael?
> > > >
> > > > Considering that one person asked for a recap of the Mouth of Sauron
> > > > debate and instead was treated to a fusillade of anti-Michael Martinez
> > > > venom from you, Conrad, Edward, and Softrat, I would say this thread
> > > > pretty much bears out what I said.
> > >
> > > You posted two essay references recently about which I admitted my
> > > amazement. One was on the Elvish numbering system, the other on the
> > > nature of Eowyn and the Rohirrim.
> > >
> > > Does your Newsreader translate "amazement" as "venom"?
> >
> > Remember typing this little gem?
> >
> > --- space reserved for well reasoned and toughtful reply ---
> >
> > If you don't want to draw fire, take that friggin' KICK ME sign off your back.
>
> Encouraging you to post a "well reasoned and toughtful reply" is hardly
> a KICK ME sign.
You're the moron who chose to involve yourself in the flame war.
Hey, do whatever makes you feel good.
Michael Martinez
> Flame of the West wrote:
> >
> > Michael O'Neill wrote:
> >
> > > MM will probably forget more than I will ever learn about online
> > > identities, but its nice to see your concern.
> >
> > Hmm, I suspect there's some pre-1999 stories lurking
> > here I haven't heard about. Best to let sleeping dogs
> > lie, I suppose.
>
> No.
>
> Learn why they got tired.
No one is likely to learn anything about the past, given the horribly
sloppy research that comes out this gang these days.
For example, I engaged in MORPHING. Unless Flame/Solinas knows
something more, I have to assume that some people don't know the
difference between morphing email addresses to avoid killfiles and
creating/using sock puppets.
> Google MM and other here if you want some prime examples of flame fests.
>
> For some reason MM was always in the thick of it, as was I usually.
Yeah. I was always in the thick of it because people here insist on
keeping me in the thick of it.
Imagine that. I post nothing for months on end, and my name (and
initials, and numerous slamming metaphors) keep coming up, always
presented in a bad context so as to make me look bad.
> My winning bedside manner, no doubt.
Nope. Just you're desire to stay active in the online communities.
O
1. So you're admitting your post was designed to encourage a flame war?
I didn't think you partook in flame wars anymore, Michael.
> Hey, do whatever makes you feel good.
<smiles>
When do I not?
M.
Öjevind Lång
news:1178b6d1.03050...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
... I'm not going to play. The truth has been amply
> proven in the past and the new people will catch on soon enough.
First I thought to make a joke about the fact that there were no theatres or
plays in Middle-earth. Then it occurred to me that in fact, there is very
little evidence of any kind of art in Tolkien's world. They had minstrels
and songs, obviously, and heroic lays and sculptures; but apart from that?
Thorin's company of Dwarves in "The Hobbit" had various instruments
(fiddles, flutes, a drum, viols and a harp), but that feels rather like one
of the "anachronisms" in that book. There are no novels or short stories, no
history writers like Herodotus or Livy (only chronicles and lays), no
paintings that I can think of (only woven tapestry like the one in Théoden's
hall), no composers, no singers except minstrels and bards, no poetry except
for the heroical stuff and the lays. (Oh yes, and Treebeard's little poem to
remind him of the list of living creatures.) No composers, no ballet. This
feels like Greece or Babylon in very early, archaic times, featuring praise
singers like Simonides. Or the Germanic peoples before they became
Christians: heroic epics, myths, some metalwork and riddles was all they
achieved at that stage.
Did Boromor and Faramir have a tutor? Somehow one gets the feeling that no
such class of people existed, that they recieved their lore from old
documents or from older people like parents. That feels like archaic Greece
(not the later, classical Greece) or some other country in the eldest days
antiquity.
Öjevind
Chocolate Death
(Steuard Jensen) wrote:
>Quoth Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez)
>in article
><3b26e128.0305022222.36765a09@posting.g
>oogle.com>:
>>Steuard, what sort of drugs are you taking?
>Well, I take a vitamin pill most evenings, and I
>use fluoride toothpaste. I consume caffine a
>few times a month and various pain killers a
>few times a year (if that). Other than that,
>nothing I can think of. :)
Steuard,
What are the chances he is asking about your medications because the
psychotropic meds he is currently on are not helping enough? Perhaps he
sees how unfailingly gracious and helpful you are and wishes he could be
like that too, and was hoping for recommendations for meds that _would_
do the trick.
Have a lovely day,
Windy
Just another ho-hum day in paradise.
Steuard Jensen
> > You have suggested in the past that I wasn't honestly striving for
> Steuard, you spent so much time posting bullshit and ignoring the
> all-out attacks made against me, excusing them as some sort of
> "reasoned disagreements", that you pretty effectively supported
> every effort made by the flame brigade to disrupt and destroy the
> communities which had developed in the Tolkien news groups.
When one is trying to make peace between two sides in a nasty
argument, one will have little success by turning to one side and
saying, "This is all your fault." Making peace is absolutely
impossible if you assume that one side of the conflict is composed
entirely of sociopaths: if you're right then peace is hopeless no
matter what you do, and if you're wrong, all you will accomplish is to
insult the very people you're trying to reason with. Thus, I made a
conscious effort to focus on constructive criticism rather than
shrewish scolding. And that applied just as much to you as to the
other side.
_Was_ the other side composed entirely of compulsive liars determined
to disrupt the groups? In the end, it's impossible to know. But I
would point out that it was Conrad who proposed the "peace treaty"
that began the end of the flame wars... and the only major flame war
participant who I recall _not_ signing on to that effort was you. And
as for the suggestion that I tacitly supported those who were against
you on the groups, it may be significant to note that Conrad proposed
that peace treaty in part as a result of private requests that I made
for him to stand down.
Again, I may not have made all the best choices in my attempts to end
the flame wars. I may have even blundered and ignored behavior that I
should have condemned, though moralistic judgement wasn't really my
aim. But I _was_ trying my best for peace, whether I was successful
or not.
> Like the others, you have NEVER acknowledged your responsibility for
> what you have done. You have pretended, time and again, that you
> never saw how the flame wars started.
When I returned to the newsgroups late in 1997, the hostility between
you and folks like Conrad and David Salo was already in full swing, as
far as I can recall. (A quick glance through Google seems to support
that.) Thus, I didn't see how that hostility began, and reading
through old Google or Deja archives didn't seem to give the full
picture. All I saw was an entrenched position, with each side ready
to pounce on any insult or slight from the other, real or perceived.
As for seeing how individual flare-ups started, I saw a range of
things. Almost all of them involved people on one side or the other
having a thin skin and a short temper; only some of them were caused
by deliberate insults (overt or disguised). A lot of them were
sparked when someone on one side or the other used an impolite or
insulting tone in a debate (which tends to cause trouble whether the
_content_ of the statement is accurate or not). And as I recall,
people on both sides were guilty of those behaviors.
> And yet you have the unmitigated gall to post the bullshit you just
> did in this discussion, claiming to have seen it all.
I don't quite follow you here. I certainly didn't claim to have seen
all of the flame wars; stating that I had missed the beginning was
pretty much the first thing I said. I _did_ see a broad sample of the
flame wars, though, and I did see them end. I saw enough to summarize
what the groups were like at the time, at least, and that's all that I
tried to do. I did claim to have seen all of the interactions that I
described; were there specific things that I claimed to have seen that
you believe did not ever happen?
Which parts of what I posted were "bullshit", exactly?
> Either you're completely sick or just a damn bad liar.
I do not lie. Moreover, I honestly don't know what I've said in this
thread that could even be taken as a lie. I'm also not sure what you
mean by "sick", though presumably if I were mentally unstable I would
be the last person who could judge that (I don't know anyone else who
thinks I am, however).
But even if I _did_ get things wrong in my summary, it strikes me that
you've left out a few possible explanations that aren't quite so
negative as "sick" or "liar". It's been a while, so I could have
misremembered the events. I could have been naive enough at the time
to have been deceived by the evil people who were attacking you. I
could have been so eager for peace that, like Neville Chamberlain, I
was unwilling to take a stand against evil if doing so meant war.
Sure, none of those explanations are very positive, but none are as
openly insulting as being either "completely sick or just a damn bad
liar". You might find that people will react better to your
statements if you focus on the least negative explanations for their
behavior. In my experience, most (but not all) people honestly are
trying to be decent human beings, whether they succeed or not.
Steuard Jensen
Osric
> ...Then it occurred to me that in fact, there is very
> little evidence of any kind of art in Tolkien's world.
Hmm. I'll mull over the performance art thing, but my first answer is
that between them minstrels, musicians and dancers probably accounted
for all of those things -- to some extent.
> Did Boromor and Faramir have a tutor? Somehow one gets the feeling that no
> such class of people existed, that they recieved their lore from old
> documents or from older people like parents. That feels like archaic Greece
> (not the later, classical Greece) or some other country in the eldest days
> antiquity.
Faramir's being referred to as a "wizard's pupil" rather implies a
system of tutelage, although given Gandalf's inevitably frequent
absences, it was probably far from formal.
(I wonder whether Denethor felt any guilt over Faramir's upbringing,
having been too busy crystal-gazing to see to his adequate education
in person.)
Jon Cast
> sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) wrote in message news:<BCdsa.33$v5....@news.uchicago.edu>...
> > Quoth "Jaime Frontero" <postm...@hotmail.com> in article
> > <h62sa.160280$gK.2...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>:
> > > "Michael Martinez" <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
> > > <oh jeez, just a ton of snipping>
> >
> > > interesting history. is it possible to get an objective re-cap?
> >
> > I'm hesitant to even try to give one: I wasn't here for the beginning
> > of the flames, and anything I'd say would undoubtedly offend everyone
> > on both sides. :) I spent rather a lot of time and efort trying to
> > bring peace to the groups and push for compromise on varous issues,
> > and even that came across poorly to some people. In the end, the
> > beginning of the flames ended up being pretty much moot fairly
> > quickly: people didn't really agree on who started what, and all those
> > initial problems were trumped by more recent insults both real and
> > perceived. It was Bad(TM).
>
> Steuard, what sort of drugs are you taking?
Oh. I see. This is what you mean when you say that everyone else
flames you, and you never flame anyone else, and you only come back
to see if the flames have died down, right?
Riiight.
Jon Cast
Jon Cast
<snip>
> Either you're completely sick or just a damn bad liar.
Michael, Michael, Michael. Stop talking to yourself; I'm starting to
worry about you.
Jon Cast
Jon Cast
<snip>
> For example, I engaged in MORPHING. Unless Flame/Solinas knows
> something more, I have to assume that some people don't know the
> difference between morphing email addresses to avoid killfiles and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't think this is entirely polite. After all, if the fellow
doesn't want to listen to you, just be quiet.
<snip>
> Imagine that. I post nothing for months on end, and my name (and
> initials, and numerous slamming metaphors) keep coming up, always
> presented in a bad context so as to make me look bad.
Presenting you in a bad context makes you look bad? You don't say.
Btw., you wouldn't happen to be Canadian, would you?
<snip>
Jon Cast
Christian Hannibal
"Steuard Jensen" <sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu> skrev i en meddelelse
news:c9Xta.57$X4.1...@news.uchicago.edu...
SNIP
>
> > Either you're completely sick or just a damn bad liar.
>
> I do not lie. Moreover, I honestly don't know what I've said in this
> thread that could even be taken as a lie. I'm also not sure what you
> mean by "sick", though presumably if I were mentally unstable I would
> be the last person who could judge that (I don't know anyone else who
> thinks I am, however).
>
> But even if I _did_ get things wrong in my summary, it strikes me that
> you've left out a few possible explanations that aren't quite so
> negative as "sick" or "liar". It's been a while, so I could have
> misremembered the events. I could have been naive enough at the time
> to have been deceived by the evil people who were attacking you. I
> could have been so eager for peace that, like Neville Chamberlain, I
> was unwilling to take a stand against evil if doing so meant war.
>
> Sure, none of those explanations are very positive, but none are as
> openly insulting as being either "completely sick or just a damn bad
> liar". You might find that people will react better to your
> statements if you focus on the least negative explanations for their
> behavior. In my experience, most (but not all) people honestly are
> trying to be decent human beings, whether they succeed or not.
>
> Steuard Jensen
I must say Steuard, I really am impressed with the level of politeness and
gentleman spirit you can muster, when someone is openly offending you for
trying to make peace.
Just a word of support: I know that a great many people enjoy your FAQ and
the discussions you start and participate in. I just hope that this little
semi-flame war will not scare any people - that includes you - away from
these newsgroups.
Especially since it was starting to look like the OT-flood and the
movie-flood were rapidly diminishing.
Keep up the good work.
--
Hannibal
Remove REMOVE to reply
O
[repetition of old arguments]
You seem to have trouble moving on, Steuard.
Here is a little present to get you started.
A Haiku for you.
Online strife hurts deep
Defences down, darts hit home
Martinez is sharp.
Long recovery,
Deeper wounds take time to mend
Years pass, hurt remains.
Accept other's lies
Statements of their deeper pain.
Try to not respond.
Calls to old battles
Posted to Usenet again
Seek to enmesh you.
Escape the sad state
The best revenge - living well!
Rise above the conflict.
Refine your patience
Watching buttons getting pushed
Defines the tactics.
Rising, thou risest!
Beyond the field of conflict
The air is clearer.
Principles are seen
Viewed from a distance above
Battle lines are drawn
Choose your position
Care in the first setting out
Allows for changes.
Then, ready, descend again
Attacks are feathers in wind
You are not their aim.
Diverted, they go
You stand, peaceful in chaos
Conserving assets.
The new day dawns
You, now renewed to face it,
Survived the night.
No critic can say
You did not survive in full
One part contains all.
FWIW
M.
O
Hopefully some observant people might have noted the relationship
between these two occurrences.
M.
O
>
> the softrat wrote:
> > On Fri, 02 May 2003 20:39:24 GMT, "Jette Goldie"
> > <j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>"Jaime Frontero" <postm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:Rnosa.697325$3D1.387182@sccrnsc01...
> >>
> >>>"the softrat" <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:n414bvoad2jbv1cgo...@4ax.com...
> >>>
> >>>>On Fri, 02 May 2003 03:08:22 GMT, "Jaime Frontero"
> >>>><postm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>softrat... softrat... *wait just a consarn minute!* i've figured it
> >>>
> >>>out!
> >>>
> >>>>>you've given it away with your last bit of deductive reasoning. YOU'RE
> >>>>>REALLY LOIS LANE!
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>I guess that you missed the picture. DON'T MAKE ME SHOW IT AGAIN!
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>alas, then. i shall remain clueless...
> >>
> >>
> >>Trust me, he's NOT Lois Lane ;-)
> >>
> >>He's not even Clark Kent!
> >
> >
> > (Dubba-dubba-dubba-dubba dubba-dubba-dubba-dubba
> > dubba-dubba-dubba-dubba )
> >
> > RATMAN!
> >
> >
>
> Reminds me of this cartoon ... about Bush.
>
> 'Dum dum da dum ...'
>
> try it several times clicking on Bush and Gore each time.
>
> http://www.markfiore.com/animation/bellringer.html
>
> Hasan
Try http://www.markfiore.com/animation/bellringer.swf
in case it doesn't refer you.
M.
Donald Shepherd
> A Haiku for you.
A lot of haikus actually.
--
Donald Shepherd
<donald_...@hotmail.com>
"Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open
sewer and die." - Mel Brooks
Donald Shepherd
<chan...@REMOVEcool.dk> alleged...
> Especially since it was starting to look like the OT-flood and the
> movie-flood were rapidly diminishing.
The King is returning... We'll get another flood in about three or so
months. :)
Conrad Dunkerson
> Then it occurred to me that in fact, there is very little evidence of
> any kind of art in Tolkien's world.
I see what you are getting at... and yet we are told that the Elves
were all about art and Art.
> There are no novels or short stories, no history writers like Herodotus
> or Livy (only chronicles and lays),
Wouldn't Bilbo qualify?
> no paintings that I can think of (only woven tapestry like the one in
> Théoden's hall),
Well, some of the shields were painted and Saruman's 'white hand'
symbol at Orthanc. Also, Tolkien's illustration of Bilbo in the hall
of Bag End shows two framed rectangles that are probably mirrors, but
which could be paintings. In the colorized version of the picture the
frame on the left does not seem to be reflecting anything which
appears in the room, but my recollection offhand is that someone else
added the colors.
> no composers, no singers except minstrels and bards, no poetry except
> for the heroical stuff and the lays. (Oh yes, and Treebeard's little poem to
> remind him of the list of living creatures.) No composers, no ballet.
I'm not sure that I'd agree with most of these... there were plenty of
people who composed music - Bilbo again comes to mind. Sometimes it
seemed like virtually ALL of the Elves were singers. The Adventures
of Tom Bombadil and other poems found therein were supposed to be
poems of the Shire (and clearly neither 'heroical or lays'). There
was plenty of dancing, but 'ballet' specifically is not stated and
would seem anachronistic to me. As for performance dancing in
general... Luthien.
I think that alot of these things were likely present in Middle-earth,
but not mentioned in the texts. They had paint... so someone
somewhere almost certainly hit upon the ideas of 'portraits' and
'landscapes'. There was also a great deal of artistic architecture in
Middle-earth... from both the Elves and the Dwarves primarily.
I think the primary difference is that these were generally not
presented as 'jobs' people pursued. There was no 'institution' of
'art'. For the most part it was presented that these things were done
for the joy of doing them... not as a means of 'making a living'.
Michael O'Neill
>
> On Wed, 07 May 2003 10:08:51 -0700, O <O...@O.com> alleged...
> > A Haiku for you.
>
> A lot of haikus actually.
Geshundeit!
M.
Michael O'Neill
Hmmm. Must be a late developer...
M.
Michael O'Neill
>
> Michael O'Neill <o...@indigo.ie> wrote in message news:<3EB6DEAE...@indigo.ie>...
> > Flame of the West wrote:
> > >
> > > Michael O'Neill wrote:
> > >
> > > > MM will probably forget more than I will ever learn about online
> > > > identities, but its nice to see your concern.
> > >
> > > Hmm, I suspect there's some pre-1999 stories lurking
> > > here I haven't heard about. Best to let sleeping dogs
> > > lie, I suppose.
> >
> > No.
> >
> > Learn why they got tired.
>
> No one is likely to learn anything about the past, given the horribly
> sloppy research that comes out this gang these days.
>
> For example, I engaged in MORPHING. Unless Flame/Solinas knows
> something more, I have to assume that some people don't know the
> difference between morphing email addresses to avoid killfiles and
> creating/using sock puppets.
Well, I admit I see it as a very fine line myself.
> > Google MM and other here if you want some prime examples of flame fests.
> >
> > For some reason MM was always in the thick of it, as was I usually.
>
> Yeah. I was always in the thick of it because people here insist on
> keeping me in the thick of it.
>
> Imagine that. I post nothing for months on end, and my name (and
> initials, and numerous slamming metaphors) keep coming up, always
> presented in a bad context so as to make me look bad.
>
> > My winning bedside manner, no doubt.
>
> Nope. Just you're desire to stay active in the online communities.
Yup.
M.
Donald Shepherd
alleged...
No thanks, I'll remember the war in my own way.
Michael O'Neill
I imagine that there were forms of apprenticeship available.
Taking service with a professional person would be the norm, although
there seemed to be very fes professions available at the time.
The social system reminds me of the early Irish castled nobles, with
wandering minstrels for entertainment and a lock and key for the
treasury, which was itself filled with coins.
No usury you'll notice. No money lenders. Prostitutes don't appear. Ony
loremasters and keepers of the houses of healing.
Uncivilized lot!
M.
Öjevind Lång
news:1178b6d1.03050...@posting.google.com...
news:<P5Pta.628$C93...@nntpserver.swip.net>...
>
> > Then it occurred to me that in fact, there is very little evidence of
> > any kind of art in Tolkien's world.
>
> I see what you are getting at... and yet we are told that the Elves
> were all about art and Art.
I really don't understand that statement, Conrad. Would you clarify?
> > There are no novels or short stories, no history writers like Herodotus
> > or Livy (only chronicles and lays),
>
> Wouldn't Bilbo qualify?
I suppose Bilbo might qualify as a sort of Xenophon - "There and Back
Again". And there was also "The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen" by Barahir,
Faramir's grandson. But apparently there were no public libraries (which
actually existed in ancient Greece and Rome), just a few archives and
private collections. Copies of manuscripts were made privately, and very
rarely. Again, a very archaic touch. And yet, there were book cases in the
Shire; and the books were not rolls of the kind in use during antiquity but
bound books of the kind that came into being during the Middle Ages. That
would mean either that the Shire was more civilized than the rest of
Middle-earth, or else that Tolkien did not think things through on this
point because he was so indifferent to it. And that is a weakness in his
narrative; there is no getting away from it.
> > no paintings that I can think of (only woven tapestry like the one in
> > Théoden's hall),
>
> Well, some of the shields were painted and Saruman's 'white hand'
> symbol at Orthanc. Also, Tolkien's illustration of Bilbo in the hall
> of Bag End shows two framed rectangles that are probably mirrors, but
> which could be paintings. In the colorized version of the picture the
> frame on the left does not seem to be reflecting anything which
> appears in the room, but my recollection offhand is that someone else
> added the colors.
The evidence for any kind of paintings remains iffy. Still, the two
portraits at Bag End in the film version of FotR do feel like a good idea -
they have an 18th century feel about them, and of course, the Shire is an
idealized version of rural England during that period. But one of the
weaknesses in Tolkiens creation is his lack of interest in such matters as
political rule, economics and art. Someone appositely remarked that "the
Rohirrim seemed to subsist on eating grass" - in "The Battle of Helm's
Deep", we are told that Sarumans army torched every farm in the valley, but
nowhere else is there the slightest mention of houses or farms or any human
dwelling except for Edoras. That is quite remarkable, considering how
carefully Tolkien describes the landscape. To put it mildly, he does not
seem to have worried overmuch about the practical side of life in
Middle-earth, as opposed to the heroical one. I can understand that, but he
ignores these practical matters to the point where it becomes ridicuolous.
> > no composers, no singers except minstrels and bards, no poetry except
> > for the heroical stuff and the lays. (Oh yes, and Treebeard's little
poem to
> > remind him of the list of living creatures.) No composers, no ballet.
>
> I'm not sure that I'd agree with most of these... there were plenty of
> people who composed music - Bilbo again comes to mind. Sometimes it
> seemed like virtually ALL of the Elves were singers. The Adventures
> of Tom Bombadil and other poems found therein were supposed to be
> poems of the Shire (and clearly neither 'heroical or lays'). There
> was plenty of dancing, but 'ballet' specifically is not stated and
> would seem anachronistic to me. As for performance dancing in
> general... Luthien.
People have always created music. But there does not seem to have been any
professional practitioners of music - just bards. One would have to go to a
very primitivt stage in any human civilization to find such a state of affai
rs.
> I think that alot of these things were likely present in Middle-earth,
> but not mentioned in the texts. They had paint... so someone
> somewhere almost certainly hit upon the ideas of 'portraits' and
> 'landscapes'. There was also a great deal of artistic architecture in
> Middle-earth... from both the Elves and the Dwarves primarily.
I did mention the architecture and the statues. But the complete absence of
any mention of portraits and landscapes makes me doubt that they existed -
except perhaps in the Shire. We never encounter anything like a mention of
"the traditional representation of Elendil in paintings" or "the kind of
silvan landscape painting beloved by Elves". It is, indeed, hard to imagine
those things because Tolkien never mentions them. The enarest he comes is
the description of the tapestry of Eorl the Yung in Meduseld.
> I think the primary difference is that these were generally not
> presented as 'jobs' people pursued. There was no 'institution' of
> 'art'. For the most part it was presented that these things were done
> for the joy of doing them... not as a means of 'making a living'.
Yes, indeed. But Tolkien ignores these matters to such an extent that they
are extremely hard to visualize as existing. And, as I said, there were no
plays and no novels. That indicates an extremely archaic culture - more
archaic than classical Greece or Rome.
Öjevind
Öjevind Lång
> Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) writes:
>
[snip]
> > Imagine that. I post nothing for months on end, and my name (and
> > initials, and numerous slamming metaphors) keep coming up, always
> > presented in a bad context so as to make me look bad.
>
> Presenting you in a bad context makes you look bad? You don't say.
> Btw., you wouldn't happen to be Canadian, would you?
To my knowledge, no one has mentioned the person in question for many
months.
Öjevind
Morgil
"Öjevind Lång" <ojevin...@swipnet.se> kirjoitti
viestissä:G59ua.17$nk5...@nntpserver.swip.net...
> To my knowledge, no one has mentioned the person in question for many
> months.
You're such a pathetic liar and troll, Öjevind.
You know very well that it happened on March 15
- *less* then two months ago. There is no way less
then two months could be called "many". Even if
it was full two months, that can hardly be called
"many", although technically it might be correct.
Time and time again we have proven your "facts"
to be incorrect; delibrately forged to fit your agenda,
and yet you continue to post your lies and flames
as if anyone with half a brain would believe a word
you say.
Morgil
Steuard Jensen
<3eb8c033$1...@news.wineasy.se>:
> I must say Steuard, I really am impressed with the level of
> politeness and gentleman spirit you can muster, when someone is
> openly offending you for trying to make peace.
I've found that one can often be most successful in a discussion by
being polite and reasonable regardless of the attitudes of others.
Not only does it show them that you are willing to take their concerns
seriously and treat them as human beings, but it tends to make a
positive impression on any bystanders who happen to be watching. :)
And, when the discussion is actually on-topic (unlike the
"meta-discussion" in this thread), having someone take a polite,
reasonable approach helps to keep some focus on the actual content of
the debate. (Believe it or not, some of the most vibrant and
productive on-topic debates these newsgroups have ever seen were laced
with hostility and flames. I think the desire of those involved to
"beat" the other side really inspired some intense thought and
research... as, for that matter, did my desire to calm the debate by
finding a mutually agreeable solution.)
> Just a word of support: I know that a great many people enjoy your
> FAQ and the discussions you start and participate in. I just hope
> that this little semi-flame war will not scare any people - that
> includes you - away from these newsgroups.
Don't worry about that! I was here for years while the flame wars
were at their worst; a brief flare-up like this (it hardly even counts
as one) doesn't stand a chance of driving me away. (The demands of my
research are an entirely different story, which is a large part of why
I haven't been as active here recently as at some times in the past.
But I still try to keep an eye on things and participate at least a
little, and of course I'm still actively maintaining the FAQ.)
Thank you for the compliments, in any case!
> Especially since it was starting to look like the OT-flood and the
> movie-flood were rapidly diminishing.
Now we just need some people to start up more on-topic threads to draw
people back in here. :) I've got a few in mind myself, but I haven't
had time to start them yet.
Steuard Jensen
Jon Cast
<snip>
> there were no plays and no novels. That indicates an extremely
> archaic culture - more archaic than classical Greece or Rome.
Were there plays and novels in early Medieval Europe? That's the
sort of time I think Tolkien was aspiring to.
Jon Cast
Conrad Dunkerson
> "Conrad Dunkerson" <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> skrev i meddelandet
> news:1178b6d1.03050...@posting.google.com...
>> I see what you are getting at... and yet we are told that the Elves
>> were all about art and Art.
> I really don't understand that statement, Conrad. Would you clarify?
Sorry. I was referring to some of Tolkien's statements about the
nature of Elves;
"The Elves represent, as it were, the artistic, aesthetic, and purely
scientific aspects of the Humane nature raised to a higher level than
is actually seen in Men... They also possess a `subcreational' or
artistic faculty of great excellence."
Letter #181
"Their [Elves] 'magic' is Art, delivered from many of its human
limitations; more effortless, more quick, more complete (product, and
vision in unflawed correspondence). And its object is Art not Power,
subcreation not domination and tyrannous re-forming of Creation."
Letters #131
Thus, my point was that while I see what you are saying about lack of
mention of various artistic pursuits it would seem at odds with the
purported nature of Elves as being (to paraphrase) 'like humans but so
enwrapped and gifted in artistry that their art seems magical'. Hence
my later suggestion that while these things may not have been
mentioned I'd expect that Tolkien intended many of them to exist
without feeling the need to point them out. You can't logically have
an immortal race of 'superior artistic faculty' and a world relatively
devoid of art.
And yeah, maybe one or two extra words of explanation would have been
a good idea to help make that clearer. :)
> That would mean either that the Shire was more civilized than the rest of
> Middle-earth, or else that Tolkien did not think things through on this
> point because he was so indifferent to it. And that is a weakness in his
> narrative; there is no getting away from it.
I'd call it a 'lack' rather than a 'weakness'. Tolkien's purpose was
not to fully describe the world he had created and everything in it,
but rather to tell a story. Because he DID devote so much effort to
making the 'backdrop' more vibrant there is a natural inclination to
expect it to be complete and fully explained... but doing so would
have made the pacing of the story extremely slow. After all, there is
alot more than just art and theatre left out... as you noted later
economics, agriculture, politics and other areas also get shorted.
> The evidence for any kind of paintings remains iffy.
Though I'd say that the existence of paint makes them almost a
certainty. :)
> To put it mildly, he does not seem to have worried overmuch about the
> practical side of life in Middle-earth, as opposed to the heroical one.
> I can understand that, but he ignores these practical matters to the
> point where it becomes ridicuolous.
Hmmmm... but for that to be the case wouldn't the texts somehow have
to preclude these things? I mean, if the story had been set entirely
within Minas Tirith all of the numerous details of landscape could
have been tossed without damaging the story in the slightest. The
lack of mention would not have precluded those things from existing or
make Tolkien's failure to report them ridiculous... the story did not
take place there. Likewise, the story was not about a peaceful time
when people gathered at the theatre/painting gallery/opera house/dance
hall/whatever and the lack of mention of such things neither precludes
their existence nor detracts from a story that would have little or no
reason to explore such things.
> People have always created music. But there does not seem to have been any
> professional practitioners of music - just bards. One would have to go to a
> very primitivt stage in any human civilization to find such a state of affai
> rs.
Or a state of affairs completely different from anything in human
history. I mean, when has there ever been anything like the
government of the Shire... where they essentially had no jails and the
'Mayor' was primarily responsible for officiating at parties? The
whole concept of Middle-earth is based on a world view noticably
different from our own. That makers of music would do so entirely for
enjoyment rather than as a profession is in keeping with that alien
perspective.
> Yes, indeed. But Tolkien ignores these matters to such an extent that they
> are extremely hard to visualize as existing.
I think if you proceed from the concept that cultures in Middle-Earth
were not bound by the norms of 'human behaviour' as we know it you can
imagine various arts and institutions being present without requiring
the trappings we naturally associate with them.
Matthew Bladen
"Conrad Dunkerson" <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:1178b6d1.03050...@posting.google.com...
[the nature of Elves to realise their artistic intentions fully]
> You can't logically have an immortal race of 'superior artistic faculty'
> and a world relatively devoid of art.
This connects with something I've had in the back of my mind for a
long time now. We have a wide variety of works of literature attributed
to Elves -- poetry, cosmological myth, historical records, philological
inquiries, and the like. But I can think of no examples of works of the
imagination with the possible exception of the 'counting-story' in
'Quendi and Eldar' (HoME 11) -- and even that is based firmly on
'truth' (the relative numbers of the three clans of Elves).
This is all fairly close to argument from silence so far, since as you
pointed
out, Tolkien was a storyteller rather than a world-builder (something that
we
would all do well to remember when performing exegesis on his writings!).
The impression of depth is a masterfully managed illusion, employing
intense descriptive writing, a wealth of allusive remarks, an often
excellent
realisation of character, and names and words in distinct and distinctive
languages (which themselves were 'sketches' to an extent). But the story
came first, and the history followed it. Much of the 'world-building' found
in
'Unfinished Tales' and HoME seems to have been started off by the process
of writing the Appendices to LOTR, and many have pointed out that this was
not always a process beneficial to Tolkien's cast of mind -- the clearest
instance being the crisis of conscience over the 'round world' vs 'flat
world'
mythologies that did so much to prevent him finishing the Silmarillion.
But there are in fact a few totally 'made-up' works (that is to say, having
no
basis in things that happened) - the Troll Song, Perry-the-Winkle, The
Sea-Bell, The Man In The Moon, and so on and on. These all come from
Hobbit folk tales, and doubtless were inspired by stories of Elves and
legends of the Elder Days. It is nonetheless interesting to note that the
Hobbits provide pretty much the only source of works of the imagination.
Hobbits are, of course, a sub-group of Men, and shared their Gift. To
Elves was given the greater ability to conceive of and bring forth beauty,
to be inspired by something and effect their inspiration, drawing out the
beauty of the world. But the Gift of Men was to be able to move outside
the 'real world', literally so when they died, but also to have a freedom of
action beyond the Music - the blueprint for the universe. Tolkien
believed that the 'sub-creative' faculty, the ability to tell stories that
were
founded in imagination rather than fact, was a divine gift (for which see
his essay 'On Fairy-Stories' and his poem 'Mythopoeia'). I suggest that
*this* is what he meant by the Gift of Men in his legendarium -- the
ability to create imaginary worlds in the same fashion, though not
with the same capacity to breathe life into them, as Eru brought Ea into
being (through the mediation of the Ainur). This would indicate a
limitation to the creative faculty of Elves: they could bring about
tremendous beauty, but nothing 'inspirational.' Hence poems and
histories and scholarly works, but no imaginative literature. I suspect
that,
although the idea was not explicitly stated, Elves didn't write novels -
because they couldn't. This was one artistic endeavour that was beyond
them.
--
Matthew
TradeSurplus
>"Öjevind Lång" <> wrote
>> To put it mildly, he does not seem to have worried overmuch about
the
>> practical side of life in Middle-earth, as opposed to the heroical
one.
>> I can understand that, but he ignores these practical matters to
the
>> point where it becomes ridicuolous.
>
>Hmmmm... but for that to be the case wouldn't the texts somehow have
>to preclude these things? I mean, if the story had been set entirely
>within Minas Tirith all of the numerous details of landscape could
>have been tossed without damaging the story in the slightest.
It is also in the nature of a realistic story not to describe every
detail of the world in which it takes place. Many works of fiction set
in our modern world have very little detail on politics, history or
art of the world. Those details are assumed to be common knowledge.
Description of the economics or politics of Middle Earth might well
appear anachronistic in a work that is meant to be a narrative of some
particular events. By avoiding mention of such details, Tolkien writes
a story that is easier to pass off as something that could actually
have been written close to the time the events occurred.
Trade.
Öjevind Lång
It is true that parts of Middle-earth have a "medieval" feel. But the Shire
feels like an idealized version of rural England in the 16th-18th centuries
(with certain anachronisms - things belonging to rather recent times), and
Gondor feels more like some country in antiquity. (In fact, Tolkien himself
said that in some respects, such as its architecture, Gondor was reminiscent
of ancient Egypt.) The Rohirrim are ancient Anglo-Saxons, though horseborne
like the Visigoths of antiquity. Of course, one of the weak points in
Tolkien's Middle-earth history is that there does not seem to be any
evolution of technologies and economics, despite an isolated mention of
ancient petty kings fighting with bronze swords and a few other things of a
similar nature. The fact that one seldom thinks about this is good evidence
of what a compelling writer Tolkien is.
Öjevind
Öjevind Lång
I see. Thank you! But as Matthew points out in another reply to you, we see
very little evidence of this artistic ability of Elves. We do know that they
were great singers ("O! Tra-la-la lally/here down in the valley!"), but
that's all.
> > That would mean either that the Shire was more civilized than the rest
of
> > Middle-earth, or else that Tolkien did not think things through on this
> > point because he was so indifferent to it. And that is a weakness in his
> > narrative; there is no getting away from it.
>
> I'd call it a 'lack' rather than a 'weakness'. Tolkien's purpose was
> not to fully describe the world he had created and everything in it,
> but rather to tell a story. Because he DID devote so much effort to
> making the 'backdrop' more vibrant there is a natural inclination to
> expect it to be complete and fully explained... but doing so would
> have made the pacing of the story extremely slow. After all, there is
> alot more than just art and theatre left out... as you noted later
> economics, agriculture, politics and other areas also get shorted.
When Edoras and Rivendell both seem to be centres surrounded by nothing but
wilderness, something *is* missing that should be there. People must produce
things to eat! And I really can't envisage the Elves of Rivendell as hunters
and gatherers. Aragorn and his companions never seem to find any roads in
Rohan (not even a road leading to Edoras), or pass any buildings of farms.
Considering how careful and detailed Tolkien was when describing scenery,
that is remarkable.
I don't mean that Tolkien should have spent a lot of time detailing the
infrastructure of Rohan, the economics of Gondor, the poets currently in
fashion in Minas Tirith or the like; but there are not even any details in
passing ("They passed by some scattered farms" or "Imrahil had recently gone
through the accounts for his estate" or "On the wall hung a painting of the
Swanships at Alqualondë"), and that *is* a weakness. The only reason it is
not more often remarked upon is the compelling nature of Tolkien's writing.
Farms in Rohan are mentioned *once*, and that is when Saruman's army is
torching them in the valley outside Helm's Deep. The same is true of Gondor;
we are told about how the Witch-king's army is burning farms in the Pelennor
Fields.
> > The evidence for any kind of paintings remains iffy.
>
> Though I'd say that the existence of paint makes them almost a
> certainty. :)
Not necessarily. The ancient Jews had paint and didn't use it for paintings.
;-) Perhaps the peoples of Middle-earth only used paint for their houses and
picket fences.
> > To put it mildly, he does not seem to have worried overmuch about the
> > practical side of life in Middle-earth, as opposed to the heroical one.
> > I can understand that, but he ignores these practical matters to the
> > point where it becomes ridicuolous.
>
> Hmmmm... but for that to be the case wouldn't the texts somehow have
> to preclude these things?
[snip]
The thing is that Tolken ignores these things so much that it becomes
ridiculous. There are no roads in Rohan, except the path to Dunharrow. No
visible structure to supply Rivendell with food and goods. And so on. Just
think of it - Rivendell is a palace slapped down in the middle of
wilderness. Not so much as a home farm. This is all right for the enchanted
castles in Arthurian romance, but precisely because of Tolkien's "realistic"
narrative, with a great deal of attention paid to scenery (which just does
not exist in the Atrthurian cycle), that is a defect in LotR.
[snip]
> > People have always created music. But there does not seem to have been
any
> > professional practitioners of music - just bards. One would have to go
to a
> > very primitivt stage in any human civilization to find such a state of
affai
> > rs.
>
> Or a state of affairs completely different from anything in human
> history. I mean, when has there ever been anything like the
> government of the Shire... where they essentially had no jails and the
> 'Mayor' was primarily responsible for officiating at parties? The
> whole concept of Middle-earth is based on a world view noticably
> different from our own. That makers of music would do so entirely for
> enjoyment rather than as a profession is in keeping with that alien
> perspective.
The nitty-gritty of administration was another thing that plainly bored
Tolkien. Somehow, one can accept that Hobbits have an almost non-existant
system of government. But ordinary human beings?
The world view is indeed different - so different that its inhabitants are
hard to accept a shuman beings at all if one thinks it over. So, of course,
the best thing to do is to try to ignore this lack and just enjoy the story.
But let me remind you that the only poets we encounter or even hear about
are Bilbo, Sam and the bard who made the funeral song for Théoden. (And some
Elvish minstrels in the Sil.)
> > Yes, indeed. But Tolkien ignores these matters to such an extent that
they
> > are extremely hard to visualize as existing.
>
> I think if you proceed from the concept that cultures in Middle-Earth
> were not bound by the norms of 'human behaviour' as we know it you can
> imagine various arts and institutions being present without requiring
> the trappings we naturally associate with them.
That is precisely my point. The human beings in Middle-earh do not behave
like human beings. They don't have any economic and material development at
all, and no visible means of subistence. And, as I started out saying,
hardly any art.
A roadless, farmless Rohan, countries with a king but no administrators,
no seats of learning or schools or even tutors... the total indifference to
all this does detract just a little from the story. Just a sprinkle of
details, a twentieth of all the attention paid to landscape, would have
sufficed.
Öjevind
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
> But there are in fact a few totally 'made-up' works (that is to say,
having
> no
> basis in things that happened) - the Troll Song, Perry-the-Winkle, The
> Sea-Bell, The Man In The Moon, and so on and on. These all come from
> Hobbit folk tales, and doubtless were inspired by stories of Elves and
> legends of the Elder Days. It is nonetheless interesting to note that the
> Hobbits provide pretty much the only source of works of the imagination.
Yes, that *is* rather remarkable. Not to say that I insist on Faramir
spending his free hours reading mystery stories or books of poetry, but
where did he get all his knowledge of Gondor's history? From his father and
Gandalf, it seems. That is definitely the impression one gets.
Öjevind
Alison
<ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote:
<snip>
>That is precisely my point. The human beings in Middle-earh do not behave
>like human beings. They don't have any economic and material development at
>all, and no visible means of subistence. And, as I started out saying,
>hardly any art.
> A roadless, farmless Rohan, countries with a king but no administrators,
>no seats of learning or schools or even tutors... the total indifference to
>all this does detract just a little from the story. Just a sprinkle of
>details, a twentieth of all the attention paid to landscape, would have
>sufficed.
Tolkien does mention farms in Rohan being burnt by the army of Saruman
as they make their way to Helm's Deep. He also describe the Pelennor
as containing "fair and fertile townlands", ie the farms which grew
the city's food supply. I'd always inferred the presence of scholars
and tutors in a city such as Gondor, but the lack of even any kind of
privy council in Minas Tirith is glaring.
Alison
--
Alison
the softrat
>no seats of learning or schools or even tutors... the total indifference to
>all this does detract just a little from the story. Just a sprinkle of
>details, a twentieth of all the attention paid to landscape, would have
>sufficed.
>
describes, although his vast emphasis is on their military as is
germane to the story at hand. 'Absence of schools'?? Virtually no one
talks about the school system in a fantasy or medieval novel. I always
assume 'home schooling'. C. S. Lewis does describe some schooling in
The Chronicle of Narnia, but those books are about and for children.
In general I think that the 'concerns' voiced in this thread are
extremely picky. Tolkien, or anyone else for that matter, does not
have to describe the entire socio-economic system of his world in
order to have a thoroughly enjoyable and engrossing story. Actually,
in my opinion, such a description would be rather boring and distract
from the main point(s) of the story and the characters.
Note that Tolkien does not discuss the form and style of character
waste elimination either, as has been pointed out endlessly in these
new groups.
the softrat ==> Careful!
I have a hug and I know how to use it!
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
Why do psychics have to ask you for your name? -- Steven Wright
Kristian Damm Jensen
> "Öjevind Lång" <ojevin...@swipnet.se> kirjoitti
> viestissä:G59ua.17$nk5...@nntpserver.swip.net...
>
>
>>To my knowledge, no one has mentioned the person in question for many
>>months.
>
>
> You're such a pathetic liar and troll, Öjevind.
> You know very well that it happened on March 15
> - *less* then two months ago.
And how would you know, what Öjevind knows. You are studiously ignoring
his radidly progressing case of Alzheimers - or did you simply "forget"
that one? Is it starting to get at you, too?
<Rest of pathetic flame snipped>
--
--
Kristian Damm Jensen | Life is short. If you can't be bothered
kristian-d...@cgey.com | to make your posting readable, I can't
ICQ# 146728724 | be bothered to read it.
Michael O'Neill
No public baths, no theatres, no stadiums, no money lenders, no schools
[wandering wizards], no craftsmen or toymakers [all dwarves], no court
[whatver about a council, there should have been a conclave of nobles],
no court functionaries or royal scribe [did Theoden write all his own
letters? Even Saruman had Wormtongue] , or Royal treasurer, or treasury,
or armoury [blacksmiths only, in a city the size of Gondor?], heck, we
don'teven get a decent description of an Inn in Gondor! Mebbee that was
ahy Sauron wanted to take over. Marketing, merchandising, trade!
Exports of fashions to Valinor! McDunedain Fast Food Outlets in Tirion!
PalantírVision for all! And lots of Banks! Progress!
M.
Conrad Dunkerson
> I'd always inferred the presence of scholars and tutors in a city such
> as Gondor, but the lack of even any kind of privy council in Minas Tirith
> is glaring.
Actually, there WAS a council. It is mentioned in a few times in
Appendix A and;
"A Numenorean King was MONARCH, with the power of unquestioned
decision in debate; but he governed the realm with the frame of
ancient law, of which he was administrator (and interpreter) but not
the maker. In all debatable matters of importance domestic, or
external, however, even Denethor had a Council, and at least listened
to what the Lords of the Fiefs and the Captains of the Forces had to
say. Aragorn re-established the Great Council of Gondor, and in that
Faramir, who remained by inheritance the STEWARD (or representative of
the King during his absence abroad, or sickness, or between his death
and the accession of his heir) would [be] the chief counsellor."
Letters #244
From this it seems that the Ruling Stewards had scaled back the
council somewhat from the time of the last kings until Aragorn rebuilt
it, but "even Denethor had a Council".
Conrad Dunkerson
> I see. Thank you! But as Matthew points out in another reply to you, we see
> very little evidence of this artistic ability of Elves.
And what evidence do we see AGAINST it?
Tolkien does not take us into every room in Rivendell. He does not
provide a complete map of every shop in Minas Tirith and a listing of
their inventories. There is no reason to expect that he would or
should. However, that does not mean he intended such things to 'not
exist' in Middle-Earth. There WERE other rooms in Rivendell... I am
quite sure of it. I have no doubts that the shops in Minas Tirith
sold any number of things that were never mentioned in the story.
Tolkien tells us that the Elves were very artistic. Ergo, they must
have produced alot of 'art'... even if he didn't tell us about all of
it.
> When Edoras and Rivendell both seem to be centres surrounded by nothing but
> wilderness, something *is* missing that should be there. People must produce
> things to eat! And I really can't envisage the Elves of Rivendell as hunters
> and gatherers.
Some of Tolkien's sketches of Rivendell appear to show fields and
there are references to farmland in Rohan.
> Aragorn and his companions never seem to find any roads in Rohan (not even
> a road leading to Edoras), or pass any buildings of farms.
> Considering how careful and detailed Tolkien was when describing scenery,
> that is remarkable.
Again... there is no mention of them crossing roads or seeing farm
buildings. There is also no mention of them passing rabbits or
squirrels or streams during that long run... yet surely there must
have been such things and Tolkien DID mention those things in other
passages (just as he did roads and farm buildings). Again, why should
the fact that the text did not mention something mean that it must not
exist?
> I don't mean that Tolkien should have spent a lot of time detailing the
> infrastructure of Rohan, the economics of Gondor, the poets currently in
> fashion in Minas Tirith or the like; but there are not even any details in
> passing ("They passed by some scattered farms" or "Imrahil had recently gone
> through the accounts for his estate" or "On the wall hung a painting of the
> Swanships at Alqualondë"), and that *is* a weakness. The only reason it is
> not more often remarked upon is the compelling nature of Tolkien's writing.
I'd say rather that the compelling nature of Tolkien's writing is the
only reason it is remarked upon at all. :)
I mean, think about it... when you are reading a history text do you
expect it to be mentioned that George Washington passed by some farms
on the way to Valley Forge? Even in a narrative history such details
are generally assumed and only mentioned when required by the flow of
events or occasionally (and usually early on) to give the 'feel' of
the setting. LotR is constructed in precisely the same way... as is
any other work of fiction you might care to mention.
> Farms in Rohan are mentioned *once*, and that is when Saruman's army is
> torching them in the valley outside Helm's Deep. The same is true of Gondor;
> we are told about how the Witch-king's army is burning farms in the Pelennor
> Fields.
And thus they clearly exist. So what purpose is served by mentioning
'they passed some farms' at intervals statistically in keeping with
the amount of farmland required to feed the established population?
In any number of places the book skips ahead days without telling us
that the characters slept... I still suspect that they did. Likewise
I believe that they passed farms and crossed roads all the time... and
see no logical reason to believe otherwise. Nor do I think it a flaw
that Tolkien did not tell us about these common and unimportant events
repeatedly.
> Not necessarily. The ancient Jews had paint and didn't use it for paintings.
> ;-) Perhaps the peoples of Middle-earth only used paint for their houses and
> picket fences.
Images painted on shields and other signs (e.g. Saruman's white hand
at Orthanc) ARE 'paintings'... just paintings with a purpose of
'identification' rather than 'inspiration'. It is possible that
Tolkien intended none of the latter to exist in Middle-Earth, but it
seems unlikely to me.
> The thing is that Tolken ignores these things so much that it becomes
> ridiculous. There are no roads in Rohan, except the path to Dunharrow. No
> visible structure to supply Rivendell with food and goods. And so on. Just
> think of it - Rivendell is a palace slapped down in the middle of
> wilderness. Not so much as a home farm.
Again... the book does not mention them. You are arguing that means
they do not exist. Which seems equally "ridiculous" to me. I imagine
these things as a matter of course when reading the story.
> This is all right for the enchanted castles in Arthurian romance, but
> precisely because of Tolkien's "realistic" narrative, with a great deal
> of attention paid to scenery (which just does not exist in the Atrthurian
> cycle), that is a defect in LotR.
Ah! That's what I was getting at before about how this is only an
issue BECAUSE the story is so compelling. Because Tolkien DOES paint
such a vivid and detailed picture of the surroundings in some passages
you are arguing that he should do so in ALL of them and that if he
does not the land around must have been a blank slate because
otherwise he would have described it in exacting detail.
I disagree. The strength of Tolkien's descriptions in SOME passages
cannot make a 'weakness' of those areas where he pays no more
attention to the details than most authors.
> But let me remind you that the only poets we encounter or even hear about
> are Bilbo, Sam and the bard who made the funeral song for Théoden. (And some
> Elvish minstrels in the Sil.)
There are at least a few others (Frodo, Bombadil, Aragorn, et cetera),
but tell me... how many poets do we hear about in The Chronicles of
Narnia? The Bible? Asimov's Robot series? McCaffery's Pern books
(which have an entire GUILD of 'harpers' who feature prominently in
several books - and yet only a handful of >poets< are ever named)?
Any other book/series you care to mention?
These 'flaws' you describe exist in EVERY book that has ever been
written. No one describes the details in anything approaching the
completeness and frequency they would logically occur. And there is
no reason that they should.
> That is precisely my point. The human beings in Middle-earh do not behave
> like human beings. They don't have any economic and material development at
> all, and no visible means of subistence. And, as I started out saying,
> hardly any art.
No. We are saying slightly different things. I am saying that
Middle-Earth humans do not act like those we know because they have
different values and perspectives. I believe that they DO have
economic and material development but that it is far less important to
them than to us. They certainly have food and yes, art as well. That
we do not frequently see these things does not mean they do not
exist... especially given that Tolkien wrote that they DID exist
without stopping to describe them all the time.
> A roadless, farmless Rohan, countries with a king but no administrators,
> no seats of learning or schools or even tutors... the total indifference to
> all this does detract just a little from the story. Just a sprinkle of
> details, a twentieth of all the attention paid to landscape, would have
> sufficed.
Perhaps... and yet we DO hear about roads and farms in Rohan.
Probably about once for every 20 descriptions of the landscape. :)
Conrad Dunkerson
> I suggest that *this* is what he meant by the Gift of Men in his
> legendarium -- the ability to create imaginary worlds in the same
> fashion, though not with the same capacity to breathe life into them,
> as Eru brought Ea into being (through the mediation of the Ainur). This
> would indicate a limitation to the creative faculty of Elves: they could
> bring about tremendous beauty, but nothing 'inspirational.' Hence poems
> and histories and scholarly works, but no imaginative literature. I
> suspect that, although the idea was not explicitly stated, Elves didn't
> write novels - because they couldn't. This was one artistic endeavour
> that was beyond them.
It is an interesting theory and seems generally in keeping with the
framework, but... Elves were capable of lying. Maeglin certainly did
so. He made up a story to explain where he'd been when captured by
Melkor. Doesn't that imply a 'creative' ability in addition to their
'sub-creative' talents?
I can't think of any Elvish 'fiction' that was devised for
entertainment purposes off-hand, but I'll see if I can't locate some
example.
This could be just another example of something Tolkien did not
mention (and he might reasonably have been daunted by the task of
describing Elven creativity), but it is worth pursuing to see if there
is any evidence one way or another.
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
> Actually, there WAS a council. It is mentioned in a few times in
> Appendix A and;
>
> "A Numenorean King was MONARCH, with the power of unquestioned
> decision in debate; but he governed the realm with the frame of
> ancient law, of which he was administrator (and interpreter) but not
> the maker. In all debatable matters of importance domestic, or
> external, however, even Denethor had a Council, and at least listened
> to what the Lords of the Fiefs and the Captains of the Forces had to
> say. Aragorn re-established the Great Council of Gondor, and in that
> Faramir, who remained by inheritance the STEWARD (or representative of
> the King during his absence abroad, or sickness, or between his death
> and the accession of his heir) would [be] the chief counsellor."
> Letters #244
>
> From this it seems that the Ruling Stewards had scaled back the
> council somewhat from the time of the last kings until Aragorn rebuilt
> it, but "even Denethor had a Council".
So it seems Tolkien favoured the idea of monarchic absolutism, where the
King may take advice but really can do as he pleases, presumably as long as
it isn't illegal. I don't much care for that, actually. A King who could be
at least to some point restraned by his council would have suited me better;
a King who had to listen to elected representatives would have satisified me
even more. And if someone tells me that those things did not exist in
medieval tiems, and hence are impossible, they are wrong; there were elected
parliaments, meetings of all free farmers and the like in some countries at
a fairly early date.
Öjevind
Öjevind
Öjevind Lång
[snippery]
> > I see. Thank you! But as Matthew points out in another reply to you, we
see
> > very little evidence of this artistic ability of Elves.
>
> And what evidence do we see AGAINST it?
A bad writer is a writer who doesn't show you things but tells you that they
are so. Tolkien was a very good writer, but he did have his weaknesses -
instances of not showing you but telling you.
[snip]
>
> Tolkien tells us that the Elves were very artistic. Ergo, they must
> have produced alot of 'art'... even if he didn't tell us about all of
> it.
See above.
> > When Edoras and Rivendell both seem to be centres surrounded by nothing
but
> > wilderness, something *is* missing that should be there. People must
produce
> > things to eat! And I really can't envisage the Elves of Rivendell as
hunters
> > and gatherers.
>
> Some of Tolkien's sketches of Rivendell appear to show fields and
> there are references to farmland in Rohan.
>
> > Aragorn and his companions never seem to find any roads in Rohan (not
even
> > a road leading to Edoras), or pass any buildings of farms.
> > Considering how careful and detailed Tolkien was when describing
scenery,
> > that is remarkable.
>
> Again... there is no mention of them crossing roads or seeing farm
> buildings. There is also no mention of them passing rabbits or
> squirrels or streams during that long run... yet surely there must
> have been such things and Tolkien DID mention those things in other
> passages (just as he did roads and farm buildings). Again, why should
> the fact that the text did not mention something mean that it must not
> exist?
Yes, but put against that the fact that every reader of the books gets a
vision of a completely empty Rohan consisting of endless green grass, with
Edoras in the centre and Helm's Deep on the southern edge. You may later
have constructed an image of Rohan as a country with farms, because anything
else would be ridiculous; but there is no evidence of this in the book
except the mention of torched farms in Helm's Deep. Let me repeat that
considering all the care Tolkien spends on describing landscapes and scenery
in general, this is a weakness. I am not saying I have "proved" that Tolkien
imagined an empty Rohan; I am saying that that is the mental image he gives
his readers out of a complete lack of interest in such mundane things.
> > I don't mean that Tolkien should have spent a lot of time detailing
the
> > infrastructure of Rohan, the economics of Gondor, the poets currently in
> > fashion in Minas Tirith or the like; but there are not even any details
in
> > passing ("They passed by some scattered farms" or "Imrahil had recently
gone
> > through the accounts for his estate" or "On the wall hung a painting of
the
> > Swanships at Alqualondë"), and that *is* a weakness. The only reason it
is
> > not more often remarked upon is the compelling nature of Tolkien's
writing.
>
> I'd say rather that the compelling nature of Tolkien's writing is the
> only reason it is remarked upon at all. :)
Oh, I agree. Tolkien was a great writer. That, however, does not mean one
has no right to point out weaknesses in his writing. Even Homer nodded at
times, as you know.
> I mean, think about it... when you are reading a history text do you
> expect it to be mentioned that George Washington passed by some farms
> on the way to Valley Forge? Even in a narrative history such details
> are generally assumed and only mentioned when required by the flow of
> events or occasionally (and usually early on) to give the 'feel' of
> the setting. LotR is constructed in precisely the same way... as is
> any other work of fiction you might care to mention.
Really? I seem to have read any number of passages in literature along the
lines of "They passed by a farm", "They met two men herding cattle", "An old
woman who was collecting wood stopped to stare at them before going on with
her business", and so on. It is true that we don't find such things in the
heroic epics that Tolkien loved; but since his writing style actually is
quite different, owing a lot to 19th century narrative techniques, his
omission becomes glaring in a way it doesn't when we read, in "Le Morte
d'Arthur", of a castle standing all by itself in the woods.
> > Farms in Rohan are mentioned *once*, and that is when Saruman's army is
> > torching them in the valley outside Helm's Deep. The same is true of
Gondor;
> > we are told about how the Witch-king's army is burning farms in the
Pelennor
> > Fields.
>
> And thus they clearly exist. So what purpose is served by mentioning
> 'they passed some farms' at intervals statistically in keeping with
> the amount of farmland required to feed the established population?
Why does Tolkien keep mentioning trees the Fellowship encounter, or
mountains they pass by, or green hills undulating? The fact is that once the
Shire is left behind, Tolkien gives a very strange impression of countries
devoid of all human settlement, certainly in Rohan. And this becomes serious
because, in fact, his characters do spend a lot of time in the wilderness.
He is good at depicting that; he is less good at depicting the change when
they once more came to inhabited areas. The change should have been huge for
them.
> In any number of places the book skips ahead days without telling us
> that the characters slept... I still suspect that they did. Likewise
> I believe that they passed farms and crossed roads all the time... and
> see no logical reason to believe otherwise. Nor do I think it a flaw
> that Tolkien did not tell us about these common and unimportant events
> repeatedly.
He could have said something like "They now once more entered inhabited
lands", or the like, since they spent so much time travelling through
wilderness. A return to populated land, or seeing farms once more, is not
common and unimportant after weeks in the wilderness.
> > Not necessarily. The ancient Jews had paint and didn't use it for
paintings.
> > ;-) Perhaps the peoples of Middle-earth only used paint for their houses
and
> > picket fences.
>
> Images painted on shields and other signs (e.g. Saruman's white hand
> at Orthanc) ARE 'paintings'... just paintings with a purpose of
> 'identification' rather than 'inspiration'. It is possible that
> Tolkien intended none of the latter to exist in Middle-Earth, but it
> seems unlikely to me.
Again, you do not quite seem to understand what I am saying. You can't
simply fill in for Tolkien by saying "He gives us the impression of a world
almost without art, but they must have had art, so remarking on Tolkien's
strange depiction of his world is unwarranted."
> > The thing is that Tolken ignores these things so much that it becomes
> > ridiculous. There are no roads in Rohan, except the path to Dunharrow.
No
> > visible structure to supply Rivendell with food and goods. And so on.
Just
> > think of it - Rivendell is a palace slapped down in the middle of
> > wilderness. Not so much as a home farm.
>
> Again... the book does not mention them. You are arguing that means
> they do not exist. Which seems equally "ridiculous" to me. I imagine
> these things as a matter of course when reading the story.
I am not saying that those things don't exist because Tolkien does not
mention them. I am saying that Tolkien's depiction of his world is one-sided
in a bizarre way. He spends pages describing forests, mountain ranges, green
fields, but can't spare a couple of sentences to mention the orchards and
farms around Rivendell.
> > This is all right for the enchanted castles in Arthurian romance, but
> > precisely because of Tolkien's "realistic" narrative, with a great deal
> > of attention paid to scenery (which just does not exist in the
Atrthurian
> > cycle), that is a defect in LotR.
>
> Ah! That's what I was getting at before about how this is only an
> issue BECAUSE the story is so compelling. Because Tolkien DOES paint
> such a vivid and detailed picture of the surroundings in some passages
> you are arguing that he should do so in ALL of them and that if he
> does not the land around must have been a blank slate because
> otherwise he would have described it in exacting detail.
Correct. Except that I am not saying this is what he intended; I am saying,
once more, that since he pays so much attention to describing certain kinds
of physical surroundings, his failure to mention, to indicate in any way,
when his travellers once more are in a land with houses and farms and
people, is quite odd. It becomes more odd the more I think about it.
> I disagree. The strength of Tolkien's descriptions in SOME passages
> cannot make a 'weakness' of those areas where he pays no more
> attention to the details than most authors.
Most authors who describe the physical surroundings do not exclude almost
all mention of human habitation and farmland. Certainly not when their
characters come to inhabited lands after a voyage in the wilderness.
> > But let me remind you that the only poets we encounter or even hear
about
> > are Bilbo, Sam and the bard who made the funeral song for Théoden. (And
some
> > Elvish minstrels in the Sil.)
>
> There are at least a few others (Frodo, Bombadil, Aragorn, et cetera),
> but tell me... how many poets do we hear about in The Chronicles of
> Narnia? The Bible? Asimov's Robot series? McCaffery's Pern books
> (which have an entire GUILD of 'harpers' who feature prominently in
> several books - and yet only a handful of >poets< are ever named)?
> Any other book/series you care to mention?
The Chronicles of Narnia are for children. The Bible did not go in for
physical description of any kind, being mostly concerned wih God. Asimov's
robot series is exclusively about robots, and not very well written, though
an entertaining read. Comparing Tolkien to Asimov is not doing Tolkien a
service. The same is true of comparing him to McCaffrey.
Come to think of it, Peter S. Beagle not only mentions quite a number of
bards and poets and playwrights in his writings, but he is very good at
mentioning when his people come to a town, a farm or a village. He does not
count every farm they pass by, but when reading him, one always has a
perfect feeling of the physical surroundings of his persons. That is not to
say that Beagle is a better writer than Tolkien, but he is better at this
particular point.
We both agree that Tolkien is an excellent writer - better, in my opinion,
than the writers you mention. (The Bible does not really belong there at
all.) And precisely because Tolkien is such a careful writer his omissions
stick out.
[snip]
Öjevind
Öjevind Lång
Personally, I blame the Norwegians.
Öjevind
Jim Deutch
<ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>"Conrad Dunkerson" <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> skrev i meddelandet
>news:1178b6d1.03050...@posting.google.com...
[snippage]
>People have always created music. But there does not seem to have been any
>professional practitioners of music - just bards. One would have to go to a
>very primitivt stage in any human civilization to find such a state of affai
>rs.
OTOH, if _everybody_ is an amateur musician, there is no need for
professionals.
>> I think that alot of these things were likely present in Middle-earth,
>> but not mentioned in the texts. They had paint... so someone
>> somewhere almost certainly hit upon the ideas of 'portraits' and
>> 'landscapes'. There was also a great deal of artistic architecture in
>> Middle-earth... from both the Elves and the Dwarves primarily.
>
>I did mention the architecture and the statues. But the complete absence of
>any mention of portraits and landscapes makes me doubt that they existed -
>except perhaps in the Shire. We never encounter anything like a mention of
>"the traditional representation of Elendil in paintings" or "the kind of
>silvan landscape painting beloved by Elves". It is, indeed, hard to imagine
>those things because Tolkien never mentions them. The enarest he comes is
>the description of the tapestry of Eorl the Yung in Meduseld.
I think you're right about that: elves wouldn't go in for painting
much, I think. Because of the way elvish memory works, if they were
there, they remember what it looks like perfectly, and don't need a
painting. If they weren't, I suspect they would find a painting less
than satisfying as a representation: too flat, too much lost.
Music, being some kind of echo of the Music of the Ainur, is a good
bet to go all the way back to Cuivienen.
Jim Deutch
--
We must believe in free will. We have no choice. -Isaac B. Singer
Jim Deutch
<Fo...@solinas.nospam.org> wrote:
>Steuard Jensen wrote:
>
>> I spent rather a lot of time and efort trying to
>> bring peace to the groups and push for compromise on varous issues,
>> and even that came across poorly to some people.
>
>Look, your heart was in the right place, but your suggestion
>that maybe the Balrog had just ONE wing was ill-advised.
LOL!
Jim Deutch
--
It’s bad luck to be superstitious.