What parts of Lord of the Rings you do NOT like.
DrGong
it. However, Chapter 4 - 9 of book 1 (Fellowship of the Ring) I
dislike greatly. The first parts have charm, and once the hobbits
reach Bree the story flows and I have a hard time putting the books
down. However, those few pages I have the hardest time finishing, I
am not sure if it was written at a different time, or edited by
someone else at the publishing house, but it has a wholly different
feel to it and If I am always tempted to skip over that section.
Do other readers have the same or other sections that they dislike?
Öjevind Lång
news:c750aba2-d56a-4bd4...@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
I don't at all mind the section you mention; but I find Chapter I of "The
Two Towers" very hard reading; Merry and Pippin have been kindapped by orcs,
and instead of pursuing them at once Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas waste a lot
of time singing mournful songs for Boromir, combings his hair and generally
pissing about. And the first chapters of Book IV, which basically describe
Frodo and Sam climbing up rocks and down the other side, aren't much good
either, despite some good insights into Gollum's psyche and the eerie
episode in the Dead Marshes when Frodo sees the faces of the slain down in
the deep. But the story doesn't really pick up again until Frodo & Co. come
to Ithilien.
Öjevind
Prai Jei
Book V.
One ginormous interruption of the main plot.
--
ξ:) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
Raven
news:6qvrjuF...@mid.individual.net...
> Merry and Pippin have been kindapped by orcs, and instead of pursuing them
> at once Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas waste a lot of time singing mournful
> songs for Boromir, combings his hair and generally pissing about.
That's how you were *supposed* to honour a fallen leader in those heroic
times. Like in the Nirnaeth Arnoediad, where Azaghāl is slain by Glaurung
but manages to wound the worm, making it bugger off with the other beasts of
Angband fleeing after him. The Dwarves then mournfully bear the body away
from the battlefield, abandoning the battle --- at least the Rohirrim were
more sensible at the battle on the Pelennor field.
Korpen.
Jeff Urs
> Being a fan of the books, I reread them each year and always enjoy
> it. However, Chapter 4 - 9 of book 1 (Fellowship of the Ring) I
> dislike greatly.
> Do other readers have the same or other sections that they dislike?
The first few times I read it (as a teen, more than 30 years ago),
I felt much the same, but I find now that I have grown fond of
that section. Perhaps it's because in the barrow we see a Frodo
who could never be the doe-eyed sniveler that Jackson directed.
Perhaps it's because as an old fogey I can now appreciate someone
like Farmer Maggot more. Perhaps it's because I'm very fond of
mushrooms.
So now I'll even occasionally pick up the book just to read the
journey from Hobbiton to Bree, an honor I used to reserve for
Sam's demolition of Shelob and the passing of the Witch King.
--
Jeff
Noel Q. von Schneiffel
<jon.lennart.beck.its.my.n...@mail.its.in.danmark> wrote:
> "Öjevind Lång" <bredband....@ojevind.lang> skrev i meddelelsennews:6qvrjuF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > Merry and Pippin have been kindapped by orcs, and instead of pursuing them
> > at once Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas waste a lot of time singing mournful
> > songs for Boromir, combings his hair and generally pissing about.
>
> That's how you were *supposed* to honour a fallen leader in those heroic
> but manages to wound the worm, making it bugger off with the other beasts of
> Angband fleeing after him. The Dwarves then mournfully bear the body away
> from the battlefield, abandoning the battle --- at least the Rohirrim were
> more sensible at the battle on the Pelennor field.
I must say, I am shocked. I thought this was a pro-Tolkien newsgroup.
And now you people come up with a thread about parts of LotR you do
*not* like! This is a stab at the heart of Tolkien and all his
faithful fans. I am sure Pullman sneers in the darkness, and writes
down your names in his golden book of lost souls.
Tolkien's words are The Truth, and every single letter - yes, verily,
even the "e" in the third "the" in the second subordinate clause on
page 857 - reflects the beauty of his writing and should be respected.
That means, if you don't like a certain passage, the problem is
entirely yours.
I do not necessarily blame you for feeling this way, since I know how
childhood traumata can bend and distort our true feelings. Maybe this
certain passage has been read to you by your parents whilst they beat
you and withheld your pacifier, and now your brain associates this
passage with feelings of discomfort. However, it is entirely possible
to teach yourself to like these passages again with strict mental
training. Read the passage in question over and over again, and treat
yourself to some luxury while you do it - a glass of good wine, a
piece of candy, a cushion on your hard wooden bench. Then stop and do
*not* read the passage for a few hours, while you chasten yourself
thoroughly with thorny whips, cold showers and scenes from the Jackson
films. After a few months, the treacherous "dislike" will wither and
you will begin to long for this very passage with a fiery desire.
Noel
Derek Broughton
> Tolkien's words are The Truth, and every single letter - yes, verily,
> even the "e" in the third "the" in the second subordinate clause on
> page 857
Oh, great prophet of the Master, I must humby ask what edition of the
Great One's masterpiece you are using? The second subordinate clause on
page 857 in my copy has only two "the"s. I may perhaps be using an
unauthorized version, and fear I am stumbling into heresy.
> That means, if you don't like a certain passage, the problem is
> entirely yours.
I understand completely. I once thought Tom Bombadil was unnecessary.
I once found most of /The Two Towers/ boring (except Ents). I have seen
the light!
> However, it is entirely possible
> to teach yourself to like these passages again with strict mental
> training. Read the passage in question over and over again, and treat
> yourself to some luxury while you do it - a glass of good wine, a
> piece of candy, a cushion on your hard wooden bench.
Cushions are permitted?!?!
> Then stop and do
> *not* read the passage for a few hours, while you chasten yourself
> thoroughly with thorny whips, cold showers and scenes from the Jackson
> films.
Ah! I see.
--
derek
DrGong
> DrGong <Drgo...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > Being a fan of the books, I reread them each year and always enjoy
> > it. However, Chapter 4 - 9 of book 1 (Fellowship of the Ring) I
> > dislike greatly.
> [snip]
> > Do other readers have the same or other sections that they dislike?
>
> The first few times I read it (as a teen, more than 30 years ago),
> I felt much the same, but I find now that I have grown fond of
> that section. Perhaps it's because in the barrow we see a Frodo
> who could never be the doe-eyed sniveler that Jackson directed.
> Perhaps it's because as an old fogey I can now appreciate someone
> like Farmer Maggot more. Perhaps it's because I'm very fond of
> mushrooms.
>
"just simple farmers" but are wise and can see though many things (The
Farmer Maggot types are the types that never get cought up in the
scams of the likes of Bernard L. Madoff) but I dislike the old forest
and Tom bits. Even the Barrow Downs.
I know, I am a heathen, but even those parts are better then the
golden compass...
Derek Broughton
> I know, I am a heathen, but even those parts are better then the
> golden compass...
Ouch! Damned with faint praise...
--
derek
calvin
skip them and come back later when in the mood. For some
reason, prose and poetry don't mix well for me.
Pseudonymus al-Faqha'ter III
<noel.von.schneif...@fats.teunc.org> wrote:
> I must say, I am shocked. I thought this was a pro-Tolkien newsgroup.
Given thhat they did not heed MORAMBAR's wisdom, that seems inherently
unlikely.
> Tolkien's words are The Truth, and every single letter - yes, verily,
> even the "e" in the third "the" in the second subordinate clause on
> page 857 - reflects the beauty of his writing and should be respected.
> That means, if you don't like a certain passage, the problem is
> entirely yours.
It's a bit more complicated than that. We know that Christopher forced
Tolkien to leave out large portions of His sacred Truth, such as the
sex scenes. Did he also foce Tolkien to ADD passages? If he did, then
such passages will have been, piso facto, rubbish. However, only the
most highly trained Tolkienlogist is competent even to suggest what
those passages might be. Certainly no one in this newsgroup qualifies.
Therefore, they should listen meekly to the Word of Tolkien until they
have been properly instructed.
The other caveat, being that MORAMBAR has stated that Tolkien did not
always understand His own meaning. If anything, this merely increases
my awe at His genius. He was so brilliant that He was even beyond His
own comprehension! It took a MORAMBAR to pierce that veil.
Noel Q. von Schneiffel
> Noel Q. von Schneiffel wrote:
>
> > Tolkien's words are The Truth, and every single letter - yes, verily,
> > even the "e" in the third "the" in the second subordinate clause on
> > page 857
>
> Oh, great prophet of the Master, I must humby ask what edition of the
> Great One's masterpiece you are using? The second subordinate clause on
> page 857 in my copy has only two "the"s. I may perhaps be using an
> unauthorized version, and fear I am stumbling into heresy.
Unless you are reading the 1965 edition from Ace Books, which deprived
Tolkien of his well-earned royalties, this should not be a problem.
Most versions on the free market are authorized these days. If you are
unsure, just look how much the book cost and donate that sum to the
Tolkien Estate, plus 2% per year that passed since its printing (to
account for inflation). Also donate some money to Pseudonymus, it
always makes him happy.
I myself mostly use a unique specimen these days, a copy hand-written
by a Buddhist monk whom I converted. He spent 20 years of his life on
it, while living under a vow of silence in a monastery near Lhasa, and
he wrote every single page on fine goat leather, with ink destilled
from the lung of a man who smoked pipeweed for 60 years. So, of
course, our editions may differ in paging.
> > (...) a cushion on your hard wooden bench.
>
> Cushions are permitted?!?!
>
> > Then stop and do
> > *not* read the passage for a few hours, while you chasten yourself
> > thoroughly with thorny whips, cold showers and scenes from the Jackson
> > films.
>
> Ah! I see.
"There is a time for cushions, there is a time for whips." Isn't there
a song? There should be.
Noel
Dave Stallard
> Being a fan of the books, I reread them each year and always enjoy
> it. However, Chapter 4 - 9 of book 1 (Fellowship of the Ring) I
> dislike greatly. The first parts have charm, and once the hobbits
> reach Bree the story flows and I have a hard time putting the books
> down. However, those few pages I have the hardest time finishing, I
> am not sure if it was written at a different time, or edited by
> someone else at the publishing house, but it has a wholly different
> feel to it and If I am always tempted to skip over that section.
I actually *love* the journey from Hobbiton to the Old Forest, and wish
it were longer, and took a more circuitous route! The Shire is so
vividly imagined and so deliriously bucolic that I want to go there. I
love all those places on the map: the Green Hill country, Woodhall, the
Marish, and the nearby places that aren't even mentioned in the story:
Pincup, Willowbottom, Deephallow.
Parts of the book I can do without: the Paths of the Dead episode
(filler IMO), the rather embarrassing love-that-dare-not-speak-its-name
exchanges between Frodo and Sam in Cirith Ungol ("'I wish we could be
here together forever'", "He kissed his hand", etc), and most especially
the very ill-advised narration-by-medieval-sports-announcer episode in
which (IIRC) Gandalf drives off the Nazgul who is menacing the helpless
Faramir. ("And now comes my lord Faramir..", etc, as though it was a
horse-race.)
If I had to pick my favorite volume of the three, I'd definitely say
FotR: the Shire, the journey through the wilds of Eriador with its
crumbling castles and relics of the past, the flight to the Ford,
Rivendell, Moria, perhaps the most oppressively terrifying episode of
the book, and Lorien, perhaps the most uplifting with the intriguing and
complex character of Galadriel. After that, the fellowship is broken,
and the narrative is split, and I don't think Tolkien handles that too
well novelistically - it certainly is more difficult to write, and more
difficult to follow. A bit of a risky maneuver, rather like a commander
dividing his forces (or as they say in the software biz,
"multi-threading will rot your teeth").
Dave
Nautilus
Dave Stallard <nom...@not.net> wrote:
> Parts of the book I can do without: the Paths of the Dead episode
> (filler IMO), the rather embarrassing love-that-dare-not-speak-its-name
> exchanges between Frodo and Sam in Cirith Ungol ("'I wish we could be
> here together forever'", "He kissed his hand", etc), and most especially
> the very ill-advised narration-by-medieval-sports-announcer episode in
> which (IIRC) Gandalf drives off the Nazgul who is menacing the helpless
> Faramir. ("And now comes my lord Faramir..", etc, as though it was a
> horse-race.)
>
> If I had to pick my favorite volume of the three, I'd definitely say
> FotR: the Shire, the journey through the wilds of Eriador with its
> crumbling castles and relics of the past, the flight to the Ford,
> Rivendell, Moria,
Same here.
I have no problem with the love between Frodo and Sam. I could even
like a LotR with a Frodo and Sam being a gay couple. In LotR, as it
is, it's quite a mistery why Sam would travel through all that danger
with Frodo. We don't get to know much about their relationship before
Frodo leaves the Shire, except from Sam's gardening for Frodo.
What I don't like:
- The ceremoniousness which comes into the book in "The Two Towers".
- Gimli and Legolas counting the heads of the orcs they have killed.
First, I simply can't stand it. Second, it might add something to the
characterization of a grim dwarf, but for an elf it feels
inappropriate or out of character for me.
- Most of the songs and poems.
- The "love stories" in the book (Faramir and Eowyn e. g.). I don't
see much love there, it's just paper and printing ink IMO.
Dave Stallard
> I have no problem with the love between Frodo and Sam. I could even
> like a LotR with a Frodo and Sam being a gay couple. In LotR, as it
> is, it's quite a mistery why Sam would travel through all that danger
> with Frodo. We don't get to know much about their relationship before
> Frodo leaves the Shire, except from Sam's gardening for Frodo.
It's just that it's always annoying when an author seems unaware of the
logical consequences of the storyline he's set up. But Tolkien's not
the only author I've felt to be guilty of that.
> What I don't like:
> - The ceremoniousness which comes into the book in "The Two Towers".
>
> - Gimli and Legolas counting the heads of the orcs they have killed.
> First, I simply can't stand it. Second, it might add something to the
> characterization of a grim dwarf, but for an elf it feels
> inappropriate or out of character for me.
But don't forget that Legolas was a Sylvan elf (even though of part
Sindarin descent).
> - Most of the songs and poems.
I TIVO the poetry.
> - The "love stories" in the book (Faramir and Eowyn e. g.). I don't
> see much love there, it's just paper and printing ink IMO.
Hear, hear. I can see why she fell for Aragorn out of admiration for
him, but then Faramir seems like a substitute. It reminds me of the end
of a Jane Austen novel, which can be summed up as "... and everybody got
married, and they all lived happily ever after", and where each
character is paired off with a character of appropriate social rank to
him/her (with an adjustment up or down if needed to correct for his or
her quality of moral character). Aragorn was number 1, so he got the
Elf princess, Faramir was number 2, so he got Eowyn. End of story. The
relationship between them isn't developed. It's like Marianne and the
Colonel in "Sense and Sensibility". (Well, I can see why he wanted her,
but vice versa - no way. Dunno WTF Jane didn't marry Elinor and the
Colonel - that's the relationship that would have made sense).
Dave
Stan Brown
force myself to slow down and read them; otherwise I find myself
starting to skim. Helm's Deep especially bores me.
What I love most is the "lore" and conversations where things are
decided: the Council of Elrond and "The Shadow of the Past", of
course, but also "The Last Debate" of the captains of Gondor; Saruman
and Gandalf's confrontation (as told by Gandalf); the initial mutual
feeling-out of Strider and the hobbits, Frodo and Faramir's long
conversation, and so on.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://mysite.verizon.net/aznirb/mtr/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Stan Brown
> Nautilus wrote:
>
> > I have no problem with the love between Frodo and Sam. I could even
> > like a LotR with a Frodo and Sam being a gay couple. In LotR, as it
> > is, it's quite a mistery why Sam would travel through all that danger
> > with Frodo. We don't get to know much about their relationship before
> > Frodo leaves the Shire, except from Sam's gardening for Frodo.
>
> It's just that it's always annoying when an author seems unaware of the
> logical consequences of the storyline he's set up. But Tolkien's not
> the only author I've felt to be guilty of that.
On the other hand, perhaps you're reading into it something that
isn't there.
I'm gay, and was closeted for the first quarter century of my life,
so I became expert at detecting gay subtext. I just don't see it in
LotR. I see Sam nearly hero-worshipping Frodo, I see a hereditary
family retainer devoted to a kind master, but I see no whiff of
sexuality. It seems to me that Sam is no more gay for kissing Frodo's
hand than Margaret Thatcher was for kissing Elizabeth II's.
Dave Stallard
> On the other hand, perhaps you're reading into it something that
> isn't there.
>
> I'm gay, and was closeted for the first quarter century of my life,
> so I became expert at detecting gay subtext. I just don't see it in
> LotR. I see Sam nearly hero-worshipping Frodo, I see a hereditary
> family retainer devoted to a kind master, but I see no whiff of
> sexuality. It seems to me that Sam is no more gay for kissing Frodo's
> hand than Margaret Thatcher was for kissing Elizabeth II's.
It's not a subtext of sexuality, as much as a sub-text of romantic love
which I see in these passages. Which seems amusing given the thinly
sketched and not very believable depictions of romantic love between
male and female characters, at least in the main part of the book (the
Tale of Arwen and Aragorn" in the Appendices is much better in this regard).
I'll defer on this; it's just that the male-bonding theme (Frodo/Sam,
Legolas/Gimli, Merry/Pippin) seems so much more pronounced than any of
the male-female relationships.
Dave
Weland
So? Does that mean it must be sexual in nature?
Stan Brown
> I'll defer on this; it's just that the male-bonding theme (Frodo/Sam,
> Legolas/Gimli, Merry/Pippin) seems so much more pronounced than any of
> the male-female relationships.
Well, it would, wouldn't it? Nearly every character in the book is
male, and even the female characters that there are do very little.
The only exceptions I can think of are Éowyn and Galadriel, and
Éowyn's relationship with Faramir at least seems well drawn.
Morgoth's Curse
wrote:
Heretics!
A true Tolkien fan savors every word and passage of The Lord of the
Rings! No excuses and no exceptions!
With that caveat in mind, I must confess that much of the Field of
Cormallen makes my eyes glaze over. I am not sure why. It's a
phenomenon that Tolkien himself wryly notes in The Hobbit:
"Now it is a strange thing, but things that are good to have and days
that are good to spend are soon told about, and not much to listen to;
while things that are uncomfortable, palpitating, and even gruesome,
may make a good tale, and take a deal of telling anyway." ^_^
Or perhaps it is just the anti-climatic nature of the chapter.
Morgoth's Curse
Bill O' Meally
> Or perhaps it is just the anti-climatic nature of the chapter.
Hmm. I never detected any anti-weather prejudices in the chapter.
;-)
--
Bill
"Wise fool."
Gandalf _The Two Towers_
(The Wise will remove 'se' to reach me. The Foolish will not!)
Derek Broughton
> In article <jfqdnbK0A-eB0gbU...@giganews.com>,
> "Bill O' Meally" <omea...@wise.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Morgoth's Curse wrote:
>> > Or perhaps it is just the anti-climatic nature of the chapter.
>>
>> Hmm. I never detected any anti-weather prejudices in the chapter.
>
> What about how Weathertop abandons the Hobbits to the tender ministrations
> of the Ringwraiths?
Certainly - but that's a different chapter :-)
Troels Forchhammer
Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> spoke these staves:
>
Out of the carcass of an old discussion about the relative merits of
different parts of _The Lord of the Rings_ I raise a spectre, a
wraith, of a discussion in order to continue . . .
> I always find it hard to get through the battle scenes. I have to
> force myself to slow down and read them; otherwise I find myself
> starting to skim. Helm's Deep especially bores me.
I'll have to say that there are no parts that I can remember that I
actually _dislike_, though clearly there are some passages I like
better, respectively worse, than others.
The first three chapters of book IV are quite long to get through,
but I have come to appreciate their pace as a reflection of the
tedious plodding of the three hobbits through the wastelands east of
the Great River. Still, they will probably never become my favourite
chapters.
I also find that the game of counting orc-heads between Gimli and
Legolas is out of place -- it would have worked with the Orcs of _The
Book of Lost Tales_ and the early thirties Silmarillion, but in the
context of the new view on Orcs that emerge in LotR it becomes like a
stone in the shoe.
Tolkien's descriptions of love are almost all completely without any
trace of eros -- it is pure agape and philia which is probably the
reason for some of the confusion regarding Sam and Frodo, even though
Sam is actually the only one to show a bit of erotic love in his
clumsiness when finally reunited with Rose Cotton.
I suppose I am a sentimental old fool, but I'll admit that it works
on me -- I find that Tolkien achieves that expression which gives to
me 'when the "turn" comes, a catch of the breath, a beat and lifting
of the heart, near to (or indeed accompanied by) tears, as keen as
that given by any form of literary art, and having a peculiar
quality.' (On Fairy-Stories).
So, I'm sobbing whenever I 'hear' the host cry out 'A laita te, laita
te! Andave laituvalmet!' at the field of Cormallen, and indeed when
Éowyn heart turn towards healing -- and unlike some similar
experiences with other authors, I don't feel the slightest ashamed of
my tears because I don't think it is just cheap emotionalism.
> What I love most is the "lore" and conversations where things are
> decided: the Council of Elrond and "The Shadow of the Past", of
> course, but also "The Last Debate" of the captains of Gondor;
> Saruman and Gandalf's confrontation (as told by Gandalf); the
> initial mutual feeling-out of Strider and the hobbits, Frodo and
> Faramir's long conversation, and so on.
And the discussion between Frodo and Sam on the Stairs of Cirith
Ungol about the great stories, and Pippin's history lesson while
riding with Gandalf to Gondor, and the understated tension between
Gandalf and Denethor, and . . . and . . . and . . . ;-)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
"It would seem that you have no useful skill or talent
whatsoever," he said. "Have you thought of going into
teaching?"
- /Mort/ (Terry Pratchett)
jo...@jones5011.fsnet.co.uk
wrote:
>
> I also find that the game of counting orc-heads between Gimli and
> Legolas is out of place -- it would have worked with the Orcs of _The
> Book of Lost Tales_ and the early thirties Silmarillion, but in the
> context of the new view on Orcs that emerge in LotR it becomes like a
> stone in the shoe.
>
rifles, fighter pilots painting 'kills' on their planes, submarines
flying skull and crossbones with their score on the flag.
Troels Forchhammer
<62e4d5d6-ae14-4eca...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>
jo...@jones5011.fsnet.co.uk spoke these staves:
> On Mar 18, 9:05 pm, Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> I also find that the game of counting orc-heads between Gimli and
>> Legolas is out of place
>>
> Why? This is quite common in war
The frequency with which such head-counting occurs in actual wars (or
in epic legends, for that matter, like the Icelandic sagas) has nothing
to do with it -- this is Tolkien's Middle-earth where things do work
differently.
While this would, as I said earlier, be fine with the earlier portrayal
of Orcs, it simply doesn't match the view on the Orcs that emerged with
the writing of LotR and is prevalent in LotR and later writings. In
this view Orcs are to be shown the same mercy and pity as any other
speaking race, and though Gimli and Legolas are representatives of the
older, fading races, they are also representatives of the good -- I'd
have expected such a behaviour from someone like Denethor, or even from
some of the Rohirrim, but Gimli and Legolas are more representative of
the underlying ethos of Middle-earth, and so it feels wrong for them to
engage in such a competition because such behaviour is morally wrong in
Tolkien's universe.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
The idea that time may vary from place to place is a
difficult one, but it is the idea Einstein used, and it is
correct - believe it or not.
- Richard Feynman
Clams Canino
On Mar 18, 9:05 pm, Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>
wrote:
>
> I also find that the game of counting orc-heads between Gimli and
> Legolas is out of place -- it would have worked with the Orcs of _The
> Book of Lost Tales_ and the early thirties Silmarillion, but in the
> context of the new view on Orcs that emerge in LotR it becomes like a
> stone in the shoe.
>
<jo...@jones5011.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:62e4d5d6-ae14-4eca...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
Why? This is quite common in war - think of snipers notching their
rifles, fighter pilots painting 'kills' on their planes, submarines
flying skull and crossbones with their score on the flag.
____________________________________
And I see both sides. While I agree it is proper combat behavior, it seemed
enough out of place in the Jackson film that I had to go back and re-read
the book to see if it really was there and with about the same "weight" -
This to make sure it wasn't another Jackson "add-in" as it were.
So something must have felt out of place about it.
-W
Clams Canino
"Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
> I'd
> have expected such a behaviour from someone like Denethor, or even from
> some of the Rohirrim, but Gimli and Legolas are more representative of
> the underlying ethos of Middle-earth, and so it feels wrong for them to
> engage in such a competition because such behaviour is morally wrong in
> Tolkien's universe.
I'm not so sure how "morally wrong" at the time LoTR was written. "The only
good Orc is a dead Orc" seems to be the prevailing sentiment of all the
forces of good in that period.
That said.... I'd expect a Dwarf to cound "pelts" quicker than elves would.
I think Tolkien was trying to show "friendly rivalry" - it just lands a
little sour.
-W
Derek Broughton
Well, as usual, Jackson exaggerated the wrong parts. You could be excused
for thinking the whole Battle of Helm's Deep was contrived purely to give
Gimli & Legolas a chance to count coup (OK, and to do a little surfing).
You had to go back and check, because the way Tolkien did it it was _not_
out of place.
--
derek
Derek Broughton
> In message
> <62e4d5d6-ae14-4eca...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>
> jo...@jones5011.fsnet.co.uk spoke these staves:
>>
>> On Mar 18, 9:05 pm, Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I also find that the game of counting orc-heads between Gimli and
>>> Legolas is out of place
> [...]
>>>
>> Why? This is quite common in war
>
> The frequency with which such head-counting occurs in actual wars (or
> in epic legends, for that matter, like the Icelandic sagas) has nothing
> to do with it -- this is Tolkien's Middle-earth where things do work
> differently.
Such a dismissive attitude is so unlike you, Troels.
> While this would, as I said earlier, be fine with the earlier portrayal
> of Orcs, it simply doesn't match the view on the Orcs that emerged with
> the writing of LotR and is prevalent in LotR and later writings. In
> this view Orcs are to be shown the same mercy and pity as any other
> speaking race, and though Gimli and Legolas are representatives of the
> older, fading races, they are also representatives of the good -- I'd
But they are also just as "human" as you or I - and Tolkien had enough
experience of war to know that even the "good" did such things. I think,
surprisingly, you haven't looked deeply enough, here.
--
derek
Derek Broughton
>
> "Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
>> I'd
>> have expected such a behaviour from someone like Denethor, or even from
>> some of the Rohirrim, but Gimli and Legolas are more representative of
>> the underlying ethos of Middle-earth, and so it feels wrong for them to
>> engage in such a competition because such behaviour is morally wrong in
>> Tolkien's universe.
>
> I'm not so sure how "morally wrong" at the time LoTR was written.
Not the universe Tolkien lives in, but _his_ universe. At least to some
degree, Tolkien's universe had to be a reaction to what he saw in WWI.
> "The
> only good Orc is a dead Orc" seems to be the prevailing sentiment of all
> the forces of good in that period.
And I'd bet that most of the people spouting the sentiment had never
actually killed any "Orcs".
--
derek
Julian Bradfield
> While [head-counting] would, as I said earlier, be fine with the earlier portrayal
> of Orcs, it simply doesn't match the view on the Orcs that emerged with
> the writing of LotR and is prevalent in LotR and later writings. In
> this view Orcs are to be shown the same mercy and pity as any other
Where do you get this view from? I don't see it in LotR. The
recognition, shown by a few, that the Orcs were not evil in their
ultimate origins, is not the same as saying that Orcs "now" are to be
shown mercy and pity. Where, in LotR, does anybody combatant on the
"good" side do anything other than try to kill as many Orcs as
possible, or suggest that any other action might be possible?
Gandalf, who is surely the strongest representative of the "underlying
ethos", steers an entire army of Orcs into the strangling limbs of the
Huorns, with no chance of surrender or escape. We would consider that
a war crime.
> some of the Rohirrim, but Gimli and Legolas are more representative of
> the underlying ethos of Middle-earth, and so it feels wrong for them to
> engage in such a competition because such behaviour is morally wrong in
> Tolkien's universe.
I also don't see this. Gimli is a dwarf, and we all know about
dwarves. Legolas is a Wood-elf, which means he's a representative of
a petty, rather autocratic, king.
Is that the underlying ethos you're referring to?
Now if *Aragorn* had indulged in head-counting, I might see your point
- though he does seem amused by it rather than distressed.
Clams Canino
> > On 2009-03-19, Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > While [head-counting] would, as I said earlier, be fine with the
earlier
> > > portrayal
> > > of Orcs, it simply doesn't match the view on the Orcs that emerged
with
> > > the writing of LotR and is prevalent in LotR and later writings. In
> > > this view Orcs are to be shown the same mercy and pity as any other
>> Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Where do you get this view from? I don't see it in LotR. The
>"Song Sung China Blue" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:chine.bleu-
> In his later years Tolkien felt that his orcs showed too much rebellion
and
> disrespect for their masters than could be attributed to a mere Punkerpan
or
> Ramdove (but see also BES). That might mean they have a soul, and in his
> religion anything with a soul was capable of redemption. From that there
would
> have to be some good orcs, and it would be wrong to kill orcs like mere
animals.
> This all postdated LotR as part of the endless revisions and ruminations
to get
> the Silmarillion ready for publication.
Yes, but I agree with Julian that all this rumination about the souls of
orcs happened much later than LoTR and I see nothing in any LoTR (or
Silmarillion) text that indicates that orcs are to be shown any
consideration. Even Beorn in the Hobbit comes to mind as another example.
When he asks the question of Troels as to "where the view comes from" ; it's
a legit question as I find nothing in the published texts to support any
view of orcs but "kill 'em all".
-W
Derek Broughton
> it's a legit question as I find nothing in the published texts to support
> any view of orcs but "kill 'em all".
And let Eru sort them out :-)
--
derek
Raven
news:1636565.D...@cedar.serverforest.com...
> Clams Canino wrote:
Echoes of Arnaud Amaury?
Corb.
Derek Broughton
Precisely.
--
derek
tamim....@gmail.com
> In article <slrngs6j73.htg....@krk.inf.ed.ac.uk>,
> Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > some of the Rohirrim, but Gimli and Legolas are more representative of
> > > the underlying ethos of Middle-earth, and so it feels wrong for them to
> > > engage in such a competition because such behaviour is morally wrong in
> > > Tolkien's universe.
>
> > I also don't see this. Gimli is a dwarf, and we all know about
> > dwarves. Legolas is a Wood-elf, which means he's a representative of
> > a petty, rather autocratic, king.
> > Is that the underlying ethos you're referring to?
>
> growing, healing what damage they find etc. I'm not saying Legolas
> should feel remorse for the orcs he killed, but I also find this
> rather childish game of counting heads and bragging about their
> number un-elvish.
> I'm not sure if the hearts of wood-elves are so much different from
> the hearts of other elves. They treated Gollum with all the kindness
> they could muster. And I can't believe they did it only on Gandalf's
> orders.
Hearts of Elves? Elves weren't "saints" until somehow in the third age
they had wizened up by sheer time or humiliation, I don't know.
There is a huge difference in the tone of Silmarillion and LotR, and
my guess is that the biggest reason of this isn't the change in elves,
but in the change of the narrator, the first was written" by Noldor
(Finarfin and Fingolfin) and the second by Hobbits.
I don't think Galadriel changed that much. It's just that she could
fool a few Hobbits
Öjevind Lång
news:407de64a-624d-46ac...@o11g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> Hearts of Elves? Elves weren't "saints" until somehow in the third age
they had wizened up by sheer time or humiliation, I don't know.
There is a huge difference in the tone of Silmarillion and LotR, and
my guess is that the biggest reason of this isn't the change in elves,
but in the change of the narrator, the first was written" by Noldor
(Finarfin and Fingolfin) and the second by Hobbits.
And even so, Elves such as Lindir of Rivendell had a very supercilious
attitude to mortals. "I dare say sheep look different to other sheep."
Öjevind
tamim....@gmail.com
the first was written" by Noldor
> (Finarfin and Fingolfin) and the second by Hobbits.
>
Sorry didn't mean Finarfin and Fingolfin personally. I meant their
followers, that is Noldorin elves who weren't attached to the house of
Feanor.
Stan Brown
<bredba...@ojevind.lang>:
> <tamim....@gmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
> news:407de64a-624d-46ac...@o11g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> they had wizened up by sheer time or humiliation,
Just an interesting point of language. I know English isn't your
first language, and every rule has exceptions. If "blackened" means
"became black", then it seems "wizened" ought to mean "became wise".
But "wizened" means shrunken and wrinkled. For "became wise" I don't
think there is a standard single word; about all I can think of is
"became wise", "grew wiser", or "gained in wisdom".
tamim....@gmail.com
> Just an interesting point of language. I know English isn't your
> first language, and every rule has exceptions. If "blackened" means
> "became black", then it seems "wizened" ought to mean "became wise".
> But "wizened" means shrunken and wrinkled.
Oops. Obviously I meant "became wise", but they sort of shrunk also.
Not literally, but still :)
Clams Canino
"Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> Just an interesting point of language. I know English isn't your
> first language, and every rule has exceptions. If "blackened" means
> "became black", then it seems "wizened" ought to mean "became wise".
> But "wizened" means shrunken and wrinkled. For "became wise" I don't
> think there is a standard single word; about all I can think of is
> "became wise", "grew wiser", or "gained in wisdom".
That said...
I note that wisdom tends to come with age... as do the shrinking and
wrinkles. :)
"Wised Up" is the shortest I can make it. Or is it "Wized Up" ?
-W
Weland
> Sun, 22 Mar 2009 09:15:07 +0100 from Öjevind Lång
> <bredba...@ojevind.lang>:
>
>><tamim....@gmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
>>news:407de64a-624d-46ac...@o11g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>Hearts of Elves? Elves weren't "saints" until somehow in the third age
>>
>>they had wizened up by sheer time or humiliation,
>
>
> Just an interesting point of language. I know English isn't your
> first language, and every rule has exceptions. If "blackened" means
> "became black", then it seems "wizened" ought to mean "became wise".
> But "wizened" means shrunken and wrinkled.
Because "wizened" comes from Old English wisnian, meaning to dry up,
wither, waste away whereas "wise" comes from OE "wis", as an adjective
meaning "wise", "one who perceives, knows." Homonyms in OE, but not
synonyms.
The difference is that "blackened" doesn't mean "became black" but "was
made black", i. e. has a passive connotation to it...somebody or
something made the object black. As such, a person is not "made wise"
by someone else, but can only make him/herself wise by learning from
others. Hence, no "wizened" meaning to "be made wise".
For "became wise" I don't
> think there is a standard single word; about all I can think of is
> "became wise", "grew wiser", or "gained in wisdom".
Wised up, put wise.
Troels Forchhammer
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> spoke these staves:
>
<snip>
Yay! Scand linguistics ;-)
> Because "wizened" comes from Old English wisnian, meaning to dry
> up, wither, waste away whereas "wise" comes from OE "wis", as an
> adjective meaning "wise", "one who perceives, knows." Homonyms in
> OE, but not synonyms.
In modern Danish 'wizened' = "visne" and 'wise' = "vis" (and even
more obviously, 'wisdom' = "visdom" -- and in this case I think the
connotations are quite close: my understanding at least is that both
has a primary meaning of knowledge, but is generally used for
knowledge that isn't learned from reading books: experience, 'Lessons
from the Varsity of Life' as Lord Baden-Powell titled is
autobiography (and yes -- I'm an active scout leader in case anyone
wondered ;-) )
Thinking of the ideas about language underlying Flieger's 'Splintered
Light' (I think it Barfield she shows was a proponent of the theory),
I wonder if there is a common root having to do with ageing?
> The difference is that "blackened" doesn't mean "became black" but
> "was made black", i. e. has a passive connotation to it...somebody
> or something made the object black. As such, a person is not
> "made wise" by someone else, but can only make him/herself wise by
> learning from others. Hence, no "wizened" meaning to "be made
> wise".
And in actual 'wizened' it doesn't have the passive connotation
because the first 'e' has been added to the OE wisnian? (At least I
don't think wizening can normally be inflicted upon you from the
outside.)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they
are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not
refer to reality.
- Albert Einstein
Troels Forchhammer
Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> spoke these staves:
> On 2009-03-19, Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> While [head-counting] would, as I said earlier, be fine with the
>> earlier portrayal of Orcs, it simply doesn't match the view on
>> the Orcs that emerged with the writing of LotR and is prevalent
>> in LotR and later writings. In this view Orcs are to be shown
>> the same mercy and pity as any other
>
> Where do you get this view from? I don't see it in LotR.
Yes I have probably overstated the degree to which this view is present
in LotR (I'd agree that it is surely not, as I claimed, 'prevalent' in
LotR), I nevertheless maintain that it does emerge with the writing of
LotR and that it does underlie the non-combat interactions with Orcs
that we witness in LotR.
Unlike the very sketchy 'kill'em-all' presentation in the battle scenes
(which I do agree is there), the portrayal elsewhere is of independent,
free-willed and moral creatures with a potential for redemption no less
than that of the humans who Tolkien compares to Orcs in his letters.
This is also a major point of criticism by W.H. Auden in his 1968
article 'Good and Evil in The Lord Ofthe Rings' in _Critical
Quarterly_.
We see this view emerge more explicitly in the letters Tolkien wrote
about the time LotR was first published -- letter #153 to Peter
Hastings, the manager of a Catholic bookshop in Oxford, from September
1954 (before the release of _The Return of the King_) is a good example
(saying, for instance, that Orcs 'are fundamentally a race of 'rational
incarnate' creatures, though horribly corrupted, if no more so than
many Men to be met today.')
Explicit statements that Orcs were to be spared if they surrendered
doesn't appear until a few years after LotR was published (1959-60
according to CJRT) and are published in _Morgoth's Ring_
I will also maintain that the head-counting game of Legolas and Gimli
(and the complete destruction of the Orcs by the Huorns, for that
matter) are more appropriate for the pre-LotR view of Orcs, in which
the Orcs had a clear demonic aspect, and, though made in mockery of the
Elves, were creatures created by Morgoth rather than corrupted by him:
'These Orcs Morgoth made in envy and mockery of the Elves, and they
were made of stone, but their hearts of hatred.' (_The Lost Road and
Other Writings_ (HoMe 5), part 2, VI ‘Quenta Silmarillion’, ch. 5 §62,
p.233)
As long as this is the story-internal origin of Orcs there is nothing
inappropriate in view of the morality otherwise expounded in LotR to
count the heads of dead Orcs and to have a friendly game going on who
can count the highest, but once Orcs clearly become corrupted Eruhíni,
which they certainly are in LotR, this game becomes, IMO, incongruous
with the moral views otherwise expounded in LotR.
<snip>
>> some of the Rohirrim, but Gimli and Legolas are more
>> representative of the underlying ethos of Middle-earth, and so it
>> feels wrong for them to engage in such a competition because such
>> behaviour is morally wrong in Tolkien's universe.
>
> I also don't see this. Gimli is a dwarf, and we all know about
> dwarves.
Gimli, however, is most definitely _not_ an ordinary dwarf -- the
clearest statement to this effect is Galadriel's almost-prediction
along with her parting gift as the fellowship are about to leave
Lothlórien.
That, however, is not the main point -- Gimli is a surviving member of
the Fellowship and as such bound by the ethos of Middle-earth (and even
though Boromir did fail, he recognized this and found redemption; there
is no recognition of their actions as inappropriate and no remorse in
Gimli and Legolas, but if there had been such remorse, I would have
seen things differently).
Such behaviour would be acceptable (not morally right, but acceptable
in the moral world-map of the book) from the Rohirrim (where it would
have appeared more fittingly as a reflection of models in actual
mythologies).
I also think that there is a problem with the whole-scale extermination
of Orcs before Helm's Deep by the huorns, but since this is put into
the hands (or whatever) of this, more elementary, race, it doesn't
stick out for me as the actions of Gimli and Legolas because the
members of the Company of the Ring stand (along with Elrond and
Galadriel) as the role models of the underlying (Catholic) ethos of the
book (Boromir recognizes his 'sin', confesses it and seeks absolution,
which he gets from Aragorn).
I also maintain (not that you have commented on that, Julian) that it
is irrelevant to this discussion with what frequency this happens in
real wars -- Tolkien's book is deeply founded in his ethical views, and
it is from that perspective that this, IMO, must be seen in connection
with the actions of the members of the Company of the Ring.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Knowing what
thou knowest not
is in a sense
omniscience
- Piet Hein, /Omniscience/
Clams Canino
"Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
> I also think that there is a problem with the whole-scale extermination
> of Orcs before Helm's Deep by the huorns, but since this is put into
> the hands (or whatever) of this, more elementary, race, it doesn't
> stick out for me as the actions of Gimli and Legolas because the
> members of the Company of the Ring stand (along with Elrond and
> Galadriel) as the role models of the underlying (Catholic) ethos of the
> book (Boromir recognizes his 'sin', confesses it and seeks absolution,
> which he gets from Aragorn).
>
> I also maintain (not that you have commented on that, Julian) that it
> is irrelevant to this discussion with what frequency this happens in
> real wars -- Tolkien's book is deeply founded in his ethical views, and
> it is from that perspective that this, IMO, must be seen in connection
> with the actions of the members of the Company of the Ring.
The huorns are depicted as something "less than good" and with angry hearts.
So I have no trouble whatsoever with them conducting a whole scale Orc
extermination. Huorns are malevolent toward many, especially those with a
reputation for harming trees. Didn't even raise my eyebrow.
As for Legolas and Gimli counting "pelts", it didn't stick out at me reading
the book sush as it did in the Jackson film. I think you're trying to
reconcile Tolkien's shifting view of Orcs with the timeline of the letters.
The if you think about when those passages in the book were *written* vs the
dates of the letters there is quite a gap. And for me anyway... once you
thrust exceptionally good people in the midst of a "shooting war" where
*success* is in part measured by killing Orcs, then considering the known
rivalry (race wars?) between Elves and Dwarves... a little head counting
does not seem out of place. If anything at all bothers me here is that it's
hard to keep count of kills or be "sure" of kills in a heated battle
environment.
I also see Tolkien as "a continuing spiritual journey". It seems to me that
Tolkien himself is willing to perform "revisionist history" regarding his
own writings as he continually moves forward toward personally reconciling
his works completely with the Catholic faith. (And even as he moved forward
with LotR from year to year.)
It seems **to me** that making the legendarium and Catholic teachings "line
up perfectly" became more and more important to him as time went on.
-W
Derek Broughton
>
> The difference is that "blackened" doesn't mean "became black" but "was
> made black", i. e. has a passive connotation to it...somebody or
> something made the object black. As such, a person is not "made wise"
> by someone else, but can only make him/herself wise by learning from
> others. Hence, no "wizened" meaning to "be made wise".
"Hey Guido - youse owe me a lotta money. I'm going to send over a guy to
wizen you up!"
--
derek
Weland
> In message <news:gq764s$qce$1...@reader.motzarella.org>
> Weland <gi...@poetic.com> spoke these staves:
>
>
> <snip>
>
> Yay! Scand linguistics ;-)
Germanic more generally.... (by the way, I'm finally getting to your
paper if it isn't too late)
>
>
>>Because "wizened" comes from Old English wisnian, meaning to dry
>>up, wither, waste away whereas "wise" comes from OE "wis", as an
>>adjective meaning "wise", "one who perceives, knows." Homonyms in
>>OE, but not synonyms.
>
>
> In modern Danish 'wizened' = "visne" and 'wise' = "vis" (and even
> more obviously, 'wisdom' = "visdom" -- and in this case I think the
> connotations are quite close: my understanding at least is that both
> has a primary meaning of knowledge, but is generally used for
> knowledge that isn't learned from reading books: experience, 'Lessons
> from the Varsity of Life' as Lord Baden-Powell titled is
> autobiography (and yes -- I'm an active scout leader in case anyone
> wondered ;-) )
>
> Thinking of the ideas about language underlying Flieger's 'Splintered
> Light' (I think it Barfield she shows was a proponent of the theory),
> I wonder if there is a common root having to do with ageing?
According to philology, no. "wizen"< wisnian comes from *ueis and is
from the same root as modern English ooze (wesan in OE). *ueis seemed
to indicate something that smelled horrid, rot, poison, strong stink
smell, whereas "wis" (related to German wissen etc) comes from a root
*ueid that gives rise to words for seeing, perception, knowing. Outside
the Germanic family eidon in Greek and videre in Latin also come from
this root.
I think the modern associations have to do with the perceived (hee hee)
wisdom of the wizened.
>
>>The difference is that "blackened" doesn't mean "became black" but
>>"was made black", i. e. has a passive connotation to it...somebody
>>or something made the object black. As such, a person is not
>>"made wise" by someone else, but can only make him/herself wise by
>>learning from others. Hence, no "wizened" meaning to "be made
>>wise".
>
>
> And in actual 'wizened' it doesn't have the passive connotation
> because the first 'e' has been added to the OE wisnian? (At least I
> don't think wizening can normally be inflicted upon you from the
> outside.)
>
Sure it is: its a force and fact of nature, not something one does
to/for oneself. Illness, normal aging, experiences all have the effect
of wizening one, and are originally at least seen as external. Thus
"age wizened him". Tis a fine distinction I know...
Troels Forchhammer
"Clams Canino" <cc-m...@earthdink.net> spoke these staves:
> "Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
>>
>> I also think that there is a problem with the whole-scale
>> extermination of Orcs before Helm's Deep by the huorns, but since
>> this is put into the hands (or whatever) of this, more
>> elementary, race, it doesn't stick out for me as the actions of
>> Gimli and Legolas because the members of the Company of the Ring
>> stand (along with Elrond and Galadriel) as the role models of the
>> underlying (Catholic) ethos of the book (Boromir recognizes his
>> 'sin', confesses it and seeks absolution, which he gets from
>> Aragorn).
>
> angry hearts. So I have no trouble whatsoever with them conducting
> a whole scale Orc extermination. Huorns are malevolent toward
> many, especially those with a reputation for harming trees.
I agree that there is no inconsistency involved in this extermination
of the arcs by the huorns, even if orchestrated by ents.
It could be that I am reading modern sensibilities into this
situation, but the 'problem' (if indeed it is so) is in the portrayal
of this kind of complete annihilation of the orcs as justifiable.
> As for Legolas and Gimli counting "pelts", it didn't stick out at
> me reading the book sush as it did in the Jackson film.
Yes, it is rather emphasized in the film, isn't it ;-)
> I think you're trying to reconcile Tolkien's shifting view of Orcs
> with the timeline of the letters. The if you think about when those
> passages in the book were *written* vs the dates of the letters
> there is quite a gap.
I am quite aware of this. I don't doubt that this is the underlying
reason for the incongruity (as I see it). But because Tolkien's views
changed while he was writing the book, it reflects in different
aspects the changing views so that the different aspects come to be
inconsistent with each other.
_The Lord of the Rings_ is, in terms of Tolkien's views of the Orcs,
caught in the middle of a transition between the old demonic infantry
created by Morgoth and the corrupted Eruhíni. The book was begun
under the influence of the earlier view, but when Tolkien finished
writing it (somewhere in 1948-9 if I recall correctly) he was just
firmly writing under the influence of the later view, which of course
also influenced the later revisions, though it was not carried
through in all aspects (with, as implied earlier, the battle-scenes
being the least influenced by the new view).
<snip>
> And for me anyway...
[...]
> a little head counting does not seem out of place.
We all read the book differently, and all I can do is to try to
explain how I come to think as I do.
Not that it is something that has bothered me particularly when
reading the book before I started to learn more about Tolkien, his
sub-creation, his personal views etc. etc.
> If anything at all bothers me here is that it's hard to keep count
> of kills or be "sure" of kills in a heated battle environment.
Legolas starts the contest '[making his] tale twenty at the least'
and yet he ceded the victory to Gimli on the basis of a single orc,
though his his relief at seeing Gimli alive may have something to do
with this. Anyway, I think there is at least a hint of
acknowledgement of the uncertainties involved (I'll accept that it is
easier to count when you're separating heads from bodies with an axe
than when you're firing arrows into a mass of enemies).
> I also see Tolkien as "a continuing spiritual journey". It seems
> to me that Tolkien himself is willing to perform "revisionist
> history" regarding his own writings as he continually moves
> forward toward personally reconciling his works completely with
> the Catholic faith. (And even as he moved forward with LotR from
> year to year.)
Yes -- he appears to have felt only loosely bound by the published
word -- being willing to embark even on quite drastic changes of his
published books (the changes to the Hobbit, both those he completed
and those that weren't completed are the more obvious examples, but
he also revised names and genealogies in LotR based on his changing
view of the first generations of Elves).
And I certainly agree that his desire to reconcile his writings, and
the very causal fabric of his sub-creation, with his Catholic faith
grew stronger and stronger. I think the conscious desire to do so can
be traced back to 'On Fairy-Stories,' but even then don't think he
really knew what expression he wanted to achieve until later in the
process of writing LotR. When we look at the versions of the
Silmarillion from the mid-thirties, there is, I believe, no trace of
an attempt at a philosophical reconciliation with his faith, but
there is no doubt either this desire is present at the time when he
finished writing LotR and even more so in the revision.
> It seems **to me** that making the legendarium and Catholic
> teachings "line up perfectly" became more and more important to
> him as time went on.
I'm not sure he reached the point of wishing them to line up
perfectly, but he was certainly heading in that direction :-) And I
agree that it became more and more important to him -- in particular
in his last 10 - 15 years when he was working on his Silmarillion
texts.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
The errors hardest
to condone
in other people
are one's own.
- Piet Hein, /Our Own Motes/
Öjevind Lång
news:gq8h7u$560$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
[snip]
>> Yay! Scand linguistics ;-)
>
> Germanic more generally.... (by the way, I'm finally getting to your paper
> if it isn't too late)
>>
>>>Because "wizened" comes from Old English wisnian, meaning to dry
>>>up, wither, waste away whereas "wise" comes from OE "wis", as an
>>>adjective meaning "wise", "one who perceives, knows." Homonyms in
>>>OE, but not synonyms.
That is of course related to Swedish "vissen" and "vissnad", which mean
"withered, wilted".
Öjevind
Stan Brown
> The difference is that "blackened" doesn't mean "became black" but
> "was made black", i. e. has a passive connotation to it...somebody
> or something made the object black.
"The chimney blackened over the years."
Stan Brown
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>:
> In message <news:slrngs6j7...@krk.inf.ed.ac.uk>
> Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> spoke these staves:
> >
> > On 2009-03-19, Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> While [head-counting] would, as I said earlier, be fine with the
> >> earlier portrayal of Orcs, it simply doesn't match the view on
> >> the Orcs that emerged with the writing of LotR and is prevalent
> >> in LotR and later writings. In this view Orcs are to be shown
> >> the same mercy and pity as any other
> >
> > Where do you get this view from? I don't see it in LotR.
>
> Yes I have probably overstated the degree to which this view is present
> in LotR (I'd agree that it is surely not, as I claimed, 'prevalent' in
> LotR), I nevertheless maintain that it does emerge with the writing of
> LotR and that it does underlie the non-combat interactions with Orcs
> that we witness in LotR.
I had occasion to watch the Olivier performance of /Henry V/
recently. Shakespeare portrays the French lords, before the battle of
Agincourt, betting on how many English lives each would take. That
doesn't sound very different in spirit from Legolas and Gimli's game.
Weland
> Mon, 23 Mar 2009 00:19:13 -0500 from Weland <gi...@poetic.com>:
>
>>The difference is that "blackened" doesn't mean "became black" but
>>"was made black", i. e. has a passive connotation to it...somebody
>>or something made the object black.
>
>
> "The chimney blackened over the years."
>
I'd say the same thing, I think. The chimney didn't blacked itself, it
was blackened by the soot given off by the wood or coal in the grate.
Weland
> Mon, 23 Mar 2009 00:19:13 -0500 from Weland <gi...@poetic.com>:
>
>>The difference is that "blackened" doesn't mean "became black" but
>>"was made black", i. e. has a passive connotation to it...somebody
>>or something made the object black.
>
>
> "The chimney blackened over the years."
>
Now, on the other hand, if you said, "I blackened the catfish", that's a
different kettle of fish.
Jeff Urs
> I agree that there is no inconsistency involved in this extermination
> of the arcs by the huorns, even if orchestrated by ents.
I think this is a little like saying that the smiths of Gondolin
orchestrated the decapitation of the Great Goblin.
It was Gandalf, leader of the Fellowship, who asked Treebeard for
the Huorns, or at least accepted the offer of their aid. Blunt
instruments that they were, surely he knew what would happen when
they were used.
--
Jeff
Odysseus
"Clams Canino" <cc-m...@earthdink.net> wrote:
<snip>
> As for Legolas and Gimli counting "pelts", it didn't stick out at me reading
> the book sush as it did in the Jackson film. I think you're trying to
> reconcile Tolkien's shifting view of Orcs with the timeline of the letters.
> The if you think about when those passages in the book were *written* vs the
> dates of the letters there is quite a gap. And for me anyway... once you
> thrust exceptionally good people in the midst of a "shooting war" where
> *success* is in part measured by killing Orcs, then considering the known
> rivalry (race wars?) between Elves and Dwarves... a little head counting
> does not seem out of place. If anything at all bothers me here is that it's
> hard to keep count of kills or be "sure" of kills in a heated battle
> environment.
The 'counting game' strikes me as the sort of thing that's very common
among soldiers who elsewhere are humane and civilized, allowing them to
distance themselves from their actions in combat and keep cognitive
dissonance at bay. Keeping score -- the "body count" -- makes an
abstraction of the victims and, as you suggest, doing well in the
competition invites praise to counterbalance the blame implicit in
killing. The young Tolkien may have observed such behaviour in men he
knew not to be callous or cruel by nature.
--
Odysseus
Öjevind Lång
"The grass had grown over the years" is an exactly parallel phrase, and yet,
it means "become grown/grow", though of course it was age that "did it".
Öjevind
Öjevind Lång
news:odysseus1479-at-AA...@news.telus.net...
[snip]
More likely, Tolkien stole the idea from H. Rider Haggard's "King Solomon's
Mines", where two of the heroes during a battle compare kills in just the
same way as Gimli and Legolas. Tolkien is known to have read and enjoyed
Haggard's books, so this is hardly a wild guess.
Öjevind
Troels Forchhammer
<jeff...@gmail.com> spoke these staves:
> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> writes:
>>
>> I agree that there is no inconsistency involved in this
>> extermination of the arcs by the huorns, even if orchestrated by
>> ents.
Darned anti-geometricals, those huorns -- they don't like arcs . . .
> I think this is a little like saying that the smiths of Gondolin
> orchestrated the decapitation of the Great Goblin.
The huorns were under the direct command (or whatever we should call
it) of ents, meaning that there were ents present to lead the huorns
at Helm's Deep, so I can't accept that comparison.
> It was Gandalf, leader of the Fellowship, who asked Treebeard for
> the Huorns, or at least accepted the offer of their aid.
At the least he asked Treebeard for their help to be applied
specifically at Helm's Deep ('Treebeard, I need your help. You have
done much, but I need more. I have about ten thousand Orcs to
manage.')
> Blunt instruments that they were, surely he knew what would happen
> when they were used.
You've a good point there -- perhaps I actually ought to be more
concerned with this aspect?
I do wonder, though, what the 'rules' were for Orcs who tried to flee
the battle? It is one thing that Tolkien wrote that any Orcs who
surrendered should be spared, but what about those who tried to flee
-- as I recall it, nothing is said about them? Does anyone have an
idea about how Tolkien would have viewed that -- in particular in the
context of the texts saying that '[i]f any Orcs surrendered and asked
for mercy, they must be granted it, even at a cost.' (_Morgoth's
Ring_, part 5, text X)?
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the
world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!
- Aragorn, /The Lord of the Rings/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Troels Forchhammer
Öjevind Lång <bredba...@ojevind.lang> spoke these staves:
> "Odysseus" <odysseu...@yahoo-dot.ca> skrev i meddelandet
> news:odysseus1479-at-AA...@news.telus.net...
>>
>> common among soldiers who elsewhere are humane and civilized,
>> The young Tolkien may have observed such behaviour in men he knew
>> not to be callous or cruel by nature.
As I have tried to say elsewhere, I don't think that is relevant for
the _moral_ considerations when it comes to the members of the
Fellowship. This might have been relevant had it been a sport among
the Rohirrim, but that is not what we are talking about here.
> More likely, Tolkien stole the idea from H. Rider Haggard's "King
> Solomon's Mines", where two of the heroes during a battle compare
> kills in just the same way as Gimli and Legolas. Tolkien is known
> to have read and enjoyed Haggard's books, so this is hardly a wild
> guess.
I seem to remember something similar in even older tales -- I'm
reminded of the Sagas, but I can't put my finger on it (and I'm too
lazy to try to dig it out).
There is no doubt, however, that Tolkien didn't invent it out of the
blue -- he probably had several sources of inspiration, possibly
including personal experiences in the Great War. This, however, has,
IMO, nothing to do with the moral implications of letting this game
take place between two members of the Fellowship -- for that
discussion we must, IMHO, disconnect Tolkien's sources / inspiration
from his adaptation / usage.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Science without religion is lame. Religion without science
is blind.
- Albert Einstein
Paul S. Person
"The grass grew over the years" is the exactly parallel phrase. Yours
is parallel to "the chimney had blackened over the years". It is the
difference between a process (which may not be finished yet) and a
result (which has definitely been achieved). And, in both cases, we
would expect this to be associated with something that happened at the
(past) time at which these observations were made. "When I returned
home, I found that ...".
If the context were the present, something like "is growing" or "has
blackened" (indicating a process or result observed in the present)
would be expected. And, while grass grows, chimneys are blackened: the
distinction between active and passive is also present, however hard
it may be to see in English in some of these parallel phrases.
--
Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, "I never knew him."
Paul S. Person
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
<snippo>
>I agree that there is no inconsistency involved in this extermination
>of the arcs by the huorns, even if orchestrated by ents.
>
>It could be that I am reading modern sensibilities into this
>situation, but the 'problem' (if indeed it is so) is in the portrayal
>of this kind of complete annihilation of the orcs as justifiable.
If the propaganda used in the First and Second World Wars is
considered, I don't think there is any problem at all: "kill the
enemy" was a very popular viewpoint then. And /LOTR/ was written, a
fair amount of it anyway, during WWII. And even after WWII, it would
have taken years for the feelings and attitudes to die down.
Derek Broughton
> In message <news:80r60ni...@gmail.com> Jeff Urs
> <jeff...@gmail.com> spoke these staves:
>>
>> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>> I agree that there is no inconsistency involved in this
>>> extermination of the arcs by the huorns, even if orchestrated by
>>> ents.
>
> Darned anti-geometricals, those huorns -- they don't like arcs . . .
I'd have thought arcs would be OK, but I can see them having trouble with
rectangles.
--
derek
Taemon
current amount of traffic), but here goes what I don't like about our
favourite book:
- It's male-centricity. Understandable, but still. The only woman in the
book that does something has to dress up like a man to do it.
- It's black- and whiteness. You are either good, in the minority, nice and
pretty, or bad, in the majority, anti-social and ugly. You can turn evil
when you're good but you can't turn back. Once evil, always evil.
- The orcs. Related to point two. I mean, come on... give them some slack.
No one gets born evil. I know Tolkien has wrestled a lot over this, but I
still don't like it.
- In some chapters the language gets really stuffy... how about "Hi! How're
you doing?" once in a while? Although that has it's good points too.
The rest is perfect.
T.
Troels Forchhammer
"Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> spoke these staves:
> Only seeing this thread now as I'm not reading RABT (might as
> well, with the current amount of traffic),
RABT seems to be completely over the spurge flood, so it isn't
exactly taxing one's time to follow both (and there are some
interesting discussions that tend to be posted in only one of the
groups, despite Öjevind's call for cross-posting).
> but here goes what I don't like about our favourite book:
>
> - It's male-centricity. Understandable, but still. The only woman
> in the book that does something has to dress up like a man to do
> it.
I agree that it is male-centric, though it isn't something that
bothers me. (Galadriel also has her moments, though her more active
participation is hidden away in the appendices).
> - It's black- and whiteness. You are either good, in the minority,
> nice and pretty, or bad, in the majority, anti-social and ugly.
> You can turn evil when you're good but you can't turn back. Once
> evil, always evil.
I have to disagree with this very black-and-white statement ;-)
If you had said that LotR is more morally polarized than real life,
then I'd agree, but it is, IMHO, not correct to say that there are
no-one occupying the middle territory where you're neither good nor
evil, nor is it correct to say that there is no redemption.
Boromir successfully redeems himself after his 'fall,' and though
Gollum missed his chance at redemption, is is clear, IMO, that it is
actually because _Sam_ is being a thoughtless boor (to give him the
benefit of the doubt). That situation (at the top of the Stairs of
Cirith Ungol) is, IMO, one of the best examples of a moral complexity
far greater than the book is often being credited for.
Denethor isn't good, but I wouldn't call him 'evil' either, and there
seems to be an elemental wrath to the Ents that puts them off the
moral compass (the best I can describe it is to call them 'mostly
good').
And both Sméagol and Gríma are shown as pitiable -- described as
being, to some extent, victims of circumstances beyond their powers
to resist: mean in a small way from the start, but having their
weaknesses exploited by evil to turn them to far greater evils than
they would otherwise have gotten into.
> - The orcs. Related to point two. I mean, come on... give them some
> slack. No one gets born evil. I know Tolkien has wrestled a lot
> over this, but I still don't like it.
I may have a slightly different angle on the Orcs, but I essentially
agree. There are clearly some problems in the portrayal of the Orcs
and how they are treated by the presumably good races.
> - In some chapters the language gets really stuffy...
That is, I'm inclined to think, something that is more of a matter of
taste than your other complaints (which is not to say that they can
necessarily be treated with complete objetivism).
I don't know if that is among the chapters you're thinking of, but
I've long found the first few chapters of book four very difficult to
get through -- as if the reading dragged on and on and on . . .
I still feel the same way, but I've come to appreciate it as a
quality that the text can simulate the feelings of the three hobbits
as they plod endlessly along the deserted and despoiled lands east of
the Great River.
> how about "Hi! How're you doing?" once in a while?
I am in turn completely satisfied with the dialogue ;-)
> The rest is perfect.
Aye -- even the minor imperfections just add something extra to the
book ;-)
Actually I'm not terribly happy with the 'Hobbitish' air in the first
few chapters. It's little things like the thinking fox, but overall
it does give the first chapters a hint of frivolity that doesn't,
IMO, fit the context very weell (with 'The Shadow of the Past' as the
exception, which makes it stand out from the other pre-Bree
chapters).
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
A good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows
how to read.
- /Guards! Guards!/ (Terry Pratchett)
NY Teacher
"Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
Other morally-gray (IMO) characters from LOTR:
The Huorns
The Army of the Dead
Ghan Buri Ghan and his people
Tom Bombadil (if you accept the idea that "doing nothing" allows for the
triumph of evil)
The Eagles (after all, they could have just flown to Mt Doom and dropped the
ring in ;) )
Radagast, perhaps
The Hobbits who collaborated with the Chief and Sharky
The Elves who chose to flee Middle Earth
NYT
Clams Canino
"Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
> Actually I'm not terribly happy with the 'Hobbitish' air in the first
> few chapters. It's little things like the thinking fox, but overall
> it does give the first chapters a hint of frivolity that doesn't,
> IMO, fit the context very well (with 'The Shadow of the Past' as the
> exception, which makes it stand out from the other pre-Bree
> chapters).
But it's those very chapters that cement the continuity from "The Hobbit" to
LotR.
They allow an easy transition from the one book to the next part of the
greater story.
-W
Clams Canino
"Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
> Actually I'm not terribly happy with the 'Hobbitish' air in the first
> few chapters. It's little things like the thinking fox, but overall
> it does give the first chapters a hint of frivolity that doesn't,
> IMO, fit the context very well (with 'The Shadow of the Past' as the
> exception, which makes it stand out from the other pre-Bree
> chapters).
But it's those very chapters that cement the continuity from "The Hobbit" to
Taemon
> - It's
Twice. Twice I wrote "it's" for "its"! I'm deeply ashamed. Deeply.
T. (deeply)
Taemon
> In message <news:72vl8fF...@mid.individual.net>
> "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> spoke these staves:
>> - In some chapters the language gets really stuffy...
> That is, I'm inclined to think, something that is more of a matter of
> taste than your other complaints (which is not to say that they can
> necessarily be treated with complete objetivism).
Yes, of course. I hesitated to bring it on but in some parts it seems to run
away with the story. It gets weird. People don't talk like that. But I don't
remember where, exactly... and that is a hard thing to look for.
> Actually I'm not terribly happy with the 'Hobbitish' air in the first
> few chapters.
Well... I rather liked that. I'd have prefered a more gradual change from
that tone to the more dark mood later on. But we know what the book was
originally meant to be like a second Hobbit, only it run away with the poor
professor.
T. (off to join RABT)
O. Sharp
>
> And both Sm?agol and Gr?ma are shown as pitiable -- described as
> to resist: mean in a small way from the start, but having their
> weaknesses exploited by evil to turn them to far greater evils than
> they would otherwise have gotten into.
At the other end of the spectrum, even Saruman was given a chance to
redeem himself; and he almost took it: "Before he could conceal it, they
saw through the mask the anguish of a mind in doubt, loathing to stay and
dreading to leave its refuge. For a second he hesitated, and no one
breathed." (_TT_, p. 187 hardback) It came to "the balance of a hair", as
Gandalf put it later; it was only when Saruman's pride and hatred kicked
in again that he fell from grace. Even after all this, Frodo gives
Saruman yet another chance to redeem himself later on. Not that that
attempt gets anywhere near as close to succeeding as this one. :)
Hell, even Sauron got another chance after Morgoth got his Arda pink-slip;
but pride gets in the way there, too. Pesky ol' pride. It may goeth before
a fall, but it also makes for pretty damn good literature. :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
o...@panix.com Maybe if they'd offered Saruman forgiveness _and_
a nice corned-beef sandwich, he'd have gone for
it.
Troels Forchhammer
>
>> Actually I'm not terribly happy with the 'Hobbitish' air in the
>> first few chapters.
>
> But it's those very chapters that cement the continuity from "The
> Hobbit" to LotR.
Possibly, though I rather agree with Tolkien's own later regret over
the style he employed in _The Hobbit_ and I wish he had finished the
extensive revision of it that he embarked upon in, IIRC, the sixties.
Another question, then, is whether it is necessary at all to have that
kind of continuity of style. I tend to be of the opinion that such a
continuity is unnecessary: the important continuity, IMO, is the story-
internal continuity rather than that of the narrative style.
On the balance, I think the negative sides far outweighs any positive
effect it might have (I am sure that if someone can read LotR, then
they are also capable of getting started without having to be eased
into it).
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the
same level of thinking with which we created them.
- Albert Einstein
Derek Broughton
I should hope. Flaming _others_ for their spelling on Usenet is tacky, but
on these groups, one should probably flame oneself for such abuses.
[quick check for egregious language violations in my own post -
change "yourself" to "oneself" in last phrase...and thank the Powers for
spell checkers.]
--
derek
Clams Canino
"Derek Broughton" <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:1813364.F...@cedar.serverforest.com...
> I should hope. Flaming _others_ for their spelling on Usenet is tacky,
but
> on these groups, one should probably flame oneself for such abuses.
My recent use of "pleural" comes to mind..........
-W
tamim....@gmail.com
>
> I should hope. Flaming _others_ for their spelling on Usenet is tacky, but
> on these groups, one should probably flame oneself for such abuses.
>
I've been "back" now for a week or two after a few year's hiatus, and
what surprises me the most that I didn't get a single
flame about spelling or grammar yet; not even from Morgoth's curse.
Where is he, by the way.
Incdentally not a single welcome message either! You should rejoice,
the troll is back!
Tamim
Öjevind Lång
news:72vl8fF...@mid.individual.net...
> Only seeing this thread now as I'm not reading RABT (might as well, with
> the current amount of traffic), but here goes what I don't like about our
> favourite book:
>
> - It's male-centricity. Understandable, but still. The only woman in the
> book that does something has to dress up like a man to do it.
You have a point, but I do think Galadriel is in the running too.
Öjevind
Öjevind Lång
news:d55d70e0-91f4-48cd...@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> Incdentally not a single welcome message either! You should rejoice,
the troll is back!
Absolutely, and I was very glad to see you are back. :-) Permit me to flame
you for a typoe in your message ("incdentally").
Morgoth's Curse has been around quite a bit but seems to have given up on
us because of the small amount of traffic.
Öjevind
Öjevind Lång
news:Xns9BD867C6...@147.243.252.16...
> In message <news:80r60ni...@gmail.com> Jeff Urs
> <jeff...@gmail.com> spoke these staves:
>>
>> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>> I agree that there is no inconsistency involved in this
>>> extermination of the arcs by the huorns, even if orchestrated by
>>> ents.
>
> Darned anti-geometricals, those huorns -- they don't like arcs . . .
ROTFL.
Öjevind
Derek Broughton
> In message <news:kr6dnfafCZQonFbU...@earthlink.com>
> "Clams Canino" <cc-m...@earthdink.net> spoke these staves:
>>
>> "Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
>>
>>> Actually I'm not terribly happy with the 'Hobbitish' air in the
>>> first few chapters.
> [...]
>>
>> But it's those very chapters that cement the continuity from "The
>> Hobbit" to LotR.
>
> Possibly, though I rather agree with Tolkien's own later regret over
> the style he employed in _The Hobbit_ and I wish he had finished the
> extensive revision of it that he embarked upon in, IIRC, the sixties.
While I'd agree with Tolkien's regret, I can't say I'd wish he'd finished a
revision that would have changed it. /The Hobbit/ was published as it was,
and you can't put the genie back in the bottle. I'm just as happy to leave
it the way it was published, rather than see all the different versions of
practically _every_ other part of LOTR and /The Silmarillion/ that we've
been given since his death (not that that stops me reading them!).
> Another question, then, is whether it is necessary at all to have that
> kind of continuity of style. I tend to be of the opinion that such a
> continuity is unnecessary: the important continuity, IMO, is the story-
> internal continuity rather than that of the narrative style.
>
> On the balance, I think the negative sides far outweighs any positive
> effect it might have (I am sure that if someone can read LotR, then
> they are also capable of getting started without having to be eased
> into it).
It's not _necessary_ to have a continuity of style, but I don't find it at
all wrong, or jarring, that those early chapters of LOTR are "Hobbitish".
It brings the whole succeeding story into contrast - the Hobbits, insular,
parochial, and _happy_, compared to a world in turmoil and war; and the
sacrifices of 4 hobbits (5 if you include Bilbo), a Wizard, some Elves,
Dwarves and Ents, and the King Of The Whole World (practically) so that
they can continue to live their untroubled lives (clearly that's not the
_primary_ objective of any of those involved, but it's _an_ objective for
most, and for those who don't know anything of the Shire, the principle is
still true).
--
derek
Derek Broughton
> On Mar 27, 12:38 am, Derek Broughton <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>> I should hope. Flaming _others_ for their spelling on Usenet is tacky,
>> but on these groups, one should probably flame oneself for such abuses.
>>
>
> I've been "back" now for a week or two after a few year's hiatus, and
> what surprises me the most that I didn't get a single
> flame about spelling or grammar yet; not even from Morgoth's curse.
> Where is he, by the way.
I saw _one_ post from him this week, and not much at all recently.
>
> Incdentally not a single welcome message either! You should rejoice,
> the troll is back!
It must have been a few years, because I've been here more than a "few", and
don't remember you.
--
derek
Tamf Moo
> Incdentally not a single welcome message either! You should rejoice,
> the troll is back!
sosorry. we've been busy building a new bridge for you to live
underneath, but the general slowness of aft/rabt means we've only been
able to construct the middle.
--
tamf.
ps: welcome back.
Tamf Moo
> My recent use of "pleural" comes to mind..........
il pleural dans mon cour...
--
tamf.
Tamf Moo
> Absolutely, and I was very glad to see you are back. :-) Permit me to
> flame you for a typoe in your message ("incdentally").
you call that a flame, sri? i'd rahter classify it as a flickr.
laos, tpoying "tyope" does knot count, so your feeble attemtp to witn a
re-flame flails miserably.
--
tamf.
this is not a flame.
Troels Forchhammer
<d55d70e0-91f4-48cd...@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
tamim....@gmail.com spoke these staves:
>
<snip>
> Incdentally not a single welcome message either! You should
> rejoice, the troll is back!
I'm afraid it took me quite a while to make the connection, and once I
did I was afraid it was a bit too late for anything except exposing my
own slow-wittedness ;-)
But it _is_ good to have you back!
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
A common mistake people make when trying to design
something completely foolproof is to underestimate the
ingenuity of complete fools.
- Douglas Adams, /Mostly Harmless/
Troels Forchhammer
Derek Broughton <de...@pointerstop.ca> spoke these staves:
>
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
<snip>
Question: Does one have 'regret over' something in English, or is
that a 'Danishism'?
>> I rather agree with Tolkien's own later regret over the style he
>> employed in _The Hobbit_ and I wish he had finished the extensive
>> revision of it that he embarked upon in, IIRC, the sixties.
>
> While I'd agree with Tolkien's regret, I can't say I'd wish he'd
> finished a revision that would have changed it. /The Hobbit/ was
> published as it was, and you can't put the genie back in the
> bottle.
Tolkien managed quite well with the earlier version of the book -- so
well that it now comes as a surprise to most people that there was
ever a version in which chapter 5 was fundamentally different.
Tolkien quite clearly had no qualms about extensive revisions to his
published works if he believed it would make them better.
Personally I think he was right, but that is, I acknowledge, a matter
of taste, and there is, to quote Barliman, no accounting for East and
West ('meaning the Rangers and the Shire-folk, begging your pardon')
-- in this case meaning me and anyone who thinks differently ;-)
In the end I guess that all this does come down to taste -- we can,
to some extend, try to explain, and even argue, why we perceive
specific passages or aspects as particularly excellent or as having,
relatively, a noticeable lack of excellence, but ultimately it does
come down to taste, which I suppose we just need to accept will
differ. I believe I understand your position, and I can certainly
respect it (it is not that I can't see the positive aspects -- it is
just that I weigh things differently).
<snip>
> It's not _necessary_ to have a continuity of style, but I don't
> find it at all wrong, or jarring, that those early chapters of
> LOTR are "Hobbitish".
One problem here is that our language might be a bit excessive for
the purpose. We are, after all, discussing a book that we all,
supposedly, loves, and so 'dislike' is probably too strong a word, as
are 'wrong' and, for me certainly, 'jarring.'
I find that the narrative style in the early chapters detracts from
my enjoyment of the book in these parts; not that I don't enjoy them,
I just find that I enjoy them less than I would like to.
The same goes for _The Hobbit_, though for that book I do find that
some of the places where the modern narrator addresses the reader
directly are actually jarring.
> It brings the whole succeeding story into contrast - the Hobbits,
> insular, parochial, and _happy_, compared to a world in turmoil
> and war; and the sacrifices of 4 hobbits (5 if you include Bilbo),
> a Wizard, some Elves, Dwarves and Ents, and the King Of The Whole
> World (practically) so that they can continue to live their
> untroubled lives
I agree that this is an important aspect of the book, and that it
must be maintained. I do think that it could be achieved without this
naïve, or childish even, narrative style. He'd only need to cut the
ludicrous fox and the few similar goof-ups (I can't remember the
specifics right now), and I'd be perfectly happy with it.
> (clearly that's not the _primary_ objective of any of those
> involved, but it's _an_ objective for most, and for those who
> don't know anything of the Shire, the principle is still true).
There's a number of references that the 'simple folks' are actually a
very high priority for the high and the wise. Insofar as the Shire is
a symbol of peace and prosperity and the Hobbits a symbol of these
simple folks, I think that you're not too far off the mark if you say
that it was a primary objective -- Sauron wasn't, IMO, defeated in
order to defeat Sauron: he was defeated in order to ensure that the
people of the future had, in Gandalf's words, 'clean earth to till.'
And by choosing this agricultural metaphor, I think Gandalf also
makes the lives of 'simple folk,' such as the Hobbits of the Shire,
the primary objective.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided
into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from,
and (d) rocks.
- /Equal Rites/ (Terry Pratchett)
Raven
news:733lfnF...@mid.individual.net...
> Öjevind Lång wrote:
>> Absolutely, and I was very glad to see you are back. :-) Permit me to
>> flame you for a typoe in your message ("incdentally").
> you call that a flame, sri? i'd rahter classify it as a flickr.
I would not classify it even as a glede. There was no personal insult at
all, quite the opposite, and then a decent notification of a misspelling.
[...]
> this is not a flame.
Butt now werd i's to smiple too bea mispeled. *Yu* no taht.
Ranm.
Derek Broughton
> In message <news:1271595.5...@cedar.serverforest.com>
> Derek Broughton <de...@pointerstop.ca> spoke these staves:
>>
>> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>>
>
> <snip>
>
> Question: Does one have 'regret over' something in English, or is
> that a 'Danishism'?
>
>>> I rather agree with Tolkien's own later regret over the style he
>>> employed in _The Hobbit_ and I wish he had finished the extensive
>>> revision of it that he embarked upon in, IIRC, the sixties.
Not often these days, but it's not wrong. It's more commonly used
as "having regrets about ..." or "I regret that...". Any lack of the usage
is surely due to the abysmal abuse of the language amongst its native
speakers.
> Personally I think he was right, but that is, I acknowledge, a matter
> of taste, and there is, to quote Barliman, no accounting for East and
> West ('meaning the Rangers and the Shire-folk, begging your pardon')
> -- in this case meaning me and anyone who thinks differently ;-)
LOL.
> respect it (it is not that I can't see the positive aspects -- it is
> just that I weigh things differently).
< Visions of Monty Python, witch-dunkings and ducks... >
>> It's not _necessary_ to have a continuity of style, but I don't
>> find it at all wrong, or jarring, that those early chapters of
>> LOTR are "Hobbitish".
>
> One problem here is that our language might be a bit excessive for
> the purpose. We are, after all, discussing a book that we all,
> supposedly, loves, and so 'dislike' is probably too strong a word, as
> are 'wrong' and, for me certainly, 'jarring.'
>
> I find that the narrative style in the early chapters detracts from
> my enjoyment of the book in these parts;
I would have thought that was "jarring" - a disjunction between what you
read and what you either expect or would like to see.
>> It brings the whole succeeding story into contrast - the Hobbits,
>> insular, parochial, and _happy_, compared to a world in turmoil
>> and war; and the sacrifices of 4 hobbits (5 if you include Bilbo),
>> a Wizard, some Elves, Dwarves and Ents, and the King Of The Whole
>> World (practically) so that they can continue to live their
>> untroubled lives
>
> I agree that this is an important aspect of the book, and that it
> must be maintained. I do think that it could be achieved without this
> naïve, or childish even, narrative style. He'd only need to cut the
> ludicrous fox and the few similar goof-ups (I can't remember the
> specifics right now), and I'd be perfectly happy with it.
While I find the fox ludicrous too, I think "childish" is right - and that's
the sense he _wanted_ to give: that the Hobbits are innocent children, to
be protected from the outside world. Which goes back to previous comments
about the impossibility of keeping out the world - it may not be possible,
but Aragorn and his Rangers, nevertheless, have been trying to accomplish
just that for the Hobbits.
>> (clearly that's not the _primary_ objective of any of those
>> involved, but it's _an_ objective for most, and for those who
>> don't know anything of the Shire, the principle is still true).
>
> There's a number of references that the 'simple folks' are actually a
> very high priority for the high and the wise. Insofar as the Shire is
> a symbol of peace and prosperity and the Hobbits a symbol of these
> simple folks, I think that you're not too far off the mark if you say
> that it was a primary objective
I was thinking "primary" only in the sense that "we can't accomplish
anything else until we destroy the Ring, therefore the Ring is objective
#1". I agree that the Shire and what it stood for were high in importance.
--
derek
Paul S. Person
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>In message <news:kr6dnfafCZQonFbU...@earthlink.com>
>"Clams Canino" <cc-m...@earthdink.net> spoke these staves:
>>
>> "Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
>>
>>> Actually I'm not terribly happy with the 'Hobbitish' air in the
>>> first few chapters.
>[...]
>>
>> But it's those very chapters that cement the continuity from "The
>> Hobbit" to LotR.
>
>Possibly, though I rather agree with Tolkien's own later regret over
>the style he employed in _The Hobbit_ and I wish he had finished the
>extensive revision of it that he embarked upon in, IIRC, the sixties.
IIRC, in /The History of the Hobbit/ (at the end of Vol 2), this is
discussed and the response of the person who was asked to review the
first few chapters was "it is great, but it is not /The Hobbit/".
Today, of course, it would simply be published as /The Hobbit
Re-envisioned/ and be immediately praised by all reviewers. Well, all
sycophantic reviewers, anyway.
--
Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, "I never knew him."
Taemon
> Taemon wrote:
>> Twice. Twice I wrote "it's" for "its"! I'm deeply ashamed. Deeply.
> I should hope. Flaming _others_ for their spelling on Usenet is
> tacky, but on these groups, one should probably flame oneself for
> such abuses.
Ugh. In my defence, I was a bit tipsy. But still.
> [quick check for egregious language violations in my own post -
> change "yourself" to "oneself" in last phrase...and thank the Powers
> for spell checkers.]
Heh. I win here - I don't use spell checkers ;-)
T.
Steve Morrison
The actual revised chapters are included in vol. 2 of /THotH/.
They only go up to the arrival at Rivendell, though; after that,
there are merely timelines and such for the rest of the story.
Steve Morrison
You should be afraid -- maybe everyone is just trying to keep you
talking until sunrise!
Morgoth's Curse
>Only seeing this thread now as I'm not reading RABT (might as well, with the
>current amount of traffic), but here goes what I don't like about our
>favourite book:
>
>- It's male-centricity. Understandable, but still. The only woman in the
>book that does something has to dress up like a man to do it.
I've always considered that one of its strengths. Men and women are
so different that it is folly to think that a man can create an
authentic female character and vice versa.
>- It's black- and whiteness. You are either good, in the minority, nice and
>pretty, or bad, in the majority, anti-social and ugly. You can turn evil
>when you're good but you can't turn back. Once evil, always evil.
Boromir?
>- The orcs. Related to point two. I mean, come on... give them some slack.
>No one gets born evil. I know Tolkien has wrestled a lot over this, but I
>still don't like it.
We actually do see the orcs engage in behavior which in other species
is considered honorable (e.g. avenging a fallen captain, feeding and
healing prisoners and also demonstrating unit integrity.) Their
motives were not altruistic, but how many of us are truly altruistic?
>- In some chapters the language gets really stuffy... how about "Hi! How're
>you doing?" once in a while? Although that has it's good points too.
I suppose that is why the hobbits and the ents tend to be perennial
favorites. It's always fascinating to see how deftly Tolkien uses
language to show rather than tell.
Morgoth's Curse
Morgoth's Curse
wrote:
It is rather odd, but I was actually thinking about you two or
three weeks ago and wondering whether you would ever return. It is a
curse to be psychic! ^_^
I also confess that I didn't expect you to return. I seem to
recall that you were living in Russia and I knew that is a very
dangerous nation in which to dwell during the past several years.
Where are you living now?
I have not been posting much as once did since I have had to
devote most of my time and energy to caring for my elderly mother
after my father passed away in 2007. I have also devoted most of my
free time recently in a different forum attempting to persuade
neo-conservatives that global warming is a genuine threat to humanity.
It is an exercise in futility, of course, since anybody who is so
stupid as to be a neo-conservative is usually too stupid to understand
basic scientific concepts, but everybody should tilt at a windmill or
two during their lifetime.
Welcome back, you idiot! ^_^
Morgoth's Curse