Attn Mary Gentle Part 2
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
my 15 year old is reading Grunts! for his 10th grade English free
reading project (main criteria: book must not have been made into a
movie and is over a certain number of pages) over the winter holidays.
I figured he'd like it <grin>.
Also figured it'd--um--give him an *interesting* perspective on LOTR.
Especially since we're going to Japan and he needs something to
read....
jrw
Ross Smith
> Hey Mary--
>
> my 15 year old is reading Grunts! for his 10th grade English free
> reading project (main criteria: book must not have been made into a
> movie
I hear Peter Jackson will be looking for a new project soon...
> and is over a certain number of pages) over the winter holidays.
>
>
> I figured he'd like it <grin>.
>
> Also figured it'd--um--give him an *interesting* perspective on LOTR.
> Especially since we're going to Japan and he needs something to
> read....
>
> jrw
--
Ross Smith ......... r-s...@ihug.co.nz ......... Auckland, New Zealand
"Oh dear. This calls for a very special blend of
psychology and extreme violence." -- Vyvyan
J. F. Cornwall
Hmmm, my 17-year-old wants to read it as well. But he has to wait until
I'm done!
BTW, Mary, I finished Ash last week on my bizness trip, and I have to
tell you I loved it... Your mind is delightfully devious in coming up
with unique plots and keeping them concealed until the last moments.
Jim Cornwall
Laura M. Parkinson
wrote:
>Joyce Reynolds-Ward wrote:
>
>> Hey Mary--
>>
>> my 15 year old is reading Grunts! for his 10th grade English free
>> reading project (main criteria: book must not have been made into a
>> movie
>
>I hear Peter Jackson will be looking for a new project soon...
Mmm... as long as he casts the sparkly elven paladin as well as
Legolas.
Mmm.. Orlando Bloom....
Sorry, drifted off there for a moment.
--
-'-,-'-<<0 Trickster 0>>-'-,-'- lpark...@mindspring.com
http://lparkinson.home.mindspring.com
"Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be
destroyed." -Richard Adams, Watership Down
Marilee J. Layman
<lpark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 07:38:58 +1300, Ross Smith <r-s...@ihug.co.nz>
>wrote:
>
>>Joyce Reynolds-Ward wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Mary--
>>>
>>> my 15 year old is reading Grunts! for his 10th grade English free
>>> reading project (main criteria: book must not have been made into a
>>> movie
>>
>>I hear Peter Jackson will be looking for a new project soon...
>
>Mmm... as long as he casts the sparkly elven paladin as well as
>Legolas.
>
>Mmm.. Orlando Bloom....
>
>Sorry, drifted off there for a moment.
He's very pretty as Legolas, but when seen in the "making of" extras,
not so cute. Makeup and wigs do a lot.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Reynolds-Ward) wrote:
> Hey Mary--
>
> my 15 year old is reading Grunts! for his 10th grade English free
> reading project (main criteria: book must not have been made into a
> movie and is over a certain number of pages) over the winter holidays.
Hey, cool! :)
>
> I figured he'd like it <grin>.
>
> Also figured it'd--um--give him an *interesting* perspective on LOTR.
> Especially since we're going to Japan and he needs something to
> read....
Reading GRUNTS in Japan -- OK, that's my culture shock for today.... <g>
Mary
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
wrote:
> Joyce Reynolds-Ward wrote:
>
> > Hey Mary--
> >
> > my 15 year old is reading Grunts! for his 10th grade English free
> > reading project (main criteria: book must not have been made into a
> > movie
>
> I hear Peter Jackson will be looking for a new project soon...
Given at least one orcish remark in THE TWO TOWERS, I think he's got the
right frame of mind for it. :)
Mary
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> Joyce Reynolds-Ward wrote:
> > Hey Mary--
> >
> > my 15 year old is reading Grunts! for his 10th grade English free
> > reading project (main criteria: book must not have been made into a
> > movie and is over a certain number of pages) over the winter holidays.
> >
> >
> > I figured he'd like it <grin>.
> >
> > Also figured it'd--um--give him an *interesting* perspective on LOTR.
> > Especially since we're going to Japan and he needs something to
> > read....
> >
> > jrw
>
> Hmmm, my 17-year-old wants to read it as well. But he has to wait
> until I'm done!
Aw, cruel. :)
> BTW, Mary, I finished Ash last week on my bizness trip, and I have to
> tell you I loved it... Your mind is delightfully devious in coming up
> with unique plots and keeping them concealed until the last moments.
Thank you! That was the general idea -- like I say, sometimes I just want
to leave gin-traps around for the reader's foot. <g>
Mary
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
Everybody! Everybody's seen this bloody movie! Everybody but me! Talk
about turning the knife in the wound!
Of course... those who could but haven't yet get told off. A friend of
mine called me from New Zealand yesterday. "It's already out down there,
isn't it?" I asked. "Yes, it's been playing since yesterday at
midnight." "And you haven't seen it _yet_?!!" "Anna! It's half-past nine
in the _morning_ here!"
--
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan - ada...@despammed.com - this is a valid address
homepage: http://www.fantascienza.net/sfpeople/elethiomel
English blog: http://annafdd.blogspot.com/
Blog in italiano: http://fulminiesaette.blogspot.com
Charlie Allery
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan wrote in message
<1fnhq2y.977wto1ovhamkN%ada...@spamcop.net>...
><mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> Given at least one orcish remark in THE TWO TOWERS, I think he's got the
>> right frame of mind for it. :)
>
>Everybody! Everybody's seen this bloody movie! Everybody but me! Talk
>about turning the knife in the wound!
>
>Of course... those who could but haven't yet get told off. A friend of
>mine called me from New Zealand yesterday. "It's already out down there,
>isn't it?" I asked. "Yes, it's been playing since yesterday at
>midnight." "And you haven't seen it _yet_?!!" "Anna! It's half-past nine
>in the _morning_ here!"
>
Saw it yesterday afternoon - cinema was half-empty, well it's a work day and
shopping season. Great movie, great battle scenes. Great Smeagol. :-) One or
two things surprised me but overall I loved it.
Charlie
Brian D. Fernald
news:atv1nd$9lb$2$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
Hmm...
I wonder if it's just me, but I am largely ambivalent about seeing it.
(I would say call me crazy, but then I am, so what would be the
point ..)
The first failed (for me) on the 'oh no' rule, only one, at most
two 'oh no' moments in a movie, and felt forced.
--
Brian F.
FSOBN.
www.bastards.org
Suzanne Palmer
> Everybody! Everybody's seen this bloody movie! Everybody but me! Talk
> about turning the knife in the wound!
>
> Of course... those who could but haven't yet get told off. A friend of
> mine called me from New Zealand yesterday. "It's already out down there,
> isn't it?" I asked. "Yes, it's been playing since yesterday at
> midnight." "And you haven't seen it _yet_?!!" "Anna! It's half-past nine
> in the _morning_ here!"
Sorry )-:
My friends[1] and I rented an entire theater to ourselves and watched
it at midnight on opening day. Which was great, except I got about 4
hours sleep before I had to be at work. Don't think I'd be willing to
do that again for, say, another year.
-Suzanne
[1] and my friends' friends, and their friends, and so on, and so
on... lots of people I barely remember comin' out of the woodwork.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> Anna Feruglio Dal Dan wrote:
> > Everybody! Everybody's seen this bloody movie! Everybody but me! Talk
> > about turning the knife in the wound!
> >
> > Of course... those who could but haven't yet get told off. A friend of
> > mine called me from New Zealand yesterday. "It's already out down there,
> > isn't it?" I asked. "Yes, it's been playing since yesterday at
> > midnight." "And you haven't seen it _yet_?!!" "Anna! It's half-past nine
> > in the _morning_ here!"
>
> Sorry )-:
>
> My friends[1] and I rented an entire theater to ourselves and watched
> it at midnight on opening day. Which was great, except I got about 4
> hours sleep before I had to be at work. Don't think I'd be willing to
> do that again for, say, another year.
<sobs quietly in corner>
Brian M. Scott
Feruglio Dal Dan) wrote:
><mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>> Given at least one orcish remark in THE TWO TOWERS, I think he's got the
>> right frame of mind for it. :)
>Everybody! Everybody's seen this bloody movie! Everybody but me!
Haven't. Won't.
[...]
Brian
Suzanne Palmer
Well, if you find yourself out in western Massachusetts next
december...
-Suzanne
Helen
Dal Dan <ada...@spamcop.net> writes
>Suzanne Palmer <spa...@umassp.edu> wrote:
>
>> Anna Feruglio Dal Dan wrote:
>> > Everybody! Everybody's seen this bloody movie! Everybody but me! Talk
>> > about turning the knife in the wound!
>> >
>> > Of course... those who could but haven't yet get told off. A friend of
>> > mine called me from New Zealand yesterday. "It's already out down there,
>> > isn't it?" I asked. "Yes, it's been playing since yesterday at
>> > midnight." "And you haven't seen it _yet_?!!" "Anna! It's half-past nine
>> > in the _morning_ here!"
>>
>> Sorry )-:
>>
>> My friends[1] and I rented an entire theater to ourselves and watched
>> it at midnight on opening day. Which was great, except I got about 4
>> hours sleep before I had to be at work. Don't think I'd be willing to
>> do that again for, say, another year.
>
><sobs quietly in corner>
It's all right. You're not the only one who hasn't seen it yet. It
won't be in our local cinema until the new year. Keen though I am to
see it, I'm not prepared to drive 1 and 3/4 hours there and back in
order to see it sooner.
Helen
--
Helen, Gwynedd, Wales *** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> ><sobs quietly in corner>
>
> It's all right. You're not the only one who hasn't seen it yet. It
> won't be in our local cinema until the new year. Keen though I am to
> see it, I'm not prepared to drive 1 and 3/4 hours there and back in
> order to see it sooner.
Eh. It would take me about the same time to come see it in London. No,
wait, longer with the train in from Stanstead. But not by much.
I wouldn't mind seeing it in English either - apart from the general
quality loss the translation must have been done in a hurry because
there are already a pair of outragious errors in the trailer alone.
But I just can't make it until I hand in this book, and that won't
happen until the middle-end of January, and at that point it would be
out here too.
Marilee J. Layman
And I have two other movies to see first -- Personal Velocity next
week, then the HP II.
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Brian M. Scott) wrote:
That sounds very definite. On what grounds, particularly?
Mary
Deirdre Saoirse Moen
<mjla...@erols.com> wrote:
> And I have two other movies to see first -- Personal Velocity next
> week, then the HP II.
Finally saw HP2 and really liked it.
--
_Deirdre http://deirdre.net
"Ideally pacing should look like the stock market for the year 1999, up
and up and up, but with lots of little dips downwards...."
-- Wen Spencer on plotting a novel
Charlie Allery
Deirdre Saoirse Moen wrote in message ...
>In article <dac80vse5a80frjiv...@4ax.com>, Marilee J. Layman
><mjla...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>> And I have two other movies to see first -- Personal Velocity next
>> week, then the HP II.
>
>Finally saw HP2 and really liked it.
>
IMHO, HP2 has benefitted from not having to introduce all the characters and
the whole scenario. It therefore flows much quicker. I suspect the younger
actors' performances have improved as well. Bodes well for no 3.
Charlie
Brian M. Scott
>> ><mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>> [...]
>> Haven't. Won't.
I'm not really very fond of movies to begin with. (I also don't
have a TV.) I haven't been to one in years; Branagh's 'Much Ado
About Nothing' (which I attended mostly because my ex-wife wanted
to go, though I enjoyed it) is the last one that I can remember
attending. I particularly don't care for movie adaptations of
novels; in the nature of the beast 'not bad, all things
considered' is about the highest praise I'm likely to be able to
offer. In this particular case I've already heard enough to know
that FotR would annoy me despite some genuinely good bits and
that I'd be much more than just annoyed by TT. If I didn't know
the book already, or if I were fonder of the visual medium, I
might take a different view, of course.
Brian
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Brian M. Scott) wrote:
Yes, I'd forgotten that you say you're not primarily visual in a lot of
ways. Given that I am, much of FotR and a fair bit of TT had me gripping
the seat and then picking my jaw off the floor.
I have an odd feeling that there are some things where Peter Jackson has
telepathically transmitted the inside of Tolkien's head onto the screen --
the Oliphant, for one. Others that are excellent though not 'right'
(Ents). And others that are plain uncanonical -- Faramir -- where I can
see why they've done what they've done.
In some ways I'm not watching it as an adaptation of Tolkien any more.
It's as if Middle Earth is as factual as, say, 15th century France, and
I'm watching yet another film-maker's take on the Joan of Arc story.
As if this is another bard's version of the 'Lord of the Rings' cycle, in
the same way that Shakespeare re-told Holinshed?
I'm not sure I've seen another book-to-film translation work quite this
way. Possibly it doesn't work this way for a lot of people. But I'm
fairly stunned to find there /is/ another way to put a story from one
medium into another -- thought I'd seen all the permutations. :)
Not that I'm suggesting you should go and see it, for all that. Given
what you say, I think it would annoy you more than it would please you,
on balance.
Mary
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> And others that are plain uncanonical -- Faramir -- where I can
> see why they've done what they've done.
Yeah, well, I'm not sure I'm ready to forgive what I've been gathering
has happened, here. I never cared for most of the LOTR characters
anyway, apart from Faramir. Trust them to butcher him.
> In some ways I'm not watching it as an adaptation of Tolkien any more.
> It's as if Middle Earth is as factual as, say, 15th century France, and
> I'm watching yet another film-maker's take on the Joan of Arc story.
That's exactly what Jackson has said to his crew at one point. He went
there in front of them, gave this sort of pep talk, told them that they
had to imagine that TLOTR was actual history and they were so lucky that
they got to film it _on location_... In the actual Hobbiton that had
fallen into disrepair but had been carefully restored for the occasion
and so on...
Brenda W. Clough
What is your take on Faramir's change of heart, however? I cannot
believe that Sam's declaration that the Ring drove Boromir crazy really
had an impact. Was it watching Frodo try to hitch a lift on Air Nazgul?
A friend has suggested that it was seeing Frodo's moment of craziness,
and Gollum's obviously damaged state, that brings home how poisonous the
Ring really is.
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
Read my novella "May Be Some Time"
Complete at http://www.analogsf.com/0202/maybesometime.html
My web page is at http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
Lucinda Welenc
>
> mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
> >In article <3e0492b2...@enews.newsguy.com>, b.s...@csuohio.edu
> >(Brian M. Scott) wrote:
> >>I'm not really very fond of movies to begin with. (I also don't
> >>have a TV.) I haven't been to one in years; Branagh's 'Much Ado
> >>About Nothing' (which I attended mostly because my ex-wife wanted
> >>to go, though I enjoyed it) is the last one that I can remember
> >>attending. I particularly don't care for movie adaptations of
> >>novels; in the nature of the beast 'not bad, all things
> >>considered' is about the highest praise I'm likely to be able to
> >>offer. In this particular case I've already heard enough to know
> >>that FotR would annoy me despite some genuinely good bits and
> >>that I'd be much more than just annoyed by TT.
I was somwhat annoyed by FotR, mainly because of the characterization of
Merry as a rapscallion tweener, rather than a respectable gentlehobbit.
TT kept much closer to the book, IMHO.
> >>If I didn't know
> >>the book already, or if I were fonder of the visual medium, I
> >>might take a different view, of course.
> >>
> >
> >Yes, I'd forgotten that you say you're not primarily visual in a lot of
> >ways. Given that I am, much of FotR and a fair bit of TT had me gripping
> >the seat and then picking my jaw off the floor.
> >
> >I have an odd feeling that there are some things where Peter Jackson has
> >telepathically transmitted the inside of Tolkien's head onto the screen --
> >the Oliphant, for one. Others that are excellent though not 'right'
> >(Ents).
Ents didn't look quite as I'd pictured them, but I thought they were
wonderful creations. And Tolkein didn't really give a lot of Entish
description.
And Gollum -- THAT is how Gollum should look. (Except that I never
thought about him wearing even the minimal clothing of a necessary
breechclout.) I really liked the visible dichotomy between Gollum and
Smeagol, also.
> >And others that are plain uncanonical -- Faramir -- where I can
> >see why they've done what they've done.
> >
>
> What is your take on Faramir's change of heart, however? I cannot
> believe that Sam's declaration that the Ring drove Boromir crazy really
> had an impact. Was it watching Frodo try to hitch a lift on Air Nazgul?
> A friend has suggested that it was seeing Frodo's moment of craziness,
> and Gollum's obviously damaged state, that brings home how poisonous the
> Ring really is.
Both, probably.
One thing I did note, though. Remember how in very old Hollywood
Westerns, you could tell the bad guy by his black hat and the good guy
by his white hat? Jackson appears to have applied the same coding to
dentition.
--
Alanna
**********
Saying of the day:
"To vacillate or not to vacillate, that is the question ... or is it?"
Brenda W. Clough
I noticed that poor old Sam is carrying all the baggage. Frodo breezes
along as free as a bird, and of course Gollum is wearing nothing but his
loincloth.
Arthur Green
<clo...@erols.com> wrote:
[ ... excision .. ]
>What is your take on Faramir's change of heart, however? I cannot
>believe that Sam's declaration that the Ring drove Boromir crazy really
>had an impact. Was it watching Frodo try to hitch a lift on Air Nazgul?
> A friend has suggested that it was seeing Frodo's moment of craziness,
>and Gollum's obviously damaged state, that brings home how poisonous the
>Ring really is.
>
I think one of the big differences between the movies and the book is
that Peter Jackson is showing us how the Ring corrupts everyone around
it, while Tolkein simply had Gandalf and Elrond saying "it's evil,
it's A Bad Thing". I suppose it's an aspect of "show, don't tell".
Did anyone else notice that both Theoden and Treebeard seem not to
have the edge they had in the book? In the movie, Theoden's reaction
to news of Saruman's depredations is to hot-foot it to Helm's Deep,
while in the book (if I remember it aright) he musters the army to
take on Saruman. Likewise, movie-Treebeard decides not to fight until
he sees his favourite grove destroyed, while book-Treebeard gets right
on with organising the squashing and stone-crushing.
>Brenda
- AG
The other day upon the stair
I saw a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I think he's from the CIA
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Clough) wrote:
[...]
> What is your take on Faramir's change of heart, however?
Outside of the story, my theory is that every one of the good guys is
being given a chance to reject the Ring as a conscious and thought-out
decision (hence Aragorn's non-canonical conversation with Frodo in FotR).
Inside the story...
>I cannot
> believe that Sam's declaration that the Ring drove Boromir crazy really
> had an impact.
We don't know -- are left to assume -- that Faramir saw Boromir's dead
body in the boat. So I don't know how much of an effect it might have
had. Say it didn't:
> Was it watching Frodo try to hitch a lift on Air
> Nazgul?
Definitely. (Although I think he wanted to use it as FedEx, rather than
AirLingus!)
And, I think, being in Osgiliath, too (reminded me of WWII Stalingrad).
Once inside a place so destroyed by evil, and seeing both Frodo and Gollum
(as you mention below), it all came home to Faramir.
>A friend has suggested that it was seeing Frodo's moment of
> craziness, and Gollum's obviously damaged state, that brings home how
> poisonous the Ring really is.
They laid the ground-work of it back in the cave. When Frodo goes all
"precious!" over the Ring, Faramir looks both aghast and revolted -- and
afraid.
Mary
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
ajg...@REMOVE.iol.ie (Arthur Green) wrote:
[...]
> Did anyone else notice that both Theoden and Treebeard seem not to
> have the edge they had in the book
The one thing I'm _really_ unhappy with is Theoden's possession by
Saruman, and Gandalf's exorcism.
There's something clangingly awkward about putting that kind of
'possession by evil' inside the same narrative with the Ring's corruption;
it clashes big-time.
Mary
Alma Hromic Deckert
gack.
i haven't seen it yet. i'm beginning to wonder if i should.
A.
Charlie Allery
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote in message ...
I can see why though. It's easier and quicker to show a possession and
exorcism than it is to prove the slow erosion of Theoden's spirit by
Wormtongue's advice. Of course I think the Radio 4 version carried that
particular challenge off perfectly.
I'm a little confused by exactly what happened to Eowyn. There was no
mention of Dunharrow and she appeared to be in the caves beneath Helm's Deep
... or am I imagining that? But having shown clearly her skill with a sword,
I couldn't imagine her staying there while the fighting was going on, and
kept expecting her to lead the rest of the women out in a charge, especially
since her earlier remarks seemed to refer to the women of Rohan generally
and not just to herself. I really don't have a problem with beefing up the
few women's roles, but I'd wish for some consistency.
Charlie
Alma Hromic Deckert
<cha...@charlieallery.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I'm a little confused by exactly what happened to Eowyn.
<...>
> I really don't have a problem with beefing up the
>few women's roles, but I'd wish for some consistency.
>
i *do*. i have a big problem with that, in this context.
if they wanted to make a movie full of strong female characters, they
should have picked another book. if they chose to film "lord of the
rings" then that's the story they should have filmed.
sorry, but on this one i am a purist. my husband loved #1, i hated
what they did to the elves in that movie. they made Galadriel into a
screaming banshee, ferchissakes. gaaaack.
i'm wondering whether i should just let my husband go to number 2 by
himself and save myself the aggravation.
A.
>
Lucinda Welenc
>
>
> I noticed that poor old Sam is carrying all the baggage. Frodo breezes
> along as free as a bird,
Is he?
--
Alanna
**********
Saying of the day:
All we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.
--Hegel
David Bilek
It's a great movie.
I like Mary's analogy. This is Jackson's take on the same tale that
Tolkien was telling. Much like different authors bring different
things to the Arthur mythos, or the Faust tale.
-David
Brenda W. Clough
>"Brenda W. Clough" wrote:
>
>>
>>I noticed that poor old Sam is carrying all the baggage. Frodo breezes
>>along as free as a bird,
>>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Is he?
>
Well, from the bedroll, pots, pans, backpack and food, yes.
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 20:23:33 -0000, "Charlie Allery"
> <cha...@charlieallery.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >I'm a little confused by exactly what happened to Eowyn.
>
> <...>
>
> > I really don't have a problem with beefing up the
> >few women's roles, but I'd wish for some consistency.
> >
> i *do*. i have a big problem with that, in this context.
>
> if they wanted to make a movie full of strong female characters, they
> should have picked another book. if they chose to film "lord of the
> rings" then that's the story they should have filmed.
I don't mind them beefing it up by showing what was going on elsewhere,
i.e. things that in the book we only get recounted in conversation.
(Like, in a different context, Saruman's devastation of Isengard in FotR.)
For female roles, this seems to mean digging among the appendices, and
also -- which you won't like -- adding to the interactions between Arwen
and Aragorn.
I'm happy with what they've done with Eowyn. Her words are as in the
book, and you can see the 'cage' she wants to escape from -- it's not
merely a girlish crush on Aragorn.
> sorry, but on this one i am a purist. my husband loved #1, i hated
> what they did to the elves in that movie. they made Galadriel into a
> screaming banshee, ferchissakes. gaaaack.
That's one of the two things in FotR that Never Happened, as far as I'm
concerned.
> i'm wondering whether i should just let my husband go to number 2 by
> himself and save myself the aggravation.
You'll miss some stunning stuff if you do.
Mary
Arthur Green
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
Good point. That said, how do you convey Theoden being under Grima's
influence in the limited time available?
Another point has just struck: if Saruman is more or less a wannabe
Sauron, should we expect his attempts at taking people over to be as
insidious and effective as the effects of the Ring (which acts as
Sauron's agent)?
>Mary
- AG
"Hushabye babies (Hush quite a lot)
Bad babies get rabies (and have to be shot)"
Alma Hromic Deckert
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
>> sorry, but on this one i am a purist. my husband loved #1, i hated
>> what they did to the elves in that movie. they made Galadriel into a
>> screaming banshee, ferchissakes. gaaaack.
>
>That's one of the two things in FotR that Never Happened, as far as I'm
>concerned.
now i have to ask. what's the other?...
A. (in email, if you like! <g>)
Brenda W. Clough
The other Rings were designed, more or less successfully, for dominion
over weaker minds. The One Ring really was not. It was the master
control, made for Sauron himself, and into it he poured a lot of his
power. It isn't really his agent -- it actually is him, to some extent.
Vera Nazarian
<clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>Lucinda Welenc wrote:
>
>>"Brenda W. Clough" wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I noticed that poor old Sam is carrying all the baggage. Frodo breezes
>>>along as free as a bird,
>>>
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>Is he?
>>
>
>
>Well, from the bedroll, pots, pans, backpack and food, yes.
>
>Brenda
Brenda,
Aha, but Frodo is carrying the ring.
If one side of a scale had all the trip things such as bedrolls, pots,
pans, backpack and food, and the other just the One Ring, which side
would be heavier in the absolute sense? :-)
Sam is carrying a lesser burden, we would think. Besides, Sam is
probably thinking along the same lines and is feeling sorry for
Frodo's plight and is willing to do whatever he can to help him
relieve the burden both literally and metaphorically.
~ Vera
--
Which of the Lords of Rainbow do You Serve?
Take the Tilirr Personality Color Quiz to find out:
http://www.veranazarian.com/lorquiz.htm
Brenda W. Clough
>On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 18:51:43 -0500, "Brenda W. Clough"
><clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>>Lucinda Welenc wrote:
>>
>>>"Brenda W. Clough" wrote:
>>>
>>>>I noticed that poor old Sam is carrying all the baggage. Frodo breezes
>>>>along as free as a bird,
>>>>
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>Is he?
>>>
>>
>>Well, from the bedroll, pots, pans, backpack and food, yes.
>>
>>Brenda
>>
>
>Brenda,
>
>Aha, but Frodo is carrying the ring.
>
>If one side of a scale had all the trip things such as bedrolls, pots,
>pans, backpack and food, and the other just the One Ring, which side
>would be heavier in the absolute sense? :-)
>
>Sam is carrying a lesser burden, we would think. Besides, Sam is
>probably thinking along the same lines and is feeling sorry for
>Frodo's plight and is willing to do whatever he can to help him
>relieve the burden both literally and metaphorically.
>
But it does call to mind that 'massa Frodo' image. I trust that with
more opportunities for overt heroism upcoming, that Sam will look much
less like the brawn of the expedition...
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> I'm happy with what they've done with Eowyn. Her words are as in the
> book, and you can see the 'cage' she wants to escape from -- it's not
> merely a girlish crush on Aragorn.
All right, I have to ask... is Faramir as bad a they say?
There's still a film to go, after all, and I have Friends in New
Zealand.
Anna Mazzoldi
In article <au2uvg$4hh$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk>,
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In some ways I'm not watching it as an adaptation of Tolkien any more.
> It's as if Middle Earth is as factual as, say, 15th century France, and
> I'm watching yet another film-maker's take on the Joan of Arc story.
Yes. (Went to see it this afternoon). And at some points I was
thinking, "Last year I enjoyed Graydon's commentary on the
swordfighting immensely. This time I'd like Mary Gentle's
commentary on the siege warfare..."
> I'm not sure I've seen another book-to-film translation work quite this
> way. Possibly it doesn't work this way for a lot of people. But I'm
> fairly stunned to find there /is/ another way to put a story from one
> medium into another -- thought I'd seen all the permutations. :)
I agree with you that it's an amazing translation.
> Not that I'm suggesting you should go and see it, for all that. Given
> what you say, I think it would annoy you more than it would please you,
> on balance.
...and I agree with you again here! I think I'll have to go and
find someone I disagree with, all this agreement is starting to
feel uncomfortable... ;-)
Ciao,
Anna
--
Anna Mazzoldi writing from Dublin, Ireland
"You look like Billie Holiday with a hibiscus flower
on her ear, except it's a purple orangutan." --Laurence
Anna Mazzoldi
In article <1fnkkz6.hf794py1fwhsN%ada...@spamcop.net>,
ada...@spamcop.net (Anna Feruglio Dal Dan) wrote:
> <mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > And others that are plain uncanonical -- Faramir -- where I can
> > see why they've done what they've done.
>
> Yeah, well, I'm not sure I'm ready to forgive what I've been gathering
> has happened, here. I never cared for most of the LOTR characters
> anyway, apart from Faramir. Trust them to butcher him.
I don't think they did. Really. (Ok, as you know my soft spot has
always been for Aragorn -- but I don't think they butchered
Faramir. In fact, I liked the way they handled him. I wouldn't
worry too much.) (If you like, I can give you more detailed
spoilers, by mail.)
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> :
> In article <1fnkkz6.hf794py1fwhsN%ada...@spamcop.net>,
> ada...@spamcop.net (Anna Feruglio Dal Dan) wrote:
>
> > <mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > And others that are plain uncanonical -- Faramir -- where I can
> > > see why they've done what they've done.
> >
> > Yeah, well, I'm not sure I'm ready to forgive what I've been gathering
> > has happened, here. I never cared for most of the LOTR characters
> > anyway, apart from Faramir. Trust them to butcher him.
>
> I don't think they did. Really. (Ok, as you know my soft spot has
> always been for Aragorn -- but I don't think they butchered
> Faramir. In fact, I liked the way they handled him. I wouldn't
> worry too much.) (If you like, I can give you more detailed
> spoilers, by mail.)
Yes! Yes!
I don't want to spoil it for Emiliano (who hasn't read the books yet -
he's read FOTR and was uncertain wether proceed immediately or wait
after the film) by growling quietly during the projection.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> > In some ways I'm not watching it as an adaptation of Tolkien any more.
> > It's as if Middle Earth is as factual as, say, 15th century France, and
> > I'm watching yet another film-maker's take on the Joan of Arc story.
>
> Yes. (Went to see it this afternoon). And at some points I was
> thinking, "Last year I enjoyed Graydon's commentary on the
> swordfighting immensely. This time I'd like Mary Gentle's
> commentary on the siege warfare..."
Yes! Yes! Please!
Erol K. Bayburt
I'm not Mary Gentle, but for me the other Thing That Never Happened was Arwen
"playfully" ambushing Aragorn with a dagger. I can understand and even approve
of the movie-Arwen taking Glorfindel's place in the plot, but that was just too
much.
I'm also bugged by a couple of things that *didn't* happen in the movies but
should have: In FotR, I missed Gandalf reciting the ring-inscription at the
Council of Elrond. *That's* where the special effects of banshee-Galadriel
should have been used. ("Never before has any voice dared utter words of that
tongue in Imladris, Gandalf the Grey.")
And in TTT, I wanted to see Aragorn reveal himself with the proper energy to
Eomer - "Here is the Sword that Was Broken, and is forged again! Will you aid
me or hinder me? Choose swiftly!"
(More generally, I wanted to Anduril glow in battle, or at least strike sparks.
It's a movie, after all, and I wanted to see an appropriate movie-depliction of
the sword that was Middle Earth's equivalent of Excalabur.)
--
Erol K. Bayburt
Ero...@aol.com
Brian M. Scott
<mazz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <au2uvg$4hh$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk>,
>mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>> In some ways I'm not watching it as an adaptation of Tolkien any more.
>> It's as if Middle Earth is as factual as, say, 15th century France, and
>> I'm watching yet another film-maker's take on the Joan of Arc story.
>Yes. (Went to see it this afternoon). And at some points I was
>thinking, "Last year I enjoyed Graydon's commentary on the
>swordfighting immensely. This time I'd like Mary Gentle's
>commentary on the siege warfare..."
So would I. Commentary at a party Saturday night was extremely
unfavorable ('It was ridiculous; they obviously needed a
medievalist').
[...]
Brian
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Oh, nothing complicated -- Aragorn's conversation in the woods with Frodo
before Frodo nips across the river at the end.
If Aragorn /knows/ where Frodo is, that throws out so many things about
what happens later. And makes him look a prat -- "Oh, I see the One Ring
over there, crossing the river, and the hobbit I swore to protect with my
life, but I think I'll just let him wander into perilous Mordor while I go
chasing after possibly-dead Merry and Pippin..."
So it Didn't Happen.
Theoretically, I think it's there to give Aragorn a chance to be tested
like Boromir, with possession of the Ring. There must have been other
ways to do this...
That said, it's still a minor quibble, and nothing like the major wobbly
I'm throwing if they do leave the scouring of the Shire out of RotK.
Mary
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> <mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I'm happy with what they've done with Eowyn. Her words are as in the
> > book, and you can see the 'cage' she wants to escape from -- it's not
> > merely a girlish crush on Aragorn.
>
> All right, I have to ask... is Faramir as bad a they say?
> There's still a film to go, after all, and I have Friends in New
> Zealand.
I was a bit startled, since he wasn't my idea of Faramir. OTOH, he's
maybe more interesting in how he reacts than in the book... remind me:
/does/ he do much more than turn down the Ring without any great qualms?
Possibly because I wasn't as struck with Faramir as you, it didn't bother
me that they made him someone who has to see what the Ring's doing
to Frodo and Gollum before he acts.
I rather liked the actor, although he's not my physical idea of Faramir,
either; and it's difficult to envisage him and Boromir as brothers. OTOH,
I guess the contrast is the point. He recapitulates Boromir's experience
with the Ring, but he rejects it at the potential cost of his own life --
which I wish they'd mentioned earlier than they do.
And it was worth it for Osgiliath. :)
Mary
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
ajg...@REMOVE.iol.ie (Arthur Green) wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 19:01:38 +0000 (UTC),
> mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
> >In article <sbib0vgnskrdb27lp...@4ax.com>,
> >ajg...@REMOVE.iol.ie (Arthur Green) wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >> Did anyone else notice that both Theoden and Treebeard seem not to
> >> have the edge they had in the book
> >
> >The one thing I'm _really_ unhappy with is Theoden's possession by
> >Saruman, and Gandalf's exorcism.
> >
> >There's something clangingly awkward about putting that kind of
> >'possession by evil' inside the same narrative with the Ring's
> corruption; >it clashes big-time.
> >
> Good point. That said, how do you convey Theoden being under Grima's
> influence in the limited time available?
The odd thing is that up until the point where it turned into an exorcism,
I thought they _had_ conveyed Theoden under Grima Wormtongue's influence
very well.
I don't think they needed to do more than kick Grima out, and then a few
scenes later we see Grima with Saruman anyway. (And the business with the
candle is such a nice touch. :)
>
> Another point has just struck: if Saruman is more or less a wannabe
> Sauron, should we expect his attempts at taking people over to be as
> insidious and effective as the effects of the Ring (which acts as
> Sauron's agent)?
If Saruman could con Gandalf for such a long time, while Sauron was an
upfront Bad Guy, I think Saruman by definition has to be way more subtle
than Sauron.
Mary
Ross Smith
>
> I'm also bugged by a couple of things that *didn't* happen in the
> movies but should have: In FotR, I missed Gandalf reciting the
> ring-inscription at the Council of Elrond. *That's* where the special
> effects of banshee-Galadriel should have been used. ("Never before has
> any voice dared utter words of that tongue in Imladris, Gandalf the
> Grey.")
That's in the extended edition.
--
Ross Smith ......... r-s...@ihug.co.nz ......... Auckland, New Zealand
"Oh dear. This calls for a very special blend of
psychology and extreme violence." -- Vyvyan
Alma Hromic Deckert
wrote:
>Erol K. Bayburt wrote:
>>
>> I'm also bugged by a couple of things that *didn't* happen in the
>> movies but should have: In FotR, I missed Gandalf reciting the
>> ring-inscription at the Council of Elrond. *That's* where the special
>> effects of banshee-Galadriel should have been used. ("Never before has
>> any voice dared utter words of that tongue in Imladris, Gandalf the
>> Grey.")
>
>That's in the extended edition.
well but the point is that should have been in the movie.
i really have no quarrel about them dumping poor Tom Bombadil - but
if they wanted to make a movie of LOTR they should have included the
pertinent scenes in the MOVIE and not just added it in for those few
who had the wealth or the inclination to purchase teh DVD.
that's a bit, if i may borrow the phrase, preciousssss.
A.
Brenda W. Clough
><mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I'm happy with what they've done with Eowyn. Her words are as in the
>>book, and you can see the 'cage' she wants to escape from -- it's not
>>merely a girlish crush on Aragorn.
>>
>
>All right, I have to ask... is Faramir as bad a they say?
>There's still a film to go, after all, and I have Friends in New
>Zealand.
>
<judiciously, as a Faramir fan> I would say that although you will be
enraged at first viewing, upon considered reflection you will see why
the director did it. He needed Faramir's dilemma to be on camera and
visible to the audience, not closed away in that manly breast. (For
that and Eomer alone you really ought to see the film.) In the end
Faramir ends up where he ought, and the slight adjustments in his path
there are not of the first import. And my goodness, will Dad ever be
mad at him!
Brenda W. Clough
>
>
>And in TTT, I wanted to see Aragorn reveal himself with the proper energy to
>Eomer - "Here is the Sword that Was Broken, and is forged again! Will you aid
>me or hinder me? Choose swiftly!"
>
>(More generally, I wanted to Anduril glow in battle, or at least strike sparks.
>It's a movie, after all, and I wanted to see an appropriate movie-depliction of
>the sword that was Middle Earth's equivalent of Excalabur.)
>
>
Oooh, now there -is- a good question. In TTT, is Aragorn carrying
Anduril, or his old Ranger sword? There was nothing at all about the
reforging of the bits of Narsil. Do you think they've shoved this off
into the third movie? Arwen needs some work to do, after all -- she
could carry it to him.
Brenda W. Clough
>In article <1fnn0kb.191rnx51jfcry2N%ada...@spamcop.net>,
>ada...@spamcop.net (Anna Feruglio Dal Dan) wrote:
>
>><mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm happy with what they've done with Eowyn. Her words are as in the
>>>book, and you can see the 'cage' she wants to escape from -- it's not
>>>merely a girlish crush on Aragorn.
>>>
>>All right, I have to ask... is Faramir as bad a they say?
>>There's still a film to go, after all, and I have Friends in New
>>Zealand.
>>
>
>I was a bit startled, since he wasn't my idea of Faramir. OTOH, he's
>maybe more interesting in how he reacts than in the book... remind me:
>/does/ he do much more than turn down the Ring without any great qualms?
>
No. In the book Faramir is never seriously tempted by the Ring.
(Something about that Numenorean blood running true in him, same as
Aragorn.) In that sense the movie focuses the core dilemma better.
The Ring is truly dangerous, radioactive plutonium, and without
exception -everybody- feels the strain.
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Brian M. Scott) wrote:
How about "they obviously needed their heads examined"?
It was Heroic Warfare. Looked at that way, it was marvellous. Looked at
any other way, it stunk to high heaven.
And -- oh well, spoiler space...
movin' on down
The genuinely impossible bit was presented as a miracle, anyway. At
least, I tell myself it was. A cavalry charge down a one-in-one hill onto
an orcish pike block... no wonder they needed Gandalf the White.
(And I say this despite one Japanese unit having done something very
similar. This terrain Was Not Credible... nor were there enough troops,
even with Eomer's entire force, to rout an army like that.)
Now you have to bear in mind that I loved the battle of Helm's Deep and
sat there with mouth agape, for all I knew there were bits that were
deeply crap. So some of my thoughts will probably change when I see it
again.
300 men against 10,000 orcs is heroic warfare, even with the fortress as a
force-multiplier. You might ask yourself why there are thousands of orcs
attacking the walls with pikes, and only a few using ladders and
mangonels... Spears and pikes aren't useful for scaling walls; swords,
maces, and short and convenient weapons _are._
If Saruman could invent one gunpowder mine, he could invent two, but more
to the point: if the orcs could approach the main gate under a shield
'tortoise', I'm damn certain they could have covered the mine-firer in a
similar way, instead of having him doing an Olympic-flame sprint so he
could be shot at by Legolas.
We will leave aside Legolas skate-boarding on a shield down the steps
while shooting at the orcs, since Elves apparently do things like this. :)
There weren't enough elvish archers to turn it into the Agincourt they
wanted it to be.
Aragorn and Gimli's sally was Heroic; if they weren't heroes, they'd have
been toast.
Eowyn specifically talks about the sheild maidens of Rohan; why, when
they're handing out weapons to men who are 12 or 60, does nobody mobilise
the girlies? There are a lot of instances of women fighting in siege
warfare; more than in battlefield combat as far as most sources are
concerned.
Okay, there's more, but I still loved it!
Mary
Brenda W. Clough
If they didn't want the women and children to wield steel, there is no
reason why they could not be set to boiling water (or better oil) to
pour onto the invaders.
Gwynedd
>Her words are as in the book, and you can see
>the 'cage' she wants to escape from -- it's not
>merely a girlish crush on Aragorn.
My 10 and 11yold nephews* took me Saturday. When Aragon asks
Eowyn "What are you afraid of?" the 10yo leaned over to me and whispered "Ugly
men who don't take baths."
BTW, they're both big fans of the book - having had it read to them several
times and having read it themselves.
*ok, not technically my nephews, but that's the easiest equivalent relationship
for conversational purposes.
--
Gwynedd (and the usual four cats)
Keith Morrison
> Oooh, now there -is- a good question. In TTT, is Aragorn carrying
> Anduril, or his old Ranger sword? There was nothing at all about the
> reforging of the bits of Narsil. Do you think they've shoved this off
> into the third movie? Arwen needs some work to do, after all -- she
> could carry it to him.
When Legolas tossed the sword to him at Helm's Deep (after their squabble)
it didn't appear to be Anduril.
--
Keith
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> In article <1fnn0kb.191rnx51jfcry2N%ada...@spamcop.net>,
> ada...@spamcop.net (Anna Feruglio Dal Dan) wrote:
>
> > <mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm happy with what they've done with Eowyn. Her words are as in the
> > > book, and you can see the 'cage' she wants to escape from -- it's not
> > > merely a girlish crush on Aragorn.
> >
> > All right, I have to ask... is Faramir as bad a they say?
> > There's still a film to go, after all, and I have Friends in New
> > Zealand.
>
> I was a bit startled, since he wasn't my idea of Faramir. OTOH, he's
> maybe more interesting in how he reacts than in the book... remind me:
> /does/ he do much more than turn down the Ring without any great qualms?
Oh, well... he has couple of nice explicit speeches, notably the one
that goes "I do not love the sword for its shine edge nor the arrow for
its swiftness: I only love what they defend..." or something like this.
>
> Possibly because I wasn't as struck with Faramir as you, it didn't bother
> me that they made him someone who has to see what the Ring's doing
> to Frodo and Gollum before he acts.
I can take flawed men. In fiction, that is. I have no need to make
accomodations in real life, nope, no sir. (Looks over her shoulder at
love of life just arrived, and trying to share connection.)
Marilee J. Layman
<vera.n...@sff.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 18:51:43 -0500, "Brenda W. Clough"
><clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>>Lucinda Welenc wrote:
>>
>>>"Brenda W. Clough" wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I noticed that poor old Sam is carrying all the baggage. Frodo breezes
>>>>along as free as a bird,
>>>>
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>Is he?
>>>
>>
>>
>>Well, from the bedroll, pots, pans, backpack and food, yes.
>>
>>Brenda
>
>Brenda,
>
>Aha, but Frodo is carrying the ring.
>
>If one side of a scale had all the trip things such as bedrolls, pots,
>pans, backpack and food, and the other just the One Ring, which side
>would be heavier in the absolute sense? :-)
>
>Sam is carrying a lesser burden, we would think. Besides, Sam is
>probably thinking along the same lines and is feeling sorry for
>Frodo's plight and is willing to do whatever he can to help him
>relieve the burden both literally and metaphorically.
But more importantly, Sam is sort of Frodo's manservant. He's
*supposed* to be carrying stuff.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com
Lucinda Welenc
>
> On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 11:38:01 +0000, Anna Mazzoldi
> <mazz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <1fnkkz6.hf794py1fwhsN%ada...@spamcop.net>,
> >ada...@spamcop.net (Anna Feruglio Dal Dan) wrote:
> >> <mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
> >> > And others that are plain uncanonical -- Faramir -- where I can
> >> > see why they've done what they've done.
> >> Yeah, well, I'm not sure I'm ready to forgive what I've been gathering
> >> has happened, here. I never cared for most of the LOTR characters
> >> anyway, apart from Faramir. Trust them to butcher him.
> >I don't think they did. Really. (Ok, as you know my soft spot has
> >always been for Aragorn -- but I don't think they butchered
> >Faramir. In fact, I liked the way they handled him.
>
> Nentbea.
>
> V nz zber erpbapvyrq gb gur Nejra/Ryebaq fprar nsgre erernqvat
> Nccraqvk N. Gbb onq Yvi Glyre pna'g fcrnx. Tnynqevry naq Ryebaq jnf
> haarprffnel.
>
> Guébqra jnf cnvashy. Rbjla naq Tbyyhz jrer terng.</rot13>
>
> SW
OK, is there some easy way to translate this? I can treat it as an
ordinary cryptogram, I'm sure, but I'm kinda pressed for time right now.
--
Alanna
**********
Saying of the day:
Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
Charlie Allery
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote in message ...
>
<Maintaining spoiler space>
>
>Eowyn specifically talks about the sheild maidens of Rohan; why, when
>they're handing out weapons to men who are 12 or 60, does nobody mobilise
>the girlies? There are a lot of instances of women fighting in siege
>warfare; more than in battlefield combat as far as most sources are
>concerned.
>
Hear, hear. That was the main point that narked me, though my horse-riding
mate was fairly gob-smacked by the charge down the scree slope. If they
hadn't used Eowyn's lines so early (yes, I know it's a direct quote from the
book, but in fact it's said at Dunharrow, not before Helm's Deep) it
wouldn't have bothered me so much. :-)
Also wasn't so sure about the dwarf-tossing joke.
Charlie
Dan Goodman
news:3E078FD3...@cablespeed.com:
See if your newsreader has rot13-reading capabilities.
Richard Horton
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>He recapitulates Boromir's experience
>with the Ring, but he rejects it at the potential cost of his own life --
>which I wish they'd mentioned earlier than they do.
That was a major problem. It would have worked much better with an
earlier scene establishing that to allow Frodo and co. to go free
would be a capital crime.
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.tangentonline.com)
Marilee J. Layman
It's rot-13. On Agent, it's an option under Edit (highlight the text,
click on Apply ROT-13). If you want to do it by hand, rotate the
alphabet 13 letters.
Alma Hromic Deckert
>Lucinda Welenc <lwe...@cablespeed.com> wrote in
>news:3E078FD3...@cablespeed.com:
>
>> S Wittman wrote:
>
>>> V nz zber erpbapvyrq gb gur Nejra/Ryebaq fprar nsgre erernqvat
>>> Nccraqvk N. Gbb onq Yvi Glyre pna'g fcrnx. Tnynqevry naq Ryebaq jnf
>>> haarprffnel.
>>>
>>> Guébqra jnf cnvashy. Rbjla naq Tbyyhz jrer terng.</rot13>
>>
>> OK, is there some easy way to translate this? I can treat it as an
>> ordinary cryptogram, I'm sure, but I'm kinda pressed for time right now.
>
>See if your newsreader has rot13-reading capabilities.
mine doesn't...
A.
Brian M. Scott
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>In article <3e071bbf....@enews.newsguy.com>, b.s...@csuohio.edu
>(Brian M. Scott) wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 11:37:57 +0000, Anna Mazzoldi
>> <mazz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>> > And at some points I was
>> >thinking, "Last year I enjoyed Graydon's commentary on the
>> >swordfighting immensely. This time I'd like Mary Gentle's
>> >commentary on the siege warfare..."
>> So would I. Commentary at a party Saturday night was extremely
>> unfavorable ('It was ridiculous; they obviously needed a
>> medievalist').
>How about "they obviously needed their heads examined"?
>It was Heroic Warfare. Looked at that way, it was marvellous. Looked at
>any other way, it stunk to high heaven.
>And -- oh well, spoiler space...
Still there.
>movin' on down
>The genuinely impossible bit was presented as a miracle, anyway. At
>least, I tell myself it was. A cavalry charge down a one-in-one hill onto
>an orcish pike block... no wonder they needed Gandalf the White.
Yes, this was one of the big complaints, and not just from the
horse people in the group. Another was that the place as
depicted in the movie was indefensible: its external
fortifications were *much* too close together, and there was no
proper keep.
[...]
>300 men against 10,000 orcs is heroic warfare, even with the fortress as a
>force-multiplier. You might ask yourself why there are thousands of orcs
>attacking the walls with pikes, and only a few using ladders and
>mangonels... Spears and pikes aren't useful for scaling walls; swords,
>maces, and short and convenient weapons _are._
It was also mentioned that despite the manner of Boromir's death,
the orcs at the siege had only some crossbows.
[...]
>We will leave aside Legolas skate-boarding on a shield down the steps
>while shooting at the orcs, since Elves apparently do things like this. :)
Oh, my; that wasn't even mentioned!
[...]
There was also much discussion of a horse charge through the
halls. Someone suggested that it was the result of
misunderstanding 'inner court'.
Brian
Elaine Thompson
<rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 18:27:23 +0000 (UTC),
>mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
>>He recapitulates Boromir's experience
>>with the Ring, but he rejects it at the potential cost of his own life --
>>which I wish they'd mentioned earlier than they do.
>
>That was a major problem. It would have worked much better with an
>earlier scene establishing that to allow Frodo and co. to go free
>would be a capital crime.
I'm fairly sure *something* went by in the early scenes with Faramir
muttering about it being a crime (not capital, though) to let Frodo &
Co. go. But I'd have to see it again to make sure, and that's not
going to happen soon.
--
Elaine Thompson <Ela...@KEThompson.org>
Brenda W. Clough
My horse-mad daughter complains that the horses should have slipped and
fallen almost immediately. They -could- have been shod with rubber
shoes, the way city police horses are, I suppose.
Beth Friedman
<ang...@earthlink.net>, <11kf0voj68lpmcieb...@4ax.com>,
wrote:
Your headers claim you're using Agent. If so, try highlighting the
encrypted text and typing Ctrl-3.
--
Beth Friedman
b...@wavefront.com
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
The extended edition runs to three hours and a half. I think, and they
must have thought so too, that it would have bombed spectacularly in the
theaters. I loved the first movie, but it's complicated stuff full of
information, it's not _Gone With the Wind_. I was tired when I came out.
All the four times.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> That said, it's still a minor quibble, and nothing like the major wobbly
> I'm throwing if they do leave the scouring of the Shire out of RotK.
>
> Mary
I'm sorry, but yes, they will. Jackson and co. say so in the commentary
to the extended edition. :-(
Lori Selke
>mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
>>
>
>>> sorry, but on this one i am a purist. my husband loved #1, i hated
>>> what they did to the elves in that movie. they made Galadriel into a
>>> screaming banshee, ferchissakes. gaaaack.
>>
>>That's one of the two things in FotR that Never Happened, as far as I'm
>>concerned.
>
>now i have to ask. what's the other?...
>
>A. (in email, if you like! <g>)
No! Share with the class!
Lori
--
se...@io.com, se...@mindspring.com, http://www.io.com/~selk
"This is no time of remorse. This is a time for cookies!" --Love and Rockets
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
cha...@charlieallery.demon.co.uk (Charlie Allery) wrote:
>
> mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote in message ...
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> <Maintaining spoiler space>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >Eowyn specifically talks about the sheild maidens of Rohan; why, when
> >they're handing out weapons to men who are 12 or 60, does nobody
> mobilise
> >the girlies? There are a lot of instances of women fighting in siege
> >warfare; more than in battlefield combat as far as most sources are
> >concerned.
> >
>
>
> Hear, hear. That was the main point that narked me, though my
> horse-riding
> mate was fairly gob-smacked by the charge down the scree slope.
You have to look at it as Gandalf's miracle; otherwise, forget it. Nasty
mess of tumbled horses and bodies at the foot of the slope, and a lot of
orcs exchanging glances and going "They _what?"_
>If they
> hadn't used Eowyn's lines so early (yes, I know it's a direct quote
> from the
> book, but in fact it's said at Dunharrow, not before Helm's Deep) it
> wouldn't have bothered me so much. :-)
>
> Also wasn't so sure about the dwarf-tossing joke.
I could have done without the dwarf tossing here and in FotR. It's the
wrong sort of joke.
Mary
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> <mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > That said, it's still a minor quibble, and nothing like the major
> > wobbly
> > I'm throwing if they do leave the scouring of the Shire out of RotK.
> >
> > Mary
>
> I'm sorry, but yes, they will. Jackson and co. say so in the commentary
> to the extended edition. :-(
>
I suppose I'm hoping that it's on the cutting room floor and they might
reconstruct it if we whinge loudly enough.
Mary
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Clough) wrote:
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
[...]
> >There was also much discussion of a horse charge through the
> >halls. Someone suggested that it was the result of
> >misunderstanding 'inner court'.
> >
>
>
>
> My horse-mad daughter complains that the horses should have slipped and
> fallen almost immediately. They -could- have been shod with rubber
> shoes, the way city police horses are, I suppose.
Given the charge out of the hall at Helm's Deep, and the charge down the
scree slope, I suspect that what we're dealing with here aren't horses.
I suggest a gigantic breed of four-legged spider, with sticky pads on
their hooves...
Mary
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Brian M. Scott) wrote:
I found it remarkably difficult to keep the shape of the place in my head
once they started fighting; another reason why I'd like to see it again.
>
> [...]
>
> >300 men against 10,000 orcs is heroic warfare, even with the fortress
> as a >force-multiplier. You might ask yourself why there are thousands
> of orcs >attacking the walls with pikes, and only a few using ladders
> and >mangonels... Spears and pikes aren't useful for scaling walls;
> swords, >maces, and short and convenient weapons _are._
>
> It was also mentioned that despite the manner of Boromir's death,
> the orcs at the siege had only some crossbows.
It was a reasonable army to send out if you were going to fight a battle
in open land. But Saruman knew he was taking Helm's Deep, and Saruman had
been established as a creator of war-machines. This Does Not Compute.
>
> [...]
>
> >We will leave aside Legolas skate-boarding on a shield down the steps
> >while shooting at the orcs, since Elves apparently do things like
> this. :)
>
> Oh, my; that wasn't even mentioned!
Probably erased instantly from the memory as the mind goes "I don't
believe it!"... :)
>
> [...]
>
> There was also much discussion of a horse charge through the
> halls. Someone suggested that it was the result of
> misunderstanding 'inner court'.
Oh, I suppose that's possible. I just thought, gee, start a charge from
inside a building, why don't you?, and dumped it into the mental WPB.
Somehow, the way that /none/ of it is feasible makes it work -- if there
were sensible bits of siege warfare, they'd show the rest up for what it
is -- I found I could accept it as 'heroic style' fighting because it
worked that way for everybody there. Like I say, I loved it, cobblers
though it is.
Mary
Andrew Dennis
> In article <bbvc0v4al2k1erf0o...@4ax.com>,
>
> > On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 00:34:42 +0000 (UTC),
> > mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> >
> > >
>
> > >> sorry, but on this one i am a purist. my husband loved #1, i hated
> > >> what they did to the elves in that movie. they made Galadriel into a
> > >> screaming banshee, ferchissakes. gaaaack.
> > >
> > >That's one of the two things in FotR that Never Happened, as far as
> > I'm >concerned.
> >
> > now i have to ask. what's the other?...
> >
> > A. (in email, if you like! <g>)
> >
>
> before Frodo nips across the river at the end.
>
> If Aragorn /knows/ where Frodo is, that throws out so many things about
> what happens later. And makes him look a prat -- "Oh, I see the One Ring
> over there, crossing the river, and the hobbit I swore to protect with my
> life, but I think I'll just let him wander into perilous Mordor while I go
> chasing after possibly-dead Merry and Pippin..."
>
> So it Didn't Happen.
>
Unfortunately, that means you have to maintain it Didn't Happen in the
book, too. In the book, Aragorn figures out where Frodo and Sam went
by seeing that one boat is gone and the others undisturbed, and Sam
has taken his pack. Therefore, he deduces, Frodo has gone on alone,
and he decides - more or less as shown in the film, albeit in the film
he doesn't have to deduce it because the lake is smaller in the film
than on the map in the book and they can see the other side - to chase
after Merry and Pippin.
That being the first decisive thing he does in the book after he lost
Gandalf to lean on, the whining fop that he is.
Andrew D.
Who rather thinks the sympathies are all wrong in the books anyway,
and was cheering Sauron all the way.
Gwynedd
>>> Nentbea.
>>>
>>> V nz zber erpbapvyrq gb gur Nejra/Ryebaq fprar nsgre erernqvat
>>> Nccraqvk N. Gbb onq Yvi Glyre pna'g fcrnx. Tnynqevry naq Ryebaq jnf
>>> haarprffnel.
>>>
>>> Guébqra jnf cnvashy. Rbjla naq Tbyyhz jrer terng.</rot13>
>>>
>>> SW
>>
>>OK, is there some easy way to translate this? I can treat it as an
>>ordinary cryptogram, I'm sure, but I'm kinda pressed for time right now.
>
>It's rot-13. On Agent, it's an option under Edit (highlight the text,
>click on Apply ROT-13). If you want to do it by hand, rotate the
>alphabet 13 letters.
>
>--
>Marilee J. Layman
Or got to http://www.rot13.com/
Use copy and paste to plug the message into the box and hit the cypher button
to translate it.
Alma Hromic Deckert
wrote:
>>>See if your newsreader has rot13-reading capabilities.
>>
>>mine doesn't...
>
>Your headers claim you're using Agent. If so, try highlighting the
>encrypted text and typing Ctrl-3.
...AH.
not something i ever needed before.
A.
Alma Hromic Deckert
oh, GAWD.
<G>
A.
Anna Mazzoldi
In article <au526h$o3r$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk>,
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> And, I think, being in Osgiliath, too (reminded me of WWII Stalingrad).
<BG> So we weren't the only two... (Myself and a friend quietly
singing "Stalingrado" during those scenes...)
Ciao,
Anna
--
Anna Mazzoldi writing from Dublin, Ireland
"You look like Billie Holiday with a hibiscus flower
on her ear, except it's a purple orangutan." --Laurence
Helen
<clo...@erols.com> writes
>
>My horse-mad daughter complains that the horses should have slipped and
>fallen almost immediately. They -could- have been shod with rubber
>shoes, the way city police horses are, I suppose.
>
>Brenda
>
grip. But do the Rhohirrim shoe their horses? An unshod hoof is much
more grippy than a shod one. If they don't do much work on hard
surfaces, horses do fine unshod and are much more sure footed that way.
Helen
--
Helen, Gwynedd, Wales *** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk
Brian D. Fernald
news:au9gab$pcu$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
Look on the bright side, at least they did not include the much more
controversial 'Elf tossing joke' and there was no comments about
"Toss my salad."
--
Brian F.
FSOBN
www.bastards.org
J. F. Cornwall
> In article <1FpM9.108559$JE.5...@news1.central.cox.net>,
> JCor...@cox.net (J. F. Cornwall) wrote:
>
>
>>Joyce Reynolds-Ward wrote:
>>
>>>Hey Mary--
>>>
>>>my 15 year old is reading Grunts! for his 10th grade English free
>>>reading project (main criteria: book must not have been made into a
>>>movie and is over a certain number of pages) over the winter holidays.
>>>
>>>
>>>I figured he'd like it <grin>.
>>>
>>>Also figured it'd--um--give him an *interesting* perspective on LOTR.
>>>Especially since we're going to Japan and he needs something to
>>>read....
>>>
>>>jrw
>>
>>Hmmm, my 17-year-old wants to read it as well. But he has to wait
>>until I'm done!
>
>
> Aw, cruel. :)
>
Yes, but he's used to it by now... The kid's been putting up with me
for quite awhile.
>
>>BTW, Mary, I finished Ash last week on my bizness trip, and I have to
>>tell you I loved it... Your mind is delightfully devious in coming up
>>with unique plots and keeping them concealed until the last moments.
>
>
> Thank you! That was the general idea -- like I say, sometimes I just want
> to leave gin-traps around for the reader's foot. <g>
>
> Mary
I am curious about something, though. Ash has what appears to be two
completely separate story lines (plot threads, whatever you call 'em -
hey I just read the durn things!) that eventually twist together into
one. When you write something like that, do you start with both lines
kept in mind, or do you start with one (say, a nice straight forward
medieval woman mercenary tale) that kind of evolves into the more
deviously tangled sort of story? I've always wondered whether most
authors start one way or the other with stories like these...
I know, I know, "nine and sixty ways"... :-)
Jim
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
andrew...@blackburn.gov.uk (Andrew Dennis) wrote:
I don't have any trouble with him deducing it. I have trouble with him
doing it after he's _met_ Frodo and had that particular conversation with
him. That foregrounds precisely what he is doing, abandoning the Ring and
bearer, and for me it's way over the edge.
> That being the first decisive thing he does in the book after he lost
> Gandalf to lean on, the whining fop that he is.
:-)
For some reason BORED OF THE RINGS springs to mind -- "Arrowroot, son of
Stuffed Shirt"...
> Who rather thinks the sympathies are all wrong in the books anyway,
> and was cheering Sauron all the way.
And the orcs. Don't forget the poor downtrodden orcs.
Mary
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
mazz...@hotmail.com (Anna Mazzoldi) wrote:
> :
> In article <au526h$o3r$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk>,
> mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
> > And, I think, being in Osgiliath, too (reminded me of WWII
> > Stalingrad).
>
> <BG> So we weren't the only two... (Myself and a friend quietly
> singing "Stalingrado" during those scenes...)
Evidently I'm not as cracked as I think I am -- or I have company. <g>
Mary
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Okay, I confess it, I miss Shelob. <g>
Mary
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
ken...@baradel.demon.co.uk.please.delete.this (Helen) wrote:
> In article <3E07DDE4...@erols.com>, Brenda W. Clough
> <clo...@erols.com> writes
> >
> >My horse-mad daughter complains that the horses should have slipped
> and >fallen almost immediately. They -could- have been shod with
> rubber >shoes, the way city police horses are, I suppose.
> >
> >Brenda
> >
> Presumably the stunt horses *were* shod with rubber shoes to give them
> grip. But do the Rhohirrim shoe their horses? An unshod hoof is much
> more grippy than a shod one. If they don't do much work on hard
> surfaces, horses do fine unshod and are much more sure footed that way.
If that slope was actually as steep as it appears, I'll eat a barbecued
hobbit, whole.
Mary
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> > In article <1FpM9.108559$JE.5...@news1.central.cox.net>,
> > JCor...@cox.net (J. F. Cornwall) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Joyce Reynolds-Ward wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hey Mary--
> >>>
> >>>my 15 year old is reading Grunts! for his 10th grade English free
> >>>reading project (main criteria: book must not have been made into a
> >>>movie and is over a certain number of pages) over the winter
> holidays.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I figured he'd like it <grin>.
> >>>
> >>>Also figured it'd--um--give him an *interesting* perspective on LOTR.
> >>>Especially since we're going to Japan and he needs something to
> >>>read....
> >>>
> >>>jrw
> >>
> >>Hmmm, my 17-year-old wants to read it as well. But he has to wait
> >>until I'm done!
> >
> >
> > Aw, cruel. :)
> >
>
> Yes, but he's used to it by now... The kid's been putting up with me
> for quite awhile.
He'll get his own back when you're old and tottery. <g>
(In my case, 'old and tottery' is round about now -- christmas eve, bah,
humbug!)
> >
> >>BTW, Mary, I finished Ash last week on my bizness trip, and I have to
> >>tell you I loved it... Your mind is delightfully devious in coming
> up >>with unique plots and keeping them concealed until the last
> moments.
> >
> >
> > Thank you! That was the general idea -- like I say, sometimes I just
> > want to leave gin-traps around for the reader's foot. <g>
> >
> > Mary
>
> I am curious about something, though. Ash has what appears to be two
> completely separate story lines (plot threads, whatever you call 'em -
> hey I just read the durn things!) that eventually twist together into
> one. When you write something like that, do you start with both lines
> kept in mind, or do you start with one (say, a nice straight forward
> medieval woman mercenary tale) that kind of evolves into the more
> deviously tangled sort of story? I've always wondered whether most
> authors start one way or the other with stories like these...
>
> I know, I know, "nine and sixty ways"... :-)
Yeah, I can't tell you how anybody else does it... I had both those
threads from the beginning. Ash herself (without the story) may have
turned up a little in advance of everything else, but she did one of those
"I've always been here in your head" appearances that make it difficult to
pinpoint.
I knew how the threads would interweave up to a point. Beyond that point,
it was down to hammering out the logic of what _must_ happen, given what
had gone before. That was a headache and three-quarters.
I'd _expect_ it to evolve into devious, but in this case it started off
that way...
Mary
JXStern
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>For some reason BORED OF THE RINGS springs to mind -- "Arrowroot, son of
>Stuffed Shirt"...
"Arrowroot son of Arrowshirt, ... and this is Krona of he who has many
names, he who is called Lumbago, the Lodestone, by the elves,
Dunderhead, heir to the throne of Twodor and true son of Arrowhead of
Araplane, Conqueror of Dozens and seed of Barbisol, Top of the Heap
and King of the Mountain," King of Minas Troney, aka Stomper.
>> Who rather thinks the sympathies are all wrong in the books anyway,
>> and was cheering Sauron all the way.
>
>And the orcs. Don't forget the poor downtrodden orcs.
Sure, that's what David Brin says, sort of, towards the end of:
http://www.davidbrin.com/tolkienarticle1.html
We Hobbits are a Merry Folk...
...an incautious and heretical re-appraisal of J.R.R.Tolkien
an article by David Brin, Ph.D.
Copyright Dec. 4, 2002 by David Brin. All rights reserved; no
duplication or resale without permission. An abridged version of this
article appeared in the late-December 2002 online edition of Salon
Magazine
...
My point? Well, LOTR is obviously an account written after the Ring
War ended, long ago. Right? An account created by the victors.
So how do we know that Sauron really did have red glowing eyes?
...
(title obviously yet another homage to BOTR)
J.
J. F. Cornwall
Fascinating. I almost didn't buy Vol 1 after reading the first page or
two, because it appeared to be in the category of stuff I don't often
read (medieval wars/fantasy/magic type of things). I went ahead and
bought the first one, though, because the cover blurbs on the remaining
volumes piqued my interest by hinting that there was some sort of
machine AI involved. I'm glad I did, because I *like* a story that
keeps me guessing and then does something totally unexpected at the end!
Jim
Keith Morrison
>>Unfortunately, that means you have to maintain it Didn't Happen in the
>>book, too. In the book, Aragorn figures out where Frodo and Sam went
>>by seeing that one boat is gone and the others undisturbed, and Sam
>>has taken his pack. Therefore, he deduces, Frodo has gone on alone,
>>and he decides - more or less as shown in the film, albeit in the film
>>he doesn't have to deduce it because the lake is smaller in the film
>>than on the map in the book and they can see the other side - to chase
>>after Merry and Pippin.
>
> I don't have any trouble with him deducing it. I have trouble with him
> doing it after he's _met_ Frodo and had that particular conversation with
> him. That foregrounds precisely what he is doing, abandoning the Ring and
> bearer, and for me it's way over the edge.
Look at the facts from the film point of view.
Aragorn has seen Boromir become corrupted. He has to get Frodo away
from him for sure. Moreover, he might be concerned that, since one
has fallen, the rest might not be far behind. His plan might very
well have been to let Frodo go on his own but to follow from a distance
with the rest of the group, keeping them away from the Ring but close
enough to intervene if needed. There isn't much else that makes sense
because, in the film, there isn't anything else pressing for Aragorn to
do that would cause him to be needed elsewhere.
Then the orcs attack and Merry and Pippin get taken. And now the film
and the book are back at the same point.
--
Keith
Lucinda Welenc
Nah. The Rohirrim have obviously crossed the horse with the gecko to
get the sticky hooves.
Alanna
---
Saying of the day: Go not to the surrealists for counsel, for they will
say both blue and hippopotamus
Zeborah
> Everybody! Everybody's seen this bloody movie! Everybody but me! Talk
> about turning the knife in the wound!
<giggle>
> Of course... those who could but haven't yet get told off. A friend of
> mine called me from New Zealand yesterday. "It's already out down there,
> isn't it?" I asked. "Yes, it's been playing since yesterday at
> midnight." "And you haven't seen it _yet_?!!" "Anna! It's half-past nine
> in the _morning_ here!"
Saw it with my sister Sunday evening, after the plane came in to
Christchurch airport at half past noon. Very nice.
Oh, it was funny. My flatmate *just* saw a trailer the other day and
said, "Gandalf?! But he died! Didn't he die?" I didn't know quite
what to say... think I murmured something about promotional blah blah
random footage etc ooh, look, isn't that scenery nice?
Zeborah
--
http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz2000
Kangaroo story wordcount: 32609 words
Brenda W. Clough
He got better.
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
Read my novella "May Be Some Time"
Complete at http://www.analogsf.com/0202/maybesometime.html
My web page is at http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
Andrew Dennis
>
> For some reason BORED OF THE RINGS springs to mind -- "Arrowroot, son of
> Stuffed Shirt"...
>
"He's a good egg, utbay otnay ootay ightbray."
> > Who rather thinks the sympathies are all wrong in the books anyway,
> > and was cheering Sauron all the way.
>
> And the orcs. Don't forget the poor downtrodden orcs.
>
> Mary
Oh, indeed. And much respect to your own effort in that direction.
And I've just got past the bit in my re-read of Tolkein where the
Rohirrim massacre all their Orc prisoners and parole all their human
ones. And people wonder why the BNP put Tolkien on their must-read
list.
There's probably room for a story in which, fifty years into the
Fourth Age, a prominent Gondorian historian gets the crap sued out of
him by the Uruk Anti-Defamation League for denying that the Helm's
Deep Massacre took place.
Andrew D.
Stoutly maintaining that if the Alliance had been open about it's
possession of Middle Earth's most potent WMD and agreed to disarm,
there would have been no need for him to pursue the evildoers of
Gondor the way he was forced to. You'll notice _he_ had no trouble
getting his allies to pull together with him.
And now trying to get the image of Orcish Ring Inspectors making
surprise visits to Minas Tirith out of his mind.
And that Faramir! Nothing but a bushwhacker - and an illegal
combatant to boot...