"Harry Potter: Chamber of Secrets" Preview, Bessie's Review
Bessie Phillips
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
Coming to theaters on November 15th, "Harry Potter: The Chamber of
Secrets" Looks to be every bit as wonderful and fantastical as the first
Harry Potter Movie.
If you are a follower of the books, You'll know what is to come. For all
of the others, Your in for a big surprise. This Movie will be more of a
mystery, everyone trying to find out who opened the Chamber of Secrets.
This new Harry Potter Movie will be introducing a few new additions to
the cast.
Gilderoy Lockhart, Since the horrible mishap that happened with the old
Defense Against the Dark Arts Teacher (Quirell), They had to hire a new
one.
Lucius Malfoy, Draco Malfoy's heartless father is just as horrible and
slimy as his son, If not slimier.
Dobby, This lovable little house-elf, continuously almost gets Harry
into trouble. An amazing CGI character that shows up through out the
book (and I hope, the movie)
More scenes with the ghosts, and a Womping Willow that tries to
pulverize Ron and Harry when they crash land into it upon getting to
school.
This new Harry Potter Movie looks to be every bit as Awe inspiring as
The First one IMO. The only thing I did not like about this trailer is
that they did not show more.
Bessie
--
Discussing pregancy with Lots and Butty
is like discussing AIDS with alterboys. -J.
Geoduck
<meepm...@netscape.net> wrote:
>In a word, Tantalizing
>
>
>
>S
>
>P
>
>O
>
>I
>
>L
>
>E
>
>R
>
>
>S
>
>P
>
>A
>
>C
>
>E
(snip)
>Lucius Malfoy, Draco Malfoy's heartless father is just as horrible and
>slimy as his son, If not slimier.
(snip)
He's far worse, because unlike his son, the man actually possesses a
brain. (At least in the books...)
--
Geoduck
http://www.olywa.net/cook
Bessie Phillips
Geoduck wrote:
Yes, But that was'nt in the preview so I did'nt put it in the Review.
Arthur Levesque
Bessie>and slimy as his son, If not slimier.
Geoduck>He's far worse, because unlike his son, the man actually possesses
Geoduck>a brain. (At least in the books...)
And a position of wealth and authority.
--
/\ Arthur Levesque <fnord?> http://boog.org & http://DammitJa.net __
\B\ack King of the Potato People & shanana-Cobain <*> Urban Spaceman (oO)
\S\lash Sweet transvestite and member of a vast right-wing conspiracy /||\
\/ I was a lesbian before it was fashionable! My work here is done...
Karl MacRae
Arthur Levesque <meist...@boog.org> wrote:
>Bessie>Lucius Malfoy, Draco Malfoy's heartless father is just as horrible
>Bessie>and slimy as his son, If not slimier.
>
>Geoduck>He's far worse, because unlike his son, the man actually possesses
>Geoduck>a brain. (At least in the books...)
>
> And a position of wealth and authority.
Not to mention - well, wait, that's book four. =B^)
-Karl
--
Karl Elvis MacRae VLSI CAD Apple Computer km...@apple.com
Beowulf Bolt
>
> In article <altev2$122lg$1...@ID-75701.news.dfncis.de>,
> Arthur Levesque <meist...@boog.org> wrote:
> >Bessie>Lucius Malfoy, Draco Malfoy's heartless father is just as
> >
> >Geoduck>He's far worse, because unlike his son, the man actually
> >
> > And a position of wealth and authority.
>
> Not to mention - well, wait, that's book four. =B^)
And I won't even bring up what he gets up to in book five! ;)
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare - a pumpkin with a gun.
[...] Euminides this! " - Mervyn, the Sandman #66
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David Adner
>
> In a word, Tantalizing
Perhaps heresy to say this in a book forum, but if you want to watch the
preview, it's here. You can even see Dobby.
Quiet Desperation
<meepm...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Dobby, This lovable little house-elf, continuously almost gets Harry
> into trouble. An amazing CGI character that shows up through out the
> book (and I hope, the movie)
Oh my, I just had a Jar-Jar flashback.
Mark Blunden
It'll probably be a repeat of last year's HP / LotR experience - everyone
will be really impressed at how good a CG character Dobby is, for about 2
weeks, then they'll see Gollum and Dobby will be reduced to a mere puppet in
comparison.
--
Mark.
mark.b...@ntlworld.com
* It wasn't that he was unaware of the despair and nobility of the
human condition. It was just that as far as he was concerned you could
stuff it.
Sky Rider
row, row, rowed the boat - then wro, wro, wrote this note :
got a 404
--
SkyRider
**********
Visit the Online Dictionary of Playground Slang
and leave your favourites-: http://www.odps.cyberscriber.com
Aug. 2002 Update:
1000 extra words, reminiscences, poems and song lyrics added!
**********
Dorothy J Heydt
Mark Blunden <mark.blun...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Quiet Desperation wrote:
>> In article <3D81FF15...@netscape.net>, Bessie Phillips
>> <meepm...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Dobby, This lovable little house-elf, continuously almost gets Harry
There's no 'almost' about it.
I would not call Dobby lovable, not right off the bat.
Pitiable. And exasperating.
>>> into trouble. An amazing CGI character that shows up through out the
>>> book (and I hope, the movie)
>> Oh my, I just had a Jar-Jar flashback.
No, he's not that bad, I've seen a still.
>
>It'll probably be a repeat of last year's HP / LotR experience - everyone
>will be really impressed at how good a CG character Dobby is, for about 2
>weeks, then they'll see Gollum and Dobby will be reduced to a mere puppet in
>comparison.
It's apples and oranges. HP is not as deep as LotR, and
Dobby is not as deep as Gollum, and he doesn't have to
be. The feeling tone is very different. About Dobby
people say, "Oh, the poor little thing, I'm sorry for
him, but why can't he leave Harry alone?" About Gollum
they say "My God. That used to be a hobbit? What
horrible things must have happened to him over the
centuries. He is treacherous and deadly and miserable,
and now that I have seen him, I do pity him."
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
Mark Hanson
news:H2Fnx...@kithrup.com...
> him, but why can't he leave Harry alone?" About Gollum
> they say "My God. That used to be a hobbit? What
> horrible things must have happened to him over the
> centuries. He is treacherous and deadly and miserable,
> and now that I have seen him, I do pity him."
Gollum was once a Hobbit? I never knew that. Cool.
Mark
Dorothy J Heydt
Yes, poor wretch, the Ring got to him centuries ago and
corrupted him as far as he could be corrupted. Have you
read the books, or just seen the FotR movie? You might
get hold of the book and read Chapter Two, where Gandalf
goes into all the backstory with much more detail than
any sane director would attempt to put into a movie.
Mark Hanson
> >Gollum was once a Hobbit? I never knew that. Cool.
>
> Yes, poor wretch, the Ring got to him centuries ago and
> corrupted him as far as he could be corrupted. Have you
> read the books, or just seen the FotR movie? You might
> get hold of the book and read Chapter Two, where Gandalf
> goes into all the backstory with much more detail than
> any sane director would attempt to put into a movie.
Seen the movie, of course, and re-read Fellowship last year. I recall the
story of how Smeagol found the Ring, but I don't remember reading that he
was a Hobbit. Can't remember everything, I guess. :-)
Mark
John johns
Was Gollum actually a hobbit, or a some other race? My understanding
was that he was something similar to a hobbit (I.e. small, close to
nature, etc.), but of a different race that no longer exists. Or am I
wrong on this?
--
John Johnson
"A cry in the dark . . ."
http://johnajohnson.diaryland.com
Rick
"Mark Hanson" <mpha...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:am0h2a$grr$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Of course, both Bilbo's and Frodo's first responses to the ring were far
different
from Smeagol's.
Quiet Desperation
<djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> >> Oh my, I just had a Jar-Jar flashback.
>
> No, he's not that bad, I've seen a still.
I know. It was just a flashback.
*shiver*
Sky Rider
row, row, rowed the boat - then wro, wro, wrote this note :
there is far more on Smeagol and Deagol in the 'Histories'.... and if
Tolkein had to leave all that out of the books... you can see what it
never made to the movie! :)
Mr. Dabney Wentworth Hole
Believe me when I tell you that Bessie, is far, FAR worse than even a
thousand million Jar-Jar Binks.
&&
Mr. D.W. Hole
Mark Hanson
news:4820-3D8...@storefull-2334.public.lawson.webtv.net...
>> Oh my, I just had a Jar-Jar flashback.
> Believe me when I tell you that Bessie, is far, FAR worse than even a
> thousand million Jar-Jar Binks.
Binkses. Or would that be "Binksi"?
Mark
&&
Mr. D.W. Hole
Dorothy J Heydt
John johns <john.j...@ykn.centerpartners.com> wrote:
>Was Gollum actually a hobbit, or a some other race? My understanding
>was that he was something similar to a hobbit (I.e. small, close to
>nature, etc.), but of a different race that no longer exists. Or am I
>wrong on this?
He was a hobbit. "One of the fathers of the fathers of
the Stoors," one of the three hobbit-tribes that
colonized the Shire (compare the Angles, Saxons, and
Jutes that colonized England; there are many "calques"
[loan-translations] from English prehistory in hobbit
prehistory). Frodo, of course, vehemently denies that
such a nasty critter could ever have been a hobbit. But
he was.
Joe Pfeiffer
>
> there is far more on Smeagol and Deagol in the 'Histories'.... and if
> Tolkein had to leave all that out of the books... you can see what it
> never made to the movie! :)
I've never read the histories -- but my recollection of Gandalf's
account was that Smeagol was of a race closely related to the
hobbits, not that he was a hobbit.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
Southwestern NM Regional Science and Engr Fair: http://www.nmsu.edu/~scifair
Dorothy J Heydt
Joe Pfeiffer <pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>Sky Rider <OD...@cyberscriber.com> writes:
>>
>> there is far more on Smeagol and Deagol in the 'Histories'.... and if
>> Tolkein had to leave all that out of the books... you can see what it
>> never made to the movie! :)
>
>I've never read the histories -- but my recollection of Gandalf's
>account was that Smeagol was of a race closely related to the
>hobbits, not that he was a hobbit.
Well, your recollection is inaccurate, you see. If you
care to read either Chapter Two of FotR, or the
Appendices to RotK, you can find some data without
combing through all the volumes of histories.
Sky Rider
row, row, rowed the boat - then wro, wro, wrote this note :
>> there is far more on Smeagol and Deagol in the 'Histories'.... and if
>> Tolkein had to leave all that out of the books... you can see what it
>> never made to the movie! :)
>I've never read the histories -- but my recollection of Gandalf's
>account was that Smeagol was of a race closely related to the
>hobbits, not that he was a hobbit.
pretty much yes... Gollum was extremely aged.... and he was of a
branch of Hobbit ancestors that loved the river whereas most Hobbits
shunned it... except for the Tooks of course but they were odd in a
lot of ways!
Elaine Thompson
<john.j...@ykn.centerpartners.com> wrote:
Snip
>
>Was Gollum actually a hobbit, or a some other race? My understanding
>was that he was something similar to a hobbit (I.e. small, close to
>nature, etc.), but of a different race that no longer exists. Or am I
>wrong on this?
Gandalf thinks he was an ancestral hobbit, not quite like the modern
ones but close enough. "Fathers of the fathers of the Stoors" Stoors
being the river compatible hobbit-type. There's also a point - the
the stairs of Cirith Ungol, IIRC, where he almost changes his mind
about betraying Frodo and Sam to Shelob, where his looks are described
as being like an ancient hobbit.
--
Elaine Thompson <Ela...@KEThompson.org>
David Silberstein
Sky Rider <OD...@cyberscriber.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 19:30:43 -0400, David Adner <david...@yahoo.com>
>row, row, rowed the boat - then wro, wro, wrote this note :
>
>>Bessie Phillips wrote:
>>>
>>> In a word, Tantalizing
>>
>>Perhaps heresy to say this in a book forum, but if you want to watch the
>>preview, it's here. You can even see Dobby.
>>
>>http://www.movie-list.com/h/harrypotter2.shtm
>
>got a 404
http://www.movie-list.com/h/harrypotter2.shtml
^
Original post left out a letter...
Diamond Dove
> In article <1bsn0bs...@cs.nmsu.edu>,
> Joe Pfeiffer <pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
> >Sky Rider <OD...@cyberscriber.com> writes:
> >>
> >> there is far more on Smeagol and Deagol in the 'Histories'.... and if
> >> Tolkein had to leave all that out of the books... you can see what it
> >> never made to the movie! :)
> >
> >I've never read the histories -- but my recollection of Gandalf's
> >account was that Smeagol was of a race closely related to the
> >hobbits, not that he was a hobbit.
>
> Well, your recollection is inaccurate, you see. If you
> care to read either Chapter Two of FotR, or the
> Appendices to RotK, you can find some data without
> combing through all the volumes of histories.
>
FOTR, Ch2: Of Smeagol;
<quote>
"...there lived by the banks of the Great River on the edge of Wilderland a
clever-handed and quiet-footed little people. I guess they were of
hobbit-kind; akin to the fathers of the fathers of the Stoors, for they
loved the river, and often swam in it, or made little boats of reeds."
</quote>
From *my impression* of this text, Smeagol is not a "hobbit" as we know of,
but from a similar race that the hobbits perhaps decended from. Gandalf
describes them as of "hobbit-kind" and does not say that Smeagol was a
hobbit.
DD
*-*
Andrew Plotkin
> Was Gollum actually a hobbit, or a some other race? My understanding
> was that he was something similar to a hobbit (I.e. small, close to
> nature, etc.), but of a different race that no longer exists. Or am I
> wrong on this?
It's more or less impossible to tell, in modern terms, whether Gollum
was a different *species* from the modern hobbits, or a different
clan/ethnicity/lineage of hobbitdom.
Gandalf, understandably, didn't get as far as giving the Latin
species-name when he was describing the incident in Bilbo's living
room.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Dorothy J Heydt
David Silberstein <dav...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.movie-list.com/h/harrypotter2.shtml
>
>Original post left out a letter...
Ah, thanks. Yes, Dobby is cute but they got too
low-voiced an actor for him. Consider his size!
Dobby's a sopranino, not a baritone.
Note the wire-fu in the wizards' duel, and the _North by
Northwest_ hommage in the climb down the statue's face.
Oh yes, it'll be nice.
Dorothy J Heydt
Diamond Dove <Diamo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
>news:H2Grn...@kithrup.com...
>> In article <1bsn0bs...@cs.nmsu.edu>,
>
>
><quote>
>
>"...there lived by the banks of the Great River on the edge of Wilderland a
>clever-handed and quiet-footed little people. I guess they were of
>hobbit-kind; akin to the fathers of the fathers of the Stoors, for they
>loved the river, and often swam in it, or made little boats of reeds."
>
></quote>
>
>From *my impression* of this text, Smeagol is not a "hobbit" as we know of,
>but from a similar race that the hobbits perhaps decended from. Gandalf
>describes them as of "hobbit-kind" and does not say that Smeagol was a
>hobbit.
Are you familiar with the words "mankind" and
humankind?"
Do they mean anything other than "human?"
Dorothy J Heydt
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>Here, John johns <john.j...@ykn.centerpartners.com> wrote:
>
>> Was Gollum actually a hobbit, or a some other race? My understanding
>> was that he was something similar to a hobbit (I.e. small, close to
>> nature, etc.), but of a different race that no longer exists. Or am I
>> wrong on this?
>
>It's more or less impossible to tell, in modern terms, whether Gollum
>was a different *species* from the modern hobbits, or a different
>clan/ethnicity/lineage of hobbitdom.
>
>Gandalf, understandably, didn't get as far as giving the Latin
>species-name when he was describing the incident in Bilbo's living
>room.
_Homo dimidiulus,_ if you're interested. ;)
Brenda W. Clough
It is alleged that Gollum was of a race akin to the Stoors, the more
waterloving branch of hobbitry. They lived on the banks of the Anduin,
in a region that was decimated by the various wars of Middle Earth, and
so are almost certainly extinct. They probably parted company from the
main line of hobbits when the hobbits went west and founded the Shire.
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/
Johnny1A
That's one of Tolkien's best writtens scenes, too. Every time I read
it, I sort of feel tired and exhausted myself just from the mental
imagery in conjures:
"...for a fleeting moment, could one of the sleepers have seen him,
they would have thought that they beheld an old weary hobbit, shrunken
by the years that had carried him far beyond his time, beyond friends
and kin, and the fields and streams of youth, an old starved pitiable
thing..."
Shermanlee
Bessie Phillips
Why thank you Hole. I would'nt have thought you capable of such a
compliment.
Bessie
--
Discussing pregancy with Lots and Butty
is like discussing AIDS with alterboys. -J.
John VanSickle
>
> In a word, Tantalizing
>
>
> P
>
> O
>
> I
>
> L
>
> E
>
> R
>
> S
>
> P
>
> A
>
> C
>
> E
>
> Coming to theaters on November 15th, "Harry Potter: The Chamber of
> Secrets" Looks to be every bit as wonderful and fantastical as the
> first Harry Potter Movie.
And every bit as MST3Kable:
"If Harry Potter returns to Hogwarths, he will be in grave danger!"
MIKE: Yeah, that would be completely different from last year.
Mike Schilling
news:am26mp$sh5$2...@reader1.panix.com...
> Here, John johns <john.j...@ykn.centerpartners.com> wrote:
>
> > Was Gollum actually a hobbit, or a some other race? My understanding
> > was that he was something similar to a hobbit (I.e. small, close to
> > nature, etc.), but of a different race that no longer exists. Or am I
> > wrong on this?
>
> It's more or less impossible to tell, in modern terms, whether Gollum
> was a different *species* from the modern hobbits, or a different
> clan/ethnicity/lineage of hobbitdom.
Was there evolution in Middle-Earth? You wouldn't think there was time,
since the entire history up to the War of the Ring was only 20,00 years or
so (I'm not sure how long from the creation of Men till the end of the First
Age), and that's assuming Tolkien wasn't a Creationist.
Dorothy J Heydt
Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Andrew Plotkin" <erky...@eblong.com> wrote in message
>news:am26mp$sh5$2...@reader1.panix.com...
>>
>> was a different *species* from the modern hobbits, or a different
>> clan/ethnicity/lineage of hobbitdom.
>
>Was there evolution in Middle-Earth? You wouldn't think there was time,
>since the entire history up to the War of the Ring was only 20,00 years or
>so (I'm not sure how long from the creation of Men till the end of the First
>Age), and that's assuming Tolkien wasn't a Creationist.
In RL, I'm sure not. If he had been, Lewis would have
talked him out of it (or tried anyway*). We're not
talking about the evolution of species over millions of
years, we're talking about the evolution of cultures
over centuries. Gollum's people undoubtedly had a
noticeably different culture from that of the hobbits of
the Third Age.
Remember that the Shire and its inhabitants are a calque
[loan-translation] on England and its inhabitants. (T.
A. Shippey goes into this in detail in _The Road to
Middle-Earth,_ which I recommend to everyone.) For the
hobbits of the Third Age, read the Angle-, Saxon-, and
Jute-descended men of medieval England. Their
ancestors, back in the Migration Period when Rome was
still trying to hang onto her empire in spite of roaming
Germanic tribes driven from pillar to post by harsh
weather and each other, had a much different culture but
were not only the same species, but the same ethnicity.
*Lewis once said of Tolkien, "You might as well try to
influence a Bandersnatch!" He said this, IIRC, after a
failed attempt to get Tolkien to recast some of his
alliterative verse into heroic couplets.
Brenda W. Clough
>In article <K06h9.1041$Jl.40...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
>Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Andrew Plotkin" <erky...@eblong.com> wrote in message
>>news:am26mp$sh5$2...@reader1.panix.com...
>>
>>>It's more or less impossible to tell, in modern terms, whether Gollum
>>>was a different *species* from the modern hobbits, or a different
>>>clan/ethnicity/lineage of hobbitdom.
>>>
>>Was there evolution in Middle-Earth? You wouldn't think there was time,
>>since the entire history up to the War of the Ring was only 20,00 years or
>>so (I'm not sure how long from the creation of Men till the end of the First
>>Age), and that's assuming Tolkien wasn't a Creationist.
>>
>
>In RL, I'm sure not. If he had been, Lewis would have
>talked him out of it (or tried anyway*). We're not
>talking about the evolution of species over millions of
>years, we're talking about the evolution of cultures
>over centuries.
>
What about Morgoth, transforming Elves into Orcs? Even if you postulate
that he used cloning, and had some kind of speedy gestation to bring
them to adulthood fast, it must have taken a while.
Dorothy J Heydt
Brenda W. Clough <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>
>>In article <K06h9.1041$Jl.40...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
>>Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Was there evolution in Middle-Earth? You wouldn't think there was time,
>>>since the entire history up to the War of the Ring was only 20,00 years or
>>>so (I'm not sure how long from the creation of Men till the end of the First
>>>Age), and that's assuming Tolkien wasn't a Creationist.
>>>
>>
>>In RL, I'm sure not. If he had been, Lewis would have
>>talked him out of it (or tried anyway*). We're not
>>talking about the evolution of species over millions of
>>years, we're talking about the evolution of cultures
>>over centuries.
>
>What about Morgoth, transforming Elves into Orcs? Even if you postulate
>that he used cloning, and had some kind of speedy gestation to bring
>them to adulthood fast, it must have taken a while.
So? He had time. The Elves had no concept of time at
all till they got to the Trees. A thousand years, ten
thousand years, if you're immortal and the sun never
rises, who's going to notice?
I don't even know if the sky changed over the course of
a year: possibly, possibly not. But if you have no
reason for keeping track of time (no agriculture, no
unpleasant seasons, etc., I have no idea what the Elves
ate around Cuivenien), you will probably notice that
sometimes those pretty red stars are over here, and
sometimes they're over there, and sometimes they
disappear entirely for a while, but I bet you won't keep
a tale.
Mike Schilling
> In article <K06h9.1041$Jl.40...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
> Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"Andrew Plotkin" <erky...@eblong.com> wrote in message
> >news:am26mp$sh5$2...@reader1.panix.com...
> >>
> >> It's more or less impossible to tell, in modern terms, whether Gollum
> >> was a different *species* from the modern hobbits, or a different
> >> clan/ethnicity/lineage of hobbitdom.
> >
> >Was there evolution in Middle-Earth? You wouldn't think there was time,
> >since the entire history up to the War of the Ring was only 20,00 years
or
> >so (I'm not sure how long from the creation of Men till the end of the
First
> >Age), and that's assuming Tolkien wasn't a Creationist.
>
> In RL, I'm sure not. If he had been, Lewis would have
> talked him out of it (or tried anyway*). We're not
> talking about the evolution of species over millions of
> years, we're talking about the evolution of cultures
> over centuries. Gollum's people undoubtedly had a
> noticeably different culture from that of the hobbits of
> the Third Age.
I tend to agree, so "Akin to the fathers of the fathers of the Stoors" is
talking about family trees. Gollum *is* a hobbit, and aside from the
effects of 2000 years of artifically extended lifetime largely spent
underground, would look like one.
Ross TenEyck
>Was there evolution in Middle-Earth? You wouldn't think there was time,
>since the entire history up to the War of the Ring was only 20,00 years or
>so (I'm not sure how long from the creation of Men till the end of the First
>Age), and that's assuming Tolkien wasn't a Creationist.
Well, it's pretty much stated that Hobbits were originally Men of
some kind, so apparently yes. And Orcs were originally Elves,
so there's genetic engineering, too :)
--
================== http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~teneyck ==================
Ross TenEyck Seattle, WA \ Light, kindled in the furnace of hydrogen;
ten...@alumni.caltech.edu \ like smoke, sunlight carries the hot-metal
Are wa yume? Soretomo maboroshi? \ tang of Creation's forge.
Dorothy J Heydt
Ross TenEyck <ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
>Well, it's pretty much stated that Hobbits were originally Men of
Can you find a reference for this? Certainly Men and
Hobbits are similar in many ways, more similar you would
say than Men and Elves. And yet the latter pair have
interbred successfully several times, whereas I've never
seen any reference to a Man-Hobbit hybrid.
Ross TenEyck
>In article <am3guf$8n1$1...@naig.caltech.edu>,
>Ross TenEyck <ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>Well, it's pretty much stated that Hobbits were originally Men of
>>some kind....
>Can you find a reference for this? Certainly Men and
>Hobbits are similar in many ways, more similar you would
>say than Men and Elves. And yet the latter pair have
>interbred successfully several times, whereas I've never
>seen any reference to a Man-Hobbit hybrid.
There's the bit in the prologue, "Concerning Hobbits":
It is plain indeed that in spite of later estrangement
Hobbits are relatives of ours: far nearer to us than
Elves, or even than Dwarves. Of old they spoke the
languages of Men, after their own fashion, and liked
or disliked much the same things as Men did. But what
exactly our relationship is can no longer be discovered.
To me, this strongly implies that Hobbits are an offshoot
of Men. Plus, given the prehistory of the world as shown
in the Silmarillion, there really isn't anywhere else for
them to come from. Elves and Men were envisioned in the
Song of Iluvatar; Dwarves were created by Aule and granted
sentience by divine dispensation, and the Ents were also
created in response to direct appeal to Iluvatar. All
other sentient races have to come from one or more of
those four root stocks.
It's true we've never seen a Hobbit-Human hybrid, but then,
so far as is recorded in the books, nobody ever tried.
(Although come to think of it, it would be fairly natural
for Bree to have had some of this go on... and the Men of
Bree were "brown-haired, broad, and rather short." Hmm...)
Andrew Dennis
> In article <K06h9.1041$Jl.40...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
> Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Was there evolution in Middle-Earth? You wouldn't think there was time,
> >since the entire history up to the War of the Ring was only 20,00 years or
> >so (I'm not sure how long from the creation of Men till the end of the First
> >Age), and that's assuming Tolkien wasn't a Creationist.
>
> In RL, I'm sure not. If he had been, Lewis would have
> talked him out of it (or tried anyway*). We're not
> talking about the evolution of species over millions of
> years, we're talking about the evolution of cultures
> over centuries. Gollum's people undoubtedly had a
> noticeably different culture from that of the hobbits of
> the Third Age.
>
In fact, what with Tolkien being Catholic, if he was a creationist, he
was a heretic.
Andrew D.
Dorothy J Heydt
Andrew Dennis <Andrew...@blackburn.gov.uk> wrote:
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in message news:<H2Hyr...@kithrup.com>...
>>
>> talked him out of it (or tried anyway*). We're not
>> talking about the evolution of species over millions of
>> years, we're talking about the evolution of cultures
>> over centuries. Gollum's people undoubtedly had a
>> noticeably different culture from that of the hobbits of
>> the Third Age.
>>
>
>In fact, what with Tolkien being Catholic, if he was a creationist, he
>was a heretic.
?????
Wayland
gotten snipped from it.)
Ross TenEyck wrote:
>
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> >In article <am3guf$8n1$1...@naig.caltech.edu>,
> >Ross TenEyck <ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> >>Well, it's pretty much stated that Hobbits were originally Men of
> >>some kind....
>
> >Can you find a reference for this? Certainly Men and
> >Hobbits are similar in many ways, more similar you would
> >say than Men and Elves. And yet the latter pair have
> >interbred successfully several times, whereas I've never
> >seen any reference to a Man-Hobbit hybrid.
>
> There's the bit in the prologue, "Concerning Hobbits":
>
> It is plain indeed that in spite of later estrangement
> Hobbits are relatives of ours: far nearer to us than
> Elves, or even than Dwarves. Of old they spoke the
> languages of Men, after their own fashion, and liked
> or disliked much the same things as Men did. But what
> exactly our relationship is can no longer be discovered.
>
> To me, this strongly implies that Hobbits are an offshoot
> of Men.
Well there you go, it is now obvious how the split occurred. That's why
men, above all else desire power. A wizard decided that the race of men
was destined for great things. All they lacked was ambition. So he
cast a spell over the entire race of men, that the next generation born
would have their ambition greatly enhanced. But something happened
then, that the wizard did not intend. For every full-sized man born
with great ambition, a half-sized twin was born full of sloth and
gluttony. Over time, this new race of halflings were shunned by their
over-ambitious brethren and went off to find a new colony where they
could eat, drink and be merry without the persecution of their laziness.
Wayland
...and now you know, the rest of the story.
Mike Schilling
news:am3qfl$bg4$1...@naig.caltech.edu...
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> >In article <am3guf$8n1$1...@naig.caltech.edu>,
> >Ross TenEyck <ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> >>Well, it's pretty much stated that Hobbits were originally Men of
> >>some kind....
>
> >Can you find a reference for this? Certainly Men and
> >Hobbits are similar in many ways, more similar you would
> >say than Men and Elves. And yet the latter pair have
> >interbred successfully several times, whereas I've never
> >seen any reference to a Man-Hobbit hybrid.
>
> There's the bit in the prologue, "Concerning Hobbits":
>
> It is plain indeed that in spite of later estrangement
> Hobbits are relatives of ours: far nearer to us than
> Elves, or even than Dwarves. Of old they spoke the
> languages of Men, after their own fashion, and liked
> or disliked much the same things as Men did. But what
> exactly our relationship is can no longer be discovered.
>
This doesn't imply evolution, strictly speaking. Even the most dogmatic
creationist knows that dogs, coyotes, and foxes are closely related, he just
thinks they were made that way at the beginning. We know very little about
the creation of Man, and nothing about the non-Atani in the First Age.
Perhaps hobbits are a subdivision of Man rather than an offshoot. Or
perhaps short, pudgy men and women of outstanding moral fiber found a mutual
attraction and selected themselves into hobbithood:-)
James Nicoll
No, I think the Catholics still include Genesis. They just
aren't getting their fingers burned like they did with Galileo if
they can help it. I bet if you polled the Vatican you might find
peopel reconciled to the fact of evolution while insisting God
started the whole thing rolling with the Big Bang. In fact, it's
somewhat lucky for the Abrahamics that the BB model won out, as
it's easier to reconcile that model with Angry Young Deity Makes
the World than it would be to reconcile it with a continious creation
universe.
--
"Frankly, Captain, I feel interstellar diplomacy is out of our
depth."
"Ah, hence the nuclear weapons."
Dorothy J Heydt
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <56a378ca.02091...@posting.google.com>,
>Andrew Dennis <Andrew...@blackburn.gov.uk> wrote:
>>
>>In fact, what with Tolkien being Catholic, if he was a creationist, he
>>was a heretic.
>
> No, I think the Catholics still include Genesis. They just
>aren't getting their fingers burned like they did with Galileo if
>they can help it. I bet if you polled the Vatican you might find
>peopel reconciled to the fact of evolution while insisting God
>started the whole thing rolling with the Big Bang.
Or as Irina Rempt (not a Catholic) puts it: God is who,
evolution is how.
wth...@godzilla5.acpub.duke.edu
> *Lewis once said of Tolkien, "You might as well try to
> influence a Bandersnatch!" He said this, IIRC, after a
> failed attempt to get Tolkien to recast some of his
> alliterative verse into heroic couplets.
IIRC Tolkien's comment was
"Horrible, horrible, 18th century!"
Which I can only agree with.
Heroic couplets. Ugh.
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University
Dorothy J Heydt
<wth...@godzilla5.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>
>
>> *Lewis once said of Tolkien, "You might as well try to
>> influence a Bandersnatch!" He said this, IIRC, after a
>> failed attempt to get Tolkien to recast some of his
>> alliterative verse into heroic couplets.
>
> IIRC Tolkien's comment was
>
> "Horrible, horrible, 18th century!"
>
> Which I can only agree with.
>
> Heroic couplets. Ugh.
Heroic couplets are OK if (a) you are IN the 18th
century or (b) that's what you want to do.
Heroic couplets came naturally to Lewis. Remember
"Descend to earth, descend, immortal Nine,
And chant the sacred legends of the Rhine."
But not to Tolkien.
David Johnston
"I do not think this word means what you think it means."
Karl MacRae
Ah, yes, a good use of the Humpty Dumpty Principle:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,
"it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."
-Karl
--
Karl Elvis MacRae VLSI CAD Apple Computer km...@apple.com
Timothy McDaniel
>the fact of evolution while insisting God started the whole thing
>rolling with the Big Bang.
I think it was Stephen Jay Gould who pointed out that Pope J2P2 had
addressed a paleontological conference at the Vatican and talking
approvingly of evolution.
However, I don't have the cite for that, and
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/whatsaid.htm gives a much fuller
discussion of certain statemetns in 1950 and 1996.
"In his Encyclical Humani generis [1950], my predecessor Pius XII
had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution
and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on
condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable
points (cf. AAS 42 [1950], pp. 575-576)."
and
"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the
encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory
of evolution as more than a hypothesis."
(without saying that he himself believed or no) and
Q: So where do we stand now with regard to evolution?
A: Basically where we did before the pope's speech. The Church has
had a provisional finding since 1950 that the idea that God used
intermediate living forms to produce the body of the first man can
be reconciled with the deposit of faith, but that it must still be
acknowledged that the soul is created immediately by God from
nothing. The evolutionary hypothesis still must stand or fail on
the scientific evidence for it, and nobody is a bad or a good
Catholic based on whether they accept or reject it, for the Church
does not teach matters of science as if they were matters of
faith.
None of this is new. ...
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com; tm...@us.ibm.com is my work address
Patrick R. Wade
>
>*Lewis once said of Tolkien, "You might as well try to
>influence a Bandersnatch!" He said this, IIRC, after a
>failed attempt to get Tolkien to recast some of his
>alliterative verse into heroic couplets.
>
And since the Bandersnatch is immune to telepathic control and has chromosomes
a centimeter thick, it's quite resistant to change ...
--
UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED, ESPECIALLY to COMPUTER
BULLETIN BOARDS.
Simon Slavin
"Mark Hanson" <mpha...@erols.com> wrote:
>"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
>news:H2Fnx...@kithrup.com...
>> him, but why can't he leave Harry alone?" About Gollum
>> they say "My God. That used to be a hobbit? What
>> horrible things must have happened to him over the
>> centuries. He is treacherous and deadly and miserable,
>> and now that I have seen him, I do pity him."
>
>Gollum was once a Hobbit? I never knew that. Cool.
I've just seen that the 'Newsgroups' header for this thread is
alt.fan.tom-servo,
alt.fan.harry-potter,
rec.arts.sf.tv,
rec.arts.sf.written,
rec.arts.tv
Perhaps people had better start trimming headers.
William George Ferguson
>To me, this strongly implies that Hobbits are an offshoot
>of Men. Plus, given the prehistory of the world as shown
>in the Silmarillion, there really isn't anywhere else for
>them to come from. Elves and Men were envisioned in the
>Song of Iluvatar; Dwarves were created by Aule and granted
>sentience by divine dispensation, and the Ents were also
>created in response to direct appeal to Iluvatar. All
>other sentient races have to come from one or more of
>those four root stocks.
Which one of the four root stocks did Gwai'hir the Windlord come from?
Which one did Goldberry come from (not to mention her husband)?
How about Shelob? Smaug?
While the main 'free peoples pretty much all fall into the above
categories, and the mortal servants of Morgoth are perversions of
them, there were apparently a lot of nooks and crannies in the Great
Song.
--
I have a theory, it could be bunnies
Captain Infinity
wrote:
Then again, perhaps not.
**
Captain Infinity
..."There are only 6 degrees of attribution
between you and everyone else on the Usenet" --Blackhawk
Ross TenEyck
>ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Ross TenEyck) wrote:
>>To me, this strongly implies that Hobbits are an offshoot
>>of Men. Plus, given the prehistory of the world as shown
>>in the Silmarillion, there really isn't anywhere else for
>>them to come from. Elves and Men were envisioned in the
>>Song of Iluvatar; Dwarves were created by Aule and granted
>>sentience by divine dispensation, and the Ents were also
>>created in response to direct appeal to Iluvatar. All
>>other sentient races have to come from one or more of
>>those four root stocks.
>Which one of the four root stocks did Gwai'hir the Windlord come from?
Good point.
>Which one did Goldberry come from (not to mention her husband)?
A previous revision of the cosmology, I think the prevailing
theory is.
>How about Shelob? Smaug?
Shelob is explicitly a power -- probably Maia-level -- who came
to Arda after it was made.
The dragons were created by Morgoth, but given the rules he must
have perverted them from some existing species. My suspicion --
based on nothing whatsover in the original text -- is that he
crossed a Balrog with a lizard and tinkered with the result.
>While the main 'free peoples pretty much all fall into the above
>categories, and the mortal servants of Morgoth are perversions of
>them, there were apparently a lot of nooks and crannies in the Great
>Song.
Conceded :)
Podkayne Fries
Yabut the only important degree is how many degrees you're separated
from Kibo or Fluffy.
--
Regards, Podkayne Fries
Plutonium Barbie: "Superdeterminism is HARD!" -- Kibo
Andrew Plotkin
>>While the main 'free peoples pretty much all fall into the above
>>categories, and the mortal servants of Morgoth are perversions of
>>them, there were apparently a lot of nooks and crannies in the Great
>>Song.
>
> Conceded :)
In _The Hobbit_, Gandalf mentions talking to mountain giants. The more
decent sorts of them -- implying that they're not simply a perverted
race.
> The dragons were created by Morgoth, but given the rules he must
> have perverted them from some existing species. My suspicion --
> based on nothing whatsover in the original text -- is that he
> crossed a Balrog with a lizard and tinkered with the result.
*Speaking* of perverted races. :)
(I can just imagine *that* argument. "You want me to *what*?")
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
WWS
Captain Infinity wrote:
>
> Let's pretend that sla...@hearsay.demon.co.uk@localhost (Simon Slavin)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <alvks8$4ol$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> >"Mark Hanson" <mpha...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> >>"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
> >>news:H2Fnx...@kithrup.com...
> >>> him, but why can't he leave Harry alone?" About Gollum
> >>> they say "My God. That used to be a hobbit? What
> >>> horrible things must have happened to him over the
> >>> centuries. He is treacherous and deadly and miserable,
> >>> and now that I have seen him, I do pity him."
> >>
> >>Gollum was once a Hobbit? I never knew that. Cool.
> >
> >I've just seen that the 'Newsgroups' header for this thread is
> >
> >alt.fan.tom-servo,
> >alt.fan.harry-potter,
> >rec.arts.sf.tv,
> >rec.arts.sf.written,
> >rec.arts.tv
> >
> >Perhaps people had better start trimming headers.
>
> Then again, perhaps not.
I do need to trim my toenails tonight.
So maybe I'll do that first, thanks for reminding me.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
"Never presume for whom the net trolls; it trolls for thee." - Heck
Joe Pfeiffer
> >account was that Smeagol was of a race closely related to the
> >hobbits, not that he was a hobbit.
>
> Well, your recollection is inaccurate, you see. If you
> care to read either Chapter Two of FotR, or the
> Appendices to RotK, you can find some data without
> combing through all the volumes of histories.
OK... after rereading the relevant section of FoTR I'd say the
wording tends to support my recollection (I'd say ``hobbit-kind''
means hobbit-like, but not hobbits), but Appendix B of RoTK does say
Deagol was a Stoor, which makes him a hobbit.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
Southwestern NM Regional Science and Engr Fair: http://www.nmsu.edu/~scifair
Johnny1A
>
> I don't even know if the sky changed over the course of
> a year: possibly, possibly not. But if you have no
> reason for keeping track of time (no agriculture, no
> unpleasant seasons, etc., I have no idea what the Elves
> ate around Cuivenien), you will probably notice that
> sometimes those pretty red stars are over here, and
> sometimes they're over there, and sometimes they
> disappear entirely for a while, but I bet you won't keep
> a tale.
Why do you assume that there was no agriculture in Cuivienen? I don't
recall J.R.R.T. ever saying that.
Actually, I suspect more likely the Elves used what I call
'sylviculture'. Given their nature and abilities I suspect the Elves
could wring as many calories from an acre of woodland as a good human
farmer could from an acre of rich farmland. Also, Elves have no
aversion to meat.
Shermanlee
Mike Schilling
> Here, Ross TenEyck <ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote:
> > The dragons were created by Morgoth, but given the rules he must
> > have perverted them from some existing species. My suspicion --
> > based on nothing whatsover in the original text -- is that he
> > crossed a Balrog with a lizard and tinkered with the result.
>
> *Speaking* of perverted races. :)
>
> (I can just imagine *that* argument. "You want me to *what*?")
>
"And then I'll flay it alive. No? I have to wait for it to do *what*
first? That takes nine months! It doesn't? Eggs? Are you sure?"
David Johnston
>
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> > >
> > >I've never read the histories -- but my recollection of Gandalf's
> > >account was that Smeagol was of a race closely related to the
> > >hobbits, not that he was a hobbit.
> >
> > Well, your recollection is inaccurate, you see. If you
> > care to read either Chapter Two of FotR, or the
> > Appendices to RotK, you can find some data without
> > combing through all the volumes of histories.
>
> OK... after rereading the relevant section of FoTR I'd say the
> wording tends to support my recollection (I'd say ``hobbit-kind''
> means hobbit-like, but not hobbits),
Nope. It means the kind of hobbits. As in creatures reproducing after
their own kind.
Sky Rider
<rgo...@telusplanet.net> row, row, rowed the boat - then wro, wro,
wrote this note :
it means a form similar to but not exactly the same as..... so the
family that had Smeagol and Deagol was of a branch of the hobbits, but
in the same way that we share DNA with Neanderthals
..... not that I'm saying Smeagol was pre-evolved form of a hobbit....
more like the relationship perhaps between gorillas and chimps if they
had human intelligence.... i.e. mostly the same but clearly different!
--
SkyRider
**********
Visit the Online Dictionary of Playground Slang
and leave your favourites-: http://www.odps.cyberscriber.com
Aug. 2002 Update:
1000 extra words, reminiscences, poems and song lyrics added!
**********
Dorothy J Heydt
Johnny1A <sherm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in message news:<H2I75...@kithrup.com>...
>
>>
>> I don't even know if the sky changed over the course of
>> a year: possibly, possibly not. But if you have no
>> reason for keeping track of time (no agriculture, no
>> unpleasant seasons, etc., I have no idea what the Elves
>> ate around Cuivenien), you will probably notice that
>> sometimes those pretty red stars are over here, and
>> sometimes they're over there, and sometimes they
>> disappear entirely for a while, but I bet you won't keep
>> a tale.
>
>Why do you assume that there was no agriculture in Cuivienen? I don't
>recall J.R.R.T. ever saying that.
Because they were living in an unfallen paradise, like
the humans in Eden slightly later.
>
>Actually, I suspect more likely the Elves used what I call
>'sylviculture'. Given their nature and abilities I suspect the Elves
>could wring as many calories from an acre of woodland as a good human
>farmer could from an acre of rich farmland. Also, Elves have no
>aversion to meat.
None of which would require their needing to keep track
of the seasons.
In fact, in the time before Arda was marred, I don't
think there were any seasons. I'd have to look it up.
Dorothy J Heydt
David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>>
>> OK... after rereading the relevant section of FoTR I'd say the
>> wording tends to support my recollection (I'd say ``hobbit-kind''
>> means hobbit-like, but not hobbits),
>
>Nope. It means the kind of hobbits. As in creatures reproducing after
>their own kind.
>
an analogy.
In Middle English "kind" meant "nature."
Sky Rider
row, row, rowed the boat - then wro, wro, wrote this note :
>Joe>I'd say ``hobbit-kind'' means hobbit-like, but not hobbits),
>
> So "humankind" means human-like, not humans?
yup..... in the same way Neanderthals were similar to but not quite
human......
Arthur Levesque
So "humankind" means human-like, not humans?
--
/\ Arthur Levesque <fnord?> http://boog.org & http://DammitJa.net __
\B\ack King of the Potato People & shanana-Cobain <*> Urban Spaceman (oO)
\S\lash Sweet transvestite and member of a vast right-wing conspiracy /||\
\/ I was a lesbian before it was fashionable! My work here is done...
Andrew Dennis
Um, still includes Genesis, but teaches that any interpretation of the
same as a literal account of creation ex nihilo is heresy. Evolution
is regarded as a good description of Nature, and where Nature
contradicts Exegesis, Exegesis is clearly wrong. With the
Creationists it's more the other way about, of course. *
Where the church got its fingers burnt with Galileo was setting the
bar a smidgeon too high as regards proof of the true nature of Nature,
which Galileo wasn't able to clear at the time. And Galileo didn't
help himself by being the intemperate ill-mannered flame-artist he
actually was, so the people who might otherwise have helped him left
him twist in the wind**.
*A gross oversimplification, but not by much and frankly I can't bring
myself to take entirely seriously someone who's going to burn for all
eternity as a blasphemer and a heretic, which all Creationists and
Creation Scientists are.
**Although the pope tried, putting the original investigation in the
hands of his nephew, who was a known Galileo partisan, and then
putting the same nephew and his (the pope's, not the nephew's, who was
also a cardinal) brother, ditto on the panel of Inquisitors that tried
Galileo. It fell out that Gaspare Borgia, a spaniard*** was also on
the panel of Inquisitors, and ... but I'll stop here, or this footnote
will take over the whole post. See the translations of the papers
from the trial, editor I forget, but the title is "The Galileo Affair"
from Berkeley.
***Which fact about this Inquisitor I mention because it allows me to
observe that no-one expected him. Eyethangew.
Andrew D.
Andrew Dennis
> In article <56a378ca.02091...@posting.google.com>,
> Andrew Dennis <Andrew...@blackburn.gov.uk> wrote:
> >
> >In fact, what with Tolkien being Catholic, if he was a creationist, he
> >was a heretic.
>
>
In the sense that by adhering to doctrine flatly contradicted by
statements of biblical exegesis given under the magisterium of the
church, all creationists (those teaching and defending the pretended
doctrine that Genesis is a literal account of creation ex nihilo of
the earth and all life on it in the recent geological past) are
heretics*.
Burn them! Burn the heretics!
(I would have _loved_ to see a re-run of the Scopes monkey trial with
the rednecks in the dock and the Inquisition running the prosecution.
"Confess! You deny your monkey heritage! Cardinal Fang! The ....
Comfy Chair!")
*and all the more damnable a heretic since as a Catholic he was
supposed to know better.
Andrew D.
Aaron Brezenski
William George Ferguson <william.geo...@domail.maricopa.edu> wrote:
>ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Ross TenEyck) wrote:
>
>>To me, this strongly implies that Hobbits are an offshoot
>>of Men. Plus, given the prehistory of the world as shown
>>in the Silmarillion, there really isn't anywhere else for
>>them to come from. Elves and Men were envisioned in the
>>Song of Iluvatar; Dwarves were created by Aule and granted
>>sentience by divine dispensation, and the Ents were also
>>created in response to direct appeal to Iluvatar. All
>>other sentient races have to come from one or more of
>>those four root stocks.
>
>Which one of the four root stocks did Gwai'hir the Windlord come from?
Yeah, I think JRRT retconned this one by having one of the Valar
complain that the animals were getting short shrift by the Children
of Eru so He allowed "spirits" to pass into some of them, as well as
the Ents.
>Which one did Goldberry come from (not to mention her husband)?
Tolkien's kid's doll?
>How about Shelob? Smaug?
Shelob was a Maia-level Power. Melkor created the dragons, although
I don't for the moment remember if it was in parody of the eagles or
not, as the orc/elf and troll/Ent relationship was.
>While the main 'free peoples pretty much all fall into the above
>categories, and the mortal servants of Morgoth are perversions of
>them, there were apparently a lot of nooks and crannies in the Great
>Song.
--
Aaron Brezenski
Not speaking for my employer in any way.
William George Ferguson
>>How about Shelob? Smaug?
>
ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Ross TenEyck) wrote:
>Shelob is explicitly a power -- probably Maia-level -- who came
>to Arda after it was made.
That would be Ungoliant, not Shelob (who was just one of Ungoliant's
descendents). Since Ungoliant fought Morgoth even-steven, and
basically was beaten by the silmarils, she would seem to be more than
Maia-level.
>The dragons were created by Morgoth, but given the rules he must
>have perverted them from some existing species. My suspicion --
>based on nothing whatsover in the original text -- is that he
>crossed a Balrog with a lizard and tinkered with the result.
I am reminded of the joke about the scientist who crossed a skunk with
a porcupine, and got a really dirty look from the skunk.
I also, for some strange reason, am seeing Cassie Claire doing a Very
Secret Diary of Frzzl the Balrog ("pervy lizard fancier")
Mornir
wrote:
<snip Deagol/Smeagol weren't true hobbits>
>yup..... in the same way Neanderthals were similar to but not quite
>human......
How do you explain the fact that, as others mentioned, Tolkien
himself lists Deagol as a Stoor in the appendix? :)
(Cross-posting removed)
--
<Mornir - mor...@despammed.com - http://www.livejournal.com/~booklog/>
Johnny1A
By the time the Elves awoke, Arda was _already_ Marred. It was the
original revolt of Melkor that brought about the Marring, the Elves
awoke into a world that was _already_ tainted with Evil.
Shermanlee
Quiet Desperation
He was a hobbit with a habit.
I'm sorry.
Blarg
Or was that just one who made it into the nunnery?
>Quiet Desperation> I'm sorry.
Me too <grin>
Blarg
"A blarg is a combination of spobbles and nunacks."
-xqed (xq...@nospam.yahoo.com)
Mark Blunden
>> Quiet Desperation> He was a hobbit with a habit.
>
> Or was that just one who made it into the nunnery?
Gollum wouldn't have done well in a nunnery - he was too unconventional.
--
Mark.
mark.b...@ntlworld.com
* We apologise for the inconvenience
Mike Schilling
news:2467bcea.02091...@posting.google.com...
>> **Although the pope tried, putting the original investigation in the
> hands of his nephew, who was a known Galileo partisan, and then
> putting the same nephew and his (the pope's, not the nephew's, who was
> also a cardinal) brother, ditto on the panel of Inquisitors that tried
> Galileo. It fell out that Gaspare Borgia, a spaniard*** was also on
> the panel of Inquisitors, and ... but I'll stop here, or this footnote
> will take over the whole post. See the translations of the papers
> from the trial, editor I forget, but the title is "The Galileo Affair"
> from Berkeley.
>
> ***Which fact about this Inquisitor I mention because it allows me to
> observe that no-one expected him. Eyethangew.
"What if I swear on my honor as a Spaniard?"
"I'm afraid I've known too many Spaniards."
Aaron Brezenski
Quiet Desperation <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >Gollum was once a Hobbit? I never knew that. Cool.
>
>He was a hobbit with a habit.
Bad hobbits are hard to break.
Arthur Levesque
Bad habits inhibit hobbits.
Dorothy J Heydt
Aaron Brezenski <apbr...@fm.intel.com> wrote:
>In article <170920022032275452%nos...@nospam.com>,
>Quiet Desperation <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> >Gollum was once a Hobbit? I never knew that. Cool.
>>
>>He was a hobbit with a habit.
>
>Bad hobbits are hard to break.
You do know the Ferdinand Feghoot story about how
Feghoot administered a dose of something to a young
English philologist, and later on had to explain,
"My dear Tolkien. I said it was *harmless.* I enver
said it was non-hobbit-forming."
Robert Holland
> In a word, Tantalizing
>
>
>
> S
>
> P
>
> O
>
> I
>
> L
>
> E
>
> R
>
>
> S
>
> P
>
> A
>
> C
>
> E
>
>
> Coming to theaters on November 15th, "Harry Potter: The Chamber of
> Secrets" Looks to be every bit as wonderful and fantastical as the first
> Harry Potter Movie.
It just might, Bessie, be as boring as the first flick, too.
RH
Robert Holland
> Bessie>Lucius Malfoy, Draco Malfoy's heartless father is just as horrible
> Bessie>and slimy as his son, If not slimier.
>
> Geoduck>He's far worse, because unlike his son, the man actually possesses
> Geoduck>a brain. (At least in the books...)
>
> And a position of wealth and authority.
Kind of like Cheney and Bush.
Har!
Dorothy J Heydt
Robert Holland <rhol...@wht.jarin.net> wrote:
>
>It just might, Bessie, be as boring as the first flick, too.
It's all in the eye of the beholder.
Dorothy J. Heydt
(to whom no scene with Snape in it can be boring)
Karl MacRae
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <98e23102.02091...@posting.google.com>,
>Robert Holland <rhol...@wht.jarin.net> wrote:
>>
>>It just might, Bessie, be as boring as the first flick, too.
>
>It's all in the eye of the beholder.
Or was that "eye of the beer-holder"?
Seriously though, I think they did a damned good job on the
first HP flick, given the need to please die-hard fans and
still make a movie that worked for the masses. I have minor
quibbles with it (the adult actors are mostly too old,
some of the CG is sloppy, and why did they leave out
Mrs. Norris and Hedwig's names?), but overall, they beat my
expectations by quite a long way.
That will get harder as they go, though - the books improve as they
go (and get longer).
-Karl
--
Karl Elvis MacRae VLSI CAD Apple Computer km...@apple.com
SirGrizzly
;-)
--
" If you're going to be a bear, be a Grizzly ! "
"Mark Blunden" <mark.blun...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:am9pd8$3vu0p$1...@ID-36588.news.dfncis.de...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.389 / Virus Database: 220 - Release Date: 9/16/2002
Andrew Dennis
>
> "What if I swear on my honor as a Spaniard?"
> "I'm afraid I've known too many Spaniards."
Oh dear. We seem to have a Spaniard in the works.
Is this a Lennonist conspiracy?
Andrew D.
Tennant Stuart
km...@funk.apple.com (Karl MacRae) wrote:
> I think they did a damned good job on the first HP flick, I have
> minor quibbles the adult actors are mostly too old
Well actually, they are mostly too *young*. These are the adult
characters for whom we know their year of birth (and death)...
Sir Nicholas DMP 166 62 John Cleese
Albus Dumbledore 152 71 Richard Harris
Minerva McGonagall 72 67 Maggie Smith
Rubeus Hagrid 63 51 Robbie Coltrane
Molly Weasley 52 52 Julie Walters
Severus Snape 32 55 Alan Rickman
Most of the movie was shot in 2001, the book is mostly 1992, and
Sir Nicholas De Mimsy-Porpington was born 1326 then died 1492.
Tennant Stuart
--
____ ____ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ____
(_ _)( ___)( \( )( \( ) /__\ ( \( )(_ _) Greetings to family
)( )__) ) ( ) ( /(__)\ ) ( )( friends & neighbours
(__) (____)(_)\_)(_)\_)(__)(__)(_)\_) (__) @argonet.co.uk & MCR
Diamond Dove
"Tennant Stuart" <ten...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:na.4c5b554b78...@argonet.co.uk...
>Well actually, they are mostly too *young*. These are the adult
> characters for whom we know their year of birth (and death)...
>
> Sir Nicholas DMP 166 62 John Cleese
> Albus Dumbledore 152 71 Richard Harris
> Minerva McGonagall 72 67 Maggie Smith
> Rubeus Hagrid 63 51 Robbie Coltrane
> Molly Weasley 52 52 Julie Walters
> Severus Snape 32 55 Alan Rickman
>
Just out of interest, where do you get all of this information from? (On
the characters, not the actors!) I always thought of Minerva McGonagall as
a bit younger because she is described as having black hair in the books.
Also, how do we know Hermione's birthday is today? Did I just miss the
referrence in the books...? :(
DD
*-*
P.S. Zzzzzzzz.....
Karl MacRae
Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <amaruf$nbe$1...@news.apple.com>,
>km...@funk.apple.com (Karl MacRae) wrote:
>
>> I think they did a damned good job on the first HP flick, I have
>> minor quibbles the adult actors are mostly too old
>
>Well actually, they are mostly too *young*. These are the adult
>characters for whom we know their year of birth (and death)...
>
Mostly a mis-match in how I picture them, I guess, though
since wizards have a longer lifespan, I would also expect
them to age slower (else why have an extended lifespan, right?).
McGonagall and Snape are the ones that stand out to me, though,
and each looking at least two decades older than i picture them.
Not that the actors are poor choices - they're both *perfect*. I
just want them to be younger. =B^)
Lee Modesitt
> I don't for the moment remember if it was in parody of the eagles or
> not, as the orc/elf and troll/Ent relationship was.
>
> >While the main 'free peoples pretty much all fall into the above
> >categories, and the mortal servants of Morgoth are perversions of
> >them, there were apparently a lot of nooks and crannies in the Great
> >Song.
Wasn't Shelob one of the descendents of Ungoliant? Hence the dwelling
name "Cirith Ungol?"
Tennant Stuart
Dove" <Diamo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "Tennant Stuart" <ten...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:na.4c5b554b78...@argonet.co.uk...
>> Well actually, they are mostly too *young*. These are the adult
>> characters for whom we know their year of birth (and death)...
>> Sir Nicholas DMP 166 62 John Cleese
>> Albus Dumbledore 152 71 Richard Harris
>> Minerva McGonagall 72 67 Maggie Smith
>> Rubeus Hagrid 63 51 Robbie Coltrane
>> Molly Weasley 52 52 Julie Walters
>> Severus Snape 32 55 Alan Rickman
> Just out of interest, where do you get all of this information from? (On
> the characters, not the actors!) I always thought of Minerva McGonagall
> as a bit younger because she is described as having black hair in the
> books.
All character dates are from timelines in the Harry Potter Lexicon.
> Also, how do we know Hermione's birthday is today? Did I just miss the
> referrence in the books...? :(
JKR said it on AOL Live, see October_2000_Live_Chat_America_Online.htm
at http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/
Tennant
Diamond Dove
> In article <%vni9.3748$bK2.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>, "Diamond
> Dove" <Diamo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
> > "Tennant Stuart" <ten...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:na.4c5b554b78...@argonet.co.uk...
>
> >> Well actually, they are mostly too *young*. These are the adult
> >> characters for whom we know their year of birth (and death)...
>
> >> Sir Nicholas DMP 166 62 John Cleese
> >> Albus Dumbledore 152 71 Richard Harris
> >> Minerva McGonagall 72 67 Maggie Smith
> >> Rubeus Hagrid 63 51 Robbie Coltrane
> >> Molly Weasley 52 52 Julie Walters
> >> Severus Snape 32 55 Alan Rickman
>
> > Just out of interest, where do you get all of this information from? (On
> > the characters, not the actors!) I always thought of Minerva McGonagall
> > as a bit younger because she is described as having black hair in the
> > books.
>
> All character dates are from timelines in the Harry Potter Lexicon.
>
>
> > Also, how do we know Hermione's birthday is today? Did I just miss the
> > referrence in the books...? :(
>
> JKR said it on AOL Live, see October_2000_Live_Chat_America_Online.htm
> at http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/
>
Cheers!
Diamond Dove
*-*-*-*-*-*-*
(Can't you *tell* I'm a *bird*?!)
;)
Aaron Brezenski
Lee Modesitt <lex...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Shelob was a Maia-level Power. Melkor created the dragons, although
>> I don't for the moment remember if it was in parody of the eagles or
>> not, as the orc/elf and troll/Ent relationship was.
>name "Cirith Ungol?"
Yes, my bad. So Shelob was the descendent of a Maia.
Michael S. Schiffer
news:a4e6d867.02091...@posting.google.com:
>...
> Wasn't Shelob one of the descendents of Ungoliant?
Yes-- her last surviving child, according to the narration.
Hence the
> dwelling name "Cirith Ungol?"
"Ungol" means "spider" in Elvish. "Cirith Ungol" thus means "the
pass of the spider", which is as literal a description as you'll find
of what it was. (Given how old Ungoliant was, we can reasonably
wonder if the species is named after her, or if the Elves gave her
that name because she resembled the smaller spiders they'd seen.)
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
msch...@condor.depaul.edu
Konrad Gaertner
>
> In article <a4e6d867.02091...@posting.google.com>,
> Lee Modesitt <lex...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Shelob was a Maia-level Power. Melkor created the dragons, although
> >> I don't for the moment remember if it was in parody of the eagles or
> >> not, as the orc/elf and troll/Ent relationship was.
> >Wasn't Shelob one of the descendents of Ungoliant? Hence the dwelling
> >name "Cirith Ungol?"
>
> Yes, my bad. So Shelob was the descendent of a Maia.
Nitpick: Ungoliant wasn't a Maia, but explicitly came from Outside.
IIRC, she proved a roughly equal match to Morgoth, who was able to
withstand the combined might of the Valar (who are one step above
the Maiar). Of course, Morgoth once got beat up by a *mortal*
(Fingwe?), so all this doesn't say a whole lot (except how pathetic
the Valar are).
--KG
Mark Blunden
> Well Mark... at least I got it... and you should be ashamed ! LOL !
> ;-)
Oh, I am. But I just can't resist a bad pun. :)
>> Blarg wrote:
>>>> Quiet Desperation> He was a hobbit with a habit.
>>>
>>> Or was that just one who made it into the nunnery?
>>
>> Gollum wouldn't have done well in a nunnery - he was too
>> unconventional.
--
Mark.
mark.b...@ntlworld.com
* The last man on Earth sat alone in a room. There was a knock on the
door.