Vampires in _The Hobbit_? Well, almost.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

This is following up to another thread which I can't find at the
moment, which wandered (as threads do) from Girl Genius to
Tolkien to the various definitions of "man" to whether undead
counted as "men" or not and were there any in Tolkien, anyway?
And someone thought there were vampires somewhere in _The
Hobbit_.

So I did a quick search (by fingers and eyeballs, not online) and
found that the word "vampire" actually appears once. But
adverbially.

It's the Battle of Five Armies, where the goblin army attacking
the Lonely Mountain are accompanied by their buddies the Wargs,
and by their other buddies the bats. We'll assume (considering
that they're willing to fight in groups) that just as the Wargs
are not ordinary wolves, but intelligent and evil beings, so are
the bats not ordinary Chiroptera.

"And beneath the thunder another blackness could be seen whirling
forward; but it did not come with the wind, it came from the
North, like a vast cloud of birds, so dense that no light could
be seen between their wings. ....

"'Bolg of the North is coming, O Dain! whose father you slew in
Moria. Behold! the bats are above his army like a sea of
locusts.' ....

"Soon actual darkness was coming into a stormy sky; while still
the great bats swarmed about the heads and ears of elves and men,
or fastened *vampire-like* on the stricken."

Emphasis mine.

Still, we don't know whether "vampire-like" means that the bats were
actually sucking the blood of their victims, or just finishing them
off. On the one hand, real vampire bats are New World; on the other
hand, so are potatoes and tobacco. Tolkien was of course not a
biologist, and in _The Hobbit_ he wasn't being careful of keeping
everything Old World -- the first edition of _TH_, indeed, includes
tomatoes.

On the OTHER hand, as I mentioned elsethread, myths of vampires are
native to the Carpathians, whereas Tolkien was drawing on
Germanic and other Northern Europeans sources.

And on one more hand (foot?) I personally don't know how old the
idea is that a vampire could turn from a man-shape to a bat-shape.
Did it by any chance originate with Stoker's _Dracula_? Any
vampire experts online here?

In any case, _TH_ is full of anachronistic similes; remember that
the book originated in stories Tolkien told to his children, who
would certainly know what vampires [supposedly] were, just as
they knew about steam-locomotives; he didn't bother to take them
all out. He was more careful when writing _LotR_.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.

[tphile]

Well Gandalf and the Council is battling someone named The
Necromancer. That name alone implies the dead and undead. so I
wouldn't be suprised if Peter Jackson who is fond of those genres will
build and expand on that. Especially in the second movie. Do they
know that The Necromancer is also Sauron? LotR suggest they don't or
that he was no longer a threat. PJ does not have the rights to The
Silmarillian so they are limited to The Hobbit for back story. I am
happy to wait and see the movie

[JRStern]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 18:18:12 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:

>"Soon actual darkness was coming into a stormy sky; while still
>the great bats swarmed about the heads and ears of elves and men,
>or fastened *vampire-like* on the stricken."
>
>Emphasis mine.

huh.

fwiw, in LOTR:ROTK:

At Pippin's side Beregond was stunned and overborne, and he fell: and
the great troll-chief that smote him down bent over him, reaching out
a clutching claw; for these fell creatures would bite the throats of
those that they threw down.

--

This may not be vampirism but a coup de grace, I'm guessing copied
from some animal behavior?

J.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <9915a5fa-f82b-4db3...@x7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,

tphile <tph...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>Well Gandalf and the Council is battling someone named The
>Necromancer. That name alone implies the dead and undead. so I

Yes, but it means "someone who works magic *by means of* the
undead."

>wouldn't be suprised if Peter Jackson who is fond of those genres will
>build and expand on that. Especially in the second movie. Do they
>know that The Necromancer is also Sauron?

By the end of _TH_ Gandalf, at least, is very very suspicious.
Not so much of the Necromancer, who has been driven out of Dol
Guldur, as of the Ring, whose behavior is ... reminiscent of
things Gandalf would like not to have to remember.

LotR suggest they don't or
>that he was no longer a threat. PJ does not have the rights to The
>Silmarillian

Thank God.

so they are limited to The Hobbit for back story. I am
>happy to wait and see the movie

Suit yourself. For my part, the movies do not exist. (I saw the
first two and never bothered to go to the third.)

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <ol1gc7lug634lhrkk...@4ax.com>,

JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 18:18:12 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>Heydt) wrote:
>
>>"Soon actual darkness was coming into a stormy sky; while still
>>the great bats swarmed about the heads and ears of elves and men,
>>or fastened *vampire-like* on the stricken."
>>
>>Emphasis mine.
>
>huh.
>
>fwiw, in LOTR:ROTK:
>
>At Pippin's side Beregond was stunned and overborne, and he fell: and
>the great troll-chief that smote him down bent over him, reaching out
>a clutching claw; for these fell creatures would bite the throats of
>those that they threw down.
>

>This may not be vampirism but a coup de grace, I'm guessing copied
>from some animal behavior?

Nitpick: a coup de grace is when you kill your mortally wounded
ally so the enemy can't kill him slowly. This is more on the
order of "finishing him off."

Undoubtedly. Carnivores tend to bite for the prey's throat,
because if they can crush the windpipe the prey will fall then
and there, not slowly bleed to death while still running.

On the other hand, wolves, when fighting for dominance: when
the loser sees that he isn't going to win, he exposes his throat
for the winner to bite -- whereupon the winner *cannot* bite his
acknowledged subordinate, who has just demonstrated that he knows
his place.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 20:24:11 GMT, Dorothy J Heydt
<djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in <news:LuxCo...@kithrup.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

> In article <ol1gc7lug634lhrkk...@4ax.com>,
> JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote:

[...]

>> At Pippin's side Beregond was stunned and overborne, and
>> he fell: and the great troll-chief that smote him down
>> bent over him, reaching out a clutching claw; for these
>> fell creatures would bite the throats of those that they
>> threw down.

>> This may not be vampirism but a coup de grace, I'm
>> guessing copied from some animal behavior?

> Nitpick: a coup de grace is when you kill your mortally
> wounded ally so the enemy can't kill him slowly. This is
> more on the order of "finishing him off."

Originally it was simply a merciful finishing stroke; you
could give it to an enemy as well as to an ally. Now it
does in fact also mean 'a decisive finishing blow, act, or
event'.

[...]

Brian

[Taki Kogoma]

On 2011-11-19, Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com>
allegedly proclaimed to rec.arts.sf.written:

> In article <9915a5fa-f82b-4db3...@x7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> tphile <tph...@cableone.net> wrote:
>>Well Gandalf and the Council is battling someone named The
>>Necromancer. That name alone implies the dead and undead. so I
>
> Yes, but it means "someone who works magic *by means of* the
> undead."
>
>>wouldn't be suprised if Peter Jackson who is fond of those genres will
>>build and expand on that. Especially in the second movie. Do they
>>know that The Necromancer is also Sauron?
>
> By the end of _TH_ Gandalf, at least, is very very suspicious.
> Not so much of the Necromancer, who has been driven out of Dol
> Guldur, as of the Ring, whose behavior is ... reminiscent of
> things Gandalf would like not to have to remember.

IIRC, Gandalf had gone to Dol Guldur 100 years prior to TH to confirm
his suspicion that the Necromancer was in fact Sauron. While sneaking
around, he encountered a dwarf that gave him a certain map and key.

The reason he left Bilbo &c. at the edge of Mirkwood was to help the
White Council to drive Sauron from Dol Guldur. (Or to provide S a
reason to leave for Mordor as the case may be.)

(Ref "An Unexpected Party" and "The Council of Elrond" from the
appropriate books.)

--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) quirk @ swcp.com
Just an article detector on the Information Supercollider.

[Robert Carnegie]

I think the understanding is he was known to be Sauron - Tolkien using
his grand Middle-Earth mythology as barely stated background for _The
Hobbit_ - but they thought they had killed him good /that/ time, or
pretty good.

There may also be something about people talking about him not using
his real name, which comes up in various settings, such as a problem
for the police in _The Eyre Affair_ (?), where the bad guy can hear
what they're saying about him. I wondered if giving him a code name
would work, it doesn't seem to be explored.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <98f27ce6-ff44-42fe...@p1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

Dunno, but that's why Germanic (esp. Norse) poetry has so many
kennings. "Don't call them by their proper name, they might hear
you!"

In the Jorvik ride in York you overhear a guy asking a fisherman
what he's going out after, and he uses a kenning because he
doesn't want to say "herrings" and warn them.

[Don Bruder]

In article
<9915a5fa-f82b-4db3...@x7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
tphile <tph...@cableone.net> wrote:

> Well Gandalf and the Council is battling someone named The
> Necromancer. That name alone implies the dead and undead. so I
> wouldn't be suprised if Peter Jackson who is fond of those genres will
> build and expand on that. Especially in the second movie. Do they
> know that The Necromancer is also Sauron? LotR suggest they don't or
> that he was no longer a threat. PJ does not have the rights to The
> Silmarillian so they are limited to The Hobbit for back story. I am
> happy to wait and see the movie

If memory serves, Gandalf and the council didn't realize until after
they drove him out of Mirkwood that Sauron and the Necromancer were one
and the same. I can't put my finger on it right now, but I seem to
recall something that indicated Gandalf (and possibly Saruman, but don't
hold me to that) SUSPECTED there might be a connection, but he/they
didn't get any solid proof of it until after the Mirkwood "eviction".
I'm pretty certain that "we the audience" don't find out about either
the suspicion or the proof (or even the fact that the reason Gandalf
left Thorin's party at the gates of Mirkwood was to go do battle with
Sauron/Necromancer) until the big pow-wow at Elrond's place in
Fellowship.

As far as The Hobbit, the closest thing to an explanation of where he
went/what he did I remember is a passing mention about how he "got
delayed" just prior to The Battle of Five Armies, but I don't remember
any explanation of why.

--
Email shown is deceased. If you would like to contact me by email, please
post something that makes it obvious in this or another group you see me
posting in with a "how to contact you" address, and I'll get back to you.

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 16:11:17 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

[snip]

>I think the understanding is he was known to be Sauron - Tolkien using
>his grand Middle-Earth mythology as barely stated background for _The
>Hobbit_ - but they thought they had killed him good /that/ time, or
>pretty good.
>
>There may also be something about people talking about him not using
>his real name, which comes up in various settings, such as a problem
>for the police in _The Eyre Affair_ (?), where the bad guy can hear
>what they're saying about him. I wondered if giving him a code name
>would work, it doesn't seem to be explored.

His name was not Sauron. Originally, it was Mairon.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[William December Starr]

In article <LuxoF...@kithrup.com>,

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said:

> Dunno, but that's why Germanic (esp. Norse) poetry has so many
> kennings. "Don't call them by their proper name, they might hear
> you!"

Or possibly "Don't call them by their proper name, it doesn't fit
the syllable count for this line of the stanza"?

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <p33hc7pbkvec28lif...@4ax.com>,

Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> said:

> His name was not Sauron. Originally, it was Mairon.

Myron?

-- wds

[Kip Williams]

Enron.


Kip W
rasfw

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <jaa4of$li4$1...@panix3.panix.com>,

No, because syllable count isn't what governs the alliterative
stanza. It consists (usually) of two half-lines, separated by a
short caesura, each having two strong stresses, and some of the
syllables have to alliterate and I won't go into that here.

Nu we SCUlon HERian HEOfonrices WEArd,
MEtodes MEAHte ond his MODgeTHANC....

I have somewhere a photocopy of an article on alliterative metre,
giving examples of the several kinds of half-lines that will
scan, by using modern English words that fit. And he says read
out properly, it sounds rather like Vachel Lindsay. E.g.,

Typewriter honeysuckle blackbird black,
Black blackbird blackbird honeysuckle,
Boomlay, boomlay, boomlay, boom!"

Tolkien wrote a good introduction to alliterative metre too, in
an introduction to one of his scholarly (vice fantastical) books,
but he didn't allow himself to get quite so silly with it.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 00:38:20 GMT, Dorothy J Heydt
<djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in
<news:LuxoF...@kithrup.com> in rec.arts.sf.written:

> In article <98f27ce6-ff44-42fe...@p1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

[...]

>> There may also be something about people talking about
>> him not using his real name, which comes up in various
>> settings, such as a problem for the police in _The Eyre
>> Affair_ (?), where the bad guy can hear what they're
>> saying about him. I wondered if giving him a code name
>> would work, it doesn't seem to be explored.

> Dunno, but that's why Germanic (esp. Norse) poetry has so
> many kennings. "Don't call them by their proper name,
> they might hear you!"

That doesn't account for the vast majority of kennings,
which are clearly displays of poetic artifice. Just look,
for instance, at the enormous range of kennings for
'warrior', 'battle', 'sword', 'woman', and 'ship', for
instance.

They actually don't seem to be common Germanic: they're
almost exclusively limited to Old Norse and Old English, and
in Old English, unlike Old Norse, they're limited to simple,
two-element kennings.[*] In both they're also found almost
exclusively in poetry.

[*] The Scandinavians sometimes went more than a bit
overboard: <nausta blakks hlé-mána gífrs drífu gim-slöngvir>
is literally 'boat-shed's dun-colored horse's shelter-moon's
hag's snow-fall's gem-slinger', but <gim> 'gem', already
limited to poetry, also has the metaphorical sense 'fire',
which is probably intended here. The 'boat-shed's
dun-colored horse' is a ship; the 'shelter-moon' is a
shield; the 'hag' is an axe; the 'hag's snow-fall' is
battle; the 'fire' is a sword; and its 'slinger' is the
warrior who wields it. Boiled halfway down, it's more or
less 'ship's shield's battle's sword-wielder', and it just
means 'warrior'. (According to the Lexicon Poeticum, this
may be the longest recorded kenning.)

Brian

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

L-Ron.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[Kip Williams]

Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> On 11/20/11 1:05 AM, Kip Williams wrote:
>> William December Starr wrote:
>>> In article<p33hc7pbkvec28lif...@4ax.com>,
>>> Gene Wirchenko<ge...@ocis.net> said:
>>>
>>>> His name was not Sauron. Originally, it was Mairon.
>>>
>>> Myron?
>>
>> Enron.
>
> L-Ron.

Any relation to L. Roy Jetson?


Kip W
rasfw

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <149k9a1ttapcw$.1q3junri...@40tude.net>,

Gosh, I hope so.

[Sean O'Hara]

In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful tphile declared:

> >
> Well Gandalf and the Council is battling someone named The
> Necromancer. That name alone implies the dead and undead. so I
> wouldn't be suprised if Peter Jackson who is fond of those genres will
> build and expand on that. Especially in the second movie. Do they
> know that The Necromancer is also Sauron? LotR suggest they don't or
> that he was no longer a threat.

Didn't they assume he was the Witch King, which would explain the
"Necromancer" nickname. And remember that Bilbo composed the majority of
The Hobbit before Sauron's return became common knowledge, so his choice
to say "Necromancer" probably reflects the common belief of the time he
was writing.

> PJ does not have the rights to The
> Silmarillian so they are limited to The Hobbit for back story. I am
> happy to wait and see the movie

They do have the rights to the LotR appendices, which gives them some
material from earlier ages to work with.

--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
<http://armybrat.thecomicseries.com/>
<http://www.savagepulp.com/>

[Sean O'Hara]

In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
Spoor) declared:

>
> On 11/20/11 1:05 AM, Kip Williams wrote:
> > William December Starr wrote:
> >> In article<p33hc7pbkvec28lif...@4ax.com>,
> >> Gene Wirchenko<ge...@ocis.net> said:
> >>
> >>> His name was not Sauron. Originally, it was Mairon.
> >>
> >> Myron?
> >
> > Enron.
>
> L-Ron.

That's the guy in Rivendell, Elron the Half-Loony.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <MPG.2932ef7f5...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful tphile declared:
>
>> >
>> Well Gandalf and the Council is battling someone named The
>> Necromancer. That name alone implies the dead and undead. so I
>> wouldn't be suprised if Peter Jackson who is fond of those genres will
>> build and expand on that. Especially in the second movie. Do they
>> know that The Necromancer is also Sauron? LotR suggest they don't or
>> that he was no longer a threat.
>
>Didn't they assume he was the Witch King, which would explain the
>"Necromancer" nickname.

Please, guys, remember that "necromancer" does not mean an undead
wizard, but a wizard who works his magic *by means of* the dead.

Remember also that Sauron was a fire-Maia, a servant of the
former Vala Melkor Morgoth, in essence a fallen angel. As such,
he could (for a while) assume a physical body. But when that was
destroyed without possibility of restoration from backup, he
still didn't *die*, he simply returned to his default form. When
the Ring was destroyed, he still didn't *die* in a mortal sense.
He dried up and blew away. The same thing happened to Saruman
after Wormtongue cut his throat.

To imagine what Sauron might have been like if he hadn't fallen,
consider Gandalf, also a fire-Maia who had transferred his
allegiance to Manwe Sulimo rather than falling with Melkor.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <jaavus$get$1...@dont-email.me>,

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

> On 11/20/11 1:05 AM, Kip Williams wrote:
> > William December Starr wrote:
> >> In article<p33hc7pbkvec28lif...@4ax.com>,
> >> Gene Wirchenko<ge...@ocis.net> said:
> >>
> >>> His name was not Sauron. Originally, it was Mairon.
> >>
> >> Myron?
> >
> > Enron.
>
> L-Ron.

L-Ron Hubbard?

--
It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant
and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting. -- H. L. Mencken

[William George Ferguson]

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 16:31:15 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
wrote:

>In article <MPG.2932ef7f5...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful tphile declared:
>>
>>> >
>>> Well Gandalf and the Council is battling someone named The
>>> Necromancer. That name alone implies the dead and undead. so I
>>> wouldn't be suprised if Peter Jackson who is fond of those genres will
>>> build and expand on that. Especially in the second movie. Do they
>>> know that The Necromancer is also Sauron? LotR suggest they don't or
>>> that he was no longer a threat.
>>
>>Didn't they assume he was the Witch King, which would explain the
>>"Necromancer" nickname.
>
>Please, guys, remember that "necromancer" does not mean an undead
>wizard, but a wizard who works his magic *by means of* the dead.
>
>Remember also that Sauron was a fire-Maia, a servant of the
>former Vala Melkor Morgoth, in essence a fallen angel. As such,
>he could (for a while) assume a physical body. But when that was
>destroyed without possibility of restoration from backup, he
>still didn't *die*, he simply returned to his default form. When
>the Ring was destroyed, he still didn't *die* in a mortal sense.
>He dried up and blew away. The same thing happened to Saruman
>after Wormtongue cut his throat.
>
>To imagine what Sauron might have been like if he hadn't fallen,
>consider Gandalf, also a fire-Maia who had transferred his
>allegiance to Manwe Sulimo rather than falling with Melkor.

As you know, Bob, Sauron was originally a maia of Aule. Sauron was seduced
away by Melkor, while Gandalf, who was originally a follower of Manwe,
switched to following the Feanturi, especially Nienna.

--
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
(Bene Gesserit)

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 14:59:38 GMT, Dorothy J Heydt
<djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in
<news:LuysB...@kithrup.com> in rec.arts.sf.written:

> In article <149k9a1ttapcw$.1q3junri...@40tude.net>,
> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

[...]

>>[*] The Scandinavians sometimes went more than a bit
>>overboard: <nausta blakks hlé-mána gífrs drífu gim-slöngvir>
>>is literally 'boat-shed's dun-colored horse's shelter-moon's
>>hag's snow-fall's gem-slinger', but <gim> 'gem', already
>>limited to poetry, also has the metaphorical sense 'fire',
>>which is probably intended here. The 'boat-shed's
>>dun-colored horse' is a ship; the 'shelter-moon' is a
>>shield; the 'hag' is an axe; the 'hag's snow-fall' is
>>battle; the 'fire' is a sword; and its 'slinger' is the
>>warrior who wields it. Boiled halfway down, it's more or
>>less 'ship's shield's battle's sword-wielder', and it just
>>means 'warrior'. (According to the Lexicon Poeticum, this
>>may be the longest recorded kenning.)

> Gosh, I hope so.

<g> You'll be pleased to learn that according to Snorri
Sturluson,

Níunda er þat at reka til hinnar fimtu kenningar, er ór
ættum er ef lengra er rekit; en þótt þat finnisk í
fornskálda verka, þá látum vér þat nú ónýtt.

(Ni/unda er {th}at at reka til hinnar fimtu kenningar,
er o/r {ae}ttum er ef lengra er rekit; en {th}o/tt {th}at
finnisk i/ fornska/lda verka, {th}a/ la/tum ve/r {th}at
nu/ o/ny/tt.)

That is the ninth [license] to push to the fifth kenning,
that is spurious (lit. 'out of the kindred') if pushed
longer; even though that is found in the works of
ancient poets, we reckon that now worthless.

Even five is pretty rare in my experience.

Brian

[Kay Shapero]

In article <Lux6u...@kithrup.com>, djh...@kithrup.com says...

>
> This is following up to another thread which I can't find at the
> moment, which wandered (as threads do) from Girl Genius to
> Tolkien to the various definitions of "man" to whether undead
> counted as "men" or not and were there any in Tolkien, anyway?
> And someone thought there were vampires somewhere in _The
> Hobbit_.
>

Not in the Hobbit, but in the Silmarillion, Luthien Tinuviel disguised
herself as a vampire to fool Morgoth. Her success suggests there were
real vampires about the place.

--
Kay Shapero
http://www.kayshapero.net
Address munged, to email use kay at the above domain (everything after
the www.)

[Leif Roar Moldskred]

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

> On 11/20/11 1:05 AM, Kip Williams wrote:
>> William December Starr wrote:
>>> In article<p33hc7pbkvec28lif...@4ax.com>,
>>> Gene Wirchenko<ge...@ocis.net> said:
>>>
>>>> His name was not Sauron. Originally, it was Mairon.
>>>
>>> Myron?
>>
>> Enron.
>
> L-Ron.

Any kinship to Dadoron Ron?

--
Leif Roar Moldskred

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <MPG.293391f85...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Kay Shapero <k...@invalid.net> wrote:
>In article <Lux6u...@kithrup.com>, djh...@kithrup.com says...
>>
>> This is following up to another thread which I can't find at the
>> moment, which wandered (as threads do) from Girl Genius to
>> Tolkien to the various definitions of "man" to whether undead
>> counted as "men" or not and were there any in Tolkien, anyway?
>> And someone thought there were vampires somewhere in _The
>> Hobbit_.
>>
>
>Not in the Hobbit, but in the Silmarillion, Luthien Tinuviel disguised
>herself as a vampire to fool Morgoth. Her success suggests there were
>real vampires about the place.

Well, Thuringwethil (whom I mentioned in the earlier thread) was a
were-bat. "She was the messenger of Sauron, and was wont to fly
in vampire's form to Angband, and her great fingered wings were
barbed at each joint's end with an iron claw." So does flying
"in vampire's form" mean she also sucked blood? I think we would
have to ask Tolkien on this matter, and since we can't, has
anyone a copy of all ten volumes of _The History of Middle-Earth,_
and is there any further mention of Thuringwethil therein?

We still have to be careful to distinguish between bats, and
vampire bats (which are New World) and vampires (which are
Southeastern European) and vampires that can turn into bats --
which latter, I'm still waiting on a reply as to whether Bram
Stoker or somebody invented them.

[Drak Bibliophile]

"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
news:Lv0tL...@kithrup.com...

While bats have been associated with the supernatural and omens, the
association with vampires appears to date only to after the vampire bats
were discovered.

Stoker does seem to be the first to write about vampires turning into bats.

--
*
Paul Howard (Alias Drak Bibliophile)
*
Sometimes The Dragon Wins!
*
--------
*

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <qLedncKhc--kE1fT...@giganews.com>,

>While bats have been associated with the supernatural and omens, the
>association with vampires appears to date only to after the vampire bats
>were discovered.
>
>Stoker does seem to be the first to write about vampires turning into bats.

Thank you; I thought that might be the case, but being the
diametrical opposite of a vampire fan, I haven't read enough
vampfic to have any data to base an opinion on.

[Drak Bibliophile]

"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message

news:Lv11u...@kithrup.com...

The "fun" thing about vampires is that folklore doesn't define a "single
type" of vampire. There are plenty of variations on the vampire theme
(blood drinking creatures of the night). Of course, writers from the
beginning created their own variations on the vampire theme.

Kim Newman in his "Anno Dracula" series had several "vampire lines" with
different powers/limitations. Some were based on folklore vampires and
others were based on fictional vampires. We even saw a Chinese vampire that
attacked another vampire with deadly butterflies.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <ibednafQzrhAVlfT...@giganews.com>,

Drak Bibliophile <drakbib...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
>news:Lv11u...@kithrup.com...
>> In article <qLedncKhc--kE1fT...@giganews.com>,
>> Drak Bibliophile <drakbib...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Stoker does seem to be the first to write about vampires turning into
>>>bats.
>>
>> Thank you; I thought that might be the case, but being the
>> diametrical opposite of a vampire fan, I haven't read enough
>> vampfic to have any data to base an opinion on.
>

>The "fun" thing about vampires .....

As wossname said to T. E. Lawrence in the _Lawrence of Arabia_
movie, "It is recognized that you have a funny sense of fun."

>....is that folklore doesn't define a "single

>type" of vampire. There are plenty of variations on the vampire theme
>(blood drinking creatures of the night). Of course, writers from the
>beginning created their own variations on the vampire theme.

But only Stoker made them werebats?

As I said, I don't dig vampfic; I'm assuming (perhaps not safely)
that Tolkien had at least read _Dracula_ or some subsequent
example of the genre, else he wouldn't have twice used the simile
"like vampires" / "vampire-like". But whether Thuringwethil, or
the bats that fought with the goblin army, actually sucked blood
is something we can't find out until we get to Heaven and ask him.

[Kip Williams]

Drak Bibliophile wrote:

> The "fun" thing about vampires is that folklore doesn't define a "single
> type" of vampire. There are plenty of variations on the vampire theme
> (blood drinking creatures of the night). Of course, writers from the
> beginning created their own variations on the vampire theme.

True that! I normally wouldn't sit through a vampire movie, though I
make occasional exceptions. One is that I almost always enjoy Taiwanese
kung-fu comedies with hopping vampires in them. CHINESE GHOST STORY —
possibly with a II after it — had more great ideas and memorable scenes
in it than it's easy to recount.

In one, one of the goofball protagonists is leaving his job at the
mortuary. He jams some joss sticks in the handlebars of his bike, lights
them, and pedals away. But he is watched by the ghost lady, and the
chorus sings of how lovely she is, but to be loved by her means doom. So
beware of the ghost lady! She sees him, and her face clearly says that
she chooses him. She flits down and sits behind him without his
knowledge (which can't be that hard), and ponders exactly how she will
do this. Just then he goes under a low branch and ducks. She doesn't
duck, and ends up sitting on the ground as he pedals away, still without
a clue that anything just happened.


Kip W

[Drak Bibliophile]

"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message

news:Lv19E...@kithrup.com...

> In article <ibednafQzrhAVlfT...@giganews.com>,
> Drak Bibliophile <drakbib...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
>>news:Lv11u...@kithrup.com...
>>> In article <qLedncKhc--kE1fT...@giganews.com>,
>>> Drak Bibliophile <drakbib...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Stoker does seem to be the first to write about vampires turning into
>>>>bats.
>>>
>>> Thank you; I thought that might be the case, but being the
>>> diametrical opposite of a vampire fan, I haven't read enough
>>> vampfic to have any data to base an opinion on.
>>
>>The "fun" thing about vampires .....
>
> As wossname said to T. E. Lawrence in the _Lawrence of Arabia_
> movie, "It is recognized that you have a funny sense of fun."
>

Why do you think I put fun in quotes? [Wink]

[Kip Williams]

Drak Bibliophile wrote:
> "Dorothy J Heydt"<djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
> news:Lv19E...@kithrup.com...
>> In article<ibednafQzrhAVlfT...@giganews.com>,
>> Drak Bibliophile<drakbib...@comcast.net> wrote:

>>> The "fun" thing about vampires .....
>>
>> As wossname said to T. E. Lawrence in the _Lawrence of Arabia_
>> movie, "It is recognized that you have a funny sense of fun."
>
> Why do you think I put fun in quotes? [Wink]

You're a "greengrocer"?


Kip W
rasfw

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On 2011-11-21 18:03:44 -0500, Dorothy J Heydt said:

> In article <ibednafQzrhAVlfT...@giganews.com>,
> Drak Bibliophile <drakbib...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
>> news:Lv11u...@kithrup.com...
>>> In article <qLedncKhc--kE1fT...@giganews.com>,
>>> Drak Bibliophile <drakbib...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Stoker does seem to be the first to write about vampires turning into
>>>> bats.
>>>
>>> Thank you; I thought that might be the case, but being the
>>> diametrical opposite of a vampire fan, I haven't read enough
>>> vampfic to have any data to base an opinion on.
>>
>> The "fun" thing about vampires .....
>
> As wossname said to T. E. Lawrence in the _Lawrence of Arabia_
> movie, "It is recognized that you have a funny sense of fun."
>
>> ....is that folklore doesn't define a "single
>> type" of vampire. There are plenty of variations on the vampire theme
>> (blood drinking creatures of the night). Of course, writers from the
>> beginning created their own variations on the vampire theme.
>
> But only Stoker made them werebats?
>
> As I said, I don't dig vampfic; I'm assuming (perhaps not safely)
> that Tolkien had at least read _Dracula_ or some subsequent
> example of the genre, else he wouldn't have twice used the simile
> "like vampires" / "vampire-like".

Why only "subsequent"? I'd guess he was familiar with Polidori and
maybe Le Fanu, which both preceded Stoker.

> But whether Thuringwethil, or
> the bats that fought with the goblin army, actually sucked blood
> is something we can't find out until we get to Heaven and ask him.


--

Now available on Amazon or B&N: One-Eyed Jack.
Greg Kraft could see ghosts. That didn't mean he could stop them...

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <jafeq0$srd$1...@dont-email.me>,

But did they have vampires that turned into bats?

[Moriarty]

On Nov 20, 10:43 am, Taki Kogoma <qu...@tenma.swcp.com> wrote:
> On 2011-11-19, Dorothy J Heydt <djhe...@kithrup.com>
> allegedly proclaimed to rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <9915a5fa-f82b-4db3-8e7f-6d5a89569...@x7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,

> > tphile  <tph...@cableone.net> wrote:
> >>Well Gandalf and the Council is battling someone named The
> >>Necromancer.  That name alone implies the dead and undead. so I
>

> > Yes, but it means "someone who works magic *by means of* the
> > undead."

>
> >>wouldn't be suprised if Peter Jackson who is fond of those genres will
> >>build and expand on that.  Especially in the second movie.  Do they
> >>know that The Necromancer is also Sauron?
>

> > By the end of _TH_ Gandalf, at least, is very very suspicious.
> > Not so much of the Necromancer, who has been driven out of Dol
> > Guldur, as of the Ring, whose behavior is ... reminiscent of
> > things Gandalf would like not to have to remember.
>
> IIRC, Gandalf had gone to Dol Guldur 100 years prior to TH to confirm
> his suspicion that the Necromancer was in fact Sauron.  While sneaking
> around, he encountered a dwarf that gave him a certain map and key.

Correct. From the timeline in the appendices to LOTR:

"2850. Gandalf again enters Dol Guldur, and discovers that its master
is indeed Sauron, who is gathering all the Rings and seeking for news
of the One..."

-Moriarty

[Robert Carnegie]

On Nov 22, 5:47 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> In article <jafeq0$sr...@dont-email.me>,

> Lawrence Watt-Evans  <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>
> >On 2011-11-21 18:03:44 -0500, Dorothy J Heydt said:
>

> >> In article <ibednafQzrhAVlfTnZ2dnUVZ_jidn...@giganews.com>,
> >> Drak Bibliophile <drakbiblioph...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> "Dorothy J Heydt" <djhe...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:Lv11u...@kithrup.com...
> >>>> In article <qLedncKhc--kE1fTnZ2dnUVZ_t2dn...@giganews.com>,

> >>>> Drak Bibliophile <drakbiblioph...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Stoker does seem to be the first to write about vampires turning into
> >>>>> bats.
>
> >>>> Thank you; I thought that might be the case, but being the
> >>>> diametrical opposite of a vampire fan, I haven't read enough
> >>>> vampfic to have any data to base an opinion on.
>
> >>> The "fun" thing about vampires .....
>
> >> As wossname said to T. E. Lawrence in the _Lawrence of Arabia_
> >> movie, "It is recognized that you have a funny sense of fun."
>
> >>> ....is that folklore doesn't define a "single
> >>> type" of vampire.  There are plenty of variations on the vampire theme
> >>> (blood drinking creatures of the night).  Of course, writers from the
> >>> beginning created their own variations on the vampire theme.
>
> >> But only Stoker made them werebats?
>
> >> As I said, I don't dig vampfic; I'm assuming (perhaps not safely)
> >> that Tolkien had at least read _Dracula_ or some subsequent
> >> example of the genre, else he wouldn't have twice used the simile
> >> "like vampires" / "vampire-like".
>
> >Why only "subsequent"?  I'd guess he was familiar with Polidori and
> >maybe Le Fanu, which both preceded Stoker.
>
> But did they have vampires that turned into bats?

Having visited Wikipedia, I don't think so, for Carmilla, Varney, or
The Vampyre. For instance, Carmilla is a cat-thing.

On the other hand, if you're knocking around gothic-novel
architecture, you'll probably run into bats.

I think it remains to be shown that Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, or their
pals read these particular fairly lurid stories, although I think
Peter & co. whack a werewolf and some other creepy types in _Prince
Caspian_. They equally may have seen some of them at the cinema, such
as in _Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein_.

I find with interest that one of the roles in _Ruddigore_ (bats
present at least in one notable song, and adjectivally in the person
of Mad Margaret) shares a name with _The Vampyre_, but I wonder if it
is coincidence. _Ruddigore_ appeared ten years before _Dracula_, to
some disclaim.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <7165c50c-20df-4042...@e2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

Not having read _The Vampyre_, but having seen _Ruddigore_
several times, I'd be obliged if you'd tell me what name they
share.

_Ruddigore_ appeared ten years before _Dracula_, to
>some disclaim.

Well, they ended the run of the hugely popular _The Mikado_ to
put it on. If only D'Oyly Carte had been able to hire a second
theatre, the original production of _The Mikado_ (modulo
necessary cast changes over a period of time) might still be
running, like _The Mousetrap._

Somebody once said to Gilbert, "Well, how's 'Bloodygore' getting
on?"

Gilbert, restraining himself with an effort: "'Ruddigore.'"

Other person: "Oh, it's the same thing."

Gilbert: "No it isn't. For example, if I say I like your ruddy
complexion, which I do, that's not the same thing as saying I
like your bloody cheek, which I don't."

[Robert Carnegie]

On Nov 22, 10:59 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> In article <7165c50c-20df-4042-b64a-33bbfbe52...@e2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

Truth ventured, I think it may be a spoiler - in both stories, come to
think.

But you've just read it - if that helps. ;-)

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <401d4293-1730-4fe7...@a16g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,

Well, I am a spoilerphile. I *like* spoilers. I have to grit my
teeth to keep from handing them out to spoilerphobes.

And I'm never going to read _The Vampyre_, so you're really not
spoiling anything. But thanks for the hint.

[Kip Williams]

Dorothy J Heydt wrote:

> Well, I am a spoilerphile. I *like* spoilers. I have to grit my
> teeth to keep from handing them out to spoilerphobes.

Thank you. Sorry about your teeth.


Kip W
rasfw

[none Chuk Goodin]

In article <LuxCG...@kithrup.com>,
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>Thank God.

>
>so they are limited to The Hobbit for back story. I am
>>happy to wait and see the movie
>

>Suit yourself. For my part, the movies do not exist. (I saw the
>first two and never bothered to go to the third.)

But now you don't know how it ends!

--
--
chuk

[trag]

On 11/19/2011 12:42 PM, tphile wrote:
> PJ does not have the rights to The

> Silmarillian so they are limited to The Hobbit for back story. I am

> happy to wait and see the movie

That seems to suggest that someone has the rights to the Silmarillian or
that it would have a substantial cost, which I find slightly boggling,
because, how in the world would anyone make a watchable film out of The
Silmarillian?

Don't get me wrong, I love the book. I'd love to see it presented
visually. I just don't see any way it could be done in a fiscally
successful manner.

Then again, I thought the same thing of TLOTRs back in the 90s...

--
A friend will help you move. A real friend will help you move a body.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <jb35ph$ecd$1...@dont-email.me>, trag <tr...@prismnet.com> wrote:
>On 11/19/2011 12:42 PM, tphile wrote:
>> PJ does not have the rights to The
>> Silmarillian so they are limited to The Hobbit for back story. I am
>> happy to wait and see the movie
>
>That seems to suggest that someone has the rights to the Silmarillian or
>that it would have a substantial cost, which I find slightly boggling,
>because, how in the world would anyone make a watchable film out of The
>Silmarillian?

Christopher Tolkien manages the Tolkien Estate for as long as he
lives. I assume he has picked a successor whom he feels he can
trust never to let go of any rights whatever, ever.

>Don't get me wrong, I love the book. I'd love to see it presented
>visually. I just don't see any way it could be done in a fiscally
>successful manner.

I have once or twice suggested an operatic cycle.

I: The Ainulindale
II: Of Beren and Luthien
III: Of Earendil and Elwing
IV: The Fall of Numenor

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 11/29/11 3:16 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article<jb35ph$ecd$1...@dont-email.me>, trag<tr...@prismnet.com> wrote:
>> On 11/19/2011 12:42 PM, tphile wrote:
>>> PJ does not have the rights to The
>>> Silmarillian so they are limited to The Hobbit for back story. I am
>>> happy to wait and see the movie
>>
>> That seems to suggest that someone has the rights to the Silmarillian or
>> that it would have a substantial cost, which I find slightly boggling,
>> because, how in the world would anyone make a watchable film out of The
>> Silmarillian?
>
> Christopher Tolkien manages the Tolkien Estate for as long as he
> lives. I assume he has picked a successor whom he feels he can
> trust never to let go of any rights whatever, ever.

Alas. I'd want MY heirs to RELEASE all rights after some reasonable
time, say 20 years, so it's all Public Domain. Keeping it all hugged to
your vessst, my Preciousss, that isssn't right, nooo...




--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <jb3gcp$poh$1...@dont-email.me>,

Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

Well, when you consider what Jackson (may his bones burn green)
did to TLotR, Mr. Tolkien may have something there.

With respect, Wasp, your stuff is readable and interesting and
fun, and you do a great E. E. Smith. But Tolkien's work is
arguably the greatest work of literature of the twentieth century,
and I'm willing for the Tolkien Estate to guard it from sleazemerchants
as best they can, for as long as they can.

[David Johnston]

On 11/29/2011 2:05 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:

>>
> Well, when you consider what Jackson (may his bones burn green)
> did to TLotR,

Made some great movies? No, we can't have that.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 11/29/11 4:05 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article<jb3gcp$poh$1...@dont-email.me>,

> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 11/29/11 3:16 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> In article<jb35ph$ecd$1...@dont-email.me>, trag<tr...@prismnet.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/19/2011 12:42 PM, tphile wrote:
>>>>> PJ does not have the rights to The
>>>>> Silmarillian so they are limited to The Hobbit for back story. I am
>>>>> happy to wait and see the movie
>>>>
>>>> That seems to suggest that someone has the rights to the Silmarillian or
>>>> that it would have a substantial cost, which I find slightly boggling,
>>>> because, how in the world would anyone make a watchable film out of The
>>>> Silmarillian?
>>>
>>> Christopher Tolkien manages the Tolkien Estate for as long as he
>>> lives. I assume he has picked a successor whom he feels he can
>>> trust never to let go of any rights whatever, ever.
>>
>> Alas. I'd want MY heirs to RELEASE all rights after some reasonable
>> time, say 20 years, so it's all Public Domain. Keeping it all hugged to
>> your vessst, my Preciousss, that isssn't right, nooo...
>>
> Well, when you consider what Jackson (may his bones burn green)
> did to TLotR, Mr. Tolkien may have something there.

I like what he did with LotR. So do a lot of other people. And I didn't
notice the Tolkien estate eschewing the money -- both direct and
indirect -- they reaped from that work, so obviously whatever objections
they had didn't extend to repudiating any connection with it.

>
> With respect, Wasp, your stuff is readable and interesting and
> fun, and you do a great E. E. Smith. But Tolkien's work is
> arguably the greatest work of literature of the twentieth century,

And Shakespeare's is considered possibly the greatest theatre plays
ever written. Fortunately, it's public domain so I can quote from it,
derive from it, play with it, without worrying that some stupid lawyer
will beat me over the head for daring to touch some dead guy's concepts
without his permission.

Tolkien wrote some good stuff. It's not holy writ, and it's no more
important than, say, the Oz books, which were MY childhood's holy writ.
I don't like one-little-bit what Maguire did with Oz in "Wicked" -- I
daresay my sentiments about that bit of work are similar to yours with
respect to bad Tolkien work.

But I am VERY happy that neither I, nor the descendants of Baum's
estate, can prevent him from playing with those concepts.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <jb3jje$g3o$1...@dont-email.me>,

He may have made some great movies; if so, I haven't seen them.

[Juho Julkunen]

In article <jb3jje$g3o$1...@dont-email.me>, Da...@block.net says...

>
> On 11/29/2011 2:05 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>
> >>
> > Well, when you consider what Jackson (may his bones burn green)
> > did to TLotR,
>
> Made some great movies?

Shit, I missed the good ones.

--
Juho Julkunen

[Par]

Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com>:
> Dunno, but that's why Germanic (esp. Norse) poetry has so many
> kennings. "Don't call them by their proper name, they might hear
> you!"
>
> In the Jorvik ride in York you overhear a guy asking a fisherman
> what he's going out after, and he uses a kenning because he
> doesn't want to say "herrings" and warn them.

Swedish is full of those kennings. Grey-leg for wolf, brown-paw for
bear, etc. The current words for both bear and wolf are old "kennings"
for the animals that became entrenched enought to become the proper
names.

Par

--
Par use...@hunter-gatherer.org
"The pluses in my current job include laughing in the face of Nobel laureates
who have just lost the only copy of their data. (Hey, I'm still a BOFH.)"
-- Bob Dowling

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <slrnjdbgt6...@hunter-gatherer.org>,

Par <use...@hunter-gatherer.org> wrote:
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com>:
>> Dunno, but that's why Germanic (esp. Norse) poetry has so many
>> kennings. "Don't call them by their proper name, they might hear
>> you!"
>>
>> In the Jorvik ride in York you overhear a guy asking a fisherman
>> what he's going out after, and he uses a kenning because he
>> doesn't want to say "herrings" and warn them.
>
>Swedish is full of those kennings. Grey-leg for wolf, brown-paw for
>bear, etc. The current words for both bear and wolf are old "kennings"
>for the animals that became entrenched enought to become the proper
>names.

All the names for "bear" in Indo-European languages are kennings.
Bear, Baer, bruin, et cetera all mean "brown." Slavic medved
means "the one who knows honey." Latin ursus, Greek arktos, and
Celtic artos, last time I looked it up, appear to be connected
with a Sanskrit root rk- (with a vocalic r) meaning "to shine."
There's a category of demons called Rakshasa that come from the
same root. The shining one, of course, is the Great Bear in the
sky.

And there's always Beowulf, "bee-wolf," who shows some signs of
being the bear's son: he's very strong but his strength is in his
grip; he's not so good with swords.

[Moriarty]

On Nov 30, 10:17 am, Juho Julkunen <giaot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <jb3jje$g3...@dont-email.me>, Da...@block.net says...

>
>
>
> > On 11/29/2011 2:05 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>
> > > Well, when you consider what Jackson (may his bones burn green)
> > > did to TLotR,
>
> > Made some great movies?
>
> Shit, I missed the good ones.

Yeah, well, while not exactly in a minority of two, you and Dorothy
are certainly in the minority. Most people who love the books also
loved the movies. Sure there was plenty of "I wouldn't have done it
like THAT" or "Why oh why did he do it that way?" or even the
occasional "Geez I HATE what he did there!" but there's always going
to be that with any novel -> movie conversion.

-Moriarty

[Robert Carnegie]

They're fine films with the sound off. Gorgeous-looking, but half the
cast are turned into idiots or worse - and it's anti-Elf. Oh, and
fast-forward Boromir's death scene. And besides - oh, never mind.

Still, probably more people liked the movies and have never read the
books. Ka-ching!

[Juho Julkunen]

In article <d291ea67-099f-4819-88eb-2a293dc5a154
@v29g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>, blu...@ivillage.com says...

>
> On Nov 30, 10:17 am, Juho Julkunen <giaot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <jb3jje$g3...@dont-email.me>, Da...@block.net says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 11/29/2011 2:05 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> >
> > > > Well, when you consider what Jackson (may his bones burn green)
> > > > did to TLotR,
> >
> > > Made some great movies?
> >
> > Shit, I missed the good ones.
>
> Yeah, well, while not exactly in a minority of two, you and Dorothy
> are certainly in the minority. Most people who love the books also
> loved the movies. Sure there was plenty of "I wouldn't have done it

You have taken poll?

My dislike aside, they are neither good adaptations nor great movies.

--
Juho Julkunen

[Moriarty]

On Dec 1, 9:29 am, Juho Julkunen <giaot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <d291ea67-099f-4819-88eb-2a293dc5a154
> @v29g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>, blue...@ivillage.com says...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 30, 10:17 am, Juho Julkunen <giaot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article <jb3jje$g3...@dont-email.me>, Da...@block.net says...
>
> > > > On 11/29/2011 2:05 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>
> > > > > Well, when you consider what Jackson (may his bones burn green)
> > > > > did to TLotR,
>
> > > > Made some great movies?
>
> > > Shit, I missed the good ones.
>
> > Yeah, well, while not exactly in a minority of two, you and Dorothy
> > are certainly in the minority.  Most people who love the books also
> > loved the movies.  Sure there was plenty of "I wouldn't have done it
>
> You have taken poll?

Of course not. However, there was the occasional thread around the
time of their release where it was possible to guage reaction to them.

-Moriarty

[Robert Bannister]

I can't tell whether they were great movies or not - I did find the
endless fighting in the second and third films a bit tedious, but so
much of it is true to the book.

I know they left bits out, but even a single novel contains too much
material for 3 films. I have to compare it with other book to film
adaptations, some of which were totally incomprehensible to people who
hadn't read the book - if there were bits like that in the films, I
didn't notice them, and I certainly didn't miss Tom Bombadil.

I know they put bits in, but surely we expected that - it was stated
often enough in the newspapers while the films were being made - and I
don't think it spoilt the story, even though there was too much Gollum
for my taste - but just imagine what Hollywood would have done.

I loved the films - maybe not as much as the book, but I've still
watched them three times so far.

What I really liked was the scenery, much of which was just about
exactly as I had imagined it.

--
Robert Bannister

[Kay Shapero]

In article <9jnrg9...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@bigpond.com
says...

>
> I know they left bits out, but even a single novel contains too much
> material for 3 films. I have to compare it with other book to film
> adaptations, some of which were totally incomprehensible to people who
> hadn't read the book - if there were bits like that in the films, I
> didn't notice them, and I certainly didn't miss Tom Bombadil.
>
> I know they put bits in, but surely we expected that - it was stated
> often enough in the newspapers while the films were being made - and I
> don't think it spoilt the story, even though there was too much Gollum
> for my taste - but just imagine what Hollywood would have done.
>

I was mostly annoyed by a couple of character changes - Aragorn as
reluctant hero (not the guy who spent a normal human life just learning
the land, the people, and the job so he could BE a decent king), and
Faramir's reaction to the discovery that Frodo had the Ring. I was
looking FORWARD to that scene ("I wouldn't take it if I found it in the
road."), dang it! Practically the one bright spot in the dreary slog to
Orodruin and they go and ruin it. OTOH there were things that would
not have fit in the original (Legolas surfing the Deeping Wall...) that
I found entertaining. Not sure why the superfluous "Aragorn vanishes"
bit was there.

And getting to watch the Ents take Isengard was nearly worth the price
of all three movies...


--
Kay Shapero
http://www.kayshapero.net
Address munged, to email use kay at the above domain (everything after
the www.)

[Kurt Busiek]

Your dislike aside, you disliked them.

kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!

[David Johnston]

On 11/30/2011 4:54 PM, Kay Shapero wrote:
> In article<9jnrg9...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@bigpond.com
> says...
>
>>
>> I know they left bits out, but even a single novel contains too much
>> material for 3 films. I have to compare it with other book to film
>> adaptations, some of which were totally incomprehensible to people who
>> hadn't read the book - if there were bits like that in the films, I
>> didn't notice them, and I certainly didn't miss Tom Bombadil.
>>
>> I know they put bits in, but surely we expected that - it was stated
>> often enough in the newspapers while the films were being made - and I
>> don't think it spoilt the story, even though there was too much Gollum
>> for my taste - but just imagine what Hollywood would have done.
>>
>
> I was mostly annoyed by a couple of character changes - Aragorn as
> reluctant hero (not the guy who spent a normal human life just learning
> the land, the people, and the job so he could BE a decent king),

What? When the heck did Aragorn do that?

[Juho Julkunen]

In article <jb6jut$dtu$2...@dont-email.me>, ku...@busiek.com says...

>
> On 2011-11-30 14:29:48 -0800, Juho Julkunen <giao...@hotmail.com> said:

> > My dislike aside, they are neither good adaptations nor great movies.
>
> Your dislike aside, you disliked them.

Do you belive that there can be no such thing as valid criticism, that
it all just comes down to like/dislike? Or do you think that I
specifically am incapable of such?

--
Juho Julkunen

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 11/30/11 5:29 PM, Juho Julkunen wrote:
> In article<d291ea67-099f-4819-88eb-2a293dc5a154
> @v29g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>, blu...@ivillage.com says...
>>
>> On Nov 30, 10:17 am, Juho Julkunen<giaot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> In article<jb3jje$g3...@dont-email.me>, Da...@block.net says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 11/29/2011 2:05 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Well, when you consider what Jackson (may his bones burn green)
>>>>> did to TLotR,
>>>
>>>> Made some great movies?
>>>
>>> Shit, I missed the good ones.
>>
>> Yeah, well, while not exactly in a minority of two, you and Dorothy
>> are certainly in the minority. Most people who love the books also
>> loved the movies. Sure there was plenty of "I wouldn't have done it
>
> You have taken poll?

The income of the movies indicates a *HUGE* number of people liked
them. All three. To dislike them a minority? Of the moviegoing public
who go to see "that kind" of film? Probably, though it is hard to tell
for sure.

>
> My dislike aside, they are neither good adaptations nor great movies.

They are quite good adaptations as such things go (very few go very far
at all) and they are excellent movies.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 11/30/11 10:02 PM, Juho Julkunen wrote:
> In article<jb6jut$dtu$2...@dont-email.me>, ku...@busiek.com says...
>>
>> On 2011-11-30 14:29:48 -0800, Juho Julkunen<giao...@hotmail.com> said:
>
>>> My dislike aside, they are neither good adaptations nor great movies.
>>
>> Your dislike aside, you disliked them.
>
> Do you belive that there can be no such thing as valid criticism, that
> it all just comes down to like/dislike?

Pretty much. Unless there's specific technical issues you can
objectively point to, and which people pretty much universally agree are
bad. "Good adaptation" depends on what you're using as your benchmark
and how you're judging it. Similarly, "great movie" depends on your
standards of "great".

[Kurt Busiek]

I think that saying you're putting your dislike aside and then making
two subjective statements is silly.

"My opinion aside, here's my opinion."

Whether you're capable of more or not, that's certainly not an example of it.

[Juho Julkunen]

In article <jb6r1a$evk$1...@dont-email.me>, sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com
says...

>
> On 11/30/11 5:29 PM, Juho Julkunen wrote:
> > In article<d291ea67-099f-4819-88eb-2a293dc5a154
> > @v29g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>, blu...@ivillage.com says...
> >>
> >> On Nov 30, 10:17 am, Juho Julkunen<giaot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> In article<jb3jje$g3...@dont-email.me>, Da...@block.net says...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On 11/29/2011 2:05 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Well, when you consider what Jackson (may his bones burn green)
> >>>>> did to TLotR,
> >>>
> >>>> Made some great movies?
> >>>
> >>> Shit, I missed the good ones.
> >>
> >> Yeah, well, while not exactly in a minority of two, you and Dorothy
> >> are certainly in the minority. Most people who love the books also
> >> loved the movies. Sure there was plenty of "I wouldn't have done it
> >
> > You have taken poll?
>
> The income of the movies indicates a *HUGE* number of people liked
> them. All three.

Well, I went to see them, so my money contributed to the income. (There
was no profit, as was explained to Tolkien estate.)

> To dislike them a minority? Of the moviegoing public
> who go to see "that kind" of film? Probably, though it is hard to tell
> for sure.

Specific claim was that most peole who love the books also loved the
movies. I don't believe majority of the moviegoing public love the
books.

Of the people I personally know who love the books, a majority did not
love the movies.

--
Juho Julkunen

[Juho Julkunen]

In article <jb6rn0$j06$1...@dont-email.me>, ku...@busiek.com says...

>
> On 2011-11-30 19:02:34 -0800, Juho Julkunen <giao...@hotmail.com> said:
>
> > In article <jb6jut$dtu$2...@dont-email.me>, ku...@busiek.com says...
> >>
> >> On 2011-11-30 14:29:48 -0800, Juho Julkunen <giao...@hotmail.com> said:
> >
> >>> My dislike aside, they are neither good adaptations nor great movies.
> >>
> >> Your dislike aside, you disliked them.
> >
> > Do you belive that there can be no such thing as valid criticism, that
> > it all just comes down to like/dislike? Or do you think that I
> > specifically am incapable of such?
>
> I think that saying you're putting your dislike aside and then making
> two subjective statements is silly.

Why? Because any subjective statement must necessarily be a mere
restatement of that dislike?

Would it be equally silly to say: "Well, I like it, but honestly it's
not very good."

> "My opinion aside, here's my opinion."

I think there is a difference between saying "I like this" and "I think
this is well executed". The first is purely a matter of taste, but the
second ought to be open to discussion.

> Whether you're capable of more or not, that's certainly not an example of it.

But you imply that anything I'd have to say about the movies could be
summed up as "I didn't like them".

Do you belive that there can even be such a thing as valid criticism?
Is it even possible for me to show anything more than opinion?

The person I was respoding to didn't provide any support to the
proposition that they are great movies, I didn't see why I should
bother, in that message.

--
Juho Julkunen

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <slrnjddnf0.lv...@shasta.marwnad.com>,
Paul Arthur <junk+...@flowerysong.com> wrote:

>On 2011-12-01, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>
>> On 11/30/2011 4:54 PM, Kay Shapero wrote:
>>
>>> In article<9jnrg9...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@bigpond.com
>>> says...
>>>
>>>> I know they left bits out, but even a single novel contains too
>>>> much material for 3 films. I have to compare it with other book to
>>>> film adaptations, some of which were totally incomprehensible to
>>>> people who hadn't read the book - if there were bits like that in
>>>> the films, I didn't notice them, and I certainly didn't miss Tom
>>>> Bombadil.
>>>

>>> I was mostly annoyed by a couple of character changes - Aragorn
>>> as reluctant hero (not the guy who spent a normal human life just
>>> learning the land, the people, and the job so he could BE a decent
>>> king),
>>
>> What? When the heck did Aragorn do that?
>

>Aragorn is 87 when he meets up with the hobbits.
>
>Though I'm not sure that's an accurate characterisation of what he was
>doing during those years; sure, he was being a Big Damn Hero, but I
>don't recall any textual evidence that he was doing so to prepare for
>kingship.

He was traveling, incognito, over what would eventually be his
realm. Under the alias of Thorongil, he took service under
Theoden and under Denethor, and learned the ropes -- those that
he hadn't already learned in the North-lands.

Jackson made Aragorn into a modern anti-hero, because *he doesn't
believe there are any heroes.* Just modern-type wimps who don't
know what they want or how to achieve it.

[Moriarty]

On Dec 1, 2:50 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> In article <slrnjddnf0.lvh.junk+use...@shasta.marwnad.com>,

> Paul Arthur  <junk+use...@flowerysong.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 2011-12-01, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>
> >> On 11/30/2011 4:54 PM, Kay Shapero wrote:
>

> >>> In article<9jnrg9Fe1...@mid.individual.net>, robb...@bigpond.com

> >>> says...
>
> >>>> I know they left bits out, but even a single novel contains too
> >>>> much material for 3 films. I have to compare it with other book to
> >>>> film adaptations, some of which were totally incomprehensible to
> >>>> people who hadn't read the book - if there were bits like that in
> >>>> the films, I didn't notice them, and I certainly didn't miss Tom
> >>>> Bombadil.
>
> >>> I was mostly annoyed by a couple of character changes - Aragorn
> >>> as reluctant hero (not the guy who spent a normal human life just
> >>> learning the land, the people, and the job so he could BE a decent
> >>> king),
>
> >> What? When the heck did Aragorn do that?
>
> >Aragorn is 87 when he meets up with the hobbits.
>
> >Though I'm not sure that's an accurate characterisation of what he was
> >doing during those years; sure, he was being a Big Damn Hero, but I
> >don't recall any textual evidence that he was doing so to prepare for
> >kingship.
>
> He was traveling, incognito, over what would eventually be his
> realm.  Under the alias of Thorongil, he took service under
> Theoden and under Denethor, and learned the ropes -- those that
> he hadn't already learned in the North-lands.

He served under Denethor's father IIRC. It was implied he left
service because he didn't get along with Denethor as soon-to-be-
Steward. I can't recall the specifics of his service in Rohan but
that would have had to be with an earlier king too. Certainly, in the
main text of LOTR, there's no hint of them ever having met before when
they're both on stage.

> Jackson made Aragorn into a modern anti-hero, because *he doesn't
> believe there are any heroes.*  Just modern-type wimps who don't
> know what they want or how to achieve it.

That is my single biggest criticism of the movies.

-Moriarty

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 11/30/11 10:32 PM, Juho Julkunen wrote:
> In article<jb6r1a$evk$1...@dont-email.me>, sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com

Note that I said the moviegoing public who go to see that kind of film
-- that is, those who are into SF/F to begin with. Given the HUGE
upswing in sales, you may be incorrect. Hard to say, though.

>
> Of the people I personally know who love the books, a majority did not
> love the movies.
>

Of the people I know who love the books, virtually all of them loved
the movies. So anecdotal evidence tells us nothing.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <cd3626ed-92d7-4c95...@j10g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,

Moriarty <blu...@ivillage.com> wrote:
>On Dec 1, 2:50 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>

>> [Aragorn] was traveling, incognito, over what would eventually be his

>> realm.  Under the alias of Thorongil, he took service under
>> Theoden and under Denethor, and learned the ropes -- those that
>> he hadn't already learned in the North-lands.
>
>He served under Denethor's father IIRC.

You are right. He served Thengel and Ecthelion between T.A. 2957
and 2980.

It was implied he left
>service because he didn't get along with Denethor as soon-to-be-
>Steward.

Where did you read that? The Appendices say only "2894: Death of
Ecthelion II. Denethor II becomes Steward of Gondor." Four
years *after* Aragorn had left the South-lands, returned to
Lorien, and became betrothed to Arwen.

I can't recall the specifics of his service in Rohan but
>that would have had to be with an earlier king too. Certainly, in the
>main text of LOTR, there's no hint of them ever having met before when
>they're both on stage.

He specifically says to Eomer, at their first meeting, "You I
have not met before, for you are young, but I have spoken with
Eomund your father, and with Theoden son of Thengel." However,
we can readily believe that Theoden at the end of his life would
not easily recognize the man he had known as Thorongil forty
years before. He would at the least expect Thorongil to have
aged as he himself did, and have a long white beard rather than a
few grey hairs.

[Kurt Busiek]

Juho Julkunen <giao...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <jb6rn0$j06$1...@dont-email.me>, ku...@busiek.com says...
>>
>> On 2011-11-30 19:02:34 -0800, Juho Julkunen <giao...@hotmail.com> said:
>>
>>> In article <jb6jut$dtu$2...@dont-email.me>, ku...@busiek.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On 2011-11-30 14:29:48 -0800, Juho Julkunen <giao...@hotmail.com> said:
>>>
>>>>> My dislike aside, they are neither good adaptations nor great movies.
>>>>
>>>> Your dislike aside, you disliked them.
>>>
>>> Do you belive that there can be no such thing as valid criticism, that
>>> it all just comes down to like/dislike? Or do you think that I
>>> specifically am incapable of such?
>>
>> I think that saying you're putting your dislike aside and then making
>> two subjective statements is silly.
>
> Why? Because any subjective statement must necessarily be a mere
> restatement of that dislike?
>
> Would it be equally silly to say: "Well, I like it, but honestly it's
> not very good."

No, because that doesn't pretend to put opinion aside.

>> "My opinion aside, here's my opinion."
>
> I think there is a difference between saying "I like this" and "I think
> this is well executed". The first is purely a matter of taste, but the
> second ought to be open to discussion.
>
>> Whether you're capable of more or not, that's certainly not an example of it.
>
> But you imply that anything I'd have to say about the movies could be
> summed up as "I didn't like them".

From here, it looked like I was saying that what you did say about the
movies could be summed up that way. What else you might be able to say
wasn't addressed.

> Do you belive that there can even be such a thing as valid criticism?

I think all artistic criticism is ultimately subjective, but that doesn't
mean it can't be valid -- indeed, criticism can be valid while disagreeing
with other also-valid criticism. But the validity is in the support, the
argument, the contextualization. Valid criticism is interesting because
it's a well-constructed, legitimate argument.

A flat statement of opinion without support isn't valid criticism, it's
simply a statement of opinion. Nothing wrong with that, but claiming that
opinion is being put aside is silly.

> Is it even possible for me to show anything more than opinion?

Theoretically, at least. Whether you actually can, I don't know.

> The person I was respoding to didn't provide any support to the
> proposition that they are great movies, I didn't see why I should
> bother, in that message.

You're not required to, but that doesn't make it true that you're putting
your opinion aside. The person you were responding to wasn't either, but
then he or she wasn't immediately preceding their opinion with a claim to
be putting opinion aside.

You seem far more interested in misapplied pedantry than anything else, at
least at present, based on the work you're clearly willing to devote to the
pedantry. I think you're spouting nonsense, but I don't have much interest
in trying to talk you out of it.

If you still can't figure out what I was saying, I think I can live with
that. I'm content that I've made my point well enough for most -- indeed, I
think I did that with my first post, so endless argument about it isn't
likely to prove interesting or valuable, I expect.

kdb
--

[Kurt Busiek]

Paul Arthur <junk+...@flowerysong.com> wrote:

> On 2011-12-01, Juho Julkunen <giao...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Of the people I personally know who love the books, a majority did
>> not love the movies.
>

> Of the (many) people I know who love the books, all of them loved the
> movies. Yay, anecdotes!

I haven't discussed the movies with everyone I know who loved the books,
but of those where I have, they all seem to like the movies quite a bit
more than I did, and I liked them -- the first one in particular -- a lot.

[David Johnston]

On 11/30/2011 9:05 PM, Juho Julkunen wrote:

> The person I was respoding to didn't provide any support to the
> proposition that they are great movies,

Maybe, but I didn't claim to be giving an objective evaluation either.
If you want specifics, I thought the visuals were uncommonly beautiful,
the battle scenes spectacular, the use of forced perspective uncommonly
cunning and seamless, and the performances for Frodo, Sam, Gandalf,
Gollum, Theoden, and Aragorn were compelling. I thought the third movie
faltered with weak characterization for Faramir and Denethor, but all in
all, I think the TLOTR movies were as good as they could be made (which
is to say, that another film maker could have corrected the things I
consider to be have been mistakes like the portrayal of Denethor and the
casting of Arwen, but they would have made other mistakes to make up for
them.) Oh, and it's a pity that Gimli lost screen time to latex
allergy...but what can you do?

[Juho Julkunen]

In article <353718167344454392.2...@news.eternal-
september.org>, ku...@busiek.com says...

>
> Juho Julkunen <giao...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <jb6rn0$j06$1...@dont-email.me>, ku...@busiek.com says...
> >>
> >> On 2011-11-30 19:02:34 -0800, Juho Julkunen <giao...@hotmail.com> said:
> >>
> >>> In article <jb6jut$dtu$2...@dont-email.me>, ku...@busiek.com says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2011-11-30 14:29:48 -0800, Juho Julkunen <giao...@hotmail.com> said:
> >>>
> >>>>> My dislike aside, they are neither good adaptations nor great movies.
> >>>>
> >>>> Your dislike aside, you disliked them.

> >> I think that saying you're putting your dislike aside and then making
> >> two subjective statements is silly.

> >> "My opinion aside, here's my opinion."

"My movie taste aside, here's my opinion on the success of execution of
the movies." They address different things. My opinion on A is not the
same thing as my opinion on B. I don't agree that saying I'm putting my
opinion on A aside to address B is silly.

> From here, it looked like I was saying that what you did say aboutthe
> movies could be summed up that way. What else you might be able to say
> wasn't addressed.

From here it seemed like you dismissed any criticism I might make as
mere expression of dislike. Maybe I'm being unfair to you, but I have
seen that tack taken before to dismiss any and all criticism.

I'm going to snip the rest of this, because I agree it doesn't seem
very fruitful and was getting off the point.

The point being that I read your line as: "anything you say just means
you didn't like it" rather than: "until you provide arguments in
support you are just saying you don't like it". I don't agree with that
either; I still believe saying "I don't like this" and "I don't think
this is well made" are two different things, even with "and here's
why" omitted.

--
Juho Julkunen

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 12/1/11 3:32 PM, Juho Julkunen wrote:

> The point being that I read your line as: "anything you say just means
> you didn't like it" rather than: "until you provide arguments in
> support you are just saying you don't like it". I don't agree with that
> either; I still believe saying "I don't like this" and "I don't think
> this is well made" are two different things, even with "and here's
> why" omitted.
>

But you had not, in fact, said "this is not well made". You had said
"this is not a good adaptation, and it's not a great movie".

Good and Great, both purely subjective. I did not, and apparently Kurt
did not, get "this movie is not well made" from your "good" or "great".
You perhaps were thinking that, but your statements did not actually say
what you were thinking, in that case.

And even left as you imply you meant, it's still pure opinion, unless
you supply some at least halfway objective explanation for WHY you think
they are not well made.

[Juho Julkunen]

In article <jb8ois$lha$1...@dont-email.me>, sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com
says...

>
> On 12/1/11 3:32 PM, Juho Julkunen wrote:
>
> > The point being that I read your line as: "anything you say just means
> > you didn't like it" rather than: "until you provide arguments in
> > support you are just saying you don't like it". I don't agree with that
> > either; I still believe saying "I don't like this" and "I don't think
> > this is well made" are two different things, even with "and here's
> > why" omitted.
> >
>
> But you had not, in fact, said "this is not well made". You had said
> "this is not a good adaptation, and it's not a great movie".
>
> Good and Great, both purely subjective. I did not, and apparently Kurt
> did not, get "this movie is not well made" from your "good" or "great".
> You perhaps were thinking that, but your statements did not actually say
> what you were thinking, in that case.

I fail at communication. I tend to think adjectives like "good" and
"great" refer to quality (even if subjective) rather than like/dislike.
(Even though I should know how "It's grrrreat" is typically used.) My
meaning was perfectly clear in my head.

> And even left as you imply you meant, it's still pure opinion, unless
> you supply some at least halfway objective explanation for WHY you think
> they are not well made.

Opinion, yes, but I thought that what I thought I said implied such
explanation existed and was different from merely saying "I disliked
it".

--
Juho Julkunen

[Moriarty]

On Dec 1, 5:42 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> In article <cd3626ed-92d7-4c95-988b-d7f271e13...@j10g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,

>
> Moriarty  <blue...@ivillage.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 1, 2:50 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
> >> [Aragorn] was traveling, incognito, over what would eventually be his
> >> realm.  Under the alias of Thorongil, he took service under
> >> Theoden and under Denethor, and learned the ropes -- those that
> >> he hadn't already learned in the North-lands.
>
> >He served under Denethor's father IIRC.
>
> You are right.  He served Thengel and Ecthelion between T.A. 2957
> and 2980.
>
>   It was implied he left
>
> >service because he didn't get along with Denethor as soon-to-be-
> >Steward.
>
> Where did you read that?  The Appendices say only "2894: Death of
> Ecthelion II.  Denethor II becomes Steward of Gondor."  Four
> years *after* Aragorn had left the South-lands, returned to
> Lorien, and became betrothed to Arwen.

I can't remember exactly. It might have been The Tale of Aragorn and
Arwen from LOTR or one of the many Tales of Middle Earth. As I
haven't got them to hand, I'll look it up on the weekend.

>
> I can't recall the specifics of his service in Rohan but
>
> >that would have had to be with an earlier king too.  Certainly, in the
> >main text of LOTR, there's no hint of them ever having met before when
> >they're both on stage.
>
> He specifically says to Eomer, at their first meeting, "You I
> have not met before, for you are young, but I have spoken with
> Eomund your father, and with Theoden son of Thengel."

Aaarg. I sit corrected. Stupid aging memory.

-Moriarty

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 12/1/11 4:07 PM, Juho Julkunen wrote:
> In article<jb8ois$lha$1...@dont-email.me>, sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com
> says...
>>
>> On 12/1/11 3:32 PM, Juho Julkunen wrote:
>>
>>> The point being that I read your line as: "anything you say just means
>>> you didn't like it" rather than: "until you provide arguments in
>>> support you are just saying you don't like it". I don't agree with that
>>> either; I still believe saying "I don't like this" and "I don't think
>>> this is well made" are two different things, even with "and here's
>>> why" omitted.
>>>
>>
>> But you had not, in fact, said "this is not well made". You had said
>> "this is not a good adaptation, and it's not a great movie".
>>
>> Good and Great, both purely subjective. I did not, and apparently Kurt
>> did not, get "this movie is not well made" from your "good" or "great".
>> You perhaps were thinking that, but your statements did not actually say
>> what you were thinking, in that case.
>
> I fail at communication. I tend to think adjectives like "good" and
> "great" refer to quality (even if subjective) rather than like/dislike.
> (Even though I should know how "It's grrrreat" is typically used.) My
> meaning was perfectly clear in my head.

"It's all in me head!"

Absent details of "why", I'm afraid "good" and "great" will be
interpreted as "like" and "love", not statements of quality. Well, they
ARE statements of quality, but without any pretense to having anything
other than personal taste behind them.

Which to me is the honest approach, as barring truly egregious cases
there really isn't anything other than personal taste behind them.

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2011-12-01 12:32:53 -0800, Juho Julkunen <giao...@hotmail.com> said:

> The point being that I read your line as: "anything you say just means
> you didn't like it" rather than: "until you provide arguments in
> support you are just saying you don't like it". I don't agree with that
> either; I still believe saying "I don't like this" and "I don't think
> this is well made" are two different things, even with "and here's
> why" omitted.

I think you're putting far more work into arguing about how to argue
than you are about talking about the movies.

I mean you no offense when I say that it may interest you, but it
doesn't interest me. I think my points are clear enough, and I'll stand
by them.

kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <8a8b3326-c411-4c60...@x7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,

Moriarty <blu...@ivillage.com> wrote:
>On Dec 1, 5:42 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>> In article
><cd3626ed-92d7-4c95-988b-d7f271e13...@j10g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> Moriarty  <blue...@ivillage.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 1, 2:50 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>
>> >> [Aragorn] was traveling, incognito, over what would eventually be his
>> >> realm.  Under the alias of Thorongil, he took service under
>> >> Theoden and under Denethor, and learned the ropes -- those that
>> >> he hadn't already learned in the North-lands.
>>
>> >He served under Denethor's father IIRC.
>>
>> You are right.  He served Thengel and Ecthelion between T.A. 2957
>> and 2980.
>>
>>   It was implied he left
>>
>> >service because he didn't get along with Denethor as soon-to-be-
>> >Steward.
>>
>> Where did you read that?  The Appendices say only "2894: Death of
>> Ecthelion II.  Denethor II becomes Steward of Gondor."  Four
>> years *after* Aragorn had left the South-lands, returned to
>> Lorien, and became betrothed to Arwen.
>
>I can't remember exactly. It might have been The Tale of Aragorn and
>Arwen from LOTR or one of the many Tales of Middle Earth. As I
>haven't got them to hand, I'll look it up on the weekend.

Please do. I'm curious.

>>
>> I can't recall the specifics of his service in Rohan but
>> >that would have had to be with an earlier king too.  Certainly, in the
>> >main text of LOTR, there's no hint of them ever having met before when
>> >they're both on stage.
>>
>> He specifically says to Eomer, at their first meeting, "You I
>> have not met before, for you are young, but I have spoken with
>> Eomund your father, and with Theoden son of Thengel."
>
>Aaarg. I sit corrected. Stupid aging memory.

Oh, mine is just the same. I've had essentially NO short-term
memory since I came down with CFS in 1984. However, I'd read
_TLotR_ before that. :)

(And I looked up the exact quotation in the book.)

[Juho Julkunen]

In article <jb8qje$nr$4...@dont-email.me>, sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com
says...

> ARE statements of quality, but without any pretense to having anything
> other than personal taste behind them.
>
> Which to me is the honest approach, as barring truly egregious cases
> there really isn't anything other than personal taste behind them.

I don't agree, but I don't think either one of us is going to change
their mind.

--
Juho Julkunen

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 11/30/2011 7:32 PM, Juho Julkunen wrote:
> In article<jb6r1a$evk$1...@dont-email.me>, sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com

> says...
>>
>> On 11/30/11 5:29 PM, Juho Julkunen wrote:
>>> In article<d291ea67-099f-4819-88eb-2a293dc5a154
>>> @v29g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>, blu...@ivillage.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 30, 10:17 am, Juho Julkunen<giaot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article<jb3jje$g3...@dont-email.me>, Da...@block.net says...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/29/2011 2:05 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, when you consider what Jackson (may his bones burn green)
>>>>>>> did to TLotR,
>>>>>
>>>>>> Made some great movies?
>>>>>
>>>>> Shit, I missed the good ones.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, well, while not exactly in a minority of two, you and Dorothy
>>>> are certainly in the minority. Most people who love the books also
>>>> loved the movies. Sure there was plenty of "I wouldn't have done it
>>>
>>> You have taken poll?
>>
>> The income of the movies indicates a *HUGE* number of people liked
>> them. All three.
>
> Well, I went to see them, so my money contributed to the income. (There
> was no profit, as was explained to Tolkien estate.)
>

Well, according to Hollywood they have yet to make even a single movie
that has made a profit, ever....

[Juho Julkunen]

In article <jb8qs0$6fm$1...@dont-email.me>, ku...@busiek.com says...

>
> On 2011-12-01 12:32:53 -0800, Juho Julkunen <giao...@hotmail.com> said:

> > either; I still believe saying "I don't like this" and "I don't think
> > this is well made" are two different things,

> I think you're putting far more work into arguing about how to argue

Nah, I'm arguing about what the argument was.

> than you are about talking about the movies.

I'm not putting any work in talking about the movies.

> I mean you no offense when I say that it may interest you, but it
> doesn't interest me. I think my points are clear enough, and I'll stand
> by them.

Fair enough.

So, when Mentallo was using an amplifier to control the minds of
everybody in the world, Tony Stark, with the aid of his wristwatch, was
the only one to notice or resist. Where were all the heavyweight
telepaths at the time?

--
Juho Julkunen

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Given that it's a standing joke here and elsehwere, I'm somewhat
croggled that the Tolkien estate (allegedly) signed a "percent of net"
contract deal. *I* know better than that -- and also better than to do
a major movie deal without expert agents and attorneys, which the
Tolkien estate would certainly have access to.

Did they really?

--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2011-12-01 14:37:04 -0800, Juho Julkunen <giao...@hotmail.com> said:

> So, when Mentallo was using an amplifier to control the minds of
> everybody in the world, Tony Stark, with the aid of his wristwatch, was
> the only one to notice or resist. Where were all the heavyweight
> telepaths at the time?

If it affected the story, we'd have told you. But laundry-listing them
and pointing out that this guy was taken by surprise and that guy was
asleep, and that one over there managed to stay conscious but confused
and that other one actually remembered Tony Stark was Iron Man for the
few weeks (Marvel time) before the secret was out again is, to my mind,
bad storytelling.

Had a writer wanted to do a story about the experience of one or two of
those telepaths during those events, it was certainly possible -- still
is possible, I'd assume -- but it didn't add anything to the story we
were telling and we only had so many pages available.

[Moriarty]

On Dec 2, 9:48 am, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:

> Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> writes:
> > On 11/30/2011 7:32 PM, Juho Julkunen wrote:

<snip>

> >> Well, I went to see them, so my money contributed to the income. (There
> >> was no profit, as was explained to Tolkien estate.)
>
> > Well, according to Hollywood they have yet to make even a single movie
> > that has made a profit, ever....
>
> Given that it's a standing joke here and elsehwere, I'm somewhat
> croggled that the Tolkien estate (allegedly) signed a "percent of net"
> contract deal.  *I* know better than that -- and also better than to do
> a major movie deal without expert agents and attorneys, which the
> Tolkien estate would certainly have access to.
>
> Did they really?

JRRT himself sold the movie rights in 1969. Perhaps the creative
accounting used by Hollywood to defraud the IRS wasn't as widespread
then?

-Moriarty

[Elaine T]

on Aragorn's history

>
> It was implied he left
>>service because he didn't get along with Denethor as soon-to-be-
>>Steward.
>
>Where did you read that? The Appendices say only "2894: Death of
>Ecthelion II. Denethor II becomes Steward of Gondor." Four
>years *after* Aragorn had left the South-lands, returned to
>Lorien, and became betrothed to Arwen.
>

It's in the Stewards section of Appendix A.

"Denethor... was as like to Thorongil [Arogorn] as to one of nearest
kin, and yet was ever place second to the stranger in the hearts of
men and the esteem of his father. At the time many thought that
Thorongil had departed before his rival became his master; though
indeen Thorongil had never himself vied with Denethor...Therefore
later, when all was made clear, many believed that Denethor, whowas
subtle in mind and looked further and deeper than other men of his
day, had dscovered who this stranger Thorongil in truth was, and
suspected that he and Mithrandir designed to supplant him."

Which illuminates Denethor's character and resistance to Aragorn's
coming as king in RotK. He had problems with the issue going WAY
back. Having the stranger be held higher than Denethor by everyone
including his father didn't help at all, either.


I've wondered if anyone else was around from those days who might have
looked at Aragorn and said "Thorongil?!"


--
Elaine T.
Ela...@kethompson.org

[Juho Julkunen]

In article <jb90ml$c89$1...@dont-email.me>, ku...@busiek.com says...

>
> On 2011-12-01 14:37:04 -0800, Juho Julkunen <giao...@hotmail.com> said:
>
> > So, when Mentallo was using an amplifier to control the minds of
> > everybody in the world, Tony Stark, with the aid of his wristwatch, was
> > the only one to notice or resist. Where were all the heavyweight
> > telepaths at the time?
>
> If it affected the story, we'd have told you. But laundry-listing them
> and pointing out that this guy was taken by surprise and that guy was
> asleep, and that one over there managed to stay conscious but confused
> and that other one actually remembered Tony Stark was Iron Man for the
> few weeks (Marvel time) before the secret was out again is, to my mind,
> bad storytelling.

Laundry-listing them would have been silly, yeah, but their conspicuous
absence also nagged me. It wasn't relevant to the story at hand, but it
did make it harder for me to accept the story as part of larger Marvel
continuity. Well, that and the entire bit of Stark haxx0ring on astral
plane.

Possibly I just wasn't quite in Marvel frame of mind.

--
Juho Julkunen

[Kip Williams]

No doubt the estate has had time to get used to the idea that the movie
wasn't going to make them rich. They probably did the best they could,
perhaps offering their services as super duper experts, and hoped that
the movie would serve as an advertisement for other Tolkien properties
that they could realize some money from.


Kip W
rasfw

[Robert Bannister]

On 1/12/11 7:54 AM, Kay Shapero wrote:
> In article<9jnrg9...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@bigpond.com

> says...
>
>>
>> I know they left bits out, but even a single novel contains too much
>> material for 3 films. I have to compare it with other book to film
>> adaptations, some of which were totally incomprehensible to people who
>> hadn't read the book - if there were bits like that in the films, I
>> didn't notice them, and I certainly didn't miss Tom Bombadil.
>>

>> I know they put bits in, but surely we expected that - it was stated
>> often enough in the newspapers while the films were being made - and I
>> don't think it spoilt the story, even though there was too much Gollum
>> for my taste - but just imagine what Hollywood would have done.

>>
>
> I was mostly annoyed by a couple of character changes - Aragorn as
> reluctant hero (not the guy who spent a normal human life just learning
> the land, the people, and the job so he could BE a decent king)

Interesting how people have different reactions. I still see him as
being disguised as a sort of park ranger doing spying jobs for Gandalf
or the Council.

, and
> Faramir's reaction to the discovery that Frodo had the Ring. I was
> looking FORWARD to that scene ("I wouldn't take it if I found it in the
> road."), dang it! Practically the one bright spot in the dreary slog to
> Orodruin and they go and ruin it.

I've only read it 3 or 4 times so I have no recollection of that scene
at all.

OTOH there were things that would
> not have fit in the original (Legolas surfing the Deeping Wall...) that
> I found entertaining. Not sure why the superfluous "Aragorn vanishes"
> bit was there.
>
> And getting to watch the Ents take Isengard was nearly worth the price
> of all three movies...

It was visual entertainment, which to my mind is what films are all
about. For the deep stuff, you need a book.


--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

All good points.

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

On 1/12/11 11:32 AM, Juho Julkunen wrote:
> In article<jb6r1a$evk$1...@dont-email.me>, sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com
> says...
>>
>> On 11/30/11 5:29 PM, Juho Julkunen wrote:
>>> In article<d291ea67-099f-4819-88eb-2a293dc5a154
>>> @v29g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>, blu...@ivillage.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 30, 10:17 am, Juho Julkunen<giaot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article<jb3jje$g3...@dont-email.me>, Da...@block.net says...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/29/2011 2:05 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, when you consider what Jackson (may his bones burn green)
>>>>>>> did to TLotR,
>>>>>
>>>>>> Made some great movies?
>>>>>
>>>>> Shit, I missed the good ones.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, well, while not exactly in a minority of two, you and Dorothy
>>>> are certainly in the minority. Most people who love the books also
>>>> loved the movies. Sure there was plenty of "I wouldn't have done it
>>>
>>> You have taken poll?
>>
>> The income of the movies indicates a *HUGE* number of people liked
>> them. All three.
>

> Well, I went to see them, so my money contributed to the income. (There
> was no profit, as was explained to Tolkien estate.)
>

>> To dislike them a minority? Of the moviegoing public
>> who go to see "that kind" of film? Probably, though it is hard to tell
>> for sure.
>
> Specific claim was that most peole who love the books also loved the
> movies. I don't believe majority of the moviegoing public love the
> books.
>

> Of the people I personally know who love the books, a majority did not
> love the movies.
>

Still, you now know quite a few LotR lovers here who liked the movies
and the book(s). Given the choice, I will always prefer a book over a
film even if the book is worse, but that doesn't mean I don't like movies.

--
Robert Bannister

[Moriarty]

Like the books?

I'm sure they managed to comfort themselves to sleep thinking of all
the $$$$ the movies were generating for book sales.

-Moriarty

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <io3gd713ukoe0bbcq...@4ax.com>,

Elaine T <eftho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>on Aragorn's history
>>
>> It was implied he left
>>>service because he didn't get along with Denethor as soon-to-be-
>>>Steward.
>>
>>Where did you read that? The Appendices say only "2894: Death of
>>Ecthelion II. Denethor II becomes Steward of Gondor." Four
>>years *after* Aragorn had left the South-lands, returned to
>>Lorien, and became betrothed to Arwen.
>>
>
>It's in the Stewards section of Appendix A.
>
>"Denethor... was as like to Thorongil [Arogorn] as to one of nearest
>kin, and yet was ever place second to the stranger in the hearts of
>men and the esteem of his father. At the time many thought that
>Thorongil had departed before his rival became his master; though
>indeen Thorongil had never himself vied with Denethor...Therefore
>later, when all was made clear, many believed that Denethor, whowas
>subtle in mind and looked further and deeper than other men of his
>day, had dscovered who this stranger Thorongil in truth was, and
>suspected that he and Mithrandir designed to supplant him."

All right; thanks for the cite.

>Which illuminates Denethor's character and resistance to Aragorn's
>coming as king in RotK. He had problems with the issue going WAY
>back. Having the stranger be held higher than Denethor by everyone
>including his father didn't help at all, either.

And Boromir was always bent-out-of-shape by the fact that his
father was not King, and scorned the very idea of usurping the
throne.

[David Johnston]

On 12/1/2011 5:46 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 1/12/11 7:54 AM, Kay Shapero wrote:
>> In article<9jnrg9...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@bigpond.com
>> says...
>>
>>>
>>> I know they left bits out, but even a single novel contains too much
>>> material for 3 films. I have to compare it with other book to film
>>> adaptations, some of which were totally incomprehensible to people who
>>> hadn't read the book - if there were bits like that in the films, I
>>> didn't notice them, and I certainly didn't miss Tom Bombadil.
>>>
>>> I know they put bits in, but surely we expected that - it was stated
>>> often enough in the newspapers while the films were being made - and I
>>> don't think it spoilt the story, even though there was too much Gollum
>>> for my taste - but just imagine what Hollywood would have done.
>>>
>>
>> I was mostly annoyed by a couple of character changes - Aragorn as
>> reluctant hero (not the guy who spent a normal human life just learning
>> the land, the people, and the job so he could BE a decent king)
>
> Interesting how people have different reactions. I still see him as
> being disguised as a sort of park ranger doing spying jobs for Gandalf
> or the Council.

Yeah, and in the movies I didn't see him as reluctant to be a hero.
Just reluctant to take a crown. And really, if he hadn't been reluctant
to take a crown in the books...he could have taken it long since past.
Being the rightful heir AND more popular with everyone (including the
current Steward) than Denethor? If he didn't become a King...it was
because he didn't want to be one until necessity drove him to it.

[Michael Ikeda]

Moriarty <blu...@ivillage.com> wrote in
news:889273b3-69d2-4e3c...@f35g2000yqm.googlegroups.
com:

I strongly suspect that the settlement to the estate's fairly
recent lawsuit against the movie company included some $$$$.