more musings .....

[chrishoelscher]

is there any evidence that Sauronwas aware of anyone who used the Ruling Ring without knowing what it was? be it Smeagol/Bilbo/Frodo - Galadriel was aware that Frodo had knowingly used the ring 3 times - but was that because she was wearing one of the three?

did the 16 have any other effect on mortals other than temporary invisibility (and eventual permanent wraithdom) for humans, and lust for gold for dwarves? would the nine have had any greater powers or less vulnerable had they been allowed to keep their rings after they became wraiths? or did the rings actually no longer serve any purpose being with them? even so (and I think this has been discussed before) - were the rings then remotely linked to the nine? could they have been redistributed to others with the intent of creating more wraiths? if there was in fact no differences in the 16 - the remaining 3<4?> previously given to dwarves and re-captured by Sauron could have been redistributed? a ring (other than the RulingRing) does not appear to be bonded with a wearer - the three were passed around - but perhaps this is not true for the 16?

thanks
Chris Hoelscher

[sean_q]

On 9/4/2012 6:21 AM, Raven wrote:

> I have not seen described how Sauron managed to take back the Nine. When
> in the presence of a Nazg�l he was powerful enough to take it, whether the
> Nazg�l liked it or not.

I prefer to believe "The Nine the Nazgul keep" literally.
He gave Great Rings of Power to kings who cherished power
and so ensnared them. Since Hobbits are akin to Men,
if the Dark Lord had given one of the Nine to Lotho Pimple
he would have aspired to more than mere Thane of the Shire,
he would probably have coveted all the long leagues
of Eriador to govern.

It's true there are some apparent contradictions, such as
Galadriel telling Frodo, "You saw the Eye of him that holds
the Seven and the Nine." And I can't explain why no Ring
was found on the field at Pelennor after Merry and Eowyn
offed Number One.

But in a way it doesn't really matter who actually has
physical possession; Sauron controls the Ringwraiths and
that's what counts.

SQ

[David Trimboli]

On 9/4/2012 5:14 PM, sean_q wrote:
> On 9/4/2012 6:21 AM, Raven wrote:
>
>> I have not seen described how Sauron managed to take back the Nine. When
>> in the presence of a Nazg�l he was powerful enough to take it, whether
>> the
>> Nazg�l liked it or not.
>
> I prefer to believe "The Nine the Nazgul keep" literally.
> He gave Great Rings of Power to kings who cherished power
> and so ensnared them.

I agree with Raven. We see evidence for this when Frodo threatens to put
on the Ring and command Gollum to kill himself. They both know Gollum
would be forced to obey. This is because Gollum is enslaved to the One
Ring, and its bearer may command its slaves.

If Gollum had attacked Sam while Sam had the Ring, Sam could have
commanded Gollum. However, I suspect that Sam hadn't had it long enough
to use it for command. Frodo had possessed it for years, and was deep in
its power. Sam barely scratched the surface.

So Sauron must command the Ringwraiths because he possesses the Nine. He
can't use those rings to create more Ringwraiths without losing control
over those he already has to whoever has the ring that Ringwraith is
subject to. And he can't command a wearer of one of the Nine without the
One.

So, the summary of my analysis. Wearing the One lets you command anyone
wearing another Ring. The Seven, Nine, and One eventually enslave their
wearers to themselves, and new wearers can command those slaves. In any
case you need sufficient stature and power to command anyone. Dwarves
seem to be immune to enslavement, though they experience other effects.

Pondering: are the Seven and the Nine interchangeable, or is a slave to
one of them only a slave to that particular ring? "Give us back our
ring! No, not that one, the other one!" Can someone wearing one of them
command someone enslaved to another ring? If Gandalf had gotten Thrain's
ring, could he have commanded the Ringwraiths with it? (I don't think
so; I think each ring has power over only its own wearers.)

--
David Trimboli
http://www.trimboli.name/

[Stan Brown]

On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 16:21:03 +0200, Raven wrote:
> Sauron let the Nazg�l keep their rings while he held the One. They
> became slaves to their rings, and those rings were bound to the Ruling Ring.
> When Sauron lost that, he no longer had any direct chokehold on the Nazg�l.
> So he took back the Nine.

Something has just struck me. *When* did Sauron take the Rings back
from the Nazg�l?

If it was after he took shape again in the Third Age, there's a big
problem: how did he get them to give up the Rings? At that point
they had Rings of Power and he had none. He might be terrifying, but
they were pretty terrifying themselves, and they were slaves to the
Rings, not to Sauron.[1] We can believe that Sauron could cow Frodo
into giving up the Ring right after he claimed it, but after Frodo
had 2000 years of practice in using it, he would have grown strong
enough to resist Sauron. The Nazg�l *did* have thousands of years of
practice. So I really do not see how Sauron-sans-Ring could extort
the Rings from the Nazg�l.

If it was before he lost the One at the end of the Second Age,
there's no difficulty about how he commanded them to yield their
Rings, but there *is* a difficulty about where the Rings were for the
1000-1100 years while Sauron was disembodied. One would think that
the Nazg�l, or even Orcs, would have found them and taken them during
that time.

[1] http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm#Q79-SauronHeld

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://mysite.verizon.net/aznirb/mtr/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm

[Stan Brown]

On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 16:21:03 +0200, Raven wrote:

> The Three were passed around. But they were not used to enslave the
> wielder.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Sauron's intent was to enslave
the Elves with the Three, as with the other Rings of Power, and if
they had worn them he would have done it. The difference is that the
Elves who were wearing them took them off the moment he put on the
One, and did not use or wear them as long as he had it.

"Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age" is pretty explicit:

"And while he wore the One Ring he could perceive all the things that
were done by means of the lesser rings, and he could see and govern
the very thoughts of those that wore them.

"But the Elves were not so lightly to be caught. As soon as Sauron
set the One Ring upon his finger they were aware of him; and they
knew him, and perceived that he would be master of them, and of all
that they wrought. Then in anger and fear they took off their rings."

[Stan Brown]

On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:14:16 -0800, sean_q wrote:
> I prefer to believe "The Nine the Nazgul keep" literally.

There are an awful lot of statements by Tolkien that go the other
way, unambiguously:

http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm#Q79-SauronHeld

[Stan Brown]

On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 18:22:34 -0400, David Trimboli wrote:
> So, the summary of my analysis. Wearing the One lets you command anyone
> wearing another Ring.

Eventually, yes. But remember the Letters, where Tolkien says that
if Gollum hadn't interfered and the Nazg�l had reached the Cracks of
Doom, they would have *pretended* to obey Frodo, lured him out of the
Sammath Naur, blocked the entrance, and waited for Sauron to come and
take the Ring from Frodo.

http://oakroadsystems.com//genl/ringfaq.htm#Q1-FrodoClaim

It takes practice to learn to use the One for command. You can't just
put it on, start issuing orders, and be mindlessly obeyed. Galadriel
told Frodo this: "Before you could use that power you would need to
... train your will to the domination of others."

[Stan Brown]

On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 16:37:35 +0200, Raven wrote:
> It may or may not be that the Three would have become
> personal chains to three elves (probably Celebrimbor and two others) if he
> had succeeded, as apparently the Nine were personal chains to the
> Ringwraiths.

I do not know how you can make such a statement, which goes directly
against what we are told in OtRoPatTA. I quoted it in the very
article that you responded to, so you can hardly be unaware of it.

[Stan Brown]

On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 16:51:51 +0200, Raven wrote:
> When
> he got hold of the Nine (and the Seven) from the M�rdain and twisted them
> further into instruments for his us

You really ought to read Tolkien's "Of the Rings of Power and the
Third Age".

[David Trimboli]

On 9/6/2012 6:47 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 18:22:34 -0400, David Trimboli wrote:
>> So, the summary of my analysis. Wearing the One lets you command anyone
>> wearing another Ring.
>
> Eventually, yes. But remember the Letters, where Tolkien says that
> if Gollum hadn't interfered and the Nazg�l had reached the Cracks of
> Doom, they would have *pretended* to obey Frodo, lured him out of the
> Sammath Naur, blocked the entrance, and waited for Sauron to come and
> take the Ring from Frodo.
>
> http://oakroadsystems.com//genl/ringfaq.htm#Q1-FrodoClaim
>
> It takes practice to learn to use the One for command. You can't just
> put it on, start issuing orders, and be mindlessly obeyed. Galadriel
> told Frodo this: "Before you could use that power you would need to
> ... train your will to the domination of others."

Yes, I mentioned all that in the bit you cut from my message. You only
quoted my summary.

[Jeff Urs]

"Matthew Woodcraft" <mat...@woodcraft.me.uk> wrote in message
news:87y5ko4...@golux.woodcraft.me.uk...
> But then wouldn't they have known straight away that Bilbo had found the
> One Ring?

You would think so, particularly since Bilbo actually wore it in
Gandalf's presence.

--
Jeff

[Stan Brown]

I think the real explanation is story external: Bilbo's ring was just
a little magic invisibility ring. It didn't become the One Ring
until Tolkien started work on his "sequel".

Story internally, it's harder. We can say that Bilbo had no idea of
what the ring was, except that he knew it gave invisibility. He had
no knowledge of its potential to command, and therefore had no
ability to try to use it for command. So the bearers of the Three
would not have been aware of Bilbo, as they were of Sauron, because
Bilbo's use of the Ring was essentially passive where Sauron's was
active.

But shouldn't Gandalf have seen Bilbo "on the other side" when Bilbo
approached the campsite east of the goblin tunnels? After all, Bilbo
should have been just as visible as Glorfindel. Well, maybe Gandalf
just wasn't looking in that direction, or had his entire mind on the
conversation with the Dwarves.

That's not entirely a convincing explanation, but it may be the best
we can do.

[Bill O'Meally]

On 2012-09-07 20:10:46 -0500, Stan Brown said:
>
> But shouldn't Gandalf have seen Bilbo "on the other side" when Bilbo
> approached the campsite east of the goblin tunnels? After all, Bilbo
> should have been just as visible as Glorfindel. Well, maybe Gandalf
> just wasn't looking in that direction, or had his entire mind on the
> conversation with the Dwarves.

The narrative tells us that Gandalf was as astonished as any of the
Dwarves when Bilbo appears to have slipped past Balin and appears
suddenly in their camp. However, the narrator is Bilbo himself. How
could he know what Gandalf actually did or did not see? Gandalf does
give Bibo a "queer look" upon his explanation as to how he escaped the
goblins and got past Balin as if he "guessed" at what Bilbo left out.
Story internally, at least consistent with LotR, perhaps he "saw" what
Bilbo left out.
--
Bill
"Wise Fool" -- Gandalf, _The Two Towers_
(The Wise will remove 'se' to reach me. The Foolish will not)

[tenworld]

On Thursday, September 6, 2012 3:05:54 PM UTC-7, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 16:37:35 +0200, Raven wrote:
>
> > It may or may not be that the Three would have become
>
> > personal chains to three elves (probably Celebrimbor and two others) if he
>
> > had succeeded, as apparently the Nine were personal chains to the
>
> > Ringwraiths.

Since both Elrond and Galadriel used the powers of the ring to protect their respective locations, It appears that a ring's power can be used without wearing it and transmitting its location. That may be where some the of confusion lies. And gandalf certainly used the power of his ring to inspire others, and maybe even fight the Nazgul at the great battle.

[Stan Brown]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:47:48 -0700 (PDT), tenworld wrote:
>
> Since both Elrond and Galadriel used the powers of the ring to protect their respective locations, It appears that a ring's power can be used without wearing it and transmitting its location. That may be where some the of confusion lies. And gandalf certainly used the power of his ring to inspire others, and maybe even fight the Nazgul at the great battle.

On what basis do you say "without wearing"? We know that Galadriel
was wearing her Ring because Frodo say her. And we know that Elrond
was wearing his because it was mentioned in OtRoPatTA.

They couldn't dare use or wear their Rings in the Second Age, while
Sauron had the One. But when the One was lost, they were free to
wear and use their Rings safely.

Please do something about your line lengths - thanks!

[Troels Forchhammer]

In message <news:MPG.2ab46520b...@news.individual.net>
Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> spoke these staves:

>
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 02:47:47 -0400, Jeff Urs wrote:
>>

[The Keepers of the Three sensing any use of the Master Ring]

>> particularly since Bilbo actually wore it in Gandalf's presence.
>
> I think the real explanation is story external: Bilbo's ring was
> just a little magic invisibility ring. It didn't become the One
> Ring until Tolkien started work on his "sequel".

There is little doubt that this explanation is quite correct.

Sometimes we ought, I think, accept that /The Hobbit/ and /The Lord
of the Rings/ (and even more so the stories of /The Silmarillion/
still, despite all of Tolkien's effort to correct that situation,
happen in different worlds -- in the world of /The Hobbit/, Gandalf
is a more ordinary type of (human) wizard (without any Ring of
Power), and Bilbo's Ring is merely an innocent ring of invisibility.

The idea presented in /The Lord of the Rings/ that these stories
actually happen in the same world is a pretence -- in many ways the
two are 'worlds apart'.

> Story internally, it's harder. We can say that Bilbo had no idea
> of what the ring was, except that he knew it gave invisibility.
> He had no knowledge of its potential to command, and therefore had
> no ability to try to use it for command. So the bearers of the
> Three would not have been aware of Bilbo, as they were of Sauron,
> because Bilbo's use of the Ring was essentially passive where
> Sauron's was active.

I'm sure we can device many intelligent, and even reasonably
consistent, models for explanation. Another option might be to look
at /intention/ -- what is a Ring of Domination other than a means for
transmitting your own intention forcefully? Perhaps the combination
of Sauron's personal power (which made the Master Ring so much more
powerful) and the force of his intention combined to transmit this
intention to the keepers of the Three, whereas Bilbo's and Frodo's
much smaller personal power (and much weaker will), with no intention
of dominating the three keepers made any incidental transmission of
intention so much weaker that Gandalf couldn't even pick it up at a
distance of mere feet . . .

Perhaps . . . :-)

I cannot but wonder if Tolkien wouldn't have solved the riddle in a
different way -- I am sorry that his test readers advised him to stop
his efforts to rewrite /The Hobbit/ in 1960 -- the result might not
have been /The Hobbit/ that they knew, but I think it is likely to
have become a better book, more in line with its sequel.

> But shouldn't Gandalf have seen Bilbo "on the other side" when
> Bilbo approached the campsite east of the goblin tunnels? After
> all, Bilbo should have been just as visible as Glorfindel.

Well, this much, at least, should be more explainable: if we accept
that the light is an expression of spiritual qualities (implied also
by the light in the face and eyes of the Noldor as they arrive fresh
from Valinor) that normally obscured by the visible body, then there
is no reason that Bilbo should have been particularly visible -- he
had, after all, never lived in the Blessed Realm and was definitely
not one of the might among the Firstborn :-) (even if do not accept
Rateliff's view of the 1960 Bilbo as something of a blundering fool).

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

In this case the cause (not the 'hero') was triumphant,
because by the exercise of pity, mercy, and forgiveness of
injury, a situation was produced in which all was redressed
and disaster averted.
- J.R.R. Tolkien, /The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien/ #192

[tenworld]

On Sep 11, 3:29 am, Stan Brown <the_stan_br...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:47:48 -0700 (PDT), tenworld wrote:
>
> > Since both Elrond and Galadriel used the powers of the ring to protect their respective locations, It appears that a ring's power can be used without wearing it and transmitting its location. That may be where some the of confusion lies.  And gandalf certainly used the power of his ring to inspire others, and maybe even fight the Nazgul at the great battle.
>
> On what basis do you say "without wearing"?  We know that Galadriel
> was wearing her Ring because Frodo say her.  And we know that Elrond
> was wearing his because it was mentioned in OtRoPatTA.
>
> They couldn't dare use or wear their Rings in the Second Age, while
> Sauron had the One.  But when the One was lost, they were free to
> wear and use their Rings safely.
>
> Please do something about your line lengths - thanks!
>

OK, that makes more sense.

As far as lengths I am using "NEW GOOGLE GROUPS" now,
maybe there is a default setting.

[Jeff Urs]

"tenworld" <t...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:af6b4b2c-a6c9-407d...@rg9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

> As far as lengths I am using "NEW GOOGLE GROUPS" now,
> maybe there is a default setting.

I don't believe so; it's just something you have to keep in mind (or
you could compose your replies in something that does wrap and copy
them to GG's posting form).

--
Jeff

[Stan Brown]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:14:21 -0700 (PDT), tenworld wrote:

> As far as lengths I am using "NEW GOOGLE GROUPS" now,
> maybe there is a default setting.

"It's a poor workman who blames his tools."

[tenworld]

On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 6:01:02 PM UTC-7, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:14:21 -0700 (PDT), tenworld wrote:
>
>
>
> > As far as lengths I am using "NEW GOOGLE GROUPS" now,
>
> > maybe there is a default setting.
>
>
>
> "It's a poor workman who blames his tools."

LOL

in the aerospace world we call it "learning curve".
Plus I was fishing hoping someone else is using
*NEW* Google Groups and would have advice.

[fred]

Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:

>
> I cannot but wonder if Tolkien wouldn't have solved the riddle in a
> different way -- I am sorry that his test readers advised him to stop
> his efforts to rewrite /The Hobbit/ in 1960 -- the result might not
> have been /The Hobbit/ that they knew, but I think it is likely to
> have become a better book, more in line with its sequel.
>

Isn't that why we are now getting three movies?

--

[Troels Forchhammer]

In message <news:1kqin6p.kt2nui10z8gowN@[192.168.0.33]>
fr...@fred.com (fred) spoke these staves:

I don't think that I'd say that that is the reason -- I very much
doubt that the film-makers are familiar with John Rateliff's /History
of the Hobbit/ or Tolkien's published letters (the internal evidence
from their /LotR/ trilogy at least suggests they are not), and I
don't know that I would think that they ought to be that.

I really couldn't say what is the reasoning behind the choice to make
three films based on the /The Hobbit/, with some extra stuff from the
/LotR/ appendices thrown in for good measure. I have seen many
speculations that I find very likely, though I think such a decision
is rather more complex and probably involves a number of both
rational and irrational reasons.

As for the overall tone of the film, I have long said that I thought
it likely that the /Hobbit/ films would be more mature in tone than
the book, and so match the /LotR/ film trilogy from the same people.
This, I think, has the ironic effect that the film-makers probably
will address (most likely inadvertently) some of the faults that
Tolkien himself came to see in his famous children's book. Whether
I'm correct, and if so, how this will work with the other changes
that they are surely making to the story of course remains to be
seen.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for they are
subtle and quick to anger.
- Gildor Inglorion, /The Lord of the Rings/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)

[John W Kennedy]

On 2012-09-16 10:39:05 +0000, Troels Forchhammer said:
> I really couldn't say what is the reasoning behind the choice to make
> three films based on the /The Hobbit/, with some extra stuff from the
> /LotR/ appendices thrown in for good measure.

I do not see why it needs to be more than that having Gandalf simply
disappear in the middle of the story and then appear again near the end
with only a few sentences' explanation is weak construction for a novel
and worse for a film. The book-as-it-is gets away with it /because/
it's only a children's book.

--
John W Kennedy
"Though a Rothschild you may be
In your own capacity,
As a Company you've come to utter sorrow--
But the Liquidators say,
'Never mind--you needn't pay,'
So you start another company to-morrow!"
-- Sir William S. Gilbert. "Utopia Limited"

[tenworld]

On Sunday, September 16, 2012 3:39:05 AM UTC-7, Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> In message <news:1kqin6p.kt2nui10z8gowN@[192.168.0.33]>

...

>
> > Isn't that why we are now getting three movies?
>
> I don't think that I'd say that that is the reason -- I very much
>
> doubt that the film-makers are familiar with John Rateliff's /History
>
> of the Hobbit/ or Tolkien's published letters (the internal evidence
>
> from their /LotR/ trilogy at least suggests they are not), and I
>
> don't know that I would think that they ought to be that.
>

I think there is a difference between wasnt aware and chose to
change the story (which is standard Hollywood MOO). I would bet they
read every Tolkien book if for no reason than to mine for ideas.

>
> I really couldn't say what is the reasoning behind the choice to make
>
> three films based on the /The Hobbit/

trilogies are greater than the sum of the parts at least where media
revenue comes into play. But there is a lot of material in the appendices
and I think they couldnt resist the chance to interpret it in this movie.

[Paul S. Person]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 11:43:56 -0400, John W Kennedy
<jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2012-09-16 10:39:05 +0000, Troels Forchhammer said:
>> I really couldn't say what is the reasoning behind the choice to make
>> three films based on the /The Hobbit/, with some extra stuff from the
>> /LotR/ appendices thrown in for good measure.
>
>I do not see why it needs to be more than that having Gandalf simply
>disappear in the middle of the story and then appear again near the end
>with only a few sentences' explanation is weak construction for a novel
>and worse for a film. The book-as-it-is gets away with it /because/
>it's only a children's book.

You do realize that the assertion that the extra material will be from
the appendices is the best case scenario, do you not?

Given PJ's track record, a lot of the additional material will have no
more to do with anything JRRT wrote than Aragorn's flashback scenes in
/TT/ did.

I mean, the mere fact that PJ's Aragorn has to be mollicoddled by
Arwen into doing /what he has already promised to do/ is enough to
show the difference between anything PJ comes up with and what JRRT
had in mind.

My criterion for a well-done book or movie is not whether every single
"i" is dotted and every single "t" is crossed but whether or not the
book is worth reading or the movie is worth seeing. So having Gandalf
vanish for the rather obvious plot purpose of allowing Bilbo to show
his stuff doesn't bother me at all.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."

[Troels Forchhammer]

In message
<news:ea763b3e-f96f-4c4f...@googlegroups.com>
tenworld <t...@world.std.com> spoke these staves:

>
> On Sunday, September 16, 2012 3:39:05 AM UTC-7, Troels Forchhammer
> wrote:
>>
>> I very much doubt that the film-makers are familiar with John
>> Rateliff's /History of the Hobbit/ or Tolkien's published
>> letters (the internal evidence from their /LotR/ trilogy at
>> least suggests they are not), and I don't know that I would
>> think that they ought to be that.
>
> I think there is a difference between wasnt aware and chose to
> change the story (which is standard Hollywood MOO). I would bet
> they read every Tolkien book if for no reason than to mine for
> ideas.

I have seen it claimed (unfortunately I can't remember when or where)
that Jackson did not picture Sauron during the War of the Ring as
embodied because he believed that this would contradict Tolkien's
intention. Such a belief is consistent with a not very attentive
reading of /The Lord of the Rings/ itself, but it becomes impossible
once you've read /The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien/ and other works.

Quite possibly I should have said that 'the internal evidence from
their /LotR/ trilogy combined with their published reasoning
regarding their decisions at least suggests that they are not'
[familiar with anything beyond the two books to which they have the
rights]. I have seen David Bratman say that Jackson's professed love
for Tolkien's /The Lord of the Rings/ is like a guy who consistently
buys his girlfriend presents that she loathe in the firm belief that
it is exactly what she wants: he may love her, but he certainly has
made no effort to get to know her. This is, I think, a very accurate
metaphor: Jackson (and his scripting team) does not love Tolkien's
story (which he has made no effort to get to know), but he loves his
own image of the story.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they
are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not
refer to reality.
- Albert Einstein

[Troels Forchhammer]

In message <news:5057453c$0$1219$607e...@cv.net>
John W Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net> spoke these staves:

>
> On 2012-09-16 10:39:05 +0000, Troels Forchhammer said:
>>
>> I really couldn't say what is the reasoning behind the choice to
>> make three films based on the /The Hobbit/, with some extra stuff
>> from the /LotR/ appendices thrown in for good measure.
>
> I do not see why it needs to be more than that having Gandalf
> simply disappear in the middle of the story and then appear again
> near the end with only a few sentences' explanation is weak
> construction for a novel and worse for a film. The book-as-it-is
> gets away with it /because/ it's only a children's book.

Sorry, I was being imprecise. I understand well the reasoning behind
the inclusion of related matter from the appendices of /The Lord of the
Rings/ (though I think that there is more to it than explaining
Gandalf's absence -- such could be achieved with less).

It was specifically the decision to do three rather than two films that
I wouldn't wish to guess the reasoning behind, though I think we'd be
doing the film-makers (as distinct from those who invest in the films)
a gross injustice if we claim that it is due to any single reason alone
(the investors, on the other hand, will be concerned with whether it
gives them a higher return on their investment, which is as it should
be).

Regarding Gandalf's disappearance, I find myself more agreeing with
Paul on that -- not only is it clear that Gandalf, from the story-
external point of view, has to disappear to allow Bilbo to shine, but
his disappearance has been foreshadowed from the beginning of the book,
and with greater urgency ever since they reach Wilderland, so it is
certainly an expected disappearance. Whether the explanation (that the
white wizards 'had at last driven the Necromancer from his dark hold in
the south of Mirkwood') is sufficient for the purpose is probably a
matter of taste -- at least I think it does sufficiently explain why
Gandalf did not beforehand divulge what his appointment was about.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

Truth in science can be defined as the working hypothesis
best suited to open the way to the next better one.
- Konrad Lorenz

[Stan Brown]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:12:46 +0200, Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> I have seen David Bratman say that Jackson's professed love
> for Tolkien's /The Lord of the Rings/ is like a guy who consistently
> buys his girlfriend presents that she loathe in the firm belief that
> it is exactly what she wants: he may love her, but he certainly has
> made no effort to get to know her. This is, I think, a very accurate
> metaphor: Jackson (and his scripting team) does not love Tolkien's
> story (which he has made no effort to get to know), but he loves his
> own image of the story.

Beautifully stated.

[John W Kennedy]

Of course. But the fact that any adult reader with a reasonably
developed critical faculty can see /why/ Gandalf has to depart does not
mean that it is handled in a way that is entirely satisfactory; it
remains a somewhat clumsy improvisation. (Shakespeare and Dante are
also guilty of doing the same, so I'm not picking on Tolkien in
particular. Even I -- si parva licet componere magnis -- have done so.)

--
John W Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"

[Paul S. Person]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:54:00 -0400, John W Kennedy
<jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:

<snippo>

>> Regarding Gandalf's disappearance, I find myself more agreeing with
>> Paul on that -- not only is it clear that Gandalf, from the story-
>> external point of view, has to disappear to allow Bilbo to shine, but
>> his disappearance has been foreshadowed from the beginning of the book,
>> and with greater urgency ever since they reach Wilderland, so it is
>> certainly an expected disappearance. Whether the explanation (that the
>> white wizards 'had at last driven the Necromancer from his dark hold in
>> the south of Mirkwood') is sufficient for the purpose is probably a
>> matter of taste -- at least I think it does sufficiently explain why
>> Gandalf did not beforehand divulge what his appointment was about.
>
>Of course. But the fact that any adult reader with a reasonably
>developed critical faculty can see /why/ Gandalf has to depart does not
>mean that it is handled in a way that is entirely satisfactory; it
>remains a somewhat clumsy improvisation. (Shakespeare and Dante are
>also guilty of doing the same, so I'm not picking on Tolkien in
>particular. Even I -- si parva licet componere magnis -- have done so.)

That is what "suspension of disbelief" is all about.

A successful writer (or director/actors/whoever in the case of a film)
causes the reader or viewer to suspend his or her disbelief and accept
the story as presented.

No matter how many holes it may have when considered logically. Or how
"unsatisfactorily" it may have been handled.

If JRRT failed to suspend your disbelief on this point in /TH/, that
may be a misfortune for you, but it works for me and, I suspect, for
quite a few others.

An excellent example, for me, is a film called /The Seventh Sign/.
When I first watched it, I started out appalled at the extremely small
scope of the effects of the scrolls (compared to their effects in
Revelations). By the end of the film I was totally convinced that I
was watching the end of the world very much as Revelations describes
it. Even though I clearly wasn't.

Logic, schmogic. This is art.

[Michael Cole]

on 20/09/2012, Paul S. Person supposed :

> An excellent example, for me, is a film called /The Seventh Sign/.
> When I first watched it, I started out appalled at the extremely small
> scope of the effects of the scrolls (compared to their effects in
> Revelations). By the end of the film I was totally convinced that I
> was watching the end of the world very much as Revelations describes
> it. Even though I clearly wasn't.

<pet peeve> Revelation. There is only one of them. No 's' on the end.
</pet peeve>

--
Michael Cole

[Clams Canino]

"Lewis" <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message

> We have to keep in mind that the entire Sauron story line and the
> actions of the White Council to explain Gandalf's absence was a retcon
> by Tolkien. When TH was written, it was nothing more than "mysterious
> wizard business" to add some pepper to the plot.

It's fun to note that the whole matter of TH moving into LOTR, as it relates
to the greater mythology, became for Tolkien a great case of "the tail
wagging the dog".
We know TH was not "supposed" to be a part of the greater mythology. Then he
borrowed a little bit, and then LOTR took it all full circle - requiring
rewrites in both TH and The Silmarillion to try to get it all "back in
line".
So yes, "retcon" reigned supreme in very general way. :)

What I find more fascinating, is now that he's commited to 3 films; Will
Jackson be tempted to cross the line and draw a bit from Unfinished Tales?
(Has Jackson even seen UT?)
As I recall there is a good amount of matter in there concerning the "Quest
For Eribor." as Gandalf relates the story to Frodo after the War of the
Ring. I'm particularly thinking of the metting in Bree, and some dialogue
between Gandalf and Thorin that would be telling if included. I believe
it's also that book (UT) that contains "The Search for the Ring" which has
bearing on the time between the two stories.

So... I for one will be watching to see if the films draw at all from any
other "outside" material. This assuming that Jackson has by now read any of
the outside material.

Sometimes it's better to ask forgiveness than permission..... :)

-W

[Mike Sullivan]

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 9:54:38 AM UTC-7, Clams Canino wrote:
> "Lewis" <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message
>
>
>
> > We have to keep in mind that the entire Sauron story line and the
>
> > actions of the White Council to explain Gandalf's absence was a retcon
>
> > by Tolkien. When TH was written, it was nothing more than "mysterious
>
> > wizard business" to add some pepper to the plot.
>
>
>
> It's fun to note that the whole matter of TH moving into LOTR, as it relates
>
> to the greater mythology, became for Tolkien a great case of "the tail
>
> wagging the dog".
>
> We know TH was not "supposed" to be a part of the greater mythology. Then he
>
> borrowed a little bit, and then LOTR took it all full circle - requiring
>
> rewrites in both TH and The Silmarillion to try to get it all "back in
>
> line".
>
> So yes, "retcon" reigned supreme in very general way. :)
>
>
>
> What I find more fascinating, is now that he's commited to 3 films; Will
>
> Jackson be tempted to cross the line and draw a bit from Unfinished Tales?
>
> (Has Jackson even seen UT?)
>
> As I recall there is a good amount of matter in there concerning the "Quest
>
> For Eribor." as Gandalf relates the story to Frodo after the War of the
>
> Ring. I'm particularly thinking of the metting in Bree, and some dialogue
>
> between Gandalf and Thorin that would be telling if included. I believe
>
> it's also that book (UT) that contains "The Search for the Ring" which has
>
> bearing on the time between the two stories.

Given the history of what Jackson inserted into the LOTR films, it's more likely he'll be borrowing from Star Wars or Hunger Games than from UT.

[Paul S. Person]

I agree. The "s" should be regarded as a very minor typo.

Maybe I've seen /The Apostle/ once too often ... or been influenced by
something else.

[Julian Bradfield]

On 2012-09-20, Clams Canino <cc-m...@earthdink.net> wrote:
> So... I for one will be watching to see if the films draw at all from any
> other "outside" material. This assuming that Jackson has by now read any of
> the outside material.
>
> Sometimes it's better to ask forgiveness than permission..... :)

I don't think the Estate has a Christian view of the virtues of
forgiveness. It's rather Old Testament.

They do give permission in a reasonable cause. For the LotR musical, I
wanted to use Elvish drawn from outside LotR to create the bits of
Elvish dialogues and lyrics, and we got permission for that.
But somehow I doubt that Jackson is ever going to get any permissions
at all from the Estate.

[Clams Canino]

"Julian Bradfield" <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnk5mrq...@coffee.inf.ed.ac.uk...

>
> I don't think the Estate has a Christian view of the virtues of
> forgiveness. It's rather Old Testament.
>
> They do give permission in a reasonable cause. For the LotR musical, I
> wanted to use Elvish drawn from outside LotR to create the bits of
> Elvish dialogues and lyrics, and we got permission for that.
> But somehow I doubt that Jackson is ever going to get any permissions
> at all from the Estate.

I very much tend to agree regarding "permissions".
One of the thinkgs I plan to look for is "added material" that resembles UT
material in "Guest for Erebor" or "Hunt for the Ring". I'm sure the Estate
will be looking as well. :)

-W

[Clams Canino]

"Clams Canino" <cc-m...@earthdink.net> wrote in message

"Guest for Erebor"

er... Quest.... Erebor.. <sigh>

-W

[de...@pointerstop.ca]

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:17:00 PM UTC-3, Michael Cole wrote:
> on 20/09/2012, Paul S. Person supposed :
>

> > When I first watched it, I started out appalled at the extremely small
> > scope of the effects of the scrolls (compared to their effects in
> > Revelations).
>

> <pet peeve> Revelation. There is only one of them. No 's' on the end.
> </pet peeve>

That's not only pedantic, but wrong. There is no /Revelation/. There is /The Revelation of St. John the Divine/, colloquially known as /Revelations/.

[Clams Canino]

<de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:d76a2458-b9a7-46e1...@googlegroups.com...

"The Book of the Revalation...." is another way it's put.

But yes... colloquially, if expressed as a "one word thing", it's usually
said "Revalations".

As in: "You'll find that passage you seek in Revalations."

-W

[Michael Cole]

No. What we have is a book with no title, generally referred to by the
first word of that book, being "apokalypsis", which translates as
"unveiling" or "revelation". We have no official title, thus /The
Revelation of St. John the Divine/ is a colloquialism. And
/Revelations/ *is* wrong, no matter how often it is used.

--
Michael Cole

[Steve Hayes]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:12:28 -0700, Paul S. Person
<pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:16:35 +1000, Michael Cole
><inv...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>>on 20/09/2012, Paul S. Person supposed :
>>
>>> An excellent example, for me, is a film called /The Seventh Sign/.
>>> When I first watched it, I started out appalled at the extremely small
>>> scope of the effects of the scrolls (compared to their effects in
>>> Revelations). By the end of the film I was totally convinced that I
>>> was watching the end of the world very much as Revelations describes
>>> it. Even though I clearly wasn't.
>>
>><pet peeve> Revelation. There is only one of them. No 's' on the end.
>></pet peeve>
>
>I agree. The "s" should be regarded as a very minor typo.

Revelations are what one used to read in the News of the World, before it
closed down, as the vicar said to the barmaid.


--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/LITMAIN.HTM
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius

[Steve Hayes]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:12:28 -0700, Paul S. Person
<pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:16:35 +1000, Michael Cole
><inv...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>>on 20/09/2012, Paul S. Person supposed :
>>
>>> An excellent example, for me, is a film called /The Seventh Sign/.
>>> When I first watched it, I started out appalled at the extremely small
>>> scope of the effects of the scrolls (compared to their effects in
>>> Revelations). By the end of the film I was totally convinced that I
>>> was watching the end of the world very much as Revelations describes
>>> it. Even though I clearly wasn't.
>>
>><pet peeve> Revelation. There is only one of them. No 's' on the end.
>></pet peeve>
>
>I agree. The "s" should be regarded as a very minor typo.

[Michael Cole]

Lewis formulated on Friday :
> In message <k3gcec$o72$1...@dont-email.me>

> Since it has no title, I can't see how you can say the title people use
> to refer to it is in any way wrong.

Well yes, you could refer to it as "John's Excellent Adventure", but
then no one would know what you are referring to, so it would be a bit
silly. As such, we would generally use the common reference for the
book as its title.

> Who says it is wrong?

Every one who has translated and printed it. Find me a copy of a Bible
that titles the book, "Revelations"

--
Michael Cole

[Julian Bradfield]

On 2012-09-21, Michael Cole <inv...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> Who says it is wrong?
> Every one who has translated and printed it. Find me a copy of a Bible
> that titles the book, "Revelations"

Not being a Bibliophile, I can't do that; but I can show that people
have been calling it [the Book of] Revelations for more than half a
millennium, by the simple expedient of looking in the OED.
Such people include well known divines like Robert Wilberforce, and the
translator into English of Swedenborg's exegesis (translation
published 1812), and many other writers.

To quote the OED,
c. In pl. in sense 2a, now regarded as informal and by some as
incorrect.

[de...@pointerstop.ca]

On Friday, September 21, 2012 5:08:40 AM UTC-3, Michael Cole wrote:
> Lewis formulated on Friday :

>
> > Since it has no title, I can't see how you can say the title people use
> > to refer to it is in any way wrong.
>
> Well yes, you could refer to it as "John's Excellent Adventure", but
> then no one would know what you are referring to, so it would be a bit
> silly. As such, we would generally use the common reference for the
> book as its title.

That "common reference" clearly being /Revelations/.

>
> > Who says it is wrong?
>
> Every one who has translated and printed it. Find me a copy of a Bible
> that titles the book, "Revelations"

Find me a copy of a bible that titles it "Revelation". You can't have it both ways: either, as you have said, it has no title, in which case the common usage is as good as any, and /Revelations/ it is, or it has a title, and that title is NOT /Revelation/.

I'm at least as pedantic as the next guy, but to insist on one incorrect usage over another is too far for me.

[de...@pointerstop.ca]

On Thursday, September 13, 2012 12:28:52 PM UTC-3, tenworld wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 6:01:02 PM UTC-7, Stan Brown wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:14:21 -0700 (PDT), tenworld wrote:
>
> > > As far as lengths I am using "NEW GOOGLE GROUPS" now,
> > > maybe there is a default setting.
>
> > "It's a poor workman who blames his tools."
>
>
> in the aerospace world we call it "learning curve".
> Plus I was fishing hoping someone else is using
> *NEW* Google Groups and would have advice.

Sure. It's as good a "tool" as any other, if you're prepared to edit out all the excess lines. Every other such tool has its own quirks and annoyances.

Stan's just being mean, because it's not the workman who's blaming his tools - it's Stan, David, and all the rest of the Google haters. I've been through this whole Usenet reader war too many times to care. 15 years ago, everybody was railing against Outlook Express, which was still just as good as the others, and I've yet to find a newsreader (other than me) that can trim.

[Paul S. Person]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 12:54:27 -0400, "Clams Canino"
<cc-m...@earthdink.net> wrote:

>What I find more fascinating, is now that he's commited to 3 films; Will
>Jackson be tempted to cross the line and draw a bit from Unfinished Tales?
>(Has Jackson even seen UT?)
>As I recall there is a good amount of matter in there concerning the "Quest
>For Eribor." as Gandalf relates the story to Frodo after the War of the
>Ring. I'm particularly thinking of the metting in Bree, and some dialogue
>between Gandalf and Thorin that would be telling if included. I believe
>it's also that book (UT) that contains "The Search for the Ring" which has
>bearing on the time between the two stories.
>
>So... I for one will be watching to see if the films draw at all from any
>other "outside" material. This assuming that Jackson has by now read any of
>the outside material.

Better see the film as soon as possible, then, because the Estate will
most like sue to stop it being distributed as soon as they realize
that he did this.

Well, if he did this. He may not have. He (or his writing team) may,
indeed have read /UT/, but only to ensure that what they were doing
was different enough from it to avoid any appearance of infringement.

[Paul S. Person]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 06:57:34 -0700 (PDT), de...@pointerstop.ca wrote:

>Find me a copy of a bible that titles it "Revelation". You can't have it both ways: either, as you have said, it has no title, in which case the common usage is as good as any, and /Revelations/ it is, or it has a title, and that title is NOT /Revelation/.

In my collection, I have these titles:

'Apok�lupsis 'Iw�nnou (this is, of course, a transcription: the actual
title is written with Greek letters)
in The Greek New Testament

Revelation
in The Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha (RSV)
in Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments and the
Apocrypha (KJV)

The Revelation of John
in The New English Bible with Apocrypha (NEB)

The Revelation of St. John the Divine

in The Interpreter's Bible Volume XII

None of them are plural, and I think there is enough variety to
suggest that the actual title of the book is usually singular.

My suspicion is that the title used depends on the style of edition
consulted: some prefer short titles, some longer titles. The more
elaborate titles, such as "The Revelation of St. John the Divine",
strike me as being of greater antiquity than the shorter ones, but
that may be because the older editions of the KJV often have extremely
long titles (as was, it appears, common way back then -- apparently,
the title page was used to advertise the book) so I expect the names
of the books to also be in their more extended forms. The
Interpreter's Bible is a set of commentaries that reproduces the text
of either the KJV or the RSV (I don't recall which) but may have felt
it appropriate, given the massive size of the set, to use the older,
longer, more impressive titles. Or it may just have used the text from
an older KJV edition that used those titles.

[Troels Forchhammer]

In message <news:slrnk5mrq...@coffee.inf.ed.ac.uk>
Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> spoke these staves:

>
> On 2012-09-20, Clams Canino <cc-m...@earthdink.net> wrote:
>>
>> So... I for one will be watching to see if the films draw at all
>> from any other "outside" material. This assuming that Jackson has
>> by now read any of the outside material.
>>
>> Sometimes it's better to ask forgiveness than permission.....
>> :)
>
> I don't think the Estate has a Christian view of the virtues of
> forgiveness. It's rather Old Testament.

Someone said (was that here? . . . I can't rembember now) that it might
present something of a problem to actually prove that anything is
lifted from any outside material (short of their actually quoting it).

However, the film-makers certainly would have known this already for
the /LotR/ films, so if they had wanted to include some of this
material, they could certainly have done so with little or no
consequence -- such as imagery from 'The Disaster at the Gladden
Fields' or the simple fact from /Letters/ that Sauron, in the Third
Age, took the shape 'of a man of more than human stature, but not
gigantic.' The fact that they didn't do any of this for the /LotR/
films (despite the latter actually being evident from the book itself
to an attentive reader) rather suggests that it is unlikely that they
will use any outside material (or even an attentive reading of the
inside material, I'm afraid).

> They do give permission in a reasonable cause. For the LotR
> musical, I wanted to use Elvish drawn from outside LotR to create
> the bits of Elvish dialogues and lyrics, and we got permission for
> that.

And the scholar with the story about the Mary Fairburn pictures was
given permission to quote from Tolkien's letters to Mary Fairburn and
to his secretary about Mary Fairburn.

> But somehow I doubt that Jackson is ever going to get any
> permissions at all from the Estate.

I doubt that very much too :) I know that there are cases where the
reason for turning down or stopping a project isn't immediately obvious
-- the /Wheelbarrows at Dawn/ book about Hilary Tolkien comes to mine
-- but overall I think the Estate's decisions seem reasonable (yes,
they are rather protective of J.R.R. Tolkien's reputation, but I do
find that reasonable).

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

People are self-centered
to a nauseous degree.
They will keep on about themselves
while I'm explaining me.
- Piet Hein, /The Egocentrics/

[John W Kennedy]

On 2012-09-21 01:43:00 +0000, Lewis said:

> In message <k3gcec$o72$1...@dont-email.me>
> Michael Cole <inv...@microsoft.com> wrote:

> Since it has no title, I can't see how you can say the title people use

> to refer to it is in any way wrong. Who says it is wrong?

Titles are a modern invention, anyway -- but that doesn't mean that the
Iliad ought to be referred to as "Tootsy-Frootsy". Still, one way or
the other, the war between "Revelation" and "Revelations" long ago
sailed past the point of usefulness.

--
John W Kennedy
"Sweet, was Christ crucified to create this chat?"

[Troels Forchhammer]

In message <news:slrnk5h6aa....@mbp55.local>
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> spoke these staves:
>
> In message <XnsA0D26079...@130.133.4.11>
> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>>

[The decision to make three /Hobbit/ films rather than two]

> I think we've covered the likely reasons behind this decision in
> the newsgroup pretty well.

I quite agree :-)

-- ultimately I think it's quite likely a mix of most of the guesses
that have been put forth.

>> Regarding Gandalf's disappearance,
[...]

>
> We have to keep in mind that the entire Sauron story line and the
> actions of the White Council to explain Gandalf's absence was a
> retcon by Tolkien. When TH was written, it was nothing more than
> "mysterious wizard business" to add some pepper to the plot.

That's not entirely correct. Gandalf's return to the story was foreseen
quite early (mentioned in plot notes B before writing about the capture
by the Wood-elves, and again in more detail in plot notes C). Tolkien
mentions the need to explain Gandalf's disappearance already before
writing about his return (in plot notes D, having just written the
story of Smaug's death and before writing about the descent of Bilbo
and the Dwarves to the empty lair -- the order of those chapters being
reversed in the published version).

The wizard's absence was of course planned from the start, but the
reason for it wasn't really important. In the beginning the wizard
seems to be some sort of organizer of expeditions, but once he was
destined to return, his absence needed to be explained, and Tolkien saw
that. Like so much else, it started as merely a question -- what had
Gandalf been doing, and only when actually writing that last bit did
Tolkien finally put an answer in writing -- driving out the Necromancer
from his hold in the southern part of Mirkwood (and the Necromancer
was, from his first appearance in /The Hobbit/, based on the Sauron
character, at that time called Thû).

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong.
- Wolfgang Pauli, on a paper submitted by a physicist colleague
(Thus speaks the quantum physicist)

[Stan Brown]

In other words, a lot of people make the mistake. It is a mistake,
nonetheless. The word "Revelation" occurs in the title of the book,
and "Revelations" does not. Therefore "Revelation" is a logical
short form, and "Revelations" is not.

You might as well abbreviate "The Lord of the Rings" as "Lords".



--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://mysite.verizon.net/aznirb/mtr/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm

[Stan Brown]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 06:57:34 -0700 (PDT), de...@pointerstop.ca wrote:

> On Friday, September 21, 2012 5:08:40 AM UTC-3, Michael Cole wrote:

> > [quoted text muted]

> > Well yes, you could refer to it as "John's Excellent Adventure", but
> > then no one would know what you are referring to, so it would be a bit
> > silly. As such, we would generally use the common reference for the
> > book as its title.
>
> That "common reference" clearly being /Revelations/.

> > [quoted text muted]

> > > Who says it is wrong?
> >
> > Every one who has translated and printed it. Find me a copy of a Bible
> > that titles the book, "Revelations"
>
> Find me a copy of a bible that titles it "Revelation".

That's a straw man, and I venture to say that you know it is.

The title of the book, in every Bible I've seen, contains the word
"Revelation", not "Revelations".

[John W Kennedy]

On 2012-09-21 23:39:34 +0000, Stan Brown said:

> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 20:28:07 -0400, Clams Canino wrote:
>>
>> <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
>> news:d76a2458-b9a7-46e1...@googlegroups.com...
>>> On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:17:00 PM UTC-3, Michael Cole wrote:
>>>> on 20/09/2012, Paul S. Person supposed :
>>>>
>>>>> When I first watched it, I started out appalled at the extremely small
>>>>> scope of the effects of the scrolls (compared to their effects in
>>>>> Revelations).
>>>>
>>>> <pet peeve> Revelation. There is only one of them. No 's' on the end.
>>>> </pet peeve>
>>>
>>> That's not only pedantic, but wrong. There is no /Revelation/. There is
>>> /The Revelation of St. John the Divine/, colloquially known as
>>> /Revelations/.
>>
>> "The Book of the Revalation...." is another way it's put.
>>
>> But yes... colloquially, if expressed as a "one word thing", it's usually
>> said "Revalations".
>
> In other words, a lot of people make the mistake. It is a mistake,
> nonetheless. The word "Revelation" occurs in the title of the book,
> and "Revelations" does not. Therefore "Revelation" is a logical
> short form, and "Revelations" is not.
>
> You might as well abbreviate "The Lord of the Rings" as "Lords".

Actually, the /content/ would appear to be a number of distinct revelations.

--
John W Kennedy
Having switched to a Mac in disgust at Microsoft's combination of
incompetence and criminality.

[Clams Canino]

"Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MPG.2ac6c4c18...@news.individual.net...

> In other words, a lot of people make the mistake. It is a mistake,
> nonetheless. The word "Revelation" occurs in the title of the book,
> and "Revelations" does not. Therefore "Revelation" is a logical
> short form, and "Revelations" is not.
>
> You might as well abbreviate "The Lord of the Rings" as "Lords".

We refer to it often as "LOTR".

This subthread is merely pedantic and distracting.

-W

[Julian Bradfield]

On 2012-09-21, Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> In other words, a lot of people make the mistake. It is a mistake,
> nonetheless. The word "Revelation" occurs in the title of the book,
> and "Revelations" does not. Therefore "Revelation" is a logical
> short form, and "Revelations" is not.
>
> You might as well abbreviate "The Lord of the Rings" as "Lords".

Except that there is no real difference between one revelation
with many details, and many revelations, whereas multiple lords are
importantly different from one.
Similarly, people talk about "Benedict's rules", although the official
(translated) title is "the Rule of St Benedict". We now think of rules
as small things, rather than a collection of precepts, so in modern
English the title is odd; similarly, "the Revelation of St John" is
odd for something that contains a whols series of visions.
(And, you might say, the title now used is pretty odd anyway, given
that the book starts "Apocalypsis Iesu Christi"!)

[Michael Cole]

It happens that de...@pointerstop.ca formulated :

>
> Find me a copy of a bible that titles it "Revelation". You can't have it both
> ways: either, as you have said, it has no title, in which case the common
> usage is as good as any, and /Revelations/ it is, or it has a title, and that
> title is NOT /Revelation/.

Yes, this has gone way to far, but to answer your question, King James
and the NIV both do.

--
Michael Cole

[John W Kennedy]

Actually, the King James Bible has "THE REVELATION of S.Iohn the Diuine."

--
John W Kennedy
"...if you had to fall in love with someone who was evil, I can see why
it was her."
-- "Alias"

[Paul S. Person]

On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 11:15:41 -0400, John W Kennedy
<jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2012-09-22 07:14:55 +0000, Michael Cole said:
>
>> It happens that de...@pointerstop.ca formulated :
>>
>>>
>>> Find me a copy of a bible that titles it "Revelation". You can't have
>>> it both ways: either, as you have said, it has no title, in which case
>>> the common usage is as good as any, and /Revelations/ it is, or it has
>>> a title, and that title is NOT /Revelation/.
>>
>> Yes, this has gone way to far, but to answer your question, King James
>> and the NIV both do.
>
>Actually, the King James Bible has "THE REVELATION of S.Iohn the Diuine."

The edition you have does so, I have no doubt.

If the Interpreter's Bible uses the KJV, then it does also -- well,
almost: it's given as "The Revelation of St. John the Divine". But
yours could be an older spelling, one still influenced by the Latin
("S." for "St.", I for "J", u for "v").

If the topic were music, I could say that I have several classical
recordings with "S." for "Saint" and "SS." for "Saints" in the title,
mostly parts of the Roman Catholic liturgy by Italian composers in (of
course) Latin.

On the other, the edition of the KJV I still have on my shelves has
just "Revelation". It also has "The Translators to the Reader",
including the interesting section "Reasons moving us to set diversity
of senses in the margin, where there is a great probability for each"
(together with a footnote stating that these alternative readings were
omitted in this edition), and includes the Apocrypha between the Old
and New Testaments. I don't know how old it is; my inadequate
knowledge of my family history would suggest the 19th century. There
are no dates; even the copyright notices on the maps at the end have
no dates. Modern editions, of course, generally omit the Apocrypha --
and "The Translators to the Reader".

So it all depends on the edition, and on who printed it, when it was
printed, and for whom it was printed (there was at least one Baptist
edition that put "(immersed)" after each occurrence of "baptized" and
"(immersion)" after every occurrence of "baptism", or so I have heard
or read). The KJV has undergone a lot of editing over the years.

[de...@pointerstop.ca]

On Friday, September 21, 2012 8:41:16 PM UTC-3, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 06:57:34 -0700 (PDT), de...@pointerstop.ca wrote:
>
> > On Friday, September 21, 2012 5:08:40 AM UTC-3, Michael Cole wrote:
>
> > > Well yes, you could refer to it as "John's Excellent Adventure", but
> > > then no one would know what you are referring to, so it would be a bit
> > > silly. As such, we would generally use the common reference for the
> > > book as its title.
>
> > That "common reference" clearly being /Revelations/.

> > > > Who says it is wrong?

> > > Every one who has translated and printed it. Find me a copy of a Bible
> > > that titles the book, "Revelations"
>
> > Find me a copy of a bible that titles it "Revelation".
>
> That's a straw man, and I venture to say that you know it is.

And that's completely insulting, and I _know_ you know it is. Cole has argued that it has no title, and yet insists it's correctly called "Revelation". He has no factual, or even logical basis for this. I fully accept that it is never formally known as "Revelations", but it is not formally known as "Revelation", either, so the colloquial and common usage of "Revelations" is _at least_ as reasonable as "Revelation". No straw man.

[de...@pointerstop.ca]

So now you simply resort to lies? That's not the title in the KJV.

[Stan Brown]

Giving someone the lie is a pretty serious matter, especially when
he's not lying but correct.

If you're going to sling accusations, you might want to get the facts
first to spare yourself embarrassment, and the need you now have to
make an abject apology.

I don't have an NIV, but the title in the King James is indubitably
"The Revelation of St. John the Divine". In the New English Bible
it's simply "The Revelation of John".

I don't know why you have such an overblown emotional investment in
defending the indefensible. A grownup would just say "Sorry, I had
it wrong. Thanks for the correction" and move on.

[John W Kennedy]

On 2012-09-22 17:53:47 +0000, Paul S. Person said:

> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 11:15:41 -0400, John W Kennedy
> <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-09-22 07:14:55 +0000, Michael Cole said:
>>
>>> It happens that de...@pointerstop.ca formulated :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Find me a copy of a bible that titles it "Revelation". You can't have
>>>> it both ways: either, as you have said, it has no title, in which case
>>>> the common usage is as good as any, and /Revelations/ it is, or it has
>>>> a title, and that title is NOT /Revelation/.
>>>
>>> Yes, this has gone way to far, but to answer your question, King James
>>> and the NIV both do.
>>
>> Actually, the King James Bible has "THE REVELATION of S.Iohn the Diuine."
>
> The edition you have does so, I have no doubt.

I can't afford to have a 1611 first edition, but it's not hard to find
scans on the Internet.

--
John W Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."

[John W Kennedy]

On 2012-09-23 13:10:37 +0000, Stan Brown said:

> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 16:21:17 -0700 (PDT), de...@pointerstop.ca wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday, September 22, 2012 4:14:56 AM UTC-3, Michael Cole wrote:
>>> It happens that de...@pointerstop.ca formulated :
>>>
>>>> Find me a copy of a bible that titles it "Revelation". You can't have it both
>>>> ways: either, as you have said, it has no title, in which case the common
>>>> usage is as good as any, and /Revelations/ it is, or it has a title, and that
>>>> title is NOT /Revelation/.
>>>
>>> Yes, this has gone way to far, but to answer your question, King James
>>> and the NIV both do.
>>
>> So now you simply resort to lies? That's not the title in the KJV.
>
> Giving someone the lie is a pretty serious matter, especially when
> he's not lying but correct.

No, it is not correct, in fact. An edition that titles the last book of
the NT "THE REVELATION of S.Iohn the Diuine." self-evidently does not
title it "Revelation".

But I repeat what I have said before: the entire notion of a set title,
integrally part of the work-as-a-whole (and normally of auctorial
origin) is a modern one, and it is wildly, hilariously anachronistic
when applied to a work of the 1st century. You might as well believe
that Homer put a copyright statement on the verso of his half-titles.

--
John W Kennedy
"Give up vows and dogmas, and fixed things, and you may grow like That.
...you may come to think a blow bad, because it hurts, and not because
it humiliates. You may come to think murder wrong, because it is
violent, and not because it is unjust."
-- G. K. Chesterton. "The Ball and the Cross"

[JJ]

On Friday, September 21, 2012 10:53:46 PM UTC+1, Troels Forchhammer wrote:
I know that there are cases where the reason for turning down or stopping a project isn't immediately obvious -- the /Wheelbarrows at Dawn/ book about Hilary Tolkien comes to mind -- but overall I think the Estate's decisions seem reasonable (yes, they are rather protective of J.R.R. Tolkien's reputation, but I do find that reasonable).

The reason for stopping 'Wheelbarrows at Dawn' was that the Tolkien Estate claimed that some of the material quoted was their copyright. It probably wasn't, but the publisher couldn't afford to take the Estate to court to test it. It doesn't seem 'reasonable' to me, from what I know. (One of the co-authors of WaD is my nephew).

[Paul S. Person]

On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 16:21:17 -0700 (PDT), de...@pointerstop.ca wrote:

The edition I have does so.

I also have an RSV that does so.

That is to say, in both cases, the title is "Revelation". No articles,
no St Johns, no prepositions, no Divines.

But I don't have a single Bible that uses "Revelations" in a title,
however extended that title may be. No, not one.

[Paul S. Person]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 10:28:05 -0400, John W Kennedy
<jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2012-09-23 13:10:37 +0000, Stan Brown said:
>
>> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 16:21:17 -0700 (PDT), de...@pointerstop.ca wrote:
>>>
>>> On Saturday, September 22, 2012 4:14:56 AM UTC-3, Michael Cole wrote:
>>>> It happens that de...@pointerstop.ca formulated :
>>>>
>>>>> Find me a copy of a bible that titles it "Revelation". You can't have it both
>>>>> ways: either, as you have said, it has no title, in which case the common
>>>>> usage is as good as any, and /Revelations/ it is, or it has a title, and that
>>>>> title is NOT /Revelation/.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, this has gone way to far, but to answer your question, King James
>>>> and the NIV both do.
>>>
>>> So now you simply resort to lies? That's not the title in the KJV.
>>
>> Giving someone the lie is a pretty serious matter, especially when
>> he's not lying but correct.
>
>No, it is not correct, in fact. An edition that titles the last book of
>the NT "THE REVELATION of S.Iohn the Diuine." self-evidently does not
>title it "Revelation".

I suggest that, since the discussion is about "Revelation" vs
"Revelations", the title "THE REVELATION of S.Iohn the Diuine."
(apparently including the period?) supports the assertion that
"Revelation" is used, not "Revelations".

>But I repeat what I have said before: the entire notion of a set title,
>integrally part of the work-as-a-whole (and normally of auctorial
>origin) is a modern one, and it is wildly, hilariously anachronistic
>when applied to a work of the 1st century. You might as well believe
>that Homer put a copyright statement on the verso of his half-titles.

Not to mention the multiple subsequent editions, each done to the
taste of the contemporary audience. And apparently at some point the
spelling, if not the language, got updated as well (several centuries
ago, IIRC).

There is a reason that the alternate readings, originally present,
were dropped out. And the initial section explaining how it was done,
and defending it against critics, rather reminiscent of the pamphlets
attacking (for of course the essay must state what the critics were
claiming in order ro refute it) and defending the RSV when it came
out. The alternate readings in the RSV were, of course, a particular
point of controversy. Leaving only the Dedicatory Epistle.

[Steve Hayes]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 10:11:51 -0700, Paul S. Person
<pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 10:28:05 -0400, John W Kennedy
><jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>No, it is not correct, in fact. An edition that titles the last book of
>>the NT "THE REVELATION of S.Iohn the Diuine." self-evidently does not
>>title it "Revelation".
>
>I suggest that, since the discussion is about "Revelation" vs
>"Revelations", the title "THE REVELATION of S.Iohn the Diuine."
>(apparently including the period?) supports the assertion that
>"Revelation" is used, not "Revelations".

I have a copy of the RSV to hand, and it uses the title "The Revelation to
John", and at the top of each page for the rest of the book it has the heading
"Revelation XX" (where XX indicates the chapter number.

But a similar peculiarity is found with the book of Psalms, of which there are
150 or 151, depending on who's counting.

Now I would say I'm reading "Psalm 53", but there are some people who say that
they are reading "Psalms 53".

I might say I am reading "Psalm 53 verse 5", but those other people woudl say
that they are reading "Psalms 53 verses 5". And for all I know they read
"chapters 5" or some other books.

I'm not in the habit of pluralising singulars, but clearly some people are.

Perhaps it's a denominational thing.




--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/LITMAIN.HTM
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius

[Troels Forchhammer]

In message
<news:8f7b27cc-bb60-473d...@googlegroups.com>
JJ <jo...@jones5011.fsnet.co.uk> spoke these staves:

>
> On Friday, September 21, 2012 10:53:46 PM UTC+1, Troels
> Forchhammer wrote:
>>
>> I know that there are cases where the reason for turning down
>> or stopping a project isn't immediately obvious -- the
>> /Wheelbarrows at Dawn/ book about Hilary Tolkien comes to mind
>> -- but overall I think the Estate's decisions seem reasonable
>> (yes, they are rather protective of J.R.R. Tolkien's
>> reputation, but I do find that reasonable).
>
> The reason for stopping 'Wheelbarrows at Dawn' was that the
> Tolkien Estate claimed that some of the material quoted was
> their copyright.

My understanding is that anything written by J.R.R. Tolkien is
copyright of the Tolkien Estate -- this would include anything written
in letters to his brother Hilary, even if the letter itself would be
the property of Hilary and his heirs (I am less certain about images of
said letters, but any transcription of the text would certainly be the
copyright of the Tolkien Estate).

If these letters have not been previously published, there can, I
believe, not be any question of fair use, but I am far less certain
about this.

Finally I have no idea what the situation might be with regards to
paraphrasing from unpublished letters -- in such a case I imagine it
might even depend on how much paraphrasing was used, and how close the
paraphrasing would be to the original.

It is also my understanding that more and more copyright holders find
themselves compelled to protect their copyright far more aggressively
than earlier because they fear that they may otherwise forfeit parts of
it (is this another example of European legal practices being
influenced by American law?)

> It probably wasn't, but the publisher couldn't afford to take
> the Estate to court to test it.

I would have hoped that there were other solutions available than a
court battle, though perhaps it would be better to have some legal
decisions regarding the limits of copyright (the question might also be
whether the publisher would wish to alienate the Estate in that way --
it might affect their chances of cooperating with the Estate on future
publications).

> It doesn't seem 'reasonable' to me, from what I know. (One of the
> co-authors of WaD is my nephew).

Well, fortunately I did stipulate 'overall' and explicitly mention
/WaD/ as a case I didn't know about :)


Let me illustrate what I mean by 'reasonable' with an example (and
perhaps I should stress that from what little I know of JRRT's
relationship with his brother, there is no reason to think that this
example would be applicable in the case of /WaD/, and I firmly believe
that it is not so applicable):

Let us, for the sake of the example, assume that JRRT had written some
particularly ugly things to Christopher Wiseman (this could be about
Wiseman himself or it could be about some third party -- that is not
important), and one of Wiseman's heirs wanted to publish a biography of
Wiseman including the ugly things that Tolkien had said.

In such a case it would be difficult to imagine that the Estate would
ever allow publication of the contents of said letter, and they would
probably also fight publication of any paraphrase of these things, if
they reflected badly on JRRT himself (his negative opinions about
Hitler, or even about 'Government' can't be said to reflect
particularly badly on himself). In such a case, I might regret that the
truth would not become known, and I would probably disagree with the
decision, but on the other hand I would have to say that I would find
the Estate's attitude reasonable -- surely they also have an interest
in protecting JRRT's name reputation, even if the public (including
students of JRRT and his work) might want to know the ugly truth.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

The errors hardest
to condone
in other people
are one's own.
- Piet Hein, /Our Own Motes/

[Troels Forchhammer]

In message <news:slrnk5usgq....@mbp55.local>

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> spoke these staves:
>

> New Oxford American Dictionary:
>
> - (*Revelation* or *Revelations*; in full the Revelation of St
> John the Divine) the last book of the New Testament, recounting
> a divine revelation of the future to St. John.

Good call! The same is in the on-line Oxford Dictionaries:
<http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/revelation>

And Collins:
<http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/revelations>

> It is a book without a title that is often and commonly called
> "Revelations," and claiming this is wrong is pedantic and foolish.

I am fairly sure that I have seen it referred to colloquially as both
'Revelation' and 'Revelations' (in English, that is, in Danish it is
usually referred to as 'Johannesåbenbaringen' in colloquial speech).
While neither of these may be the formal title in the King James
Bible (or any other Bible translation for that matter), my
understanding has been that either would normally be recognized as
referring to that book (the sixty-sixth, I believe) of the Bible.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

Original thought
is a straightforward process.
It's easy enough
when you know what to do.
You simply combine
in appropriate doses
the blatantly false
and the patently true.
- Piet Hein, /Originality/

[Troels Forchhammer]

In message <news:slrnk5qc7i....@mbp55.local>

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> spoke these staves:
>

> In message <XnsA0D6BF08...@130.133.4.11>

> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> In message <news:slrnk5h6aa....@mbp55.local>
>> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> spoke these staves:
>>>

>>> We have to keep in mind that the entire Sauron story line and
>>> the actions of the White Council to explain Gandalf's absence
>>> was a retcon by Tolkien. When TH was written, it was nothing
>>> more than "mysterious wizard business" to add some pepper to the
>>> plot.
>
>> That's not entirely correct. Gandalf's return to the story was
>> foreseen quite early (mentioned in plot notes B before writing
>> about the capture by the Wood-elves, and again in more detail in
>> plot notes C).
>

> I was not talking about his return to the story at all. Of course
> he was scheduled to come back. He needed to LEAVE for story
> reasons. The reasons explained in LOTR for his absence is the
> retcon I was referring to, as Sauron didn't exist when TH was
> written. I don't even think Mordor existed at that time.

Sauron did exist, albeit under another name (Thû), and was certainly
identical to the Necromancer mentioned in /The Hobbit/. Mordor didn't
exist when Tolkien wrote /The Hobbit/, though it predates /The Lord
of the Rings/ as it is mentioned in /The Fall of Númenor/, which also
specifies Sauron as its ruler; actually it is in this work (and IIRC
in the same version) that Thû is renamed Sauron.

When writing /The Lord of the Rings/, Tolkien expanded upon the story
of the white wizards driving out the Necromancer from his hold in the
southern part of Mirkwood to the attack by the White Council on Dol
Guldur, Sauron's hold in southern Mirkwood, in which attack Sauron
retreated only to go to Mordor and there declare himself openly.

This expansion of the attack on the Necromancer's hold, however, is
not a 'retcon' as there is no inconsistency in the earlier material
that has to be addressed retroactively, nor is there any /change/ to
the previously published story -- the story told in /TH/ takes on a
greater significance, and the world in which it occurs is much
expanded for the sequel, and relatively the expansion of the driving
out of Sauron from Dol Guldur is quite minor -- apart from a few
names (white wizards becoming the White Council, and the hold getting
a proper name) the only new detail is that of Sauron's retreat before
the attack (his later appearance in Mordor being /after/ the events
described in /TH/).

The big 'retcon,' if you wish, is of course the nature of the One
Ring and the associated rewriting of the chapter 'Riddles in the
Dark' -- in that case Tolkien never fully managed to retrofit the
story of /The Hobbit/ to the wider context (despite the changes to
the riddles chapter, Bilbo's ring remains merely an innocent ring of
invisibility throughout /TH/).

This is of course not the only inconsistency that remains in the
story even after the third edition of /The Hobbit/ (Tolkien
considered a good deal more 'retconning' in his abandoned 1960
Hobbit) -- my point is merely that in the specific case of the adding
of details to the story of the Necromancer (Thû -> Sauron) being
driven from his hold (-> Dol Guldur) by the white wizards (-> the
White Council), this is not an example of a retcon.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided
into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from,
and (d) rocks.
- /Equal Rites/ (Terry Pratchett)

[John W Kennedy]

On 2012-09-24 08:26:45 +0000, Troels Forchhammer said:

> In message
> <news:8f7b27cc-bb60-473d...@googlegroups.com>
> JJ <jo...@jones5011.fsnet.co.uk> spoke these staves:
>>
>> On Friday, September 21, 2012 10:53:46 PM UTC+1, Troels
>> Forchhammer wrote:
>>>
>>> I know that there are cases where the reason for turning down
>>> or stopping a project isn't immediately obvious -- the
>>> /Wheelbarrows at Dawn/ book about Hilary Tolkien comes to mind
>>> -- but overall I think the Estate's decisions seem reasonable
>>> (yes, they are rather protective of J.R.R. Tolkien's
>>> reputation, but I do find that reasonable).
>>
>> The reason for stopping 'Wheelbarrows at Dawn' was that the
>> Tolkien Estate claimed that some of the material quoted was
>> their copyright.
>
> My understanding is that anything written by J.R.R. Tolkien is
> copyright of the Tolkien Estate -- this would include anything written
> in letters to his brother Hilary, even if the letter itself would be
> the property of Hilary and his heirs (I am less certain about images of
> said letters, but any transcription of the text would certainly be the
> copyright of the Tolkien Estate).

The photographer or those who hired him would have a copyright in the
photographs above and beyond the owners' copyright in the original.
This also applies to photographs of things that are otherwise in the
public domain; if I order a photocopy of a piece of sheet music from
1728 from a serious research library, such as the Folger Shakespeare
Library, I cannot, without paying extra, reproduce the copy, although I
can transcribe from it.

--
John W Kennedy
"The grand art mastered the thudding hammer of Thor
And the heart of our lord Taliessin determined the war."
-- Charles Williams. "Mount Badon"

[Paul S. Person]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:26:45 +0200, Troels Forchhammer
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:

>My understanding is that anything written by J.R.R. Tolkien is
>copyright of the Tolkien Estate -- this would include anything written
>in letters to his brother Hilary, even if the letter itself would be
>the property of Hilary and his heirs (I am less certain about images of
>said letters, but any transcription of the text would certainly be the
>copyright of the Tolkien Estate).

This may be so in Europe; when my mother died many years ago, we were
told, in the USA, that any letters we wrote to her were our property.
This was in reference to the physical artifacts themselves, not just
the text.

We were told this by my uncle, who was the executor, but he was acting
under the advise and direction of the attorney who prepared her will,
who was not only a lawyer but a lawyer with considerable experience
and expertise in this area.

This was different from gifts, where we had to "reclaim" them formally
if we wanted them back.