New Project
Morambar
Now that I have re-established myself as the leading visionary and
initiator of these newsgroups, I would like to share my latest vision
and initiate a new project for all Faithful Tolkien Fans.
In his Masterpiece of a Foreword, the Greatest Foreword ever written,
the Foreword to the Lord of the Rings, Tolkien writes the following:
"Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have
found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to
complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds
of writing that they evidently prefer."
The duty Tolkien lays down for all his true fans is clear. We must track
down all these books that Tolkien speaks of, and destroy every single
copy we can find of them, so that their hateful contents shall be erased
from the memory of mankind for all ages to come.
The task is not easy. Fortunately BUQ and some other writings of Tolkien
offer clues to which books he disliked. But easy or not, as true Tolkien
fans we have no choice but to follow his call. The excistance of books
that Tolkien has deemed unworthy cannot serve any purpose or have any
value. The books must be DESTROYED!! Such is the will of Tolkien...
Happy hunting :-) :-)
Morambar
Bill O'Meally
> The duty Tolkien lays down for all his true fans is clear. We must
> track down all these books that Tolkien speaks of, and destroy every
> single copy we can find of them, so that their hateful contents shall
> be erased from the memory of mankind for all ages to come.
Oh mighty Morambar, you have made me see the light! I shall immediately
burn my copy of /Ulysses/!!
--
Bill
"Wise fool"
Gandalf _The Two Towers_
(The wise will remove "se" to reach me. The foolish will not!)
Clams Canino
"Morambar" <mora...@fats.teunc.org> wrote in message
news:fg08mr$4eb$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> "Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have
> found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to
> complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds
> of writing that they evidently prefer."
On the serious side of this... I'd love to see a list of the authors (and
thier works) that is related to the above Tolkien statement.
-W
Öjevind Lång
news:13i88gm...@corp.supernews.com...
In Humphrey Carpenter's "The Inklings", there is this comment (p. 158): "He
read very little modern fiction, and took no serious notice of it." On the
same page, we learn that C. S. Lewis disliked James Joyce, T. S. Eliot and
Virginia Woolf; but unlike Tolkien, he at least bothered to read them.
Actually, in a late letter (Nr. 267), Tolkien mentions the death of Eliot
"while on this melancholy subject" (friends of his had recently died); that
may indicate that he was att least not actively hostile to Eliot, unlike
Lewis, who as a critic kept going after him year after year in an almost
obsessive manner. But then, sadness caused at the mention of deaths does not
automatically entail admiration for the works of the person who has died.
Tolkien thought it great folly to read Shakespeare; one should only watch
the plays.
The impression one gets is that Tolkien read very little fiction published
after 1914. He did enjoy E. R. Eddison, Isaac Asimov and the novels of Mary
Renault, especially "The King Must die" and its sequel, "The Bull from the
Sea". In Letter 294 (February 1967), he writes: "I read quite a lot - or
more truly, try to read many books (notably so-called Science Fiction and
Fantasy). But I seldom find any modern books that hold my attention." So
his dismissal of the works of modern authors was mostly based on solid
ignorance of them; not that he is the only example of that phenomenon.
Öjevind
Morambar
That is acceptable, but after we have burned the books, we must burn the
list too. It is only common sense.
M
Morambar
> The impression one gets is that Tolkien read very little fiction published
> after 1914. He did enjoy E. R. Eddison, Isaac Asimov and the novels of Mary
> Renault, especially "The King Must die" and its sequel, "The Bull from the
> Sea". In Letter 294 (February 1967), he writes: "I read quite a lot - or
> more truly, try to read many books (notably so-called Science Fiction and
> Fantasy). But I seldom find any modern books that hold my attention." So
> his dismissal of the works of modern authors was mostly based on solid
> ignorance of them; not that he is the only example of that phenomenon.
I should not be surprised to find you making excuses for those villains
and corruptors, or trying to smear and sully the name of Tolkien, Lang,
yet I am! Beware, for there are limits to my mercy. I am altering my
medication - pray I don't alter it further...
Morambar
UTSO and STEA
Troels Forchhammer
<bredba...@ojevind.lang> spoke these staves:
>
> "Clams Canino" <cc-marine @earthdink.net> skrev i meddelandet
> news:13i88gm...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
<snip>
>> On the serious side of this... I'd love to see a list of the
>> authors (and thier works) that is related to the above Tolkien
>> statement.
>
<snip>
> The impression one gets is that Tolkien read very little fiction
> published after 1914. He did enjoy E. R. Eddison, Isaac Asimov and
> the novels of Mary Renault, especially "The King Must die" and its
> sequel, "The Bull from the Sea". In Letter 294 (February 1967), he
> writes: "I read quite a lot - or more truly, try to read many
> books (notably so-called Science Fiction and Fantasy). But I
> seldom find any modern books that hold my attention." So his
> dismissal of the works of modern authors was mostly based on solid
> ignorance of them; not that he is the only example of that
> phenomenon.
It's funny, but my impression of that statement was that he actually
did give it a try (in particular with SF & Fantasy); that he started
many modern books, but finished few.
Another explicit example is Dorothy Sayers' Peter Wimsey books, where
he seems to have enjoyed what preceded /Gaudy Night/, but he couldn't
stand that one,
by which time I conceived a loathing for him (and his
creatrix) not surpassed by any other character in
literature known to me, unless by his Harriet. The
honeymoon one (Busman's H.?) was worse. I was sick.
[/Letter/ #71 to Christopher Tolkien, May 1944]
But in order to guess who the statements in the Foreword were
addressed at, I think the starting point would have to be to look for
authors who had expressed negative opinions (and presumably
superficial and dismissive comments) of LotR in the first decade.
From there we might, with a bit of luck, find examples of works that
Tolkien had expressed himself negatively about, or works of a style
and mode that he disliked.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
If no thought
your mind does visit,
make your speech
not too explicit.
- Piet Hein, /The Case for Obscurity/
Öjevind Lång
news:Xns99D785E1...@130.133.1.4...
[snip]
>> The impression one gets is that Tolkien read very little fiction
>> published after 1914. He did enjoy E. R. Eddison, Isaac Asimov and
>> the novels of Mary Renault, especially "The King Must die" and its
>> sequel, "The Bull from the Sea". In Letter 294 (February 1967), he
>> writes: "I read quite a lot - or more truly, try to read many
>> books (notably so-called Science Fiction and Fantasy). But I
>> seldom find any modern books that hold my attention." So his
>> dismissal of the works of modern authors was mostly based on solid
>> ignorance of them; not that he is the only example of that
>> phenomenon.
>
> It's funny, but my impression of that statement was that he actually
> did give it a try (in particular with SF & Fantasy); that he started
> many modern books, but finished few.
I'm not sure how many modern literary works he actually gave a try. As for
fantasy and sf, I thought his statement was to the effect that he enjoyed
those categories and so, presumably, read them to the end.
> Another explicit example is Dorothy Sayers' Peter Wimsey books, where
> he seems to have enjoyed what preceded /Gaudy Night/, but he couldn't
> stand that one,
>
> by which time I conceived a loathing for him (and his
> creatrix) not surpassed by any other character in
> literature known to me, unless by his Harriet. The
> honeymoon one (Busman's H.?) was worse. I was sick.
> [/Letter/ #71 to Christopher Tolkien, May 1944]
I agree with him about that. Sayers' snobbery went completely out of control
in "Gaudy Night", not to mention "Busman's Honeymoon", which is downright
embarrassing. And that book she started to write after "BH", "Thrones,
Dominions", whas so bad that my teeth ached when I read it. Jill Pation
Walsh did not do Sayers' reputation a service by finishing the book.
> But in order to guess who the statements in the Foreword were
> addressed at, I think the starting point would have to be to look for
> authors who had expressed negative opinions (and presumably
> superficial and dismissive comments) of LotR in the first decade.
> From there we might, with a bit of luck, find examples of works that
> Tolkien had expressed himself negatively about, or works of a style
> and mode that he disliked.
Hm. I only know about the writers who did him a good turn by praising LotR
when it first appeared, most notably W. H. Auden and Richard Hughes. It
seems he liked some of Auden's poetry, those which were influenced by Old
Icelandic poems.
Öjevind
Dirk Thierbach
You'd probably have to ask Tolkien whom he meant specifically with
this statement. In /The Road to Middle Earth/, Shippey goes through
some of the critical opinions expressed (e.g. "This is not a work that
many adults will read right through more than once", Anonymous
reviewer in the Times, 25. Nov 1955; Philip Tynbee in the Observer,
6. Aug 1961, was delighted that sales, he thought, were dropping;
Edmund Wilson called it "balderdash" in The Nation, 14 April 1956; an
essay of C.N.Manlove on "Modern Fantasy" which dismisses Tolkien). He
then tries to point out some of the reasons that may have shaped the
impressions of the critics. Very interesting chapter to read.
- Dirk
Count Menelvagor
nah, i think we'll burn all your books instead. in addition, we will
burn you. that would be highly amusing.
Morambar
Savage beast!! Is violence and threats your only answer to differing
viewpoints?? What about Tolerance? What about Humanism?? What about
Niceness??? These are the things that FATS stands for!
M
Pseudonymus al-Faqha'ter III
^M^
No wonder Tolkien said balrogs are evil,Great One.
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
> Hm. I only know about the writers who did him a good turn by praising LotR
> when it first appeared, most notably W. H. Auden and Richard Hughes. It
> seems he liked some of Auden's poetry, those which were influenced by Old
> Icelandic poems.
Auden wrote some alliterative verse, one of the few modern authors to do so,
apart from Tolkien of course, who I think was the most prolific author of
modern alliterative verse.
Christopher
JimboCat
>The impression one gets is that Tolkien read very little fiction published
>after 1914. He did enjoy E. R. Eddison, Isaac Asimov and the novels of Mary
>Renault, especially "The King Must die" and its sequel, "The Bull from the
>Sea".
Ah: the man had good taste (not that I doubted it). Those are my
favorite Renaults, as well.
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
I Feel Horrible. She Doesn't
I feel horrible. She doesn't
love me and I wander around
the house like a sewing machine
that's just finished sewing
a turd to a garbage can lid.
- Richard Brautigan
Öjevind Lång
news:1193934862....@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>Öjevind Lång wrote:
>>
>> The impression one gets is that Tolkien read very little fiction
>> published
>> after 1914. He did enjoy E. R. Eddison, Isaac Asimov and the novels of
>> Mary
>> Renault, especially "The King Must die" and its sequel, "The Bull from
>> the
>> Sea".
>
> Ah: the man had good taste (not that I doubted it). Those are my
> favorite Renaults, as well.
I'm also very fond of "The Praise Singer".
Öjevind
TT Arvind
> Auden wrote some alliterative verse, one of the few modern authors to do so,
> apart from Tolkien of course, who I think was the most prolific author of
> modern alliterative verse.
Do we know what Tolkien thought of the work of Gerard Manley Hopkins,
who not only wrote alliterative verse, but whose "sprung rhythm" was
also at least partially inspired by the rhythm of Anglo-Saxon poetry,
AND was a devout Catholic to boot?
--
Meneldil
It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats
Christopher Kreuzer
news:MPG.219ad3e34...@news.individual.net...
> žus cwęš spam...@blueyonder.co.uk:
>> Auden wrote some alliterative verse, one of the few modern authors to do
>> so,
>> apart from Tolkien of course, who I think was the most prolific author of
>> modern alliterative verse.
> Do we know what Tolkien thought of the work of Gerard Manley Hopkins,
> who not only wrote alliterative verse, but whose "sprung rhythm" was
> also at least partially inspired by the rhythm of Anglo-Saxon poetry,
> AND was a devout Catholic to boot?
I haven't heard anything on Tolkien's views on Hopkins, but it would be
interesting to hear if there is anything. I must confess to not even knowing
what Auden's poetry is like, let alone those of Hopkins, though I think we
can safely assume Tolkien was aware of Auden's works.
Christopher
Larry Swain
I think its more than an assumption, isn't it? If I recall correctly,
aren't there some statements in various places by Tolkien on Auden's poetry?
William C. Hicklin
<bredba...@ojevind.lang> wrote:
> "JimboCat" <10313...@compuserve.com> skrev i meddelandet
> news:1193934862....@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Öjevind Lång wrote:
>>>
>>> The impression one gets is that Tolkien read very little fiction
>>> published
>>> after 1914. He did enjoy E. R. Eddison, Isaac Asimov and the novels of
>>> Mary
>>> Renault, especially "The King Must die" and its sequel, "The Bull from
>>> the
>>> Sea".
>>
He also enjoyed John Buchan and David Lindsay, and apparently also
Sinclair Lewis.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Öjevind Lång
news:op.t1frk...@emachine.home...
[snip]
> He also enjoyed John Buchan and David Lindsay, and apparently also
> Sinclair Lewis.
Yes, somewhere he even speculates that Sinclair's "Babbitt" may have been an
unconscious source for his coinage "hobbit", together with "rabbit" The
"holbytla" explanation was secondary.
Öjevind
Morambar
> Yes, somewhere he even speculates that Sinclair's "Babbitt" may have been an
> unconscious source for his coinage "hobbit", together with "rabbit" The
> "holbytla" explanation was secondary.
But in BUQ Tolkien complains: "Sometimes people do not realise I have
other duties. Writing about Hobbits is just what the word suggests: A
BIT of a HOBby." What his 'other duties' were, we can only speculate.
Mo
Dirk Thierbach
> "William C. Hicklin" <soli...@verizon.net> skrev i meddelandet
>> He also enjoyed John Buchan and David Lindsay, and apparently also
>> Sinclair Lewis.
> Yes, somewhere he even speculates that Sinclair's "Babbitt" may have
> been an unconscious source for his coinage "hobbit", together with
> "rabbit"
He does? The only place I can remember him commenting on the name
itself is in letter #25, and
[...] and was not furry, except about the feet. Nor indeed was he
like a rabbit. [...] Calling him a 'nassty little rabbit' was a piece
of vulgar trollery [...]
doesn't sound like he was glad about the idea of a connection. Do you
remember where you've seen this?
- Dirk
Pseudonymus al-Faqha'ter III
Was he referring to arms-trafficking for the Falange?
Morambar
We can only speculate, but yes.
M
Öjevind Lång
news:2007110810015...@dthierbach.news.arcor.de...
> "?jevind L?ng" <bredba...@ojevind.lang> wrote:
[snip]
>> Yes, somewhere he even speculates that Sinclair's "Babbitt" may have
>> been an unconscious source for his coinage "hobbit", together with
>> "rabbit"
>
> He does? The only place I can remember him commenting on the name
> itself is in letter #25, and
>
> [...] and was not furry, except about the feet. Nor indeed was he
> like a rabbit. [...] Calling him a 'nassty little rabbit' was a piece
> of vulgar trollery [...]
>
> doesn't sound like he was glad about the idea of a connection. Do you
> remember where you've seen this?
It's in Humphrey Carpenter's biography of him. In my copy, it's on page 165:
"Tolkien himself only found the time or the inclination to read a limited
amount of fiction. In general he preferred the lighter contemporary novels.
He liked the stories of John Buchan, and he also read some of Sinclair
Lewis's work; certainly he knew *Babbitt*, the novel published in 1922 about
a middle-aged American businessman whose well-ordered life gradually comes
off the rails.
Odd ingredients go into literary melting-pots, and both the *Land of
Snergs* and *Babbitt* played a small part in *The Hobbit*. Tolkien wrote to
W. H. Auden that the former 'was probably an unconscious source-book: for
the Hobbits, not for anything else', and he told an interviewer that the
word *hobbit* 'might have been associated with Sinclair Lewis's Babbitt.
Certainly not rabbit, as some people think. Babbitt has the same bourgeois
smugness that hobbits do. His world is the same limited place.'"
[/Carpenter: "J. R. R. Tolkien: A biography"]
"The Marvellous Land of Snergs" was a children's book from 1927 by E. A.
Wyke-Smith. As for Tolkien's rejection of any association between "hobbit"
and "rabbit", it is worth to remember that not only Gollum but also Beorn
calls Bilbo "a rabbit", or, in the latter case, "bunny". Beorn is great good
humour when he greets Thorin & Co. the morning after they have slept at his
house:
"So you are all here still!" he said. He picked up the hobbit and laughed:
"Not eaten up by Wargs or goblin or wicked bears yet I see"; and he poked Mr
Baggins' waistcoat most disrespectfully. 'Little bunny is getting nice and
fat again on bread and honey', he chuckled. 'Come and get some more!'"
Öjevind
Dirk Thierbach
> "Dirk Thierbach" <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> skrev i meddelandet
> news:2007110810015...@dthierbach.news.arcor.de...
>> "?jevind L?ng" <bredba...@ojevind.lang> wrote:
>>> Yes, somewhere he even speculates that Sinclair's "Babbitt" may have
>>> been an unconscious source for his coinage "hobbit", together with
>>> "rabbit"
>> Calling him a 'nassty little rabbit' was a piece of vulgar trollery [...]
> It's in Humphrey Carpenter's biography of him. In my copy, it's on page 165:
> 'for the Hobbits, not for anything else', and he told an interviewer
> that the word *hobbit* 'might have been associated with Sinclair
> Lewis's Babbitt. Certainly not rabbit, as some people think.
Ah. Makes more sense this way. Thanks.
> Babbitt has the same bourgeois smugness that hobbits do. His world
> is the same limited place.'"
That also makes sense.
> As for Tolkien's rejection of any association between "hobbit" and
> "rabbit", it is worth to remember that not only Gollum but also
> Beorn calls Bilbo "a rabbit", or, in the latter case, "bunny".
But only as an insult. And that idea may have well come after Tolkien
had "invented" the hobbit -- it doesn't show that "rabbit" was a source
for that invention, unconscious or not. After all, many critics made the
connection *after* they had been exposed to the word "hobbit". Why should
Tolkien have come to this comparison in the same way, and then phrased
it as insult to make clear there is no connection?
- Dirk
Morambar
> "So you are all here still!" he said. He picked up the hobbit and laughed:
> "Not eaten up by Wargs or goblin or wicked bears yet I see"; and he poked Mr
> Baggins' waistcoat most disrespectfully. 'Little bunny is getting nice and
> fat again on bread and honey', he chuckled. 'Come and get some more!'"
Tolkien originally intended to use the following passage, but then
decided it was not keeping up with the tone of the story.*
"A day may come when the courage of Men fails, when we forsake our
friends and break all bonds of fellowship; an hour of wolves and
shattered shields when the Age of Men comes crashing down and a little
bunny gets eaten by wargs or goblin or wicked bears, but it is not this
day. This day, we eat bread and honey to make us nice and fat!"
Morambar
*see, Tolkien-Morambar correspondence.
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
>> As for Tolkien's rejection of any association between "hobbit" and
>> "rabbit", it is worth to remember that not only Gollum but also
>> Beorn calls Bilbo "a rabbit", or, in the latter case, "bunny".
>
> But only as an insult. And that idea may have well come after Tolkien
> had "invented" the hobbit -- it doesn't show that "rabbit" was a source
> for that invention, unconscious or not. After all, many critics made the
> connection *after* they had been exposed to the word "hobbit". Why should
> Tolkien have come to this comparison in the same way, and then phrased
> it as insult to make clear there is no connection?
Beorn was being jocular in a friendly way. And why should Tolkien let two of
his characters associate hobbits with rabbits if he didn't think that the
comparison was fairly close to hand?
Öjevind
Noel Q. von Schneiffel
> "The Marvellous Land of Snergs" was a children's book from 1927 by E. A.
> Wyke-Smith. As for Tolkien's rejection of any association between "hobbit"
> and "rabbit", it is worth to remember that not only Gollum but also Beorn
> calls Bilbo "a rabbit", or, in the latter case, "bunny". Beorn is great good
> humour when he greets Thorin & Co. the morning after they have slept at his
> house:
>
> "So you are all here still!" he said. He picked up the hobbit and laughed:
> "Not eaten up by Wargs or goblin or wicked bears yet I see"; and he poked Mr
> Baggins' waistcoat most disrespectfully. 'Little bunny is getting nice and
> fat again on bread and honey', he chuckled. 'Come and get some more!'"
That is a remarkable quote, of course, though I'd like to throw in
that Pamela Anderson has repeatedly been referred to as "bunny", even
though she is neither nice nor fat nor (particularly) furry. I can
only conclude that Tolkien, with these repeated bunny hints, wanted to
say that Bilbo looked like Pamela Anderson. Which would also explain
why he never was able to find anyone to marry. Or why he used the Ring
so often, and the invisibility it provided.
Noel
Pseudonymus al-Faqha'ter III
wrote:
Interesting; we have clear evidence that Tolkien also modelled
Galadriel on a rabbit, although another influence was a waitress he
had a bit of the hots for.
Clams Canino
"Öjevind Lång" <bredba...@ojevind.lang> wrote in message X
> Babbitt has the same bourgeois
> smugness that hobbits do. His world is the same limited place.'"
Only SOME (priveliged) hobbits share that trait. Hobbits have an overall
agrarian culture.
(but they were sheltered overall)
-W
Öjevind Lång
news:13jaev3...@corp.supernews.com...
Well, I'm simply quoting the author. Somewhere else, he is very
uncomplimentary about the smug, narrow world-view of the Gaffer.
Öjevind
Tamf Moo
> Only SOME (priveliged) hobbits share that trait. Hobbits have an overall
> agrarian culture.
> (but they were sheltered overall)
speaking of which, did those labouring hobbits wear overalls? what do we
know about their clothing, apart from the popularity of waistcoats and
the scarcity of clogs?
--
tamf.
Dirk Thierbach
> "Dirk Thierbach" <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> skrev i meddelandet
> Beorn was being jocular in a friendly way.
Of course trading insults can be meant in a friendly way. But they
are still insults :-)
> And why should Tolkien let two of his characters associate hobbits
> with rabbits if he didn't think that the comparison was fairly close
> to hand?
The point is that even if the comparison is close at hand (which I
don't doubt), that doesn't make this comparison one of the original
sources of the word.
- Dirk
Troels Forchhammer
"Clams Canino" <cc-m...@earthdink.net> spoke these staves:
I'm not sure it wasn't far more common than the word 'bougeois' would
imply. Sam, who is definitely lower-class (when the story starts), is
the prime example of this smugness -- the privileged Hobbits are
actually /less/ so (though that is probably because the three that we
encounter are special in this respect).
But Sam can be very 'trying'. He is a more representative
hobbit than any others that we have to see much of; and he
has consequently a stronger ingredient of that quality
which even some hobbits found at times hard to bear: a
vulgarity -- by which I do not mean a mere 'down-to-
earthiness' -- a mental myopia which is proud of itself, a
smugness (in varying degrees) and cocksureness, and a
readiness to measure and sum up all things from a limited
experience, largely enshrined in sententious traditional
'wisdom'. We only meet exceptional hobbits in close
companionship -- those who had a grace or gift: a vision of
beauty, and a reverence for things nobler than themselves,
at war with their rustic self-satisfaction. Imagine Sam
without his education by Bilbo and his fascination with
things Elvish! Not difficult. The Cotton family and the
Gaffer, when the 'Travellers' return are a sufficient
glimpse.
[Letters #246, to Mrs Eileen Elgar (drafts) (September 1963)]
<http://google.vg/groups?selm=LgaHb.66282$aT.995@news-
server.bigpond.net.au>
<http://tinyurl.com/2uz3f>/
I haven't read Lewis Sinclair's novel, but the Hobbit 'smugness' of
course has strong similarities to the middle-class smugness of later
times, even if the Hobbits were agrarian / rustic in nature -- this
'mental myopia', 'smugness' and 'cocksureness' are, as Tolkien
describes them, quite common in rustic folk -- even of the lower
classes (as Tolkien said -- Sam's Gaffer is a sufficient glimpse).
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded
gold, it would be a merrier world.
- Thorin Oakenshield, /The Hobbit/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Morambar
Tolkien created Hobbits as a metaphore of how Welfare Society dwarfs the
Men both intellectually and physically. The Attlee Government forced him
to remove all passages where the Free Hobbit, Trotter, who escaped the
socialism of Shire to a free frontier life on the wilderness, mocks the
way his passive cousins had voluntarily allowed their society to
self-mutilate themselves. In revenge, Tolkien created the Ultimate
Royalist charcter of Aragorn Elessar, that forebodes the coming of
Margaret Thatcher.
M
Christopher J. Henrich
<bredba...@ojevind.lang> wrote:
Many years ago, someone pointed out that while the Gaffer was usually
called "Hal" by his cronies, his first name, in full, was "Halfast" ...
and the"l" was silent.
--
Chris Henrich
http://www.mathinteract.com
God just doesn't fit inside a single religion.
Steve Morrison
> In article <5plcueF...@mid.individual.net>, Öjevind Lång
> <bredba...@ojevind.lang> wrote:
>
>> "Clams Canino" <cc-m...@earthdink.net> skrev i meddelandet
>> news:13jaev3...@corp.supernews.com...
>>> "Öjevind Lång" <bredba...@ojevind.lang> wrote in message X
>>>
>>>> Babbitt has the same bourgeois
>>>> smugness that hobbits do. His world is the same limited place.'"
>>> Only SOME (priveliged) hobbits share that trait. Hobbits have an overall
>>> agrarian culture.
>>> (but they were sheltered overall)
>> Well, I'm simply quoting the author. Somewhere else, he is very
>> uncomplimentary about the smug, narrow world-view of the Gaffer.
>>
> Many years ago, someone pointed out that while the Gaffer was usually
> called "Hal" by his cronies, his first name, in full, was "Halfast" ...
> and the"l" was silent.
>
Hamfast. "Halfast" was the name of Sam's cousin who claimed to have
seen a "tree-man" up away beyond the North Moors!
Christopher J. Henrich
Laurie Forbes
news:101120071433491705%chen...@monmouth.com...
> In article <13jbqg2...@corp.supernews.com>, Steve Morrison
> <rim...@toast.net> wrote:
>
> > Christopher J. Henrich wrote:
> > > <bredba...@ojevind.lang> wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Clams Canino" <cc-m...@earthdink.net> skrev i meddelandet
> > >> news:13jaev3...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >>>
> > >>>> Babbitt has the same bourgeois
> > >>>> smugness that hobbits do. His world is the same limited place.'"
> > >>> Only SOME (priveliged) hobbits share that trait. Hobbits have an
overall
> > >>> agrarian culture.
> > >>> (but they were sheltered overall)
> > >> Well, I'm simply quoting the author. Somewhere else, he is very
> > >> uncomplimentary about the smug, narrow world-view of the Gaffer.
> > > Many years ago, someone pointed out that while the Gaffer was usually
> > > called "Hal" by his cronies, his first name, in full, was "Halfast"
...
> > > and the"l" was silent.
> > Hamfast. "Halfast" was the name of Sam's cousin who claimed to have
> > seen a "tree-man" up away beyond the North Moors!
> Ah, my mistake.
> --
> Chris Henrich
This group can be very hard on jokes. You could make the "m" silent. Or you
could wait a few weeks and start over, correctly stating that Halfast is the
*cousin* and then mentioning the silent "l." Don't give up.
Steve Morrison
I've seen it seriously suggested before that Halfast's name was a pun,
referring to the fact that he told this wild story! Of course, in
Middle-earth, it's quite possible that he /did/ see a tree-man...
Clams Canino
"Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
> I'm not sure it wasn't far more common than the word 'bougeois' would
> imply. Sam, who is definitely lower-class (when the story starts), is
> the prime example of this smugness -- the privileged Hobbits are
> actually /less/ so (though that is probably because the three that we
> encounter are special in this respect).
It's the word 'bougeis, I think, that raised my objection.
But even 'smug' wrinkles me the wrong way a little bit. I think Hobbits can
be very closed minded, mistrusting of anything new or outside - and as a
result ready to pass judgement that "this is bad", but smug isn't exactly
the word I'd use. Though 'cocksure' is a better way to phrase it.
But I will say that the more representative Hobbits "already have thier mind
made up" more often than not. And too often based on very limited
information.
-W
Clams Canino
"Clams Canino" <cc-m...@earthdink.net> wrote in message
> It's the word 'bougeis, I think, that raised my objection.
ACK!!! Of course I meant bougeois. <sigh> Nothing quite like singling
out a word, and them mis-spelling it.
-W
Dirk Thierbach
I know that spelling corrections are pointless, and usually they are
just typos, anyway, but since you brought it up, it's actually
"bourgeois" :-). Shippey makes the interesting philological comment that
/bourgeois/ and /burglar/ are related (they have the same root /burh/
"town, stockaded house", in German still alive in the word "Burg",
so it's easy to remember the "r"), and hence it's only natural that
in the /Hobbit/, Gandalf turns the very bourgeois Bilbo into a burglar...
- Dirk
TT Arvind
> I've seen it seriously suggested before that Halfast's name was a pun,
> referring to the fact that he told this wild story! Of course, in
> Middle-earth, it's quite possible that he /did/ see a tree-man...
When I read the book for the first time and came to the section where
Treebeard asked the hobbits whether they'd seen entwives in the Shire, I
was positive that that was exactly whay Halfast had seen. I kept hoping
that Sam would mention it to Treebeard at some stage, and that the ents
would launch a hasty expedition to the Shire where there'd be a great
reunion. The result of watching too many Bollywood movies, I suppose.
Of course, JRRT's statements in Letters pretty much rule out the
possibility, as I discovered some years later in the early days of this
very newsgroup.
Morgil
In revenge, Tolkien created the Ultimate
> Royalist charcter of Aragorn Elessar, that forebodes the coming of
> Margaret Thatcher.
Ye gawds!
Morgil
pmh
>
> Tolkien created Hobbits as a metaphore of how Welfare Society dwarfs the
> Royalist charcter of Aragorn Elessar, that forebodes the coming of
> Margaret Thatcher.
>
> M
PLAINLY that he abhorred allegory.
Both Aragorn & Thatcher would be horrified to think themselves the
mirror of one another.
You should turn your talents to the Roswell Incident.
PMH
Morambar
> On Nov 10, 9:41 am, Morambar <moram...@fats.teunc.org> wrote:
>
>>Tolkien created Hobbits as a metaphore of how Welfare Society dwarfs the
>>Men both intellectually and physically. ..... the Ultimate
>>Royalist charcter of Aragorn Elessar, that forebodes the coming of
>>Margaret Thatcher.
>>
>>M
>
> This is as farfetched as they come. Tolkien stated plainly, plainly,
> PLAINLY that he abhorred allegory.
But he also stated in plainest plainliness that there was no weapon too
horrible that it could not be used against the threat of the
International Communism. And Allergory became his weapon of choice. The
One Weapon he knew he could use to strike at the heart of the Enemy. It
would have been immoral and irresponsible from Tolkien NOT to use the
One Allegory. Tolkien knew his responsibility, regardless of his
personal dislike of such weapons.
> Both Aragorn & Thatcher would be horrified to think themselves the
> mirror of one another.
I like to think they would both be rather proud of the comparison. After
all, Aragorn liberated the slaves of Mordor at Lake Nurnen much the same
way Thatcher liberated the enslaved population of Falklands from the
Argentinean Socialists.
> You should turn your talents to the Roswell Incident.
We would, but there's a conflict of interests...
M
Paul Ciszek
In article <MPG.21a106a65...@news.individual.net>,
TT Arvind <ttar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>žus cwęš Steve Morrison:
Did Tolkien explicity rule out that Halfast had actually seen an Ent
or an Entwife?
--
Please reply to: | "One of the hardest parts of my job is to
pciszek at panix dot com | connect Iraq to the War on Terror."
Autoreply is disabled | -- G. W. Bush, 9/7/2006
Clams Canino
"Dirk Thierbach" <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote in message
news:2007111109155...@dthierbach.news.arcor.de...
> I know that spelling corrections are pointless, and usually they are
> just typos, anyway, but since you brought it up, it's actually
> "bourgeois" :-).
Double ACK! <sigh>.
I could turn on my spell checker... but somehow I think a lot of "someone"
can get lost when you erase the mistakes. Over my long years on usenet...
I've come to be able to often identify sock-puppet posters by a commonality
in spelling and gramatical oddities.
> Shippey makes the interesting philological comment that
> /bourgeois/ and /burglar/ are related (they have the same root /burh/
> "town, stockaded house", in German still alive in the word "Burg",
> so it's easy to remember the "r"), and hence it's only natural that
> in the /Hobbit/, Gandalf turns the very bourgeois Bilbo into a burglar...
>
So from the root, we can see where a burgler could be one who infiltrates
towns or stockaded houses then.
Gandalf turned Bilbo into an aspiring burgler.
The Ring turned Bilbo into a Master Burglar.
-W
-W
Noel Q. von Schneiffel
> pmh wrote:
>
> > This is as farfetched as they come. Tolkien stated plainly, plainly,
> > PLAINLY that he abhorred allegory.
>
> But he also stated in plainest plainliness that there was no weapon too
> horrible that it could not be used against the threat of the
> International Communism. And Allergory became his weapon of choice. The
> One Weapon he knew he could use to strike at the heart of the Enemy. It
> would have been immoral and irresponsible from Tolkien NOT to use the
> One Allegory. Tolkien knew his responsibility, regardless of his
> personal dislike of such weapons.
The truth is, this is one of these incidents where a sloppy editor
oversaw a typo that completely falsified Tolkien's words.
Going through the original manuscript of the LotR foreword - which I
happen to possess, don't ask about the details - I cannot find
anything about *allegory*. Tolkien, however, mentions how much he
dislikes his *allergy*, probably against cat hair, which would be
consistent with his claim that cats belong to the fauna of Mordor (see
Letters).
With this little change, everything else Master Morambar says is
correct - how could it be otherwise! Despite his discomfort with it,
Tolkien used Allergy as a weapon against communism. In fact he saved
the world from a very likely nuclear war when he sent Josef Stalin,
who had a very strong nut allergy, a walnut cake on March 1, 1953.
Stalin hungrily gobbled it up, probably because Tolkien had cunningly
labelled it as "Schwarzwälder Kirschtorte", and died four days later,
making room for the more reasonable and pragmatic Khrushchev.
Noel
Noel Q. von Schneiffel
>
> This is as farfetched as they come. Tolkien stated plainly, plainly,
> PLAINLY that he abhorred allegory.
> Both Aragorn & Thatcher would be horrified to think themselves the
> mirror of one another.
> You should turn your talents to the Roswell Incident.
The truth is, the spaceship that crashed over Roswell was actually
Earendil's ship Vingilot. Earendil himself was killed in the crash.
His "alien" appearance was caused by centuries of exposure to hard
space radiation. This also explains why the incident was covered up by
the government - in the nascent space race, public support was
important, and that would have waned if the dangerous effects of space
radiation had become public.
Let me add that mobile phones were invented and spread by the CIA, to
build up our resistance against radiation, so that we can one day
evolve into a spacefaring species. Which I have no interest in, which
is why I always wear a tinfoil hat when I use a phone.
Noel
Noel Q. von Schneiffel
>
> This group can be very hard on jokes. You could make the "m" silent. Or you
> could wait a few weeks and start over, correctly stating that Halfast is the
> *cousin* and then mentioning the silent "l." Don't give up.
I don't think we should make jokes about Tolkien and his works. It
dishonors his legacy.
Noel
Troels Forchhammer
Morambar <mora...@fats.teunc.org> spoke these staves:
>
<snip>
> It would have been immoral and irresponsible from Tolkien NOT to
> use the One Allegory. Tolkien knew his responsibility, regardless
> of his personal dislike of such weapons.
<snip>
Morambar, you have my deepest respect! Only a true genius could have
written this, and as I lie on my floor, breathless, gasping in my loud,
wordless expressions of my admiration for your brilliance, I can only
think, thus speaks the true master!
Hail TEUNC! Snow Tyope! Rain UFAT! Shine FATS!
Count Menelvagor
wrote:
> With this little change, everything else Master Morambar says is
> correct - how could it be otherwise! Despite his discomfort with it,
> Tolkien used Allergy as a weapon against communism. In fact he saved
> the world from a very likely nuclear war when he sent Josef Stalin,
> who had a very strong nut allergy, a walnut cake on March 1, 1953.
> Stalin hungrily gobbled it up, probably because Tolkien had cunningly
> labelled it as "Schwarzwälder Kirschtorte", and died four days later,
> making room for the more reasonable and pragmatic Khrushchev.
but according to "blogambar and the pipeweed of a thousand camels,"
tolkien was on stalin's side, and was fired byy khrushchev. you people
do keep cntradicting yourselves horribly.
tolkien actually wrote: "yo d00dz, dig this!"
Count Menelvagor
wrote:
> Hail TEUNC! Snow Tyope! Rain UFAT! Shine FATS!
you forgot ROG-COLI, the only institution with knowledge of middle-
earth that PREDATES TOLKIEN.
for example, getting back to allergy, glorfindal killed gothmog by
exploiting the latter's embarrassing allergy to cologne.
Steve Hayes
<Menel...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>you forgot ROG-COLI, the only institution with knowledge of middle-
>earth that PREDATES TOLKIEN.
And that makes it the most dangerous PREDATOR in Middle Earth.
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/litmain.htm
http://www.librarything.com/catalog/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius
hen...@swirve.com
wrote:
Quite right. Quite right. I'm dismayed by the cynical disregard for
the wishes of Christopher Tolkien, the TRUE genius in the Tolkien
family, in declaring that the honeycombs Beorn ate are actually an
allegory for his engaging in cunnilingus on Elf-women. That was the
reason why he spent the nights away from home.
Horus Engels
Morambar
> In message <news:fh7o5b$1hm$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi>
> Morambar <mora...@fats.teunc.org> spoke these staves:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>It would have been immoral and irresponsible from Tolkien NOT to
>>use the One Allegory. Tolkien knew his responsibility, regardless
>>of his personal dislike of such weapons.
>
>
> <snip>
>
> Morambar, you have my deepest respect! Only a true genius could have
> written this, and as I lie on my floor, breathless, gasping in my loud,
> wordless expressions of my admiration for your brilliance, I can only
> think, thus speaks the true master!
Allelufat! He has seen the Light!!
Touch the screen! Embrace the Truth that is in words of the BUQ!!
"In My Life, there has been much heartache and pain,
and I do not know if I will be able to face it all again.
But I cannot stop now, for I have travelled so far.
To reveal the Truth of Middle-Earth,
Must be the Greatest Gift of all,
Though maybe bitter to recieve."
-J.R.R. Tolkien, BUQ, Foreword.
> Hail TEUNC! Snow Tyope! Rain UFAT! Shine FATS!
Ummmm, you keep working on it...
Morambar the Great
Morambar
> Going through the original manuscript of the LotR foreword - which I
> happen to possess, don't ask about the details - I cannot find
> anything about *allegory*. Tolkien, however, mentions how much he
> dislikes his *allergy*, probably against cat hair, which would be
> consistent with his claim that cats belong to the fauna of Mordor (see
> Letters).
Have I not taught you better then that?? What we have here is you have
been fooled with a Forgery. Tolkien *did not* sneeze! Ever! In fact, he
considered all nasal activities beneath him. This is why in LotR only
the villains are described with runny noses. Jackson understood
brilliantly the signifigance this had to Tolkien. He made damn sure to
digitally erase all booger-shots in post-production, and the audiences
rewarded his efforts to stay faithful to the Master.
M.
Count Menelvagor
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:35:11 -0800, Count Menelvagor
>
> >you forgot ROG-COLI, the only institution with knowledge of middle-
> >earth that PREDATES TOLKIEN.
>
> And that makes it the most dangerous PREDATOR in Middle Earth.
what you call predation, we call "the noble sport." %%^&&** ((&^%%$$##
^% *&@#$% in classical balrog.
Count Menelvagor
brilliant insight. this may well be what brought about the "domestic
difficulties" that plagued the tolkiens.
Count Menelvagor
brilliant insight. this may well be what brought about the "domestic