Tolkien and the Critics, Continued
Count Menelvagor
DECONSTRUCT THIS: J.R.R. TOLKIEN
Shot From the Canon
J.R.R. Tolkien may be the "author of the century," according to a poll
done by Waterstone's bookstores, but you won't find him in the
literary canon. Despite their legion of enthusiasts worldwide,
Tolkien's novels have been dismissed by critics as juvenile,
moralistic, and escapist (not to mention, badly written). With fans
eagerly awaiting the movie The Fellowship of the Ring in December, we
asked several experts to analyze why the Oxford philologist gets no
academic respect.
Tom A. Shippey, professor of English at Saint Louis University and
author of J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century (Houghton Mifflin,
2001):
For the last 60 years at least, British departments of English
language and literature have been engaged in internal warfare between
the language and the literature sides. The literature side definitely
won and has suppressed the philological tradition of teaching English.
In that sense, the popularity of books like The Lord of the Rings,
which were so traditionally based on philology and Old English, didn't
seem to be fair somehow. It was an appeal to the popular vote over the
heads of the electoral college, and the electoral college very much
didn't like it.
It's always been perfectly okay for British professors to do well by
writing detective stories. For some reason detective stories are not
felt to be threatening. In fact, in a way, they continue to operate
within the norms of British culture and the class system, and they
also tend to reassert rationality. Tolkien is threatening largely
because he addresses issues of social upheaval and wartime, which say
that you can't go back to where you were, that things are going to
change, that things are going to disappear.
Another way of looking at Tolkien is to say that in some respects,
he's seen as a threat to modernism and is felt to be an antiquarian.
But in other ways, actually, he seems to fulfill many of the tenets of
modernism, whereas many of the proponents of modernism were operating
on what we would call radical chic. They say they're radical, they
make radical noises, but underneath -- not very far underneath --
there's a kind of reluctance to move very far. I would say that
Tolkien was a surface conservative and a buried radical, and that many
of his critics were surface radicals and buried conservatives.
That kind of surface conservatism obviously upsets many people who see
it as a kind of bourgeois reaction. But class feelings are much more
complicated than that. The hostile reaction to The Lord of the Rings
has often been the haute bourgeoisie saying very angrily that we and
we alone are the only people who will decide what is literature and
what is not. And we will not have lower-middle-class people like
Tolkien -- and you couldn't get much lower middle class than Tolkien,
he was very nearly underclass -- telling us what to think.
***
Jane Chance, professor of English at Rice University and author of The
Lord of the Rings: The Mythology of Power and Tolkien's Art: A
Mythology for England (University Press of Kentucky, 2001):
Tolkien is the Walt Whitman of his generation -- he speaks to and for
the common man. Academics don't like Tolkien because they haven't read
him, and the conservative ones suspect fantasy and anything popular.
Critics in England don't like him because he was never part of the
literary establishment and never tried to be. And an academic who is
successful threatens all those critics and academics who secretly
believe if you can't write, you teach. Critics, because if an academic
like Tolkien can write and teach, then have the critics made a
mistake? Academics, because if an academic is writing for children and
young adults and making money, there must be something wrong with his
values and his scholarship (academics, remember, belong to an
institution that hearkens back to the medieval monastic schools and
monasteries where monks took vows of poverty).
The academic/critical reaction against Tolkien is in part a backlash
against a male writer's lack of (Victorian) manliness. Tolkien
privileged children over adults, little people over big, important
ones, imagination over rationality, writing fantasy over writing
scholarly books. How other! How feminine of him! He's writing against
the grain of academic virility, so to speak -- he's writing like a
woman.
Obviously, the British academics don't value contemporary fantasy as
much as do American academics. Differences in cultural values relating
to class and national history make Tolkien very special here, less so
in Great Britain. Great Britain is a great ossified feudal system that
continues today, in which the striations of class still limit mobility
and advancement. America is the country of Puritan and Quaker
protesters and criminals, where large mixes of diverse cultures have
succeeded, for the most part, at sorting out differences. The Lord of
the Rings critiques the hegemonies of class and power: The major hero
is the little hobbit, totally ordinary in his pedestrian and petty
appetites -- not the powerful wizard who knows everything.
***
Verlyn Flieger, professor of English at the University of Maryland at
College Park and author of A Question of Time: J.R.R. Tolkien's Road
to Faërie (Kent State University Press, 1997):
The Lord of the Rings is a literary phenomenon whose popularity has
persisted for nearly half a century, which has been officially
translated into more than 20 languages and bootlegged into several
others. Nevertheless, Tolkien's epic romance occupies at best a
marginal place in the modern literary canon. Several circumstances
account for this.
First, the opinion persists among his peers that he wasted his time on
fiction when he should have been producing scholarship. (He did. His
essay on Beowulf and the monsters, and his article on Chaucer as a
philologist, are scholarly landmarks.) Second, there is a sense in the
academy and the larger world that a thing enjoyed by the masses cannot
be worth study.
Third, the tendency of some readers to superimpose Middle-Earth on the
actual world is seen as a retrograde and childish phenomenon. People
who name themselves or their children after favorite characters, wear
cloaks and tunics, and enact scenes from the story in local parks and
playgrounds and scrawl "Frodo lives" on walls and sidewalks -- all
this leads to a confusion of the enthusiasts with the book. The
erroneous sense has grown that if not actually a pernicious influence,
it must be at least whimsical and overimaginative, not to be taken
seriously by serious readers.
Whether the film succeeds or fails, the book will live. Tolkien is
coming more and more to be seen as one who spoke to and for his
troubled time. The Lord of the Rings is a mirror. A Middle-Earth
threatened with annihilation, a Shire corrupted by industry, a little
man carrying the instrument of his world's and his own destruction
saved by his nemesis, Gollum, at the Cracks of Doom -- these images
reflect the 20th century, its terrible wars and hopeful attempts to
salvage peace.
There has been already a slight but perceptible shift in academic
attitudes toward Tolkien and his work. A full day of panels and papers
at a recent major academic conference, four projected discussion
sessions at next year's conference, three scholarly books on Tolkien's
work published last year -- these are signs of the times, overdue and
to be welcomed.
***
Brian John Rosebury, principal lecturer in English literature at the
University of Central Lancashire and author of Tolkien: A Critical
Assessment (St. Martin's Press, 1992):
There are several reasons for Tolkien's unpopularity, which
incidentally I think is gradually lessening. The first, realism: the
strength, especially in the '50s and '60s, of the view that literature
should directly or indirectly represent "contemporary social and
political realities." Tolkien's work, especially The Lord of the
Rings, did not appear to do this at all, unless read as just the kind
of crass allegory on contemporary events that it isn't.
Recently it has become clearer that Tolkien's work has a complex
relation to 20th-century experience. His near-anarchist distrust of
political power and his "green" attitudes of hostility to
industrialism and pollution also now look much less idiosyncratic than
was the case from 1950 to 1970. I think it will also become clearer
that Tolkien's criticism of "the machine" puts him in a long tradition
to which late-19th-century writers such as Ruskin and perhaps even
Tolstoy belong.
Modernism: The other main strand in 20th-century literary criticism
until recently was the influence of modernism and its norms. I argue
in my book that Tolkien has many "modernist" qualities -- not least
his use of myth and his willingness to redeploy and transform
premodern literary symbols and devices -- but he entirely lacks the
modernist irony about value and narrative. As modernism recedes
further into history, Tolkien's nonconformity will look more like a
welcome variation and less like a culpable failure to do the bidding
of the Zeitgeist.
Ideological hostility: Tolkien's actual religious, social, and
political views are much more subtle than are sometimes supposed, but
as a Roman Catholic with a skeptical view of "progress" and the modern
world, and a deep aversion to secular ideologies including communism
and feminism, he did not qualify as "one of us" in the eyes of most
late-20th-century academics.
The fans: Though Tolkien's admirers included W.H. Auden and Iris
Murdoch, it was, and is, easy to find naive enthusiasts and be
irritated by them. The very range and intensity of Tolkien's appeal to
readers means that a high proportion of them will not, at least at
first, be equipped to give a "sophisticated" explanation of the
grounds of their pleasure. And the fact that his work cuts across the
norms of literary and cultural criticism makes this more difficult --
there is not a standard discourse to invoke. The forthcoming movie is
likely to renew this effect, unfortunately.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://chronicle.com
Section: The Chronicle Review
Page: B4
/storytext>
Simo Tappola
by that subject, anyway. So if there is articles like these under some
other thread, would you please repost them or point out the right
subject.
Simo
--
*-----------------------------------------------------------*
* "Your mother was a hamster and your *
* father smelled of elderberries!" *
*-----------------------------------------------------------*
Andrew Wells
news:3B95F8C3...@www.fi...
> These are great articles! But why "continued"? I couldn't find messages
> by that subject, anyway. So if there is articles like these under some
> other thread, would you please repost them or point out the right
> subject.
Please don't top-post.
*Please* don't quote 11 KB of text just to add four new lines.
Thanks
Andrew
--
Andrew Wells
Replace nospam with my first name to reach me
Count Menelvagor
> by that subject, anyway. So if there is articles like these under some
> other thread, would you please repost them or point out the right
> subject.
<megasnip>
I don't recall the exact thread, but there was some discussion of
Germaine Greer's remarks about her horrible fear that Tolkien would
end up being the most popular writer of the century, or words to that
effect ...
Norseman
Count Menelvagor <Menel...@mailandnews.com> wrote in article
<6bfb27a8.01090...@posting.google.com>...
Book review: J.R.R. TOLKIEN: AUTHOR OF THE CENTURY
It's further "down", posted later than yours at my end. (If this is the
thread you are refering to.)
Simo Tappola
>
> Please don't top-post.
>
> *Please* don't quote 11 KB of text just to add four new lines.
>
Please get laid.
Aris Katsaris
> Andrew Wells wrote:
> >
> > Please don't top-post.
> >
> > *Please* don't quote 11 KB of text just to add four new lines.
>
> Please get laid.
I'd like to kindly inform you that Andrew Wells was expressing the common
sentiment of pretty much everyone here. His suggestions are part of
common Usenet etiquette and he was much more polite in pointing
them out than he needed to be.
Or than *I* need to be for that matter:
Please be considerate to the other posters here or else fuck off and
never bother us again.
Aris Katsaris
Mark Reichert
> Please get laid.
Please grow up and learn some manners.
Simo Tappola
>
>
> I'd like to kindly inform you that Andrew Wells was expressing the common
> sentiment of pretty much everyone here. His suggestions are part of
> common Usenet etiquette and he was much more polite in pointing
> them out than he needed to be.
>
> Or than *I* need to be for that matter:
> Please be considerate to the other posters here or else fuck off and
> never bother us again.
>
Ooh, it's the "us" thing again. Look, pal, I've been on a number of
mailing lists & Usenet groups and know perfectly well the etiquette
around here. During that time I've also met a number of humourless prats
like you, who are always speaking for "us" and acting as a some kind of
police or otherwise "authoritative" person. So guess what? I am not
going to "fuck off", nor am I going to tell you to fuck off because it
wouldn't do any good: you obviously don't have anything better to do
than to hang around here and tell people to fuck off.
As for my top-posting, I forgot to cut off the articles, OK? And I am
sorry for upsetting your notably sensitive biorhythms.
Simo
Aris Katsaris
> Aris Katsaris wrote:
> >
> > Or than *I* need to be for that matter:
> > Please be considerate to the other posters here or else fuck off and
> > never bother us again.
>
> Ooh, it's the "us" thing again. Look, pal, I've been on a number of
> mailing lists & Usenet groups and know perfectly well the etiquette
> around here.
Do you think this etiquette includes telling people to go get laid?
Screw you, man. Don't play the victim on me. Your forgetting to snip
an 11KB article was a mild nuisance. Being rude when being (politely)
told not to do this again was on the other hand inexcusable.
Aris Katsaris
Simo Tappola
>
> Do you think this etiquette includes telling people to go get laid?
No, but since you put it that way, I think it should.
> Screw you, man. Don't play the victim on me. Your forgetting to snip
> an 11KB article was a mild nuisance. Being rude when being (politely)
> told not to do this again was on the other hand inexcusable.
Have you seen Andrew complaining about how "rude" is was? Screw YOU -
you are the one who is making this an issue.
Tamf Moo
hírüzenetben:
>Have you seen Andrew complaining about how "rude" is was? Screw YOU -
>you are the one who is making this an issue.
sir, *you* were the one who broke netiquette, started the swearing, and in
genereal behaved like an obnoxious little brat. if you want to function in
this newsgroup that is not the way to do it. i suggest you apologise, or at
least stay very quiet for a while.
--
Tamf, Illicit Queen of Lellow Dwagins
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
(sheesh, i thought finns were cool people)
Simo Tappola
>
> sir, *you* were the one who broke netiquette
Right, and I apologised for that.
> started the swearing
Wrong. Aris told me to fuck off. That's when the swearing started.
> genereal behaved like an obnoxious little brat.
That may be and I apologise for that, too. Still it is unbelievable how
easily some persons lose their peace of mind.
> if you want to function in
> this newsgroup that is not the way to do it. i suggest you apologise, or at
> least stay very quiet for a while.
Sir, in case you haven't noticed I already did apologise. And why in
god's name should I "stay very quiet for a while"?! But as regards this
"discussion" I will. Starting from now.
Donald Shepherd
<CountZero...@www.fi> says...
> Tamf Moo wrote:
> > if you want to function in
> > this newsgroup that is not the way to do it. i suggest you apologise, or at
> > least stay very quiet for a while.
>
> Sir, in case you haven't noticed I already did apologise. And why in
> god's name should I "stay very quiet for a while"?! But as regards this
> "discussion" I will. Starting from now.
Sir? Uh-oh.
Hopefully he'll only end up slightly toasted.
--
Donald Shepherd
<donald_...@hotmail.com>
"If Tolkien had meant for us to have a sense of humor,
he would have told us so." - Mark Reichert
Tamf Moo
hírüzenetben:
>In article <3B98B389...@www.fi>, Simo Tappola
>> Sir, in case you haven't noticed I already did apologise. And why in
my news server must be missing posts, then.
>> god's name should I "stay very quiet for a while"?! But as regards this
>> "discussion" I will. Starting from now.
probably of the best! umm... welcome to the group.
>Sir? Uh-oh.
>
>Hopefully he'll only end up slightly toasted.
nahh... i don't care for rotten toast. too un-choklitty. besides, i didn't
turn on my massive female charm todya. who can blame him?
--
Tamf, Illicit Queen of Lellow Dwagins
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
% Slice her up - Slice her up - Slice her up - Poor cow... %
(Tanita Tikaram)
Morgil Blackhope
Tamf Moo wove her webs of LIES AND FLAMES, YOU ASSHOLE!:
<5eahpt0girtt3ddra...@4ax.com>...
>(sheesh, i thought finns were cool people)
You would think that, would you? <nirg>
Morgil
Aris Katsaris
> Tamf Moo wrote:
> >
> > sir, *you* were the one who broke netiquette
>
> Right, and I apologised for that.
No, you didn't. You told a guy to go get laid insteand. *Then* I told you
to be polite OR to fuck off.
It has now become clear that you've chosen to do neither.
Aris Katsaris
Flame of the West
Simo Tappola wrote:
> Ooh, it's the "us" thing again. Look, pal, I've been on a number of
> mailing lists & Usenet groups and know perfectly well the etiquette
> around here. During that time I've also met a number of humourless prats
> like you, who are always speaking for "us" and acting as a some kind of
> police or otherwise "authoritative" person. So guess what? I am not
> going to "fuck off", nor am I going to tell you to fuck off because it
> wouldn't do any good: you obviously don't have anything better to do
> than to hang around here and tell people to fuck off.
>
> As for my top-posting, I forgot to cut off the articles, OK? And I am
> sorry for upsetting your notably sensitive biorhythms.
Judging from the charming demeanor of your post, you are either
very experienced on the Internet, or you come from New York City.
At any rate, try NOT to forget next time. Perhaps if you sobered up
before posting?
--
-- FotW
Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-Earth.
Tamim
> Judging from the charming demeanor of your post, you are either
> very experienced on the Internet, or you come from New York City.
> At any rate, try NOT to forget next time. Perhaps if you sobered up
> before posting?
Oh he comes from Kontula.
Tamf Moo
hírüzenetben:
>>(sheesh, i thought finns were cool people)
>
>You would think that, would you? <nirg>
i understand now that i've had only very limited experience.
<ponders flying to Helsinki>
--
Tamf, Illicit Queen of Lellow Dwagins
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
A large fraction of Swedish (and presumably Finnish) homes
contain a gun, for either hunting or military purposes. But we
don't let our kids play with them or take them to school to
shoot their classmates. (Sverker)
Morgil Blackhope
Tamim kirjoitti viestissä <9nd8j7$co7$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>...
Actually all Finnish cities have their equivalents in USA. For exemple...
Helsinki=New York
Espoo=New Jersey
Turku=Boston
Tampere=Philadephia
Lahti=Chigago
Hanko=Miami
Hämeenlinna=Washington
Pori=Seattle
But thank Eru there´s nothing here like LA! :)
Morgil
Flame of the West
Tamim wrote:
> > Judging from the charming demeanor of your post, you are either
> > very experienced on the Internet, or you come from New York City.
>
> Oh he comes from Kontula.
Oh yes, those pesky Kontulans would just as soon
spit at you at talk to you. Never heard of Kontula.
Tamim
> Tamim wrote:
>> > Judging from the charming demeanor of your post, you are either
>> > very experienced on the Internet, or you come from New York City.
>>
>> Oh he comes from Kontula.
> Oh yes, those pesky Kontulans would just as soon
> spit at you at talk to you. Never heard of Kontula.
It's an infamaous suburb in Helsinki.
Morgil Blackhope
Tamim kirjoitti viestissä <9nfi98$nah$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>...
Of course, most suburbs in Helsinki *are* infamous. :)
Morgil
Morgil Blackhope
Tamf Moo kirjoitti viestissä ...
>"Morgil Blackhope" <more...@hotmail.com> az alábbiakat írta a következõ
>hírüzenetben:
>
>>>(sheesh, i thought finns were cool people)
>>
>>You would think that, would you? <nirg>
>
>i understand now that i've had only very limited experience.
>
><ponders flying to Helsinki>
That´s a good idea. :)
Even better though would be going to Stockholm and taking
the cruise to Helsinki. An excellent way to get to know plenty
of finns in their most natural conditions. ;)
Morgil
Tamf Moo
hírüzenetben:
>Actually all Finnish cities have their equivalents in USA. For exemple...
interesting! so they couldn't even come up with any of their own, could they?
>Helsinki=New York
>Espoo=New Jersey
>Turku=Boston
>Tampere=Philadephia
>Lahti=Chigago
>Hanko=Miami
>Hämeenlinna=Washington
>Pori=Seattle
>
>But thank Eru there´s nothing here like LA! :)
hmmm... what about San Francisco? };8)
(oh i forgot, you didn't go with us to the gay bar)
--
Tamf, Illicit Queen of Lellow Dwagins
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
Men are from Earth. Women are from Earth. Deal with it.
the softrat
<more...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Of course, most suburbs in Helsinki *are* infamous. :)
>
the softrat "He who rubs owls"
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of
horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating
dance.
Tamim
An acquaintance of a friend who had lived a long time in South Africa
said that he wasn't afraid to move around downtown Johannesburg, but
would never go to Kontula in the night time.
--
Öjevind Lång
>On Sun, 9 Sep 2001 15:13:52 +0300, "Morgil Blackhope"
><more...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Of course, most suburbs in Helsinki *are* infamous. :)
>>
>I would have said, "Totally obscure," myself.
Or unfamous?
Öjevind
Morgil Blackhope
Tamf Moo kirjoitti viestissä ...
>hírüzenetben:
>
>>Actually all Finnish cities have their equivalents in USA. For exemple...
>
>interesting! so they couldn't even come up with any of their own, could
they?
>
with something original. ;)
>>But thank Eru there´s nothing here like LA! :)
>
>hmmm... what about San Francisco? };8)
Hmmm, Rauma perhaps...
>(oh i forgot, you didn't go with us to the gay bar)
Yep, I stayed outside reading my Bible.
Morgil
Count Menelvagor
Wlatleasst the flaming has stopped, but we still haven't gotten bax on
t., xxet ... (BTW, I'm a crevolutionist, if nazone wanted to know; *I*
certainly didn't ...)
Flame of the West
Morgil Blackhope wrote:
> Even better though would be going to Stockholm and taking
> the cruise to Helsinki. An excellent way to get to know plenty
> of finns in their most natural conditions. ;)
You mean drunk? ;-)
Öjevind Lång
>Morgil Blackhope wrote:
>
>> Even better though would be going to Stockholm and taking
>> the cruise to Helsinki. An excellent way to get to know plenty
>> of finns in their most natural conditions. ;)
>
>You mean drunk? ;-)
You bet. Man, you don't know the proper meaning of the word "drunk" until
you have travelled on one of those boats. Not that the Finns are responsible
for it all.
Öjevind
Morgil Blackhope
Öjevind Lång kirjoitti viestissä ...
Shall we start the "Which nation is most drunk"-argument again for
FotW´s amusement? :)
Morgil
Tamf Moo
hírüzenetben:
>>You bet. Man, you don't know the proper meaning of the word "drunk" until
>>you have travelled on one of those boats. Not that the Finns are
>>responsible for it all.
scandinavians do seem to have a strange penchant for drinking on boats. the
ferry between Denmark and Norway is an excellent example thereof. <sigh>
the last time[1] i took it, i spent most of the time in my cabin, sleeping.
>Shall we start the "Which nation is most drunk"-argument again for
>FotW´s amusement? :)
my hemul is... sorry, rong thread.
--
Tamf, Illicit Queen of Lellow Dwagins
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
[1] actually the second last time, but the real last time the trip only
lasted two hours, so it doesn't count. nobody got drunk, either.
Raven
news:3B9C3EFB...@erols.com...
> Morgil Blackhope wrote:
> > Even better though would be going to Stockholm and taking
> > the cruise to Helsinki. An excellent way to get to know plenty
> > of finns in their most natural conditions. ;)
> You mean drunk? ;-)
Of course. Why should they be the exception?
Corvo.
Mike Scott Rohan
from Tamf Moo <gnu...@oink.co.uk> contains these words:
> "Morgil Blackhope" <more...@hotmail.com> az alábbiakat írta a következő
> hírüzenetben:
> >>You bet. Man, you don't know the proper meaning of the word "drunk" until
> >>you have travelled on one of those boats. Not that the Finns are
> >>responsible for it all.
Well, a British football special train could give it some
competition. Or a train I once travelled on full of Glasgow-Irish
seamen going home for New Year, which was like the apocalypse on
rails. The Finns I have encountered at public drunkennesses are
positively polite by comparison, or at least friendly; in fact
they're appallingly friendly. They even throw up and fall in the
harbour politely.
> scandinavians do seem to have a strange penchant for drinking on boats. the
> ferry between Denmark and Norway is an excellent example thereof. <sigh>
> the last time[1] i took it, i spent most of the time in my cabin, sleeping.
The Glasgow-Belfast ferry has the same ambiance, or did many years
ago. After helping to supervise, or at least contain, a hundred and
eighty Scots teenagers aboard (like trying to herd cats, rabid cats
at that) I also spent most of the crossing in my bunk, paralytic.
Maybe it's our Norwegian kinship...
> >Shall we start the "Which nation is most drunk"-argument again for
> >FotW´s amusement? :)
Perhapsh not.... %)
Scheersh,
Mike
--
mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk
From Little, Brown, this October -- Shadow of the Seer, the sixth
Winter of the World novel
Visit my site at www.users.zetnet.co.uk/mike.scott.rohan
Russ
<mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> writes:
>The Finns I have encountered at public drunkennesses are
>positively polite by comparison, or at least friendly; in fact
>they're appallingly friendly. They even throw up and fall in the
>harbour politely.
It helps to have clean harbors. Try having only dirty harbors to fall in and
you'll know why the Scots and Irish drunks are so ornery.
Russ
Andrew Wells
> I'd like to kindly inform you that Andrew Wells was expressing the common
> sentiment of pretty much everyone here. His suggestions are part of
> common Usenet etiquette and he was much more polite in pointing
> them out than he needed to be.
>
> Or than *I* need to be for that matter:
> Please be considerate to the other posters here or else fuck off and
> never bother us again.
Thanks for the support, Aris / all.
Andrew