Not quite.  The vision was what might happen if Sauron won.  As bad as
the Scouring was, orcs never overran the Shire, as was seen in the
vision.

-----Original Message-----
From: Russell - Idaho USA [mailto:cottonwoodhobbies@...]
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2004 12:08 PM
To: TolkienDiscussions@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TolkienDiscussions] Re: A ROTK:EE Review! *Spoilers*


But what of the part seen in the vision with Galadrial? Wasn't that the
scouring of the shire prophesied and shown in the film?
--
Russell - Unknown1 - Idaho USA
http://www.narrowgaugenews.net
idahorails-subscribe@... - An Idaho Railroad News and Discussion
Group





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I know what you mean.  My bladder barely held out for the theatrical
version of RoTK as it was.  LOL

Robert/Eol

--- In TolkienDiscussions@yahoogroups.com, "Jack" <jack@t...> wrote:
> Agreed
> My bladder can't stand a four hour movie...
>
> :o)
> Jack

I still wish they had filmed the Scouring, even if just for the EE
DVD.  :)  I would have loved to have seen that!!  To me there is
something big missing from the whole message of the books without
it.  The way it stands in the movies its like they can just go home
and find everything the same as it had been.

Robert/Eol

Robert/Eol

--- In TolkienDiscussions@yahoogroups.com, "Wilson, Bruce"
<brucewilson@m...> wrote:
> Not quite.  The vision was what might happen if Sauron won.  As
bad as
> the Scouring was, orcs never overran the Shire, as was seen in the
> vision.

On one level, I agree with you, but PJ felt that it would have been a bit of an
anticlimax. I'm not a film-maker; I presume that PJ knows his business.

[Wilson, Bruce]
  -----Original Message-----
From: geltharin2003 [mailto:geltharin2003@...]
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 6:13 PM
To: TolkienDiscussions@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [TolkienDiscussions] Re: A ROTK:EE Review! *Spoilers*




I still wish they had filmed the Scouring, even if just for the EE
DVD.  :)  I would have loved to have seen that!!  To me there is
something big missing from the whole message of the books without
it.  The way it stands in the movies its like they can just go home
and find everything the same as it had been.

Robert/Eol




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Stupid AOL! I hate it! And sadly it is my ISP. Curse it!

Here's the article:
LONDON (Oct 27) - Scientists in Australia have found a new species
of hobbit-sized humans who lived about 18,000 years ago on an
Indonesian island in a discovery that adds another piece to the
complex puzzle of human evolution.

The partial skeleton of Homo floresiensis, found in a cave on the
island of Flores, is of an adult female that was 3 feet tall, had a
chimpanzee-sized brain and was substantially different from modern
humans.

It shared the isolated island to the east of Java with miniature
elephants and Komodo dragons. The creature walked upright, probably
evolved into its dwarf size because of environmental conditions and
coexisted with modern humans in the region for thousands of years.

''It is an extraordinarily important find,'' Professor Chris
Stringer, of the Natural History Museum in London, told a news
conference on Wednesday. ''It challenges the whole idea of what it
is that makes us human.''

Peter Brown of the University of New England in Armidale, Australia,
and his colleagues made the discovery of the skull and other bones,
and miniature tools in September 2003 while looking for records of
modern human migration to Asia. They reported the finding in the
science journal Nature.

Finding these hominins on an isolated island in Asia, and with
elements of modern human behavior in tool making and hunting, is
truly remarkable and could not have been predicted by previous
discoveries,'' Brown said in a statement.

Local legends tell of hobbit-like creatures existing on islands long
ago but there has been no evidence of them.

The hominin family tree, which includes humans and pre-humans,
diverged from the chimpanzee line about 7 million years ago. Early
African hominins walked upright, were small and had tiny brains.

The new species, dubbed ''Flores man,'' is thought to be a
descendent of Homo erectus, which had a large brain, was full-sized
and spread out from Africa to Asia about 2 million years ago.

The new species became isolated on Flores and evolved into its dwarf
form to conform with conditions, such as food shortages. Flores,
which was probably never connected to the mainland, was home to a
variety of exotic creatures including a dwarf form of the primitive
elephant Stegodon.

Modern humans had reached Australia about 45,000 years ago but they
may not have passed through Flores. The scientists suspect the new
species became extinct after a massive volcanic eruption on the
island about 12,000 years ago.

Brown and his colleagues have found the remains of seven other dwarf
individuals at the same site since the first find.

The other individuals all show similar characteristics, and over a
time range that now extends from as long ago as 95,000 years to as
recently as 13,000 years ago -- a population of hobbits that seemed
to disappear at about the same time as the pygmy elephants that they
hunted,'' said Bert Roberts, one of the authors of the Nature study.


--- In TolkienDiscussions@yahoogroups.com, "Jack" <jack@t...> wrote:
> Sadly, this doesn't work unless you are an AOL subscriber.
> Tell us about it, X Nemesis!
>
>
> :o)
> Jack
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xnemesis01 [mailto:xnemesis01@y...]
>
> aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?
id=20041027131709990027&cid=911
>
> And my sister says that Lord of the Rings isn't real.
>
> XNemesis
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Come and visit our Tolkien Discussions group online and take
advantage
> of our Messages, Chat, Files, Photos, Links, Database, Polls,
Members,
> and Calendar sections.
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TolkienDiscussions
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links

There are also several articles about it on BBC World Service
http://news.bbc.co.uk


-----Original Message-----
From: xnemesis01 [mailto:xnemesis01@...]
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 2:53 PM
To: TolkienDiscussions@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [TolkienDiscussions] Re: Hobbit remains found!



Stupid AOL! I hate it! And sadly it is my ISP. Curse it!

Here's the article:
LONDON (Oct 27) - Scientists in Australia have found a new species
of hobbit-sized humans who lived about 18,000 years ago on an
Indonesian island in a discovery that adds another piece to the
complex puzzle of human evolution.

The partial skeleton of Homo floresiensis, found in a cave on the
island of Flores, is of an adult female that was 3 feet tall, had a
chimpanzee-sized brain and was substantially different from modern
humans.

It shared the isolated island to the east of Java with miniature
elephants and Komodo dragons. The creature walked upright, probably
evolved into its dwarf size because of environmental conditions and
coexisted with modern humans in the region for thousands of years.

''It is an extraordinarily important find,'' Professor Chris
Stringer, of the Natural History Museum in London, told a news
conference on Wednesday. ''It challenges the whole idea of what it
is that makes us human.''

Peter Brown of the University of New England in Armidale, Australia,
and his colleagues made the discovery of the skull and other bones,
and miniature tools in September 2003 while looking for records of
modern human migration to Asia. They reported the finding in the
science journal Nature.

Finding these hominins on an isolated island in Asia, and with
elements of modern human behavior in tool making and hunting, is
truly remarkable and could not have been predicted by previous
discoveries,'' Brown said in a statement.

Local legends tell of hobbit-like creatures existing on islands long
ago but there has been no evidence of them.

The hominin family tree, which includes humans and pre-humans,
diverged from the chimpanzee line about 7 million years ago. Early
African hominins walked upright, were small and had tiny brains.

The new species, dubbed ''Flores man,'' is thought to be a
descendent of Homo erectus, which had a large brain, was full-sized
and spread out from Africa to Asia about 2 million years ago.

The new species became isolated on Flores and evolved into its dwarf
form to conform with conditions, such as food shortages. Flores,
which was probably never connected to the mainland, was home to a
variety of exotic creatures including a dwarf form of the primitive
elephant Stegodon.

Modern humans had reached Australia about 45,000 years ago but they
may not have passed through Flores. The scientists suspect the new
species became extinct after a massive volcanic eruption on the
island about 12,000 years ago.

Brown and his colleagues have found the remains of seven other dwarf
individuals at the same site since the first find.

The other individuals all show similar characteristics, and over a
time range that now extends from as long ago as 95,000 years to as
recently as 13,000 years ago -- a population of hobbits that seemed
to disappear at about the same time as the pygmy elephants that they
hunted,'' said Bert Roberts, one of the authors of the Nature study.


--- In TolkienDiscussions@yahoogroups.com, "Jack" <jack@t...> wrote:
> Sadly, this doesn't work unless you are an AOL subscriber.
> Tell us about it, X Nemesis!
>
>
> :o)
> Jack
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xnemesis01 [mailto:xnemesis01@y...]
>
> aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?
id=20041027131709990027&cid=911
>
> And my sister says that Lord of the Rings isn't real.
>
> XNemesis
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Come and visit our Tolkien Discussions group online and take
advantage
> of our Messages, Chat, Files, Photos, Links, Database, Polls,
Members,
> and Calendar sections.
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TolkienDiscussions
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links





Come and visit our Tolkien Discussions group online and take advantage
of our Messages, Chat, Files, Photos, Links, Database, Polls, Members,
and Calendar sections.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TolkienDiscussions




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

 
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129ber7ts/M=313392.5504507.6581203.5263583/D=groups\
/S=1705019844:HM/EXP=1099598136/A=2392336/R=1/SIG=12alh5daa/*http://adfarm.media\
plex.com/ad/ck/4708-23951-1039-8?mpt=1099511736887439> Zooba, Latest Hardcover
Bestsellers - Always Free Shipping
  
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=313392.5504507.6581203.5263583/D=groups/S=:HM/\
A=2392336/rand=569322493>


   _____

Yahoo! Groups Links


* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TolkienDiscussions/


* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TolkienDiscussions-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:TolkienDiscussions-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>


* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Foolish, XssNemesisss, foolishhh.  Musstn't use nasty AOL, no preciousss

Good article though!
:o)
Jack

-----Original Message-----
From: xnemesis01 [mailto:xnemesis01@...]
Stupid AOL! I hate it! And sadly it is my ISP. Curse it!

Here's the article:
LONDON (Oct 27) - Scientists in Australia have found a new species
of hobbit-sized humans who lived about 18,000 years ago on an
Indonesian island in a discovery that adds another piece to the
complex puzzle of human evolution.

The partial skeleton of Homo floresiensis, found in a cave on the
island of Flores, is of an adult female that was 3 feet tall, had a
chimpanzee-sized brain and was substantially different from modern
humans.

It shared the isolated island to the east of Java with miniature
elephants and Komodo dragons. The creature walked upright, probably
evolved into its dwarf size because of environmental conditions and
coexisted with modern humans in the region for thousands of years.

''It is an extraordinarily important find,'' Professor Chris
Stringer, of the Natural History Museum in London, told a news
conference on Wednesday. ''It challenges the whole idea of what it
is that makes us human.''

Peter Brown of the University of New England in Armidale, Australia,
and his colleagues made the discovery of the skull and other bones,
and miniature tools in September 2003 while looking for records of
modern human migration to Asia. They reported the finding in the
science journal Nature.

Finding these hominins on an isolated island in Asia, and with
elements of modern human behavior in tool making and hunting, is
truly remarkable and could not have been predicted by previous
discoveries,'' Brown said in a statement.

Local legends tell of hobbit-like creatures existing on islands long
ago but there has been no evidence of them.

The hominin family tree, which includes humans and pre-humans,
diverged from the chimpanzee line about 7 million years ago. Early
African hominins walked upright, were small and had tiny brains.

The new species, dubbed ''Flores man,'' is thought to be a
descendent of Homo erectus, which had a large brain, was full-sized
and spread out from Africa to Asia about 2 million years ago.

The new species became isolated on Flores and evolved into its dwarf
form to conform with conditions, such as food shortages. Flores,
which was probably never connected to the mainland, was home to a
variety of exotic creatures including a dwarf form of the primitive
elephant Stegodon.

Modern humans had reached Australia about 45,000 years ago but they
may not have passed through Flores. The scientists suspect the new
species became extinct after a massive volcanic eruption on the
island about 12,000 years ago.

Brown and his colleagues have found the remains of seven other dwarf
individuals at the same site since the first find.

The other individuals all show similar characteristics, and over a
time range that now extends from as long ago as 95,000 years to as
recently as 13,000 years ago -- a population of hobbits that seemed
to disappear at about the same time as the pygmy elephants that they
hunted,'' said Bert Roberts, one of the authors of the Nature study.


--- In TolkienDiscussions@yahoogroups.com, "Jack" <jack@t...> wrote:
> Sadly, this doesn't work unless you are an AOL subscriber.
> Tell us about it, X Nemesis!
>
>
> :o)
> Jack
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xnemesis01 [mailto:xnemesis01@y...]
>
> aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?
id=20041027131709990027&cid=911
>
> And my sister says that Lord of the Rings isn't real.
>
> XNemesis
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Come and visit our Tolkien Discussions group online and take
advantage
> of our Messages, Chat, Files, Photos, Links, Database, Polls,
Members,
> and Calendar sections.
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TolkienDiscussions
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links






Come and visit our Tolkien Discussions group online and take advantage
of our Messages, Chat, Files, Photos, Links, Database, Polls, Members,
and Calendar sections.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TolkienDiscussions

Yahoo! Groups Links

You know, it's kinda sad.

For three years and more we were the top of the game. Our knowledge and
opinions were in demand and newbies hung on our every word. The jocks and
cheerleaders who snubbed us in school needed us to learn about what they had
always
ignored.

Life was good.

Then the script kiddies came. New to Middle Earth they thought the movies
were best and what the Professor wrote just couldn't be right cause that's not
what Viggo or Liv said.

And now...now it's all over. Just more debris in the Deep Fields of Virtu,
discards behind the Alter of the New.

But when all's said and done one thought remains and stands clear above the
rest...

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mister Anderson."

:-))


Sir Question of The Mark, K of T



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

i know how you feel... i have been throught this (and
worse) some times :)

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Αποκτήστε τη δωρεάν @yahoo.gr διεύθυνση σας στο http://www.otenet.gr

Hey I'm new to the group and found your post quite interesting.  I
saw the first movie and proceeded to run to the bookstore with a
trail of fire behind me.  I have since become an enormous Tolkien
fan, reading a great deal of his work.  The problem is that my
reaction is not the norm.  Too many people take the approach of
treating the movies as just "science fiction," when in reality, the
LOTR is nothing even close to science fiction in my opinion.  Then
there are the people who love the movies, but don't care about
reading the books.  I've heard some people compare the LOTR to the
original Star Wars Trilogy, as if there is any comparision to be
made other than it spans three movies.

I still love the movies and remember that it was them which
motivated me to read all of Tolkien's work on Middle Earth.  I thank
Peter Jackson and his crew many times over their hard work.  But the
problem of which we speak is a cultural one.  Too many people
worship the screen, and their superficiality prevents them from
appreciating things like the Silmarilion, needing a flashy, short
story to wrap themselves around.  And I agree it is a tragedy.

In a message dated 11/9/04 10:06:53 AM Mountain Standard Time,
greekss454@... writes:
> Hey I'm new to the group and found your post quite interesting.  I
> saw the first movie and proceeded to run to the bookstore with a
> trail of fire behind me.  I have since become an enormous Tolkien
> fan, reading a great deal of his work.

I'm glad, for your sake that you discovered a love for Middle Earth through
the literature. I 'm one of those geeks who discovered Middle Earth MANY years
ago (I bought the Silmarillion on it's first day of release!) and for a time
there I and others like me were crowing "The geeks have won!"

That post was brought on by the fact that this group has gone from 100+ posts
per day to maybe one or two per week. The last flurry of postings were about
what may be in ROTK Ex Ed.

Andy Warhol said that everybody gets 15 minuets of fame. Well we had three
years. It was a helluva ride while it lasted.

Jack, Bruce, Gunner, Idril and all the others of the old guard...I've missed
you guys.

Sir Question of The Mark, K of T



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> That post was brought on by the fact that this group
> has gone from 100+ posts
> per day to maybe one or two per week. The last
> flurry of postings were about
> what may be in ROTK Ex Ed.

it was the reason why i left... the condition was unbearable

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Αποκτήστε τη δωρεάν @yahoo.gr διεύθυνση σας στο http://www.otenet.gr

Hi Greeks, and welcome!
Consider this - if someone has seen the movie and not read the book - it's
their loss...


:o)
Jack

-----Original Message-----
From: greekss454 [mailto:greekss454@...]
Hey I'm new to the group and found your post quite interesting.  I
saw the first movie and proceeded to run to the bookstore with a
trail of fire behind me.  I have since become an enormous Tolkien
fan, reading a great deal of his work.  The problem is that my
reaction is not the norm.  Too many people take the approach of
treating the movies as just "science fiction," when in reality, the
LOTR is nothing even close to science fiction in my opinion.  Then
there are the people who love the movies, but don't care about
reading the books.  I've heard some people compare the LOTR to the
original Star Wars Trilogy, as if there is any comparision to be
made other than it spans three movies.

I still love the movies and remember that it was them which
motivated me to read all of Tolkien's work on Middle Earth.  I thank
Peter Jackson and his crew many times over their hard work.  But the
problem of which we speak is a cultural one.  Too many people
worship the screen, and their superficiality prevents them from
appreciating things like the Silmarilion, needing a flashy, short
story to wrap themselves around.  And I agree it is a tragedy.






Come and visit our Tolkien Discussions group online and take advantage
of our Messages, Chat, Files, Photos, Links, Database, Polls, Members,
and Calendar sections.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TolkienDiscussions

Yahoo! Groups Links

I'll admit to reading the books because of the movies,
but I enjoyed the story in the book much more.  Maybe
it fufiled my desire for more ME and for the most part
I liked the way the book went more than what was
changed in the movie.  I even became one of those
people who were irritated by those who worshiped the
movies - though I may myself, but like I said, I
really enjoyed the books - when I worked at a pewter
store that carried a large variety of LOTR items based
on the books I was highly annoyed.  Constantly
explaining to people that it was infact a book and
that that is why none of these people look like
orlando bloom.  One guy when through every peice and
if he couldnt name where it was in movie he wanted me
too.  Most of what actually was based on a scene from
the story was based on a book scene and most were not
in the movie.  Then there is a Legolas leaning on a
stump.  I dont think it ever says he was leaning on a
stump.  He's just leaning ona stump.  I'm sure he had
hundreds of chances in that year to lean on a large
variety of stumps.  Then there was the person who was
seriously angry because they didnt look like the
movie.  She ranted and raved the whole time she was in
the store.  I'm hoping to finish the Silm.  Sadly
after about 4 chapters it has taken a  lonely backseat
to the class I'm failing at the moment.  I'll finish
it eventually.

Lisa



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com

Hey Lisa, take your time with the Silmarillion, it took me a long time because I
read it for the first time while class was in session last year.  You will have
to read it again anyway, it gets very confusing...glad to see I wasn't the only
person inspired by the movies to read the books!!!





---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
  Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

OMG OMG!!  That is so cool!!  Well done, well done.

Robert/Eol


--- In TolkienDiscussions@yahoogroups.com, Tripleleo60@c... wrote:
> You know, it's kinda sad.
>
> For three years and more we were the top of the game. Our
knowledge and
> opinions were in demand and newbies hung on our every word. The
jocks and
> cheerleaders who snubbed us in school needed us to learn about
what they had always
> ignored.
>
> Life was good.
>
> Then the script kiddies came. New to Middle Earth they thought the
movies
> were best and what the Professor wrote just couldn't be right
cause that's not
> what Viggo or Liv said.
>
> And now...now it's all over. Just more debris in the Deep Fields
of Virtu,
> discards behind the Alter of the New.
>
> But when all's said and done one thought remains and stands clear
above the
> rest...
>
> "Welcome to Rivendell, Mister Anderson."
>
> :-))
>
>
> Sir Question of The Mark, K of T
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Very well put, it is a tradgedy in a way.  The past time of reading
is being trampled on in favor of movies.  Now don't get me wrong.  I
LOVE movies.  But too many people spend more time watching TV and
movies than they do reading any more.  I know people who instead of
reading a book they have been told is good, look to see if there is
a movie version to watch instead.  Now this would not bother me if
they watched the movie to get a taste of it, then read the books if
they liked what they saw, apparently what you did.  :)  But I know
people that watch the movie, then don't read the book, and don't
even think about reading the book.  There are lots of people out
there that think of reading as being a waste of time or something.
How sad.  I was one of them when I was in grade school, but I was a
kid.  Then my Father handed me this book with a funny title, and
said that I should read it.  So I starting reading, and then I
couldn't stop!  I read the whole thing, and then started looking for
other books by the same author, and 'devoured' those as well.  A
reader was born.  :)  The title of the book.... The Hobbit  :)



--- In TolkienDiscussions@yahoogroups.com, "greekss454"
<greekss454@y...> wrote:
>
> Hey I'm new to the group and found your post quite interesting.  I
> saw the first movie and proceeded to run to the bookstore with a
> trail of fire behind me.  I have since become an enormous Tolkien
> fan, reading a great deal of his work.  The problem is that my
> reaction is not the norm.  Too many people take the approach of
> treating the movies as just "science fiction," when in reality,
the
> LOTR is nothing even close to science fiction in my opinion.  Then
> there are the people who love the movies, but don't care about
> reading the books.  I've heard some people compare the LOTR to the
> original Star Wars Trilogy, as if there is any comparision to be
> made other than it spans three movies.
>
> I still love the movies and remember that it was them which
> motivated me to read all of Tolkien's work on Middle Earth.  I
thank
> Peter Jackson and his crew many times over their hard work.  But
the
> problem of which we speak is a cultural one.  Too many people
> worship the screen, and their superficiality prevents them from
> appreciating things like the Silmarilion, needing a flashy, short
> story to wrap themselves around.  And I agree it is a tragedy.

In a message dated 11/9/2004 8:07:16 PM Eastern Standard Time,
geltharin2003@... writes:
I know people who instead of
reading a book they have been told is good, look to see if there is
a movie version to watch instead.  Now this would not bother me if
they watched the movie to get a taste of it, then read the books if
they liked what they saw, apparently what you did.  :)
It can be quite funny.  I teaching a reading skills course.  And the people
who have watched the movie version of the Scarlet Letter and have not read the
book, have really amusing answers on tests.

It makes up for their stupidity.


I do want to teach LOTR and see how many people watch the movie instead of
reading the books.  I want to see what answers I get then.

Chris


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 11/9/04 6:18:35 PM Mountain Standard Time,
geltharin2003@... writes:
> Well done, well done.

Thank You.

Sir Question of The Mark, K of T



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

hehe  That would be interesting, seeing what kind of answers you
got.  hehe

Robert/Eol

--- In TolkienDiscussions@yahoogroups.com, ethiercn@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 11/9/2004 8:07:16 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> geltharin2003@y... writes:
> I know people who instead of
> reading a book they have been told is good, look to see if there
is
> a movie version to watch instead.  Now this would not bother me if
> they watched the movie to get a taste of it, then read the books
if
> they liked what they saw, apparently what you did.  :)
> It can be quite funny.  I teaching a reading skills course.  And
the people
> who have watched the movie version of the Scarlet Letter and have
not read the
> book, have really amusing answers on tests.
>
> It makes up for their stupidity.
>
>
> I do want to teach LOTR and see how many people watch the movie
instead of
> reading the books.  I want to see what answers I get then.
>
> Chris
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

You know, the superiority attitude of "book fans" over "movie fans" is
pretty unseemly. I first read LotR in 3rd grade and have since read
every scrap (thank you Christopher) of JRR Tolkien stuff I could find
and have written scholarly papers about his works, etc. Does that make
me "better" than people who only experienced the magic via the very well
adapted movies? No. It may mean I know more Tolkien ephemera than they,
but it doesn't make my love "better" than theirs.

Every Tolkien fan ought to be extremely happy that the books they so
loved found a new segment of readers worldwide, not trumping up some
superiority attitude about their love for Tolkien or how it's great that
they got to "Lord" it over someone because they got made fun of as kids.
Hey, I not only got made fun of I got my first edition of "Unfinished
Tales" taken from my hands, thrown to the ground, then stomped on.

I notice this kind of passive-aggressive superiority a lot on the
internet: people who scream down every wrong fact and preen triumphantly
because they know the name of the 3rd creature on the right in the
cantina who is wearing the green dress and THAT MORON doesn't.
Seriously, which of Tolkien's characters evidenced attitudes like that?
The heroes or the villains? I grant you elven elitism, but was that ever
shown in a favorable light (by an author who was obviously a genius so
had plenty of room to look down his nose at others)?

My best friend (of close to 20 years) has always known that LotR and
Star Wars are my two favorite tales. Not until the movies came out,
though, did he ever read the books. (He is an avid reader just as I am.)
But after they did he read the books and has now become "one of us" (the
people who reread the books once a year, look for other Tolkien stuff to
read, et cetera).

Yeah, I know I am preaching. Sorry, I just find it an unproductive
attitude to have and certainly not one that is ever likely to encourage
someone to actually change/like you/become interested in the books over
the movies.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you love something do you
really want to cop an exclusionary attitude about it or would you rather
let other people understand why you love it, share it with them, build a
rapport with them, and thereby build a better community? Don't treat
movie fans like the Sackville-Bagginses for goodness' sake!

Rob A.

Hey Rob, you wrote the following in conclusion of your thoughts
earlier:
> I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you love something do you
> really want to cop an exclusionary attitude about it or would you
rather
> let other people understand why you love it, share it with them,
build a
> rapport with them, and thereby build a better community? Don't
treat
> movie fans like the Sackville-Bagginses for goodness' sake!
>
> Rob A.

The idea here is not to exclude movie fans Rob.  The idea is to get
movie-ONLY fans to be a bit less superficial and read the books.
While our rants in the past few threads have seemed elitist, it's
really a specific response to a larger problem in our society: lack
of appreciation for the written word.  If you can't soundbite it or
make it flashy enough to hold people's attention for a few hours, it
isn't going to make any money and therefore isn't worthy.  That is
the elitism that needs to change Rob.  While I agree with most of
what you said, I think society is headed down a terribly lazy and
superficial path where intellectualism is of little importance and
our complaints here are simply specific examples of the frustration
which this movement can cause.

--- George Microulis <greekss454@...> έγραψε:
>
> Hey Lisa, take your time with the Silmarillion, it
> took me a long time because I read it for the first
> time while class was in session last year.  You will
> have to read it again anyway, it gets very
> confusing...glad to see I wasn't the only person
> inspired by the movies to read the books!!!

Hi George... should i assume you are greek too? if
yes, i hope you have checked www.tolkien.gr and the
forum http://b26.ezboard.com/blordoftheringsgr :)

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Αποκτήστε τη δωρεάν @yahoo.gr διεύθυνση σας στο http://www.otenet.gr

> It makes up for their stupidity.

That's the attitude I mean. Trust me, I understand it and have felt the
frustration that gives rise to it. But who is going to listen to your
recommendation to them of something they should read when you've
prefaced the conversation with that? All you've done is set up a barrier
to them caring or trying.

Obviously I think they should read it, too. But the lessons and love
they got from Tolkien's work via the movies is no less valid than those
of us who have read the written works and what we got there.

If you got something out of Professor Tolkien's work via the books and
believe that is something different or larger than they got from just
the movies, where is the profit in saying to them "You are too stupid to
get what I got, but I am going to put you down for not even trying?"

I go back to Will Roger's (I believe) quote that said "all people are
ignorant, just on different topics."

If you really want them to take an interest and understand, setting up
barriers that drive them away isn't going to help. I guess I am trying
to encourage an attitude that SOLVES their ignorance instead of
PROPAGATES it while serving as an ego boost for those of us who seek
such things out because of our nature, our circumstance, or whatever.

I'm talking about an alliance between elves and dwarves instead of
looking down at each other to the detriment of both. (If I may speak
metaphorically and assume everyone here will understand.)

JMO, of course.

Rob

> I've heard some people compare the LOTR to the
> original Star Wars Trilogy, as if there is any comparision to be
> made other than it spans three movies.

Both are mythologic retellings of themes and characters which speak to
almost all people because they are so universal. That's the magic of
myth, which is what both are.

I concur 100% that it is a cultural issue that is wider than this
discussion of Professor Tolkien's work. THAT'S why I am saying
something. Just as Tolkien's myth speaks to us, it speaks to others.
Asking them what it says to them and comparing and contrasting (and
encouraging) seems more efficacious than ridicule or condescension which
certainly isn't going to engage them or make them want to read more
instead of watching more of the godawful television.

I echo the comment someone made by saying that one of the reasons I read
at a much higher level than normal in 4th grade was because I, like
them, was enchanted by LotR when I got it in 3rd grade. I was forced to
push myself in order to understand these books that were beyond my
comprehension at that point. Did any of us get to THAT stage by someone
telling us "You're too stupid to understand that, ha-ha?" Maybe, but
that would be not the norm.

And like any great myth, any great art, any great story there is more
there to understand each time I re-read it throughout life. I'm
certainly not advocating that people not read. IMO that's the biggest
problem facing the world these days is that everyone is too lazy or too
busy to read and understand and instead want someone else to pre-package
it and pre-digest it for them and hand it to them with no intellectual
effort. But I'm happy if people can get even 1/100th of what I've gotten
from Tolkien whether it leads them further or not even though obviously
I am going to try to encourage them to explore further. As an educator I
have to assume the professor, though crusty, encouraged his students and
didn't look down his nose at them.

Again, this is all JMO. I enjoy such discussion because they apply myth
and story to real-life situations and I enjoy that kind of thing more
than debating if lembas tasted like pita bread or more like cinnamon
graham crackers or Bisquick biscuits.

Late night thoughts as the subject says! :)

Rob

>> Hey Lisa, take your time with the Silmarillion, it
>> took me a long time because I read it for the first
>> time while class was in session last year.  You will
>> have to read it again anyway, it gets very
>> confusing...glad to see I wasn't the only person
>> inspired by the movies to read the books!!!

The friend I spoke about says he like the Silmarillion (which I gave him
as a Christmas gift last year), but it is "not as engaging" as LotR.
Naturally I said this is a common complaint amongst Tolkien-o-philes
even though they also often say "but the story is even better." The
Silmarillion's strength is also its weakness: It encompasses so much.

I've had good success (and I should have done this with my friend, so
maybe this Christmas) with shifting people to "Unfinished Tales" before
"Silmarillion" because UT has shorter works, whets the appetite for the
first and second ages while still having things in it that relate
directly to the third, etc. People seem to devour UT if they like LoTR
and it also gives them a stepping stone to the Silmarillion because it
contains info about those tales, too.

>Hi George... should i assume you are greek too? if
>yes, i hope you have checked www.tolkien.gr and the
>forum http://b26.ezboard.com/blordoftheringsgr :)

It blows my mind that I can talk to people all over the world about
Tolkien without leaving my desk.

Rob

depends on how fast someone reads... I have let's say,
some kind of problem on concentration and I read VERY
slowly... someone who has the same problem as me might
not wish to spend 6 months of his life in reading
something he has already seen

that's the case with me and Harry Potter... I enjoyed
the movies very mucha and I look forward to the
others, but I think that reading the books will be a
waste of time... i'd rather talk about the differences
with some fans

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Αποκτήστε τη δωρεάν @yahoo.gr διεύθυνση σας στο http://www.otenet.gr

Interesting that you use Harry Potter for your example here.  The
movies were terrible in my opinion (the third was an improvment over
the first two) because intercharacter relationship development is
what makes the books so good and that was completely cut out of the
films for time reasons I assume.

I also read painfully slowly, but the Harry Potter books read very
very quickly, they aren't difficult to get through at all,
especially if you are used to reading Tolkien (who is on the
difficult side).

Well, actually Rob, I am an American.  As I like to say, made is
America with Greek parts.  Greece is a great place to visit,
although it doesn't compare well with any of the landscapes you'll
find in Middle Earth, Beleriand or anywhere in Arda......    :-)

nobody could answer this to me...

I know about the latest edition of LOTR with
corrections over the older ones, done by some Anderson

I have read the preface to this edition by him saying
about the many editions and all the chaotic
reconsiderations, and said that he expects that this
edition is the closest to what Tolkien always
intended...

but what I never understood are what changes and
corrections did he do

anybody can give me some examples?

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Αποκτήστε τη δωρεάν @yahoo.gr διεύθυνση σας στο http://www.otenet.gr