I have seen the Azkaban movie once, but only once.  It is a nice movie,
imo.  I liked it.  I was just skimming the New York Times review as I lined
the guinea pig's cage with newspapers... at the very end it mentions a late
cameo by Timothy Spall.  Who is he and what was that all about?  I suspect
this could be spoiler material so could whoever answers please put the
usual extra lines up top.  Thanks,

Lizzie


Elizabeth Apgar Triano
lizziewriter@...
amor vincit omnia

Timothy Spall played Peter Pettigrew (aka Scabbers).
I don't know the significance of "late cameo" *shrugs*

for a picture and his acting credits, try The Internet Movie
Database -- http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001758/


Annette


--- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Apgar Triano"
<lizziewriter@e...> wrote:
> I have seen the Azkaban movie once, but only once.  It is a nice
movie,
> imo.  I liked it.  I was just skimming the New York Times review
as I lined
> the guinea pig's cage with newspapers... at the very end it
mentions a late
> cameo by Timothy Spall.  Who is he and what was that all about?  I
suspect
> this could be spoiler material so could whoever answers please put
the
> usual extra lines up top.  Thanks,
>
> Lizzie
>
>
> Elizabeth Apgar Triano
> lizziewriter@e...
> amor vincit omnia

Thanks for passing along the link, Annette.  Spall has a long list of movie
credits, to be sure, but I have only seen him in Branagh's Hamlet--so now I
know why he looked so familiar in HP3!  I thought I'd seen him on PBS or
something.

Kevin


>===== Original Message From "Annette Israel" <annette.israel@...>
=====
>Timothy Spall played Peter Pettigrew (aka Scabbers).
>I don't know the significance of "late cameo" *shrugs*
>
>for a picture and his acting credits, try The Internet Movie
>Database -- http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001758/
>
>
>Annette
>
>
>--- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Apgar Triano"
><lizziewriter@e...> wrote:
>> I have seen the Azkaban movie once, but only once.  It is a nice
>movie,
>> imo.  I liked it.  I was just skimming the New York Times review
>as I lined
>> the guinea pig's cage with newspapers... at the very end it
>mentions a late
>> cameo by Timothy Spall.  Who is he and what was that all about?  I
>suspect
>> this could be spoiler material so could whoever answers please put
>the
>> usual extra lines up top.  Thanks,
>>
>> Lizzie
>>
>>
>> Elizabeth Apgar Triano
>> lizziewriter@e...
>> amor vincit omnia
>
>
>
>
>The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

In a message dated 7/1/2004 8:55:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bowring@...
writes:

> I thought I'd seen him on PBS or
> something.

Quite possibly you did if what you were watching was a British TV series
being shown on PBS.  He's done a lot of British TV.  In _Hamlet_ he was
Rosencrantz.  He was the father in _Life is Sweet_ and the photographer who is
the
brother of the lead character in _Secrets and Lies_.

Wendell Wagner


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

I have been a fan of Spall since I saw him in a movie that was on
Masterpiece Theater called "Shooting the Past" he played an eccentric
curator of a photographic museum collection.  I have been finding him in
performances ever since.  He is probably one of the ablest british character
actors living today.  Few people know him but he was in Last Samurai with
Tom Cruise, also Vanillia Sky.  He's got a part in the Series of Unfortunate
Events movies with Jim Carrey.  I won't even try to list is British
performances but he is listed on Internet Movie Data Base (available by
googling IMDB).  The reason he was mentioned was probably because of the odd
cult following he has here in the States


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

You know two things about that.  First If you watch the extended DVD.  there
is a thirty second scene in which he explains that he reverse engineered the
aliens program using the ship so the computer wasn't communicting, he was
using the computer to run the ships systems.  I explained it badly but the
story makes more sense if you watch it.  Second, I have a group of about
nine cllose friends I saw that movie with, almost all of which are PC users.
We have one person that uses an Apple Computer.  We spent the rest of the
summer joking with him by saying we always suspected the Apple was really
the Vanguard of ALien invaders, and now we knew
   -----Original Message-----
   From: Elizabeth Apgar Triano [mailto:lizziewriter@...]
   Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 3:27 PM
   To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
   Subject: Re: [mythsoc] If you're up to =here= with movie special
effects...


   Oh, and speaking of stupid writing, I generally loved INDEPENDENCE DAY,
and
   Will Smith not least. But when he gets into a totally alien spaceship and
   jimmies their totally alien computer???? GMAB!!!! Suspension of disbelief
   leapt right out the window.>>

   Oh, Diamond, I missed that part.  I only saw a chunk out of the middle.  I
   liked "Welcome to Earth."  POW.

   Lizzie

   Elizabeth Apgar Triano
   lizziewriter@...
   amor vincit omnia





   The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org


         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
               ADVERTISEMENT





----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
   Yahoo! Groups Links

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

     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     mythsoc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

<< Timothy Spall played Peter Pettigrew (aka Scabbers).
I don't know the significance of "late cameo" *shrugs* >>


Thanks, Annette.  The words are mine... they used more words, something
along the lines of a late, repulsive appearance.  It all makes sense now.

Lizzie


Elizabeth Apgar Triano
lizziewriter@...
amor vincit omnia

Hi all.

Some of you know me because I used to attend Mythcons
regularly and go to Khazad-dum meetings. I've been out of
touch for awhile now (a lot to do with transportation
difficulties) but lurking on the list. I usually read the
mail days after an argument and/or discussion is over.

About me: I work at the local public library and am close to
retirement. My favorite authors are Dorothy Dunnett, JRR
Tolkien, Patricia McKillip, Diana Wynne Jones, and Dorothy
Sayers. I'm not that fond of Harry Potter. As many of you
are, I'm ambivalent about Peter Jackson's version of Middle
Earth. I didn't hate it and there are things I liked, mostly
to do with set design. I loved Rohan and Hobbiton, for
example. My favorite scene in the trilogy was Gandalf's
battle with the Balrog. Hated the distorted
characterizations of Faramir, Denethor, and Frodo.

So here I am announcing my presence only because I want
something. <g>

I picked up years ago a jigsaw puzzle of JRR Tolkien I'm
getting rid of. Does anyone on the list want it before I
take it to Goodwill?


Pat Witham (catspaw@...)

P.S. Hi David, Bernie, and Lisa

Hello, Pat - nice to see you here.

At 12:44 PM 7/3/2004 -0700, Pat Witham wrote:

>My favorite authors are Dorothy Dunnett, JRR
>Tolkien, Patricia McKillip, Diana Wynne Jones, and Dorothy
>Sayers.

Four of those five are favorites of mine also (I don't much care for
Dunnett), and you're responsible for pointing me to my favorite book by one
of them, DWJ's _Fire and Hemlock_.

>I picked up years ago a jigsaw puzzle of JRR Tolkien I'm
>getting rid of. Does anyone on the list want it before I
>take it to Goodwill?

The Mythcon Auction wants it.  If you're not going, I can take it: let's
arrange to meet.  If you're not coming up my way, I might be going down yours.

- David Bratman

That sound great, David. Would it be OK if I mail it? I
don't have a functioning car for now?

-----Original Message-----
From: David Bratman <dbratman@...>
To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com <mythsoc@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Saturday, July 03, 2004 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Out of lurkdom into the light


>Hello, Pat - nice to see you here.
>
>At 12:44 PM 7/3/2004 -0700, Pat Witham wrote:
>
>>My favorite authors are Dorothy Dunnett, JRR
>>Tolkien, Patricia McKillip, Diana Wynne Jones, and Dorothy
>>Sayers.
>
>Four of those five are favorites of mine also (I don't much
care for
>Dunnett), and you're responsible for pointing me to my
favorite book by one
>of them, DWJ's _Fire and Hemlock_.
>
>>I picked up years ago a jigsaw puzzle of JRR Tolkien I'm
>>getting rid of. Does anyone on the list want it before I
>>take it to Goodwill?
>
>The Mythcon Auction wants it.  If you're not going, I can
take it: let's
>arrange to meet.  If you're not coming up my way, I might
be going down yours.
>
>- David Bratman
>
>
>
>------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor --------------------~-->
>Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
>Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
>http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/DtIolB/TM
>-----------------------------------------------------------
---------~->
>
>The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

"He's a Grail knight," said University of Maryland English professor Verlyn
Flieger, who specializes in myth. Like Galahad, the Round Table knight who
finally succeeded in his quest for the Holy Grail, Armstrong grew up without
his natural father, who left his mother when he was a baby. Like many an
ancient hero, Armstrong's will to succeed has been forged in fire:
testicular cancer, which invaded his lungs and brain and nearly killed him
in 1996, when his pro cycling career was starting to flower.

Starting today, the 32-year-old Armstrong is engaging in the ur-contest:
against himself. "That is the more interesting and psychologically difficult
battle," said Flieger. "He's battling against his own record. And he's
battling against his own body as he approaches the point where his strength
is not up to the task."


For the full story see below:

Tour all about blood, sweat, gears
Event tests cyclists' ability, endurance and sportsmanship By Sarah Kaufman

Updated: 9:36 p.m. ET July 03, 2004At a time when elements of Broadway and
Vegas have invaded so much of the sports world, there is something classic
about the Tour de France.


The three-week-long bike race unspools today on a path toward certain pain,
physical punishment and hazards of all sorts that are unmatched in
athletics.

Like completing the Appalachian Trail or running the Iditarod, riding in the
Tour is at once very simple and richly metaphoric. It is heavy on steak,
light on sizzle. It is exquisite self-flagellation, whose redemption comes
in a commingling of anguish and glory.

The Tour is decidedly medieval. With its platoons of the strongest and
steeliest cyclists, astride the finest two-wheeled steeds that modern
engineering can devise, traversing mountains and misery in equal measure and
adhering to a code of honor that governs everything from bathroom breaks to
what to do if your key rival crashes (wait politely for him to get back on
the bike, of course), the Tour resembles nothing so much as a heroic quest
from the days of King Arthur.

Sure, most of the competitors are anorexic-looking, hollow-cheeked fellows
with wan white chests and baby-smooth legs, wearing flashy Spandex and
oversize insectoid sunglasses. To many, they may look more like large crop
pests than warrior princes.

But stick with this for a while. Throw five-time winner Lance Armstrong —
the fatherless Texas boy who vanquished cancer on his way to becoming a pop
icon and possibly one of the greatest athletes of all time — into the mix
and you have so many parallels to mythic hero tales that fans need look no
further for their 21st-century action figure.

Perhaps this is why the Tour has fascinated Europe for the past century, and
its fame is growing steadily here. It is the most storied contest in a sport
that runs on technology (one of Armstrong's bikes incorporates materials
used in space satellites). Yet it follows an ancient formula, where men are
called to venture into open country and prove themselves against their
rivals and against their own weaknesses. Tackling the slopes of the Pyrenees
(during the race's second week) and the Alps (in the third), riders will
crack, get dropped, slip backward, fall over sideways. Others will claw and
grind their way up to the finish, only to face the same pain, fear and
difficulty the next day, and the next.

"It's a mirror-like reflection of real life," says Bob Roll, a former pro
bike racer and a Tour commentator for cable's Outdoor Life Network. "It's
like a soap opera unfolding. . . . It's a melodrama that guys are actually
going through. Once you identify the strengths and weaknesses, you go
through it with them."

No rider makes his way to the finish at Paris's Arc de Triomphe alone.

Teamwork is essential to the race: Eight pack dogs surrounding the alpha
male. Bike racing is about working through pain, and beating back the wind.
Riding six- to eight-hour days on the open road, you need your buddies
around you as human windshields.

If the team leader is a knight, his teammates (known by the French term
"domestiques") are his squires. There's a feudal sense of hierarchy on the
teams, designed to keep the leader in the best winning position throughout
the race. This is especially true on Armstrong's U.S. Postal Service team,
which adheres to an all-for-one strategy. If deep within your domestique
heart lies a grain of ambition to steal a Tour win away from Armstrong, you
belong somewhere else. (Two of his chief rivals this year — the American
Tyler Hamilton and Spain's Roberto Heras — are former teammates who defected
to lead teams of their own.)

On the Armstrong Express, your job is to suffer deeply each day to protect
one guy.

The teammate in front is battling wind resistance; everyone behind benefits
from a 25 to 30 percent reduction in effort by riding in his slipstream. As
lactic acid builds up in the muscles of the man heading into the wind, his
thighs begin to burn. When he can no longer keep up the necessary pace, he
fades back, and the teammate next in line takes his place.

For much of the race, Armstrong rides relatively coolly a few men behind.
Only at decisive moments in the mountains does he "attack," accelerating at
a pace that tears the legs off his competitors. If he's thirsty, hungry or
needs a rain jacket, designated teammates drop back to the team car to load
their pockets with supplies.

Domestiques are part mule, part Marine, fueled by loyalty to their leader.

"A lot of being a domestique goes against what America sees as the elite
athlete," said Ted Butryn, a professor of sports sociology and psychology at
San Jose State University. In this country, the typical professional sports
star is admirably self-indulgent — holding out for a contract, negotiating a
deal, celebrating in the end zone. Compare this with the domestique, who
gets respect in the subculture of cycling but is completely anonymous beyond
that. "Where we're socialized to succeed, to work hard, what if your success
is predicated on somebody else succeeding?" Butryn asks.

Postal team member George Hincapie said recently: "I'm not really there for
the recognition." He was in the Pyrenees and he had just finished a six-hour
training ride so punishing that his speech was slurred. "I love the sport
and I appreciate that I get to do it for a living."

Hincapie, who is the only teammate to have squired Armstrong through all
five Tour wins, marks his achievement in small, personal ways.

There was the day last year when Armstrong's handlebars caught on the straps
of a feed bag dangling from a fan's hands and he slammed to the asphalt.

Doubts about Armstrong's fitness had been gathering throughout the race, but
he went on to win that stage, thanks to Hincapie, whose push into the wind
had brought his leader to the base of the Luz Ardiden peak in such good
fashion that he could go on to conquer it. Hincapie slogged across the
finish some 20 minutes behind. Armstrong, shaken but victorious, was already
on the podium, acknowledging the comrade who had helped put him there.

"I was going through the crowd," Hincapie said, "and I pointed to him,
yelling at him — and he was pointing to me. It was funny; we both knew he
had just jumped from not being sure of himself to being sure of himself —
and being the same old Lance."

Brotherhood — and fealty — alive on a Pyrenean crest.

Tour de France history is full of examples of heroic exertion and gallantry.
To be sure, there are also rats and opportunists and selfish
"wheel-suckers," those who take up real estate in the slipstream and never
pull at the front. As in many endurance sports, doping allegations and
suspicions have dogged some of the favorites. (Armstrong included — an
accusatory book has just been published in France by two journalists,
British and French, though they acknowledge they have no proof of drug use
and Armstrong, who is tested incessantly, denies the rumors.) Just in the
past week, four riders have been forced to pull out of the Tour because of
suspected drug use.

But no other sport boasts a champion like five-time Tour winner Eddie
Merckx, the Belgian considered to be the greatest cyclist of all time for
his unmatched stream of victories in races besides the Tour.

Merckx's 1975 attempt at a sixth Tour win was plagued with disasters. During
one stage a spectator socked him, injuring his kidneys. Doctors advised
Merckx to stop. He refused. Two days later, he touched wheels with another
rider and crashed. Nose smashed and jaw broken — and wired shut — he sucked
food through a straw for the remaining days of the race. Yet he wouldn't
quit, even though at his daily news conferences, the whole dais would be
shaking because Merckx, racked with pain, was shaking.

"Journalists followed him everywhere, waiting for him to retire," recalls
veteran cycling commentator Phil Liggett. "And he said, 'You can forget it.
I'm not giving up, even if I can't win the Tour de France. You will say that
the guy who wins only did so because I abandoned.' "

Merckx soldiered on, heaving himself into second place behind Frenchman
Bernard Thevenet.

In the process, said Liggett, the vanquished winner "made Thevenet look
fantastic."

In its best moments, the Tour highlights honor as much as it does brute
strength. A worthy contender pauses for the opponent who crashes, so as not
to gain advantage purely because of luck, an icy patch, melting tar, etc.
This happened a few years ago when German rider Jan Ullrich, Armstrong's
greatest rival, ran off the road and flipped over his handlebars. Armstrong,
already wearing the leader's yellow jersey, waited for him to catch up. Last
year, Ullrich returned the favor after Armstrong was downed by the errant
feed bag.

And if the Yellow Jersey needs to pull over to answer nature's call? You do
not choose this moment to attack. It simply isn't done — you risk being
pelted with water bottles and dragged back to the peloton (as the mass of
riders is called) for verbal flogging in half a dozen languages. One needs
friends in the peloton. Best not to tick them off by flouting decorum.

Besides, it's just not sporting.

Lance Armstrong, as anyone glancing at a magazine rack lately knows, is
hoping to achieve what no man ever has: a sixth Tour victory. That sixth
heavy chalice — the trophy given to winners, along with about $400,000 — is
the Holy Grail of cycling.

Who better than Armstrong to attain it?

"He's a Grail knight," said University of Maryland English professor Verlyn
Flieger, who specializes in myth. Like Galahad, the Round Table knight who
finally succeeded in his quest for the Holy Grail, Armstrong grew up without
his natural father, who left his mother when he was a baby. Like many an
ancient hero, Armstrong's will to succeed has been forged in fire:
testicular cancer, which invaded his lungs and brain and nearly killed him
in 1996, when his pro cycling career was starting to flower.

Starting today, the 32-year-old Armstrong is engaging in the ur-contest:
against himself. "That is the more interesting and psychologically difficult
battle," said Flieger. "He's battling against his own record. And he's
battling against his own body as he approaches the point where his strength
is not up to the task."

What if he loses? Judging by precedent, Armstrong can still win in the
public eye. Loss humanizes a hero. We like flawed heroes, as long as they're
more hero than flaw. (Mike Tyson, for example, has the proportions all
wrong. Babe Ruth got them right.) Losing, in fact, would put Armstrong in
company with the legendary knight with whom he shares most of a name:
Lancelot. It was gifted, charismatic Lancelot who first got close to the
Grail. Faulted by God for his moral shortcomings — messing around with the
king's wife — Lancelot was granted only a vision of the Grail, and not the
prize itself.

Yet Lancelot's story is an enduring favorite. Torn between his passion for
God and for Guinevere and his desire to excel, Lancelot became a knight for
the ages. "We like him because of the failing," Flieger said, "because the
failing is married to his heroic effort and to the conflict within him."

Divorced in December, Armstrong has been inseparable from rocker Sheryl Crow
for much of the past year. Has she been too distracting? The love affair
will undoubtedly be factored into any failure. Armstrong may have more in
common with Lancelot than he'd like.

Yet as his perseverance in the Tour de France has shown us, he is perfectly
suited to attempting what no one else has ever done.

This is exactly what we look to heroes to do.

  © 2004 The Washington Post Company
   MORE FROM SPORTS
Sports Section Front
• Mets hand Yankees rare Subway sweep• Swiss sensation: Federer defends
title• NBC's Collins: Andy's proud Fourth of July effort• Armstrong plays it
safe in first Tour stage• Greece stuns Portugal in Euro final thriller•
Trash Talk: Why can't Lance make us skinnier?• Answer Man: Greece will
acquire more debt than Tyson• Whine of week: Bickerstaff should learn to
share• This Week in Sports Pictures• Team-by-team pages for each sport•
Sports Section Front



• Mixed reports on missing Marine
• Construction begins at WTC site
• The science of fireworks
• Bush campaigns in W. Va.
• Iraq insurgents may get amnesty

     EDITOR'S CHOICE
• Songs to celebrate the 4th
• July 4 fireworks tips
• Cassini sends Saturn pictures
• Is history repeating itself in Iraq?
• Slide show: Sudan's crisis



advertisement
• Today's front page
• Inside the A section
• Nation and Politics
• Editorial pages
• World
• Business
• Sports
• Style


  Tour de France
July 3-25
• Armstrong plays it safe, is third overall
• Notebook: Armstrong crows about Sheryl
• Other champs support Armstrong
• Lai: Lance no lock for 6th straight
• Ullrich: Not just duel between me, Lance
• Borges: Crow is inspiration enough
• Why we should care about le Tour
• Bondy: We take our best star for granted
• Celizic: Lance not greatest ever — yet
• Guts and Glory: The Armstrong story
• Anatomy of a Champion: Armstrong's body
• Top of the Tour: Best riders ever
• Tour de Lance: Race map, riders to watch
• Past Tour winners

advertisement
Shopping on MSN

The Lance Armstrong Performance Program: The Train - Armstrong, Lance
Overstock.com $15.95
More Nonfiction


SPONSORED LINKS
Backcountry.com - Outdoor Gear and More
If your idea of an ?entertainment center? is a mountain trail, fresh powder,
or an untouched river bank, we?re your store. Find all your outdoor gear,
clothing, and accessories here.…
www.backcountry.com



Get All Your Collegiate Gear at CollegeGear.com
We are your ultimate online source for hot college sports gear - ranging
from championship hats and shirts to jerseys, athletic wear, memorabilia,
helmets - even neon signs.
www.collegegear.com


Tickets to Some of the Biggest Sports Events
Ticket Solutions has the tickets you want to the sporting events you want to
see, including the Super Bowl, the Masters, the Kentucky Derby, the World
Series and everything else.
kn.tickets4u.com


Play CSN: A Web-Based Sports Game
A unique web-based role-playing sports game. Own and run your own sports
franchise. Never wait for the season to start - play all year long. Free
demo available. Join now.
www.coweyesports.…


Leisure Living - Outdoor Recreation
Check out our online catalog of pool supplies and backyard fun. From aquatic
fitness to hammocks, volleyball games to pool toys, Leisure Living has
everything to fit your recreational needs
www.poolsupplies.…



Get listed here

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Cover | News | Business | Sports | Tech/Science | Entertainment | Travel |
Health | Opinions | Weather | Local News
Newsweek | Today Show | Nightly News | Dateline NBC | Meet the Press | MSNBC
TV
About MSNBC.com | Newsletters | Search | Help | News Tools | Jobs | Contact
Us | Terms and Conditions | Privacy
© 2004 MSNBC.com
    Try MSN Internet Software for FREE!

    MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail  |  Shopping  |  Money  |  People & Chat
|  Search Feedback  |  Help

   © 2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Terms of Use Advertise
TRUSTe Approved Privacy Statement GetNetWise Anti-Spam Policy

Just a short question:

Has the JRRT companion and guide be delayed to mid-2005? That is
what Amazon Uk claims.

Olaf

Olaf wrote:

>Just a short question:
>
>Has the JRRT companion and guide be delayed to mid-2005? That is
>what Amazon Uk claims.

Christina and I are sorry that several publication dates have come and gone
for this. The book has proved to be a great deal more work than expected
(it was originally to be a single volume, but grew much bigger as we found
more and more material), and we've been sidetracked now and then by other
things more immediately pressing. We've not been told of 30 May 2005 as a
new U.K. date of publication, but trust that Amazon U.K. has had something
official from HarperCollins.

Wayne Hammond

Welcome to the list!  Hope you'll come back from lurkdom more often.  Would
love to have some insights on your fave authors on list.

Off-list I also invite you to join Butterbur's Woodshed;  it's a good time,
as we'll be reading William Morris for September, and have some other good
authors on tap, like Caroline Stevermer, Guy Gavriel Kay and Gene Wolfe.
It's possible to participate, even if you don't have a car.  ---djb (A
Non-driver; content editor for Butterbur's Woodshed, the ongoing Mythopoeic
Society APA for Adult Fantasy).

Original Message:
-----------------
From: Pat Witham catspaw@...
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 12:44:06 -0700
To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [mythsoc] Out of lurkdom into the light


Hi all.

Some of you know me because I used to attend Mythcons
regularly and go to Khazad-dum meetings. I've been out of
touch for awhile now (a lot to do with transportation
difficulties) but lurking on the list. I usually read the
mail days after an argument and/or discussion is over.

About me: I work at the local public library and am close to
retirement. My favorite authors are Dorothy Dunnett, JRR
Tolkien, Patricia McKillip, Diana Wynne Jones, and Dorothy
Sayers. I'm not that fond of Harry Potter. As many of you
are, I'm ambivalent about Peter Jackson's version of Middle
Earth. I didn't hate it and there are things I liked, mostly
to do with set design. I loved Rohan and Hobbiton, for
example. My favorite scene in the trilogy was Gandalf's
battle with the Balrog. Hated the distorted
characterizations of Faramir, Denethor, and Frodo.

So here I am announcing my presence only because I want
something. <g>

I picked up years ago a jigsaw puzzle of JRR Tolkien I'm
getting rid of. Does anyone on the list want it before I
take it to Goodwill?


Pat Witham (catspaw@...)

P.S. Hi David, Bernie, and Lisa





The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
Yahoo! Groups Links






--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

Thanks for the Update!

Olaf


--- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "Wayne G. Hammond"
<Wayne.G.Hammond@w...> wrote:
> Olaf wrote:
>
> >Just a short question:
> >
> >Has the JRRT companion and guide be delayed to mid-2005? That is
> >what Amazon Uk claims.
>
> Christina and I are sorry that several publication dates have come
and gone
> for this. The book has proved to be a great deal more work than expected
> (it was originally to be a single volume, but grew much bigger as we
found
> more and more material), and we've been sidetracked now and then by
other
> things more immediately pressing. We've not been told of 30 May 2005
as a
> new U.K. date of publication, but trust that Amazon U.K. has had
something
> official from HarperCollins.
>
> Wayne Hammond

Hey, see if there's someone near you on the list who's going to Mythcon
-- it can be auctioned at the Society Auction!

Janet (one of the other librarians...)

-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Witham [mailto:catspaw@...]
Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 2:44 PM
To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [mythsoc] Out of lurkdom into the light


I picked up years ago a jigsaw puzzle of JRR Tolkien I'm
getting rid of. Does anyone on the list want it before I
take it to Goodwill?


Pat Witham (catspaw@...)

P.S. Hi David, Bernie, and Lisa





The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
Yahoo! Groups Links

Well, that goes to show one should read ALL email before answering
anything...

Janet


-----Original Message-----
From: Croft, Janet B. [mailto:jbcroft@...]
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 8:43 AM
To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [mythsoc] Out of lurkdom into the light

Hey, see if there's someone near you on the list who's going to Mythcon
-- it can be auctioned at the Society Auction!

Janet (one of the other librarians...)

-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Witham [mailto:catspaw@...]
Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 2:44 PM
To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [mythsoc] Out of lurkdom into the light


I picked up years ago a jigsaw puzzle of JRR Tolkien I'm
getting rid of. Does anyone on the list want it before I
take it to Goodwill?


Pat Witham (catspaw@...)

P.S. Hi David, Bernie, and Lisa





The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
Yahoo! Groups Links










The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
Yahoo! Groups Links

From: "regisdanilo" <keith@...>

>
> Olaf

Okay, I have to ask:  Darkover fan?  (I'm re-reading some of the Darkover
books.  I'm currently reading _The Heritage of Hastur_, which is about Regis
and Danilo, so you can figure out the rest.)

Berni

I just thought I should alert everyone to the fact that the most recent
Greenman Review is entirely devoted to Tolkien (this despite knowing that many
of you will know this anyway!).  No, I am not associated with GMR in anyway.
Here's the link:
http://www.greenmanreview.com/whats_new.html
Kevin

It's gratifying to see our own Matthew Winslow with such a fine take on
Matthew Dickerson's _Following Gandalf_ (long may the fellowship of
Matthews wave).  His reaction is pretty much identical to mine.

But nothing but ignorance can excuse Gray Walker's claim that J.E.A.
Tyler's _Complete Tolkien Companion_ is the one essential reference book on
Tolkien.  There are many worse ones, but there's one that outshines it as
the sun does the moon.  It's Robert Foster's _Complete Guide to
Middle-earth._  Has Walker even heard of it?  It's the book on Christopher
Tolkien's reference shelf, and that should be recommendation enough for anyone.

- David Bratman


At 11:52 PM 7/6/2004 -0400, Kevin wrote:
>I just thought I should alert everyone to the fact that the most recent
>Greenman Review is entirely devoted to Tolkien (this despite knowing that
many
>of you will know this anyway!).  No, I am not associated with GMR in anyway.
>Here's the link:
>http://www.greenmanreview.com/whats_new.html

>I just thought I should alert everyone to the fact that the most recent
>Greenman Review is entirely devoted to Tolkien (this despite knowing that many
>of you will know this anyway!).  No, I am not associated with GMR in anyway.
>Here's the link:
>http://www.greenmanreview.com/whats_new.html
>Kevin

It was an interesting issue. We've got an Authurian issue coming up in
September, and we're working on
an issue that looks at Clash/Big Audio Dynamite/Joe Strummer sometime this fall
also.

>But nothing but ignorance can excuse Gray Walker's claim that J.E.A.
>Tyler's _Complete Tolkien Companion_ is the one essential reference book on
>Tolkien.  There are many worse ones, but there's one that outshines it as
>the sun does the moon.  It's Robert Foster's _Complete Guide to
>Middle-earth._  Has Walker even heard of it?  It's the book on Christopher
>Tolkien's reference shelf, and that should be recommendation enough for anyone.

Now, now. Not everyone agrees on what is a good reference guide. And Grey never
claimed to be a Tolkien expert, just
a fan. What's more I suggest that simply because Christopher has something on
his shelf doesn't mean that everyone
else should have it too.

>
Nice to see some discussion of one of the Scholarship Award finalists.
I didn't like it as well as Matthew or David, I guess, but I did have a
somewhat similar reaction to Matthew's:  looking at the book I was
dreading reading it, half thinking "how could THIS have become a
finalist?" which  is judging a book by its cover.  It's very nicely
written, and while I was NOT blown away by its insights--I can't think
of anything that surprised or delighted me (as Verlyn Flieger seems to
in every essay), but there was much with which I entirely agreed. I
also thought it might be useful to have the various observations about
free will and goodness drawn together in an orderly fashion.  I never
was bothered by the attacks (such as they are) that Tolkien glorifies
warfare and battle, pretty much for the reasons that Dickerson
marshalls in his first chapters, but I'm not sure that I'd ever thought
about the artful presentation of Gimli's and Legolas's contest to kill
the most orcs in the Battle of Helm's Deep as tending to minimize and
undercut any suggestion that this bloodthirsty contest is glorifying
murder and slaughter for its own sake (for instance) (I would have
described the operation of this passage rather differently, but perhaps
it comes to the same end).  In the end, this book seems to focus on
many things that I think are much more important to Tolkien's work than
the arguments of many of these schlockier books appearing everywhere.
On the other hand, I found many single essays in _Tolkien the
Medievalist_ more valuable than the whole of _Following Gandalf_.
(Read both and decide for yourself!  You  can find all of this year's
Mythopoeic Scholarship Award finalists listed on the Society web-page
at www.mythsoc.org And it's worth noting that all of the Inklings
finalists, and most of the general Mythic and Fantasy Studies nominees
are remarkably clear and easy to read, free of abstruse academese, this
year.  CSL and Tolkien would approve of that , at least!) (If you can't
find the finalists at your library or bookstore--and the fine _Tolkien
and the Great War_ seems to be everywhere, including Borders and Barnes
& Noble--try asking for an interlibrary loan at your public or school
library).


> Message: 5
>    Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 21:22:06 -0700
>    From: David Bratman <dbratman@...>
> Subject: Re: Newest Greenman Review
>
> It's gratifying to see our own Matthew Winslow with such a fine take on
> Matthew Dickerson's _Following Gandalf_ (long may the fellowship of
> Matthews wave).  His reaction is pretty much identical to mine.
>
> - David Bratman
>
David Lenander
d-lena@...  or  david_lenander@...
2095 Hamline Ave. N.
Roseville, MN 55113
651-292-8887  or 651-697-1807
http://www.umn.edu/~d-lena/RIVENDELL.html

Jack wrote:

>Now, now. Not everyone agrees on what is a good reference guide.
>And Grey never claimed to be a Tolkien expert, just
>a fan. What's more I suggest that simply because Christopher
>has something on his shelf doesn't mean that everyone
>else should have it too.

I agree with David that Foster is to be preferred to Tyler, if one must
choose only one reference book for reading Tolkien (which, of course, one
need not do, so the point is moot). The latest edition of Tyler's book is,
however, of at least intellectual interest for its use (such as it is) of
Tolkien sources later than _The Silmarillion_, and for Tyler's abandoning
of his previous conceit that the Red Book of Westmarch, etc. were "real".

As for Grey Walker being "just a fan", that's irrelevant. He never claims
to be either a fan or an expert; but the average reader of a review in a
source such as the Greenman Review, presented in what appears to be a
serious, professional manner, will expect or assume the reviewer to have
adequate knowledge of the subject, even knowledge superior to the reader's.
A reviewer therefore, even a "fan", has a responsibility to rise to the
occasion -- as David Bratman, say, does regularly in _Mythprint_ -- for the
sake of readers looking for advice on whether or not to read (or buy) a
book. For the most part, Grey Walker's review is reasonable, if too short:
a comparison with Foster's book would have been welcome. Other reviews in
the new issue, such as I've read them so far, offer much more to criticize.

Is Robert Tilendis not aware that Ruth Noel's _Languages of Middle-earth_
is utterly notorious for the number of its errors? Has he never seen it
called "the little red horror"? I disagree with most of Jack Merry's
comments about _The Road Goes Ever On_, but that's partly my age showing,
and the fact that I knew Donald Swann personally. The dust-jacket has too
much text on it? What sort of comment is that? Does he not see that the
greater part of that text is Tolkien's "Namarie" written out in tengwar by
the author himself, and therefore of not a little interest? What about the
important linguistic notes by Tolkien at the back?

And then there is Wes Unruh's review of _J.R.R. Tolkien: Artist and
Illustrator_, which he cannot have read too carefully. Leaving aside his
comments about style and approach, I would point out at least that the
final picture in chapter 1 is not from 1940, but from the early fifties;
that chapter 2 in no way "implies that this book [The Book of Ishness] was
the symbolic key [Tolkien] used to unlock his mythic cycle" (this is a
sketchbook containing many different kinds of pictures, including some of
the Silmarillion art); and that _Roverandom_ did not _begin_ with the
picture "House where Rover Began His Adventures as a Toy", rather that
picture came later, following on an impromptu oral tale. No, it's not a
book for everyone, only those who would have a greater appreciation of
Tolkien's achievement through a better knowledge of the breadth of his
creativity. It was of course not meant to be an introduction to Tolkien's
work, and indeed it assumes that the reader has a certain knowledge of the
writings. As for Wes Unruh's statement: "I would rather have seen an
edition of 'The Book of Ishnessess' published, or as complete as possible
an edition of Roverandom produced than be presented with only partial
elements", I would point out, again, that "The Book of Ishness" is really
just the title of a sketchbook, not a book completely with a theme of
"ishnesses", and most of its contents do appear in _Artist and
Illustrator_; and if a complete edition of _Roverandom_ is wanted, well, we
produced that back in 1998, and it's still in print.

As in other reviews on the site, Unruh would have done well to compare
_Artist and Illustrator_ to the only previous major collection of Tolkien's
art, _Pictures by J.R.R. Tolkien_ (1979; 2nd ed. 2002), and note that
_Artist and Illustrator_ contains far more paintings and drawings, has much
more supporting text, and has a far superior quality of reproduction.

Wayne Hammond

I was watching "The Return of the King" yesterday and it hit me! It is
the scene near the end when the hobbits are having a quiet drink at
"The Green Dragon" just before Sam gets up to propose to Rosie Cotton.

Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pip look at each other and those around them and
are extremely aware of the gulf that separates them from their
community. Their shared experiences in the War of the Ring that those
around them can't understand.

I saw this and remembered an expression that I have heard in
connection with soldiers who have come home from the War and what sets
them apart.
They have "seen the elephant" and are forever changed. No one can
understand what they have seen unless they had seen it themselves.

This hit me while watching Peter Jackson's hobbits. How can they go
back to the way things were after what they had seen and done? They
can't. They had "seen the elephant" and could not forget.

But in this case, these hobbits have "seen the oliphaunt"!

-Leelan Lampkins

--- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, Jack <jack@g...> wrote:
> >But nothing but ignorance can excuse Gray Walker's claim that J.E.A.
> >Tyler's _Complete Tolkien Companion_ is the one essential reference
> >book on Tolkien.  There are many worse ones, but there's one that
> >outshines it as the sun does the moon.  It's Robert Foster's
> >_Complete Guide to Middle-earth._  Has Walker even heard of it?
> >It's the book on Christopher Tolkien's reference shelf, and that
> >should be recommendation enough for anyone.
>
> Now, now. Not everyone agrees on what is a good reference guide. And
> Grey never claimed to be a Tolkien expert, just a fan. What's more I
> suggest that simply because Christopher has something on his shelf
> doesn't mean that everyone else should have it too.

Tyler's first efforts at documenting Tolkien were not very successful.
  I have been told by a number of people he is now doing a better job.
  But Foster's book, while out-of-date, remains the most authoritative
glossary on THE LORD OF THE RINGS, THE HOBBIT, THE SILMARILLION, THE
ADVENTURES OF TOM BOMBADIL, and THE ROAD GOES EVER ON that I have seen.

I would love for the book to be updated to at least include UNFINISHED
TALES, but it remains one of my own favored resources.

I found a number of comments in Wes Unruh's review of Hammond and
Scull's _J.R.R. Tolkien: Artist and Illustrator_:

http://www.greenmanreview.com/book/
book_hammond_scull_tolkienartistandillustrator.html

to be nothing short of astonishing. For example:

"I would have preferred a chronological order that his creative process
might be more easily inferred"

As Unruh then goes on to demonstrate with his own overview of chapters
and contents, _A&I_ _is_ essentially chronological. So whence the
criticism?

And then there's this:

"I would rather have seen an edition of "The Book of Ishnessess"
published, or as complete as possible an edition of Roverandom produced
than be presented with only partial elements"

I can understand that Mr. Unruh could be unaware that Hammond and Scull
did in fact publish an edition of the complete _Roverandom_ years ago;
but are there no editors at Green Man Review with sufficient knowledge
of Tolkien to correct such howlers before they are published?

At 06:52 AM 7/7/2004 -0400, Jack wrote:

>Grey never claimed to be a Tolkien expert, just a fan.

On the contrary.

First off, of course, "fan" and "Tolkien expert" are not mutually exclusive
categories.  But in any case Grey Walker says nothing about being "just a
fan," but rather makes statements claiming status as a Tolkien expert.

If Walker had merely said "Tyler's is a good book," I would merely have
pointed out that there was a better one.  After all, it's unreasonable to
expect that every reviewer will always be familiar with all the prior
literature in the field, even though it is rather bad form to review a
reference book while apparently being unaware of the standard text on the
subject.

But Walker didn't say that.  Walker said, "If you only have one reference
book on Tolkien on your shelf, it ought to be this one."

That IS a claim of being a Tolkien expert.  It states that the writer has a
thorough knowledge and has made a considered judgment of the entire field.
Anyone who writes such a sentence without this background is a blowhard.
And if a reviewer does have the knowledge claimed and therefore is an
expert, then in this case that expert knows s/he is going against the
considered judgment of the expert scholarly community in prefering
something other than the standard work.  In that case, one owes it to one's
readers to explain why.  Then we can discuss whether the reviewer's
judgment is faulty.

But no comparison was offered.  And I did not impugn Walker's judgment.  As
I said, nothing but ignorance can excuse this.


>What's more I suggest that simply because Christopher has something
>on his shelf doesn't mean that everyone else should have it too.

I certainly never said that everyone should have it.  But everyone _who
wants a Tolkien reference book_ should have it.  Why shouldn't I make such
a statement?  Walker made one, in favor of Tyler.  If you've actually read
Walker's review, you'll know the context was, "If you only have one
reference book on Tolkien on your shelf," what that book should be.  And
for that, Christopher Tolkien's use (in The History of Middle-earth) of
Robert Foster's book as the measuring tool of readerly understanding of
what his father actually published should indeed, as I said, be
recommendation enough for anyone.  If you think otherwise, I'd like to read
why.  Or have I stumbled onto a coterie of people with a habit of making
sweeping unconventional judgments without backing them up?

(For more on my own take on Tyler, see next post.)

- David Bratman

At 08:52 AM 7/7/2004 -0400, Wayne G. Hammond wrote:
>The latest edition of Tyler's book is,
>however, of at least intellectual interest for its use (such as it is) of
>Tolkien sources later than _The Silmarillion_, and for Tyler's abandoning
>of his previous conceit that the Red Book of Westmarch, etc. were "real".

Unfortunately, what Tyler says and what Tyler does are two different
things.  From my own review of the new edition (Mythprint, December 2003):

"A reliable source but a very poor second choice to Robert Foster's
_Complete Guide to Middle-earth_ (less detail, more omissions, few dates,
hardly any page references), Tyler's tome now includes entries from
_Unfinished Tales_, 24 years after that book was published.  It ignores
almost everything else since then, whether it fits into the (illusory)
"final" legendarium or not.  Tyler claims he's dropped his pretence that
Middle-earth is real, but entries like that for Orcs, identifying them as
the true origin of mythic goblins, show that he hasn't."


>Is Robert Tilendis not aware that Ruth Noel's _Languages of Middle-earth_
>is utterly notorious for the number of its errors? Has he never seen it
>called "the little red horror"?

I found Tilendis's review excusable.  He neither claims expertise on the
subject nor pretends to expertise he doesn't have.  Yet he is wise enough
to detect a certain odor of unreliability in Noel's book.  Though I suppose
if you're going to review a 25-year-old treatise it might be a good idea to
check up on what previous scholarly reviewers have had to say before
publishing your own thoughts.

More puzzling was Tilendis whining about how boring the scholarly apparatus
was.  And Jack Merry, reviewer of Swann's _The Road Goes Ever On_, is bored
by sheet music.  Spare me from the easily bored, or at least spare me from
reviews about how easily bored they get.


>And then there is Wes Unruh's review of _J.R.R. Tolkien: Artist and
>Illustrator_, which he cannot have read too carefully.

Certainly not.  Unruh says, "I would have preferred a chronological order
that his creative process might be more easily inferred."  I am astonished
by the implication that A&I has anything other than a chronological basis
within the various threads of Tolkien's visual imagination.  Unruh also
calls it an "incomplete survey," and at the word "incomplete" I give up.
As a survey, "incomplete" is the last word for it.  It was never intended
or advertised as "The Complete Artwork of J.R.R. Tolkien," and by any other
standards the book is comprehensively inclusive almost to a fault.

Again I'd like to quote from my own review, at
<http://www.mythsoc.org/jrrtairev.html>:

"This magnificent volume is a full, detailed, and definitive study of
Tolkien's artwork in all its manifestations ...  About three-quarters of
Tolkien's artwork in _Pictures_ is reproduced in this book, usually smaller
in size but often more clearly and usually in better color. The overlap,
and the exclusions, are designed to enable this book to cover Tolkien's art
thoroughly and completely without rendering _Pictures_ superfluous. ... A
few early drafts of particular scenes from _Pictures_ are not included
here, but this book makes up for that by including other previously
unpublished drafts of the same scenes. ...  Few authors are fortunate
enough to have their works served so well."


- David Bratman

>More puzzling was Tilendis whining about how boring the scholarly apparatus
>was.  And Jack Merry, reviewer of Swann's _The Road Goes Ever On_, is bored
>by sheet music.  Spare me from the easily bored, or at least spare me from
>reviews about how easily bored they get.

What I said was:

Now before you run out as a Tolkien fan and purchase the 2002 edition which
was released only in Britain by Harper Collins (with a CD of the songs to
boot!) be advised that this is mostly sheet music, something that even most
of the regular members of the Neverending Session in the Green Man Pub
would find boring. Really boring. But if you're interested in a relatively
practical look at how some of Tolkien's poetry is as song, this is the book
for you.

David, are you a fiddler? Most fiddlers including myself do not find sheet
music all that exciting. If we did, than such tunes as Simon Jeffe's 'Music
for a Found Harmonium' would never ahve come to be considered traditional
by Irish musicians!

Not everything Tolkien wrote is interesting. This work is a bit of a minor
fluff.

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