At 11:46 AM 1/5/2006 -0800, John D Rateliff wrote:
>You're right; it has to be 1981ff. I never saw the original
>publication but was given a photocopy of it in 1981 or shortly
>thereafter; the publication information was written on it, and I
>don't remember it offhand all these years later. My copy isn't
>immediately accessible, but I'll send a copy of it to you next time I
>come across it, if you like.
As a collector of some of the odder Tolkien spinoffs (I cherish an old
miniatures catalog which names Pippin and Merry as sons of Sam, the author
having apparently read nothing of LOTR except Appendix C), yes I'd be
> By contrast, Robert Howard (author of the Conan stories) believed
>whole-heartedly in the Aryan myth; it would have been interesting, if
>he'd lived a few more years, to have seen how or if he distanced
>himself from the Nazi version/perversion/adaptation of that myth.
A lot of people jumped back and forth on this, as others did over
Communism. If we can't have Howard's views because he died too soon, how
about H.P. Lovecraft's? A genteel racist who also believed in his own
stock's superiority, he lived long enough to recognize Hitler for the evil
that he was, and to his credit denounced Nazism before the war (which he
didn't live to see). Lovecraft was also an economic conservative who came
to see the virtue in the New Deal.
>[slightly off-topic, I know, but I was reminded of R.E.H. yesterday
>when I found out that his home town of Cross Plains, Texas was one of
>the area on fire and wondered if the Howard house survived this
>recent round of wildfires.]
According to what I've read, it rather miraculously did. Possibly Joe
Christopher, who lives two counties away, would know more.
>> ... Peter Jackson ...
>Well, yes; thought that went without saying.
Considering some of the things you've said in the past in defense of the
films, I rather thought it didn't.
>Interesting. I don't understand his or her remark about there not
>being any Tolkien adaptations, unless by this he or she means that no
>one has messed with Tolkien's text, as they have with Lewis's LWW.
I think she meant to say that the existing films messed with the text so
greatly that she refused to accept them as Tolkien adaptations.
>As for his or her deciding not to see films the v. thought of which
>made him or her "irrationally angry", that seems like a good call. I
>have to wonder, though, about the whole secondary separation thing;
>seems like a huge investment of mental energy to find out everyone
>involved in all three films and then keeping track of their role in
>subsequent films so he or she can boycott them all. What a waste of
>time and energy.
That puzzled me too, as the actors were not the problem with the films,
even when miscast. Besides, a boycott of all films with Jackson's actors
in them would force one to skip out on the wonderful "Eternal Sunshine of
the Spotless Mind".