693Re: Hege's seemliness
- Jun 15, 2008Well, OK, I will respond to this particular point, as it highlights
what I just wrote in my most recent post, about Helge's use of "seem"
to telegraph the assertion of a blatant falsehood:
> Elsewhere, Hostetter seems to be telling us that any desire toHelge's big lie here is that "the Ring" in this parable refers to
> actually use
> Tolkien's Elvish is wrong and immoral from the beginning. In Elfling
> 11150 he likens such desires to Boromir desiring to use the Ring:
> > > Boromir wanted to use the Ring, instead of disposing of it
> properly; and
> > > resented the fact that it was given to another instead of
> himself, and
> > > that it was kept only by that other until the quest could be
> > > and succumbed to his desires and attacked the Ringbearer.
"Tolkien's Elvish". Whereas in fact it refers (plainly, and as
instantly seen from the context of the discussion from which Helge has
dislocated this statement) to Tolkien's _linguistic papers_: which is
what Helge and David Salo wish to possess as greatly as Boromir did
the Ring, which they feel they are entitled to as strongly as Boromir
did the Ring, and which like Boromir they have attacked us for in an
attempt to gain it (though Boromir only did so once, and he repented
There is _obviously_ _nothing at all_ "immoral" about using Elvish.
What a gapingly absurd thing to claim! Really, can even HELGE believe
this nonsense? And how dumb must Helge think his readers are, to think
that they will believe his claim?
- Next post in topic >>