Re: [mythsoc] Re: PJ-The Socialists Chime in
- At 05:21 PM 1/26/2004 +0000, Marc wrote:
>I don't know about anyone else, but I find it kind of fascinatingYes, that's quite remarkable. Many socialists and other leftists, notably
>that articles on a World Socialist website are so positive about
>Tolkien and about LOTR, the books. LOTR is the type of literature I
>might expect them to almost reflexively dislike, particularly as a
>romanticization of a feudal past and as being against social
>progress. Instead they seem to be able to get past that to find
>aspects about it they like (and that are lost in Jackson's version).
China Mieville and Michael Moorcock, are not able to get past this, and
reflexifly bash Tolkien in consequence.
>There is not an awful lot of hierarchy in LOTR.I would tend to agree, though I would expect this statement to be jumped on
with squeals of protest by the kind of people who objected so frantically
when I once wrote that there's not a lot of flashy spell-casting magic in LOTR.
At 04:40 PM 1/28/2004 -0500, Stolzi wrote:
>Tolkien grew up in an era and a milieu (the RC Church) where he would haveTolkien would have been exposed to a lot of things. That doesn't say
>been exposed to G.K. Chesterton and his "Distributist" political philosophy.
anything about what he thought of them, or if he thought of them. I made
the mistake in a conversation recently of mentioning that I had no interest
whatever in a certain current media celebrity obsession, which only led to
long obsessive discussion of this person, which I was incapable of joining.
Tolkien's view of socialism is probably hidden in comments from Hob Hayward
- "It's all these 'gatherers' and 'sharers', I reckon, going round counting
and measuring and taking off to storage. They do more gathering than
sharing, and we never see most of the stuff again" - and Farmer Cotton -
"Everything except Rules got shorter and shorter, unless one could hide a
bit of one's own when the ruffians went round gathering stuff up 'for fair
distribution' which meant they got it and we didn't."
- I *hated* the film *First Knight*: it practically blessed Lance and Gwen's
affair, even from Arthur's deathbed. Gwen will eternally be a blonde for
me; a brunette Gwen is dubious to me, though it's likely she could be one
if she's Celtic (depends on your favorite sources); lots of dark haired
folk. Why does Connery appear in so many dreadful films? O;) ---djb
From: David Bratman dbratman@...
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 22:54:28 -0800
Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Awards, deserved and undeserved
At 01:18 AM 2/1/2004 -0500, Grace wrote:
>In a message dated 1/31/2004 5:52:43 PM Central Standard Time,Why not just wear a headset to the theatre and get a more pleasant
>The Tolkien Ensemble's music is very evocative of the book: so much so, in
>fact, that it would be badly suited for Jackson's films, which is evocative
>of something else altogether.
>True, true. But at least it would have given me something to enjoy while I
>was hideously bored for three precious hours that were wasted, never to be
soundtrack for the whole thing, not just the music? It's not like very
much in the plot would be a surprise, and that which was a surprise you'd
be better off not knowing.
Only one film I've ever watched all the way through was so bad I felt like
demanding a refund, not of my money, but of the time it sucked out of my
life. This was "First Knight", an Arthurian fluff utterly unredeemed by
the presence of Sean Connery, John Gielgud, and even Alexis Denisof.
- David Bratman
The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
mail2web - Check your email from the web at