Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Gibson's movie

Expand Messages
  • Elizabeth Apgar Triano
    Is there anywhere that mythies are discussing that movie? This list may not be the place, considering the pre-existing tendency for debate. I have a link to a
    Message 1 of 25 , Mar 9, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Is there anywhere that mythies are discussing that movie? This list may not
      be the place, considering the pre-existing tendency for debate. I have a
      link to a column by Johann Arnold, via the Bruderhof daily messages, but I
      would like to hear what story-people might have to say (preferably similar
      lol). Or then again, maybe mythies are not interested. I'm not going to
      see it, but I was curious to hear some perspectives maybe. Personally I
      suspect I won't hear anything that sways my personal negative feeling.

      http://www.bruderhof.com/articles/jca/Gibson-JCA.htm?source=DailyDig

      Lizzie Apgar Triano
      lizziewriter@...
      amor vincit omnia
    • Joan Marie Verba
      For discussion on Gibson s movie, I d suggest trying another list. (SpareOom on Yahoo groups was discussing it for a time.) Joan Friendly Neighborhood Mythsoc
      Message 2 of 25 , Mar 9, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        For discussion on Gibson's movie, I'd suggest trying another list.
        (SpareOom on Yahoo groups was discussing it for a time.)

        Joan
        Friendly Neighborhood Mythsoc List Administrator
        ******************************************
        Joan Marie Verba
        verba001@...
        http://www.sff.net/people/Joan.Marie.Verba
      • Jay Hershberger
        This is not an observation about the movie. I just heard two lectures in Fargo given by Joseph Pearce (Tolkien: Man and Myth). He recounts that according to
        Message 3 of 25 , Mar 9, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          This is not an observation about the movie. I just heard two lectures in
          Fargo given by Joseph Pearce (Tolkien: Man and Myth). He recounts that
          according to the calendar of Middle Earth the One Ring was unmade on March
          25th. This coincides with the Feast of the Anunciation. There is also,
          according to Pearce, a Medieval tradition that places the crucifixion of
          Christ on the 25th of March. Pearce believes that Tolkien was deliberate in
          placing the unmaking of the ring on this date as one of the ways in which
          LOTR was a "fundamentally religious and catholic work...especially in the
          revisions..."

          Interesting thoughts, no?

          Cheers,

          Jay Hershberger

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Joan Marie Verba [mailto:verba001@...]
          Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 9:49 AM
          To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [mythsoc] Gibson's movie


          For discussion on Gibson's movie, I'd suggest trying another list.
          (SpareOom on Yahoo groups was discussing it for a time.)

          Joan
          Friendly Neighborhood Mythsoc List Administrator
          ******************************************
          Joan Marie Verba
          verba001@...
          http://www.sff.net/people/Joan.Marie.Verba


          The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
          Yahoo! Groups Links
        • Carl F. Hostetter
          While a discussion of Gibson s film separate from mythopoeic concerns would obviously be off-topic for this list, I would hope that discussion of the movie as
          Message 4 of 25 , Mar 9, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            While a discussion of Gibson's film separate from mythopoeic concerns
            would obviously be off-topic for this list, I would hope that
            discussion of the movie as it pertains to the mythopoeic writings and
            concerns of J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Charles Williams, and the other
            Inklings, Christian writers all, would not be considered forbidden on
            this list.

            Carl


            On Mar 9, 2004, at 10:48 AM, Joan Marie Verba wrote:

            > For discussion on Gibson's movie, I'd suggest trying another list.
            > (SpareOom on Yahoo groups was discussing it for a time.)
            >
            > Joan
            > Friendly Neighborhood Mythsoc List Administrator
          • Ginger McElwee
            I have been impressed with Joseph Pearce when I have seen him on television. What was he like as a lecturer? I have read Tolkien: Man and Myth and Literary
            Message 5 of 25 , Mar 9, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              I have been impressed with Joseph Pearce when I have seen him on
              television. What was he like as a lecturer? I have read Tolkien: Man
              and Myth and Literary Converts. I think he pushes it a little to count
              Tolkien among Catholic converts, but I found his writing style smooth
              and entertaining, and I think Tolkien�s writing was certainly Catholic
              though not overtly so. Does anyone else have observations about Pearce�s
              work on Tolkien?

              Ginger McElwee

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Jay Hershberger [mailto:hershber@...]
              Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 12:07 PM
              To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [mythsoc] Gibson's movie

              This is not an observation about the movie. I just heard two lectures
              in
              Fargo given by Joseph Pearce (Tolkien: Man and Myth). He recounts that
              according to the calendar of Middle Earth the One Ring was unmade on
              March
              25th. This coincides with the Feast of the Anunciation. There is also,
              according to Pearce, a Medieval tradition that places the crucifixion of
              Christ on the 25th of March. Pearce believes that Tolkien was
              deliberate in
              placing the unmaking of the ring on this date as one of the ways in
              which
              LOTR was a "fundamentally religious and catholic work...especially in
              the
              revisions..."

              Interesting thoughts, no?

              Cheers,

              Jay Hershberger

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Joan Marie Verba [mailto:verba001@...]
              Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 9:49 AM
              To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [mythsoc] Gibson's movie


              For discussion on Gibson's movie, I'd suggest trying another list.
              (SpareOom on Yahoo groups was discussing it for a time.)

              Joan
              Friendly Neighborhood Mythsoc List Administrator
              ******************************************
              Joan Marie Verba
              verba001@...
              HYPERLINK
              "http://www.sff.net/people/Joan.Marie.Verba"http://www.sff.net/people/Jo
              an.Marie.Verba


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







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



              _____

              Yahoo! Groups Links
              * To visit your group on the web, go to:
              HYPERLINK
              "http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mythsoc/"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/my
              thsoc/

              * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              HYPERLINK
              "mailto:mythsoc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe"mythsoc-
              unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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

              ---
              Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
              Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
              Version: 6.0.592 / Virus Database: 375 - Release Date: 2/18/2004


              ---
              Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
              Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
              Version: 6.0.592 / Virus Database: 375 - Release Date: 2/18/2004



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Joan Marie Verba
              ... If you check my original comment (below), you ll find that I only suggested that movie comments go elsewhere; I didn t forbid anything. Of course, if
              Message 6 of 25 , Mar 9, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                "Carl F. Hostetter" wrote:
                >
                > While a discussion of Gibson's film separate from mythopoeic concerns
                > would obviously be off-topic for this list, I would hope that
                > discussion of the movie as it pertains to the mythopoeic writings and
                > concerns of J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Charles Williams, and the other
                > Inklings, Christian writers all, would not be considered forbidden on
                > this list.

                If you check my original comment (below), you'll find that I only
                suggested that movie comments go elsewhere; I didn't forbid anything.

                Of course, if anyone can find a connection between the movie and
                Tolkien, Lewis, or Williams, they're welcome to post it here.

                > On Mar 9, 2004, at 10:48 AM, Joan Marie Verba wrote:
                >
                > > For discussion on Gibson's movie, I'd suggest trying another list.
                > > (SpareOom on Yahoo groups was discussing it for a time.)
                > >
                > > Joan
                > > Friendly Neighborhood Mythsoc List Administrator
              • Jay Hershberger
                Pearce is an engaging speaker, and he know s his audience very well. He is editor of the St. Austin Review, a journal of Christian Culture that is connected
                Message 7 of 25 , Mar 9, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Pearce is an engaging speaker, and he know's his audience very well. He is
                  editor of the St. Austin Review, a journal of Christian Culture that is
                  connected with Ave Maria College in Michigan, and he just relocated to Ave
                  Maria University in Naples, Florida, a new extension of AMC. His knowledge
                  of Tolkien and Tolkien criticism seemed to me quite thorough. We had an
                  interesting conversation about the relationship between Tolkien's published
                  canon and his son's editing of his unpublished works. He also is of the
                  opinion that until the Tolkien Estate releases the manuscripts, letters, and
                  other papers for critical and scholarly review, independently of the
                  family's control, we should reserve judgement about what we do know about
                  Tolkien. For example, Pearce does not regard HC's biography or edition of
                  the letters as definitive or authoritative because according to Pearce, the
                  family screened what HC was allowed to see and had to approve of his writing
                  before it was published. I found that perspective very interesting.

                  Interesting trivia: Pearce was actively involved in white supremacist
                  politics in England before 1980 (a member of the National Front, and editor
                  of the "journal" published by the group). He was convicted and served
                  prison time (twice) for publishing materials that incited racial hatred. An
                  agnostic, he later renounced his racist views and converted to Roman
                  Catholicism in 1989 (through the writings of Chesterton and Belloc), and has
                  been active in Catholic literary circles since. He has written or edited 13
                  books to date.

                  Cheers,

                  Jay Hershberger


                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Ginger McElwee [mailto:gingermc@...]
                  Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 6:19 PM
                  To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: RE: [mythsoc] Gibson's movie


                  I have been impressed with Joseph Pearce when I have seen him on
                  television. What was he like as a lecturer? I have read Tolkien: Man
                  and Myth and Literary Converts. I think he pushes it a little to count
                  Tolkien among Catholic converts, but I found his writing style smooth
                  and entertaining, and I think Tolkien’s writing was certainly Catholic
                  though not overtly so. Does anyone else have observations about Pearce’s
                  work on Tolkien?

                  Ginger McElwee

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Jay Hershberger [mailto:hershber@...]
                  Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 12:07 PM
                  To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: RE: [mythsoc] Gibson's movie

                  This is not an observation about the movie. I just heard two lectures
                  in
                  Fargo given by Joseph Pearce (Tolkien: Man and Myth). He recounts that
                  according to the calendar of Middle Earth the One Ring was unmade on
                  March
                  25th. This coincides with the Feast of the Anunciation. There is also,
                  according to Pearce, a Medieval tradition that places the crucifixion of
                  Christ on the 25th of March. Pearce believes that Tolkien was
                  deliberate in
                  placing the unmaking of the ring on this date as one of the ways in
                  which
                  LOTR was a "fundamentally religious and catholic work...especially in
                  the
                  revisions..."

                  Interesting thoughts, no?

                  Cheers,

                  Jay Hershberger

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Joan Marie Verba [mailto:verba001@...]
                  Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 9:49 AM
                  To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [mythsoc] Gibson's movie


                  For discussion on Gibson's movie, I'd suggest trying another list.
                  (SpareOom on Yahoo groups was discussing it for a time.)

                  Joan
                  Friendly Neighborhood Mythsoc List Administrator
                  ******************************************
                  Joan Marie Verba
                  verba001@...
                  HYPERLINK
                  "http://www.sff.net/people/Joan.Marie.Verba"http://www.sff.net/people/Jo
                  an.Marie.Verba


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







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



                  _____

                  Yahoo! Groups Links
                  * To visit your group on the web, go to:
                  HYPERLINK
                  "http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mythsoc/"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/my
                  thsoc/

                  * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  HYPERLINK
                  "mailto:mythsoc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe"mythsoc-
                  unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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

                  ---
                  Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
                  Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
                  Version: 6.0.592 / Virus Database: 375 - Release Date: 2/18/2004


                  ---
                  Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
                  Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
                  Version: 6.0.592 / Virus Database: 375 - Release Date: 2/18/2004



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



                  The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                  Yahoo! Groups Links
                • David Bratman
                  ... Having written a couple books on the subject, Pearce has hardly reserved his judgment about Tolkien. Possibly he meant something slightly different from
                  Message 8 of 25 , Mar 9, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 09:43 PM 3/9/2004 -0600, Jay Hershberger wrote:
                    >He also is of the
                    >opinion that until the Tolkien Estate releases the manuscripts, letters, and
                    >other papers for critical and scholarly review, independently of the
                    >family's control, we should reserve judgement about what we do know about
                    >Tolkien.

                    Having written a couple books on the subject, Pearce has hardly reserved
                    his judgment about Tolkien. Possibly he meant something slightly different
                    from how that sounds.


                    >For example, Pearce does not regard HC's biography or edition of
                    >the letters as definitive or authoritative because according to Pearce, the
                    >family screened what HC was allowed to see and had to approve of his writing
                    >before it was published. I found that perspective very interesting.

                    That depends on what one means by "definitive" or "authoritative", but I do
                    not believe an unscreened biography necessarily has a moral superiority
                    over a screened one, though in many cases it may. One has to judge by
                    results, and the results I see are this:

                    1) Carpenter's biography of Tolkien, despite a number of factual errors
                    that have turned up over the years, remains remarkably accurate, and
                    subsequent scholarship (much of it in the original papers) has confirmed
                    its penetrating insights into Tolkien's character.

                    2) None of the unauthorized biographies of Tolkien show even a tithe of the
                    same understanding of Tolkien.

                    3) Carpenter's other early scholarship (especially his biography of W.H.
                    Auden) is also excellent, but his subsequent work has grown ever more
                    wayward and useless in trivial psychoanalyzing and in inability to draw
                    useful conclusions from accumulations of facts, which I think shows the
                    perils of the "unbuttoned" approach he's been increasingly drawn towards.

                    4) While there's much of Tolkien's thought that the published Letters
                    doesn't cover - and much it couldn't cover even if it included every word
                    he'd ever jotted - it is fully reliable as a record of the most important
                    thoughts he recorded about his literary work at various stages in his life.
                    To claim otherwise would be to fall into the paralysis of Smedley Force.

                    - David Bratman
                  • Jay Hershberger
                    DB: Having written a couple books on the subject, Pearce has hardly reserved his judgment about Tolkien. Possibly he meant something slightly different from
                    Message 9 of 25 , Mar 10, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      DB: Having written a couple books on the subject, Pearce has hardly reserved
                      his judgment about Tolkien. Possibly he meant something slightly different
                      from how that sounds.

                      JH: My verbage was too sweeping. The comments he made were in the context
                      of a conversation about the relationship between Tolkien's published canon
                      and Christopher's editing of the HoME. Pearce hopes that at some point in
                      the future, the manuscripts and papers can be made available to scholars
                      independent of family control. I did not mean to suggest that Pearce
                      rejected Christopher's work and his collaboration with HC as unreliable.

                      Pearce just expressed reservations about HC in the context of Christopher
                      Tolkien's control of the primary source material.

                      Cheers,

                      Jay
                    • David Bratman
                      ... If Pearce doesn t think Carpenter is unreliable, then what reservations does he have? Or do you mean to say that Pearce accepts HoME and Letters
                      Message 10 of 25 , Mar 10, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 12:10 PM 3/10/2004 -0600, Jay Hershberger wrote:

                        >My verbage was too sweeping. The comments he made were in the context
                        >of a conversation about the relationship between Tolkien's published canon
                        >and Christopher's editing of the HoME. Pearce hopes that at some point in
                        >the future, the manuscripts and papers can be made available to scholars
                        >independent of family control. I did not mean to suggest that Pearce
                        >rejected Christopher's work and his collaboration with HC as unreliable.
                        >
                        >Pearce just expressed reservations about HC in the context of Christopher
                        >Tolkien's control of the primary source material.

                        If Pearce doesn't think Carpenter is unreliable, then what reservations
                        does he have? Or do you mean to say that Pearce accepts HoME and Letters
                        ("Christopher's work and his collaboration with HC") as reliable, but has
                        reservations about Carpenter's biography?

                        One should be cautious about accepting wholesale any biography, authorized
                        or not. But Carpenter's book rang true when it was new to everything else
                        we knew about Tolkien, and time and further study has verified its
                        essential truthfulness and perception.

                        Some years later, after the quality of his scholarly work had begun to fall
                        off, Carpenter scripted a radio dramatization of Tolkien's life. I've
                        heard it: it's dreadful. It depicts Tolkien as some kind of absent-minded
                        looney, apt to cry out imaginary words in public places. There's no
                        evidence that he had Tourette's Syndrome, and even if he did, it would be
                        the most superficial depiction of the man to emphasize it.

                        If the family's restrictions on Carpenter's biographical work saved us from
                        a book of that kind, then we must be profoundly grateful to them that they
                        exercised it.

                        - David Bratman
                      • Jay Hershberger
                        David Bratman: If Pearce doesn t think Carpenter is unreliable, then what reservations does he have? Or do you mean to say that Pearce accepts HoME and
                        Message 11 of 25 , Mar 10, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          David Bratman: If Pearce doesn't think Carpenter is unreliable, then what
                          reservations
                          does he have? Or do you mean to say that Pearce accepts HoME and Letters
                          ("Christopher's work and his collaboration with HC") as reliable, but has
                          reservations about Carpenter's biography?

                          JH: Pearce offered no specifics. We were standing in line for a supper
                          buffet in a private home when this conversation took place, and I did not
                          have the chance to pursue the topic with him further, as everyone else there
                          was trying to talk to him aw well. He never said that HC was unreliable.

                          Let me try to reconstruct the limits of the conversation:

                          Me: You once said in an interview that we should regard the HoME as
                          secondary material, and rely on Tolkien's published works as primary. Since
                          CT made the final decisions about the shape the Silmarillion would take in
                          published form, what's the difference between the Silmarillion and the HoME?

                          Pearce: Yes, I see your point. The Silmarillion was published posthumously
                          under CT's direction. Yet it seems that a good bit of the Silmarillion had
                          already taken shape or was completed by JRRT, so that CT simply tried as
                          best he could to publish the substance of the Silmarillion in a way which
                          would reflect his father's intent. The HoME is more an attempt to provide
                          readers with earlier versions of materials related to Tolkien's sub-creation
                          that Tolkien never intended for publication. What would be great is for
                          scholars to have access to all of these manuscripts and papers. The same
                          could be said about the letters. We know they are not complete, and that CT
                          was very careful in monitoring HC's access to them. With this in mind, we
                          should probably be conservative as scholars regarding the biography and the
                          letters as being authoritative or definitive. A definitive biography and
                          edition of the letters may have to wait until such access is granted.

                          We then retired to a table with others to visit and the conversation turned
                          toward other topics. This was the substance of our conversation, to the
                          best of my recollection. In my original post I couched all of this by
                          saying Pearce had "reservations" about HC's work. Perhaps that was the
                          wrong word to use.

                          Cheers,

                          Jay Hershberger
                        • Carl F. Hostetter
                          ... If reported accurately (and I would be the last to fault anyone for not having remembering every phoneme uttered in a dinner line!), then I must say that
                          Message 12 of 25 , Mar 10, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Mar 10, 2004, at 3:41 PM, Jay Hershberger wrote:

                            > Pearce: Yes, I see your point. The Silmarillion was published
                            > posthumously
                            > under CT's direction. Yet it seems that a good bit of the
                            > Silmarillion had
                            > already taken shape or was completed by JRRT, so that CT simply tried
                            > as
                            > best he could to publish the substance of the Silmarillion in a way
                            > which
                            > would reflect his father's intent. The HoME is more an attempt to
                            > provide
                            > readers with earlier versions of materials related to Tolkien's
                            > sub-creation
                            > that Tolkien never intended for publication. What would be great is
                            > for
                            > scholars to have access to all of these manuscripts and papers.

                            If reported accurately (and I would be the last to fault anyone for not
                            having remembering every phoneme uttered in a dinner line!), then I
                            must say that this is a rather astonishing misstatement of the nature
                            of _The History of Middle-earth_, one purpose of which was _precisely_
                            to present the material that Christopher Tolkien had to select from in
                            achieving a publishable _Silmarillion_, parts of which existed _only_
                            in " earlier versions of materials related to Tolkien's sub-creation
                            that Tolkien never intended for publication". So thanks to Christopher
                            Tolkien's monumental labors, we _do_ have "access to all of these
                            manuscripts and papers", in ordered and edited form. Which is a pretty
                            astonishing thing to have, when you think about it.
                          • David Bratman
                            ... I haven t seen this interview, but I take it from context that Tolkien s published works means works he had published himself, or (as with _The
                            Message 13 of 25 , Mar 10, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              At 02:41 PM 3/10/2004 -0600, Jay Hershberger wrote:

                              >Let me try to reconstruct the limits of the conversation:
                              >
                              >Me: You once said in an interview that we should regard the HoME as
                              >secondary material, and rely on Tolkien's published works as primary. Since
                              >CT made the final decisions about the shape the Silmarillion would take in
                              >published form, what's the difference between the Silmarillion and the HoME?

                              I haven't seen this interview, but I take it from context that "Tolkien's
                              published works" means works he had published himself, or (as with _The
                              Silmarillion_) directly intended for publication. Also that by "secondary"
                              is simply meant "less important," rather than the scholarly meaning of
                              "secondary source" which is "work by a critic or scholar, not by the
                              original author".


                              >Pearce: Yes, I see your point. The Silmarillion was published posthumously
                              >under CT's direction.

                              Your point must have been that _The Silmarillion_ wasn't really passed for
                              or ready for publication as Tolkien left it, yes?


                              >Yet it seems that a good bit of the Silmarillion had
                              >already taken shape or was completed by JRRT, so that CT simply tried as
                              >best he could to publish the substance of the Silmarillion in a way which
                              >would reflect his father's intent. The HoME is more an attempt to provide
                              >readers with earlier versions of materials related to Tolkien's sub-creation
                              >that Tolkien never intended for publication.

                              All this means is that _The Silmarillion_ is the closest available
                              approximation to what Tolkien might have actually published, had he ever
                              gotten around to finishing it. But in that sense it's a reconstruction, a
                              working version as he left it, not an attempt to make what Tolkien would
                              actually have published. Some scholars are of the opinion that the
                              Silmarillion was essentially unfinishable within the requirements that
                              Tolkien had set himself for it.

                              And because the material in _The Silmarillion_ had to be massaged in
                              certain ways to be made into a coherent narrative (names and dates changed,
                              versions selected, etc.), it is a more misleading account of what Tolkien
                              actually left behind than HoME is. In a sense, HoME includes _The
                              Silmarillion_, as in some volumes Christopher describes individual
                              manuscripts he does not reprint because they formed chapters of _The
                              Silmarillion_. True, no individual piece in HoME would be likely to have
                              been published by Tolkien exactly the way it stood; but there's nothing in
                              _The Silmarillion_ of which that's likely to be true either.


                              >What would be great is for
                              >scholars to have access to all of these manuscripts and papers.

                              And that's pretty much exactly what we have. Fourteen honking large
                              volumes of it. There's very little left out except for repetitive pieces
                              and some linguistic material, much of which is now being published
                              separately. It's all there for people to look at, and to construct their
                              own mental images of the Silmarillion from, without Christopher's
                              intervention but with his guidance.


                              >The same
                              >could be said about the letters. We know they are not complete, and that CT
                              >was very careful in monitoring HC's access to them. With this in mind, we
                              >should probably be conservative as scholars regarding the biography and the
                              >letters as being authoritative or definitive. A definitive biography and
                              >edition of the letters may have to wait until such access is granted.

                              I'd go along with the reasoning here only so far as to say that the more we
                              have, the more we know. And, unlike HoME, the Letters are indeed very
                              selective. But definitiveness in scholarship is not a function of how much
                              material the scholar has - there's no such thing as perfect insight into a
                              subject's mind - but of the use the scholar makes of them.
                            • Jay Hershberger
                              Pearce s view of the HoME as secondary means--as I understood him--that it should not be regarded as on the same level as Tolkien s published works,
                              Message 14 of 25 , Mar 11, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Pearce's view of the HoME as "secondary" means--as I understood him--that it
                                should not be regarded as on the same level as Tolkien's published works,
                                including the works of minor fiction and essays. Pearce regards the
                                published Silmarillion as being included in the "primary" canon with H and
                                LOTR. We never finished our conversations about this, especially regarding
                                how CT's edition of the Silmarillion is somehow different in "weight" than
                                the HoME.

                                My observation (not Pearce's) is that, even with the publication of HoME
                                (and I am slowly collecting them all!), until all of the manuscripts and
                                papers are made available independently of CT, including the redundancies he
                                chose to leave out of HoME, we must rely on CT's judgements. Not that CT's
                                judgement is somehow suspicious or unreliable, but that his familial
                                connection to his father, the family, and the estate, etc., does factor into
                                his work. Certainly no one else COULD have brought about the posthumous
                                publication of the Silmarillion as it now stands, for certainly no one had
                                the kind of intimate knowledge of the manuscripts that CT has, and for all
                                of this we should be grateful to him for his tireless commitment to
                                publishing these papers.

                                But even CT's scholarship, editing, commentary, etc., will be, at some point
                                in the future, up for critical review (perhaps already has in some
                                quarters). I can just imagine the tomes and dissertations on CT as editor
                                of the Silmarillion. Perhaps after all is revealed and examined ad nauseum,
                                the judgement will be that CT did a terrific service to his father's
                                literary legagy, and that his edition of the Silmarillion cannot be in
                                anyway improved. I seem to recall CT once stating that he might do things a
                                bit different now.

                                Cheers,

                                Jay Hershberger
                              • David Bratman
                                ... I don t know what Tolkien s published works means here, because HoME is published works, and if it means works published by Tolkien it should exclude
                                Message 15 of 25 , Mar 11, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  At 02:01 PM 3/11/2004 -0600, Jay Hershberger wrote:

                                  >Pearce's view of the HoME as "secondary" means--as I understood him--that it
                                  >should not be regarded as on the same level as Tolkien's published works,
                                  >including the works of minor fiction and essays. Pearce regards the
                                  >published Silmarillion as being included in the "primary" canon with H and
                                  >LOTR.

                                  I don't know what "Tolkien's published works" means here, because HoME is
                                  published works, and if it means "works published by Tolkien" it should
                                  exclude _The Silmarillion_. As for "'primary' canon", what your canon
                                  includes depends on what you want a canon for. To exclude HoME from any
                                  study of Tolkien's literary thought or creativity would be a huge mistake.


                                  >We never finished our conversations about this, especially regarding
                                  >how CT's edition of the Silmarillion is somehow different in "weight" than
                                  >the HoME.

                                  Weight for what purpose? For some purposes it weighs more, for others less.


                                  >My observation (not Pearce's) is that, even with the publication of HoME
                                  >(and I am slowly collecting them all!), until all of the manuscripts and
                                  >papers are made available independently of CT, including the redundancies he
                                  >chose to leave out of HoME, we must rely on CT's judgements.

                                  This is tautological, but it's also untrue. Many manuscripts are available
                                  for scholarly study, especially LOTR which is at Marquette and open to
                                  general use, and one can judge CT's editorial ability from that. The idea
                                  that we must reserve opinion until we can read every scrap of paper for
                                  ourselves is absurd.


                                  >Not that CT's
                                  >judgement is somehow suspicious or unreliable, but that his familial
                                  >connection to his father, the family, and the estate, etc., does factor into
                                  >his work.

                                  And so do plenty of other things, and so would they for some other scholar
                                  with no familial connection at all. The idea of expressing any kind of
                                  special concern because he's the son of the author, that therefore wouldn't
                                  apply if he weren't, is loathsome.


                                  >But even CT's scholarship, editing, commentary, etc., will be, at some point
                                  >in the future, up for critical review (perhaps already has in some
                                  >quarters).

                                  There is considerable scholarly discussion of CT's editorial work (more of
                                  HoME than of _The Silmarillion_) in the volume _Tolkien's Legendarium_
                                  edited by Verlyn Flieger and Carl F. Hostetter. You might begin with my
                                  essay in that volume, which specifically discusses the structure imposed on
                                  HoME by the editor, and his qualifications for the job.


                                  >Perhaps after all is revealed and examined ad nauseum,
                                  >the judgement will be that CT did a terrific service to his father's
                                  >literary legagy,

                                  Why wait? That conclusion is obvious now.


                                  >and that his edition of the Silmarillion cannot be in
                                  >anyway improved. I seem to recall CT once stating that he might do things a
                                  >bit different now.

                                  What he might have done differently is in regards to having undertaken the
                                  project in the manner he did at all, not in its details. This is discussed
                                  in the foreword to volume 1 of HoME. A full understanding of how _The
                                  Silmarillion_ was constructed can be obtained from studying vols. 4-5 and
                                  10-11 of HoME.

                                  - David Bratman
                                • Jay Hershberger
                                  ... is ... JH: Interesting discussion! Pearce never for a moment implied that the HoME should be excluded from any study of Tolkien s literary thought or
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Mar 11, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    > At 02:01 PM 3/11/2004 -0600, Jay Hershberger wrote:
                                    >
                                    > >JH: Pearce's view of the HoME as "secondary" means--as I understood
                                    > him--that it
                                    > >should not be regarded as on the same level as Tolkien's published works,
                                    > >including the works of minor fiction and essays. Pearce regards the
                                    > >published Silmarillion as being included in the "primary" canon
                                    > with H and
                                    > >LOTR.
                                    >
                                    > DB: I don't know what "Tolkien's published works" means here, because HoME
                                    is
                                    > published works, and if it means "works published by Tolkien" it should
                                    > exclude _The Silmarillion_. As for "'primary' canon", what your canon
                                    > includes depends on what you want a canon for. To exclude HoME from any
                                    > study of Tolkien's literary thought or creativity would be a huge
                                    > mistake.

                                    JH: Interesting discussion! Pearce never for a moment implied that the HoME
                                    should be excluded from any study of Tolkien's literary thought or
                                    creativity. He simply stated that when studying what "happened" in Middle
                                    Earth (person, place, thing, event, etc.) we should be cautious and view the
                                    HoME as secondary (he did not mean secondary source vs. primary source in
                                    the sense of scholarly citation). It is appropriate to rely instead upon
                                    the H, LOTR, and the S as authoritative to determine what actually happened.

                                    For example, regarding the story of Beren and Luthien, we may admire the Lay
                                    of Leithian as a poem, piece of literature, etc., or we may read the Tale of
                                    Tinuviel in the BoLT II, and find it interesting, entertaining, profound, or
                                    whatever, but perhaps we should be cautious and not rely upon those versions
                                    to establish the "facts" of the story set in Middle Earth. Rather, it seems
                                    best to rely upon the story of Beren and Luthien as it appears in the S to
                                    establish the "facts" of what actually happened where, when, how, who, etc.
                                    in Middle Earth. What makes HoME important is that we can compare the
                                    evolving story of Beren and Luthien, the prose, poetry, structure, etc. How
                                    did the story change? What elements remain from the earliest drafts? What
                                    elements are discarded? Did Tolkien's thinking about the relationship
                                    between this tale and the underlying mythological landscape change? This is
                                    all I believe Pearce intended by his comments. It sounds reasonable to me.

                                    Great discussion! All that is missing from this is a stout ale and a pipe
                                    at the Bird and Baby! I'll buy the first round...

                                    Cheers,

                                    Jay Hershberger
                                  • Jay Hershberger
                                    ... JH: Yes, indeed. This was the genesis of my original question to Mr. Pearce. How should we view the Silmarillion? Pearce believes that Tolkien was a
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Mar 11, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      > >JH: We never finished our conversations about this, especially regarding
                                      > >how CT's edition of the Silmarillion is somehow different in
                                      > "weight" than
                                      > >the HoME.
                                      >
                                      > DB: Weight for what purpose? For some purposes it weighs more, for
                                      > others less.

                                      JH: Yes, indeed. This was the genesis of my original question to Mr.
                                      Pearce. How should we view the Silmarillion? Pearce believes that Tolkien
                                      was a perfectionist. Hence the Silmarillion was not finished when he died.
                                      But unlike some literary figures, he never consigned unpublished manuscripts
                                      to the flames or the river. He was, as many elderly folks are, a sort of
                                      "pack rat" and kept everything. Perhaps he continued to refer to the early
                                      manuscripts for ideas, refreshment of memory, etc. Had he lived long enough
                                      to the complete the Silmarillion in a form that satisfied his perfectionist
                                      tendencies, Perhaps the HoME might have taken a different shape through CT
                                      after JRRT's death. Then it might be a clearer case of weightiness or not.

                                      As you previously pointed out, CT was faced with putting the narrative in a
                                      publishable form and made choices. Then he edited and published the whole
                                      lot of his father's papers and manuscripts for others to compare. This is a
                                      fabulous treasure trove! Thank goodness he did this. But I am still left
                                      with the question that I originally posed that Pearce did not answer,
                                      because we got side-tracked with dinner. How is CT's edition of the
                                      Silmarillion different than the HoME? He compiled and edited the final
                                      versions, best versions, most clear versions, or whatever, of the
                                      mythologies as they existed at the time of JRRT's death, and produced "The
                                      Silmarillion." Is the S a distillation of the manuscripts and papers that
                                      make up the HoME? If so, then why would we regard the S as being more
                                      authentic than the manuscripts of the HoME?

                                      Cheers,

                                      Jay Hershberger
                                    • Carl F. Hostetter
                                      ... Yes. (At least, of those papers known to Christopher Tolkien at the time; some that eventually made it into _HoMe_ were not known to him before.) ...
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Mar 11, 2004
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        On Mar 11, 2004, at 10:33 PM, Jay Hershberger wrote:

                                        > Is the S a distillation of the manuscripts and papers that make up the
                                        > HoME?

                                        Yes. (At least, of those papers known to Christopher Tolkien at the
                                        time; some that eventually made it into _HoMe_ were not known to him
                                        before.)


                                        > If so, then why would we regard the S as being more authentic than the
                                        > manuscripts of the HoME?

                                        Indeed.
                                      • Carl F. Hostetter
                                        ... I find this position inconsistent, in a way suggesting that Pearce really doesn t fully understand the nature of _The Silmarillion_ or _The History of
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Mar 11, 2004
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          On Mar 11, 2004, at 10:09 PM, Jay Hershberger wrote:

                                          > It is appropriate to rely instead upon the H, LOTR, and the S as
                                          > authoritative to determine what actually happened.

                                          I find this position inconsistent, in a way suggesting that Pearce
                                          really doesn't fully understand the nature of _The Silmarillion_ or
                                          _The History of Middle-earth_. The published _Silmarillion_ was _not_
                                          vetted by Tolkien for publication in anything like the same way that
                                          _The Hobbit_ and _The Silmarillion_ were. Some parts of the published
                                          _Silmarillion_ were not even written by Tolkien. But _every_ part of
                                          _HoMe_ was.

                                          If your criterion is truly to accept what was published by Tolkien
                                          himself, in his lifetime, as authoritative, and nothing else, then you
                                          cannot include _The Silmarillion_ among such works. But if you are
                                          going to relax the restriction to include what appears to have been
                                          Tolkien's latest intentions for what should go into a published
                                          "Silmarillion", then in fact the texts in _HoMe_, being purely
                                          Tolkien's own writings, must be regarded as more authoritative than the
                                          editorially smoothed and completed text of _The Silmarillion_.

                                          I dare say that this plain fact is largely responsible for Christopher
                                          Tolkien's decision to publish _The History of Middle-earth_.
                                        • David Bratman
                                          ... Ah, I wondered if that s what you meant. But since it s outside of Pearce s scholarly specialty, I thought I might be on the wrong track. I would say
                                          Message 20 of 25 , Mar 11, 2004
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            At 09:09 PM 3/11/2004 -0600, Jay Hershberger wrote:

                                            >Interesting discussion! Pearce never for a moment implied that the HoME
                                            >should be excluded from any study of Tolkien's literary thought or
                                            >creativity. He simply stated that when studying what "happened" in Middle
                                            >Earth (person, place, thing, event, etc.) we should be cautious and view the
                                            >HoME as secondary (he did not mean secondary source vs. primary source in
                                            >the sense of scholarly citation). It is appropriate to rely instead upon
                                            >the H, LOTR, and the S as authoritative to determine what actually happened.

                                            Ah, I wondered if that's what you meant. But since it's outside of
                                            Pearce's scholarly specialty, I thought I might be on the wrong track.

                                            I would say this. For the limited purpose of studying what the Hobbits and
                                            Men of the Third Age knew about the Elder Days, then yes, I would use _The
                                            Silmarillion_ as an authoritative statement of facts. Look on it as a
                                            copy, or a partial copy, of Bilbo's "Translations from the Elvish." But in
                                            that respect it is filtered through Christopher Tolkien's understanding,
                                            and so this should be followed with the kind of caution you wanted to apply
                                            to HoME.

                                            Part of what kept Tolkien working on the Silmarillion papers all those
                                            years was the need to make the "facts" of the Elder Days fit what had been
                                            stated in LOTR. _The Silmarillion_ as edited by CT consists of texts and
                                            versions he selected so as to maintain that consistency, and internal
                                            consistency, as well as possible.

                                            What it is unrepresentative of to the point of being highly misleading, is
                                            of what his father actually wrote, and the way he worked. It was in part
                                            to illustrate those points that CT embarked upon HoME; it was also to
                                            demonstrate that the apparent finality of _The Silmarillion_ was artificial
                                            and tentative.

                                            I'll give one specific example of where _The Silmarillion_ appears to be
                                            definitive, but HoME shows that this is only one stage in a continually
                                            evolving conception: the origin of orcs.


                                            >Pearce believes that Tolkien
                                            >was a perfectionist. Hence the Silmarillion was not finished when he died.

                                            "Perfectionism" sounds like endless niggling. This wasn't the problem.
                                            Tolkien had in fact set himself some problems in presenting the Elder Days
                                            material that were essentially unsolvable within the framework he had built
                                            for himself.


                                            >But unlike some literary figures, he never consigned unpublished manuscripts
                                            >to the flames or the river. He was, as many elderly folks are, a sort of
                                            >"pack rat" and kept everything. Perhaps he continued to refer to the early
                                            >manuscripts for ideas, refreshment of memory, etc.

                                            He was hardly elderly when he first saved the notebooks he'd begun writing
                                            at the age of 25. He kept his older material partly for reference, partly
                                            because it contained material that had independent value despite the fact
                                            that it no longer fit his mythology, and partly simply because, as he once
                                            said, he wrote in his own lifeblood. One doesn't casually chuck away one's
                                            writings if one feels that way.


                                            >How is CT's edition of the
                                            >Silmarillion different than the HoME? He compiled and edited the final
                                            >versions, best versions, most clear versions, or whatever, of the
                                            >mythologies as they existed at the time of JRRT's death, and produced "The
                                            >Silmarillion." Is the S a distillation of the manuscripts and papers that
                                            >make up the HoME? If so, then why would we regard the S as being more
                                            >authentic than the manuscripts of the HoME?

                                            The answer to your first question is "Yes, that's pretty much it." The
                                            answer to your second question is, "We don't. It has superior value only
                                            for the limited purpose described above, and for any other value of reading
                                            a simple consistent narrative."

                                            Ralph Ellison left a vast array of complex interconnected fictional
                                            fragments of various lengths. His executors carved a fairly self-contained
                                            internally-consistent novel out of this, and published it as _Juneteenth_.
                                            Very approximately, this resembles what happened with Tolkien and _The
                                            Silmarillion_.

                                            - David Bratman
                                          • Matt Williams
                                            Howdy: We recently moved to Kearney, NE where I am library director and discovered that there are 2 other Mythopoeic Society members here. Anyway, Joseph
                                            Message 21 of 25 , Mar 4, 2006
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Howdy:

                                              We recently moved to Kearney, NE where I am library director and discovered that there are 2 other Mythopoeic Society members here. Anyway, Joseph Pearce is speaking on Tolkien on Wed. at UNK. What does everyone think of him? Worth seeing?

                                              Matt Williams

                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            • Walter Padgett
                                              Yeah, I would definately go see him. He wrote =Tolkien: Man and Myth= which is a great book. ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              Message 22 of 25 , Mar 4, 2006
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Yeah, I would definately go see him. He wrote =Tolkien: Man and Myth= which
                                                is a great book.

                                                On 3/4/06, Matt Williams <mrw1@...> wrote:


                                                > Joseph Pearce is speaking on Tolkien on Wed. at UNK. What does everyone
                                                > think of him? Worth seeing?
                                                >
                                                > Matt Williams
                                                >
                                                >


                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • Jay Hershberger
                                                Matt, Joseph Pearce came to Fargo-Moorhead and spoke at North Dakota State University and at Shanley Catholic High School. He also met with the Fargo-Moorhead
                                                Message 23 of 25 , Mar 5, 2006
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Matt,

                                                  Joseph Pearce came to Fargo-Moorhead and spoke at North Dakota State
                                                  University and at Shanley Catholic High School. He also met with the
                                                  Fargo-Moorhead GK Chesterton Society for dinner and my wife and I had
                                                  the pleasure of dining with him. He is currently a fellow in literature
                                                  at Ave Maria University in Naples, FL, and is editor of the Saint Austin
                                                  Review, which is a conservative Roman Catholic cultural and literary
                                                  journal.

                                                  Pearce refers to himself as a cultural apologist for the traditional
                                                  idea of Christendom, which immediately places him at odds with a lot of
                                                  scholars.

                                                  As to his work on Tolkien, he probably doesn't have anything
                                                  particularly new to say. He interprets Tolkien through the lens of
                                                  conservative British Catholicism, as Tolkien himself practiced. He has
                                                  also written about other British literary figures such as Chesterton,
                                                  Lewis, and Hilaire Belloc. I believe he also wrote a biography on
                                                  Solzhenitsyn. Pearce has a specific point of view: traditional
                                                  Catholicism, and he is very open about it. On a personal level he is
                                                  winsome and gentlemanly, and tolerated this Anglican's questions with
                                                  patience and courtesy.

                                                  He is a lively speaker. By all means, attend his lecture.

                                                  Cheers,

                                                  Jay Hershberger
                                                  Moorhead, MN

                                                  -----Original Message-----
                                                  From: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mythsoc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                                                  Of Walter Padgett
                                                  Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 10:31 AM
                                                  To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                                                  Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Joseph Pearce

                                                  Yeah, I would definately go see him. He wrote =Tolkien: Man and Myth=
                                                  which
                                                  is a great book.

                                                  On 3/4/06, Matt Williams <mrw1@...> wrote:


                                                  > Joseph Pearce is speaking on Tolkien on Wed. at UNK. What does
                                                  everyone
                                                  > think of him? Worth seeing?
                                                  >
                                                  > Matt Williams
                                                  >
                                                  >


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



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



                                                  SPONSORED LINKS

                                                  Writing
                                                  <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+book&w1=Writing+book&w2=Wri
                                                  ting+a+book&w3=Writing+child+book&w4=Book+writing+software&w5=Science+fi
                                                  ction+and+fantasy&w6=Writing+a+book+report&c=6&s=149&.sig=y2eg6vElueLycc
                                                  icIbmLvw> book
                                                  Writing
                                                  <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+a+book&w1=Writing+book&w2=W
                                                  riting+a+book&w3=Writing+child+book&w4=Book+writing+software&w5=Science+
                                                  fiction+and+fantasy&w6=Writing+a+book+report&c=6&s=149&.sig=lO3Ub95nJOYx
                                                  hLh9xKmaZA> a book
                                                  Writing
                                                  <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+child+book&w1=Writing+book&
                                                  w2=Writing+a+book&w3=Writing+child+book&w4=Book+writing+software&w5=Scie
                                                  nce+fiction+and+fantasy&w6=Writing+a+book+report&c=6&s=149&.sig=SdauVgsy
                                                  Q7cty1c0_Mdmcw> child book

                                                  Book
                                                  <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Book+writing+software&w1=Writing+bo
                                                  ok&w2=Writing+a+book&w3=Writing+child+book&w4=Book+writing+software&w5=S
                                                  cience+fiction+and+fantasy&w6=Writing+a+book+report&c=6&s=149&.sig=IyTXz
                                                  OVz9wcG0elM8KQAlA> writing software
                                                  Science
                                                  <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Science+fiction+and+fantasy&w1=Writ
                                                  ing+book&w2=Writing+a+book&w3=Writing+child+book&w4=Book+writing+softwar
                                                  e&w5=Science+fiction+and+fantasy&w6=Writing+a+book+report&c=6&s=149&.sig
                                                  =XRnFz_kSPtPnWY1VFwJpwQ> fiction and fantasy
                                                  Writing
                                                  <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+a+book+report&w1=Writing+bo
                                                  ok&w2=Writing+a+book&w3=Writing+child+book&w4=Book+writing+software&w5=S
                                                  cience+fiction+and+fantasy&w6=Writing+a+book+report&c=6&s=149&.sig=v6l7b
                                                  RwIsnHwqukmL3bvDQ> a book report

                                                  _____

                                                  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

                                                  * Visit your group "mythsoc
                                                  <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mythsoc> " on the web.

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

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

                                                  _____



                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                • Mike Foster
                                                  Matt, Jay s take on JP is pretty accurate. He is indeed a lively speaker. As a Tolkien scholar who s also a cradle Catholic, I ve written and lectured on
                                                  Message 24 of 25 , Mar 5, 2006
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Matt,
                                                    Jay's take on JP is pretty accurate. He is indeed a lively speaker. As
                                                    a Tolkien scholar who's also a cradle Catholic, I've written and
                                                    lectured on JRRT's faith a time or six.

                                                    That being said, I find JP's Catholic take on JRRT too Procrustean, too
                                                    constraining, and too conservative: almost every one of JRRT's works
                                                    ends with a revolution. Certainly JRRT's work have that element
                                                    subsumed, but too narrow a focus reminds one of Aesop's blind man, who
                                                    was sure that an elephant was very much like a rope.

                                                    I said as much in a review of his book for -Faith & Reason-.

                                                    Ave Maria is indeed very conservative, a university built by pizza.
                                                    Makes my old school Marquette look like Arizona State.

                                                    That being said, go see him. He's certainly fun to listen to and fences
                                                    well with questioners. After the event, if you can spirit him off to
                                                    some place with wine and [best case] Stilton cheese & lots of it, he'll
                                                    be good company.

                                                    Mike

                                                    Jay Hershberger wrote:

                                                    >Matt,
                                                    >
                                                    >Joseph Pearce came to Fargo-Moorhead and spoke at North Dakota State
                                                    >University and at Shanley Catholic High School. He also met with the
                                                    >Fargo-Moorhead GK Chesterton Society for dinner and my wife and I had
                                                    >the pleasure of dining with him. He is currently a fellow in literature
                                                    >at Ave Maria University in Naples, FL, and is editor of the Saint Austin
                                                    >Review, which is a conservative Roman Catholic cultural and literary
                                                    >journal.
                                                    >
                                                    >Pearce refers to himself as a cultural apologist for the traditional
                                                    >idea of Christendom, which immediately places him at odds with a lot of
                                                    >scholars.
                                                    >
                                                    >As to his work on Tolkien, he probably doesn't have anything
                                                    >particularly new to say. He interprets Tolkien through the lens of
                                                    >conservative British Catholicism, as Tolkien himself practiced. He has
                                                    >also written about other British literary figures such as Chesterton,
                                                    >Lewis, and Hilaire Belloc. I believe he also wrote a biography on
                                                    >Solzhenitsyn. Pearce has a specific point of view: traditional
                                                    >Catholicism, and he is very open about it. On a personal level he is
                                                    >winsome and gentlemanly, and tolerated this Anglican's questions with
                                                    >patience and courtesy.
                                                    >
                                                    >He is a lively speaker. By all means, attend his lecture.
                                                    >
                                                    >Cheers,
                                                    >
                                                    >Jay Hershberger
                                                    >Moorhead, MN
                                                    >
                                                    >-----Original Message-----
                                                    >From: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mythsoc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                                                    >Of Walter Padgett
                                                    >Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 10:31 AM
                                                    >To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                                                    >Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Joseph Pearce
                                                    >
                                                    >Yeah, I would definately go see him. He wrote =Tolkien: Man and Myth=
                                                    >which
                                                    >is a great book.
                                                    >
                                                    >On 3/4/06, Matt Williams <mrw1@...> wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >>Joseph Pearce is speaking on Tolkien on Wed. at UNK. What does
                                                    >>
                                                    >>
                                                    >everyone
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >>think of him? Worth seeing?
                                                    >>
                                                    >>Matt Williams
                                                    >>
                                                    >>
                                                    >>
                                                    >>
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >SPONSORED LINKS
                                                    >
                                                    >Writing
                                                    ><http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+book&w1=Writing+book&w2=Wri
                                                    >ting+a+book&w3=Writing+child+book&w4=Book+writing+software&w5=Science+fi
                                                    >ction+and+fantasy&w6=Writing+a+book+report&c=6&s=149&.sig=y2eg6vElueLycc
                                                    >icIbmLvw> book
                                                    >Writing
                                                    ><http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+a+book&w1=Writing+book&w2=W
                                                    >riting+a+book&w3=Writing+child+book&w4=Book+writing+software&w5=Science+
                                                    >fiction+and+fantasy&w6=Writing+a+book+report&c=6&s=149&.sig=lO3Ub95nJOYx
                                                    >hLh9xKmaZA> a book
                                                    >Writing
                                                    ><http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+child+book&w1=Writing+book&
                                                    >w2=Writing+a+book&w3=Writing+child+book&w4=Book+writing+software&w5=Scie
                                                    >nce+fiction+and+fantasy&w6=Writing+a+book+report&c=6&s=149&.sig=SdauVgsy
                                                    >Q7cty1c0_Mdmcw> child book
                                                    >
                                                    >Book
                                                    ><http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Book+writing+software&w1=Writing+bo
                                                    >ok&w2=Writing+a+book&w3=Writing+child+book&w4=Book+writing+software&w5=S
                                                    >cience+fiction+and+fantasy&w6=Writing+a+book+report&c=6&s=149&.sig=IyTXz
                                                    >OVz9wcG0elM8KQAlA> writing software
                                                    >Science
                                                    ><http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Science+fiction+and+fantasy&w1=Writ
                                                    >ing+book&w2=Writing+a+book&w3=Writing+child+book&w4=Book+writing+softwar
                                                    >e&w5=Science+fiction+and+fantasy&w6=Writing+a+book+report&c=6&s=149&.sig
                                                    >=XRnFz_kSPtPnWY1VFwJpwQ> fiction and fantasy
                                                    >Writing
                                                    ><http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+a+book+report&w1=Writing+bo
                                                    >ok&w2=Writing+a+book&w3=Writing+child+book&w4=Book+writing+software&w5=S
                                                    >cience+fiction+and+fantasy&w6=Writing+a+book+report&c=6&s=149&.sig=v6l7b
                                                    >RwIsnHwqukmL3bvDQ> a book report
                                                    >
                                                    > _____
                                                    >
                                                    >YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                                                    >
                                                    >* Visit your group "mythsoc
                                                    ><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mythsoc> " on the web.
                                                    >
                                                    >* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                                    > mythsoc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                                    ><mailto:mythsoc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
                                                    >
                                                    >* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                                                    ><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
                                                    >
                                                    > _____
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                                                    >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >


                                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  • John D Rateliff
                                                    Definitely worth seeing; he s the chief advocate of the Tolkien-as- Catholic-writer subschool of Tolkien studies, bringing a spotlight on an aspect of
                                                    Message 25 of 25 , Mar 6, 2006
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Definitely worth seeing; he's the chief advocate of the Tolkien-as-
                                                      Catholic-writer subschool of Tolkien studies, bringing a spotlight on
                                                      an aspect of Tolkien's thought that was rather skimped on before his
                                                      collection TOLKIEN: A CELEBRATION and book TOLKIEN: MAN AND MYTH
                                                      (which starts with a lively account of Tolkien winning that best book
                                                      poll and the outcry that followed). He's also written on C. S. Lewis
                                                      and G. K. Chesterton and Oscar Wilde, as well as less savory
                                                      characters such as Roy Campbell; wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't
                                                      do a book on Waugh someday. Be warned though that he doesn't let
                                                      inconvenient facts get in the way of his arguments and his tolerance
                                                      of contrary positions seems to be low.
                                                      Which reminds me: haven't seen his new(ish) book LITERARY GIANTS,
                                                      LITERARY CATHOLICS, which apparently covers not just Tolkien and
                                                      Campbell but Lewis (not Catholic) and Owen Barfield (Christian but
                                                      extremely heterodox), among others. Is it a sort of "greatest hits"
                                                      collection like LITERARY CONVERTS (which included the actor Alex
                                                      Guinness among the "Catholic Writers" he covered) or a new work with
                                                      a new focus? Does he have anything interesting to say about Tolkien
                                                      & the Inklings therein?
                                                      At any rate, I'd definitely go if I were in the area. If you do
                                                      make it, can you post a report of the event?
                                                      --John R.


                                                      On Mar 4, 2006, at 7:58 AM, Matt Williams wrote:

                                                      > Howdy:
                                                      >
                                                      > We recently moved to Kearney, NE where I am library director and
                                                      > discovered that there are 2 other Mythopoeic Society members here.
                                                      > Anyway, Joseph Pearce is speaking on Tolkien on Wed. at UNK. What
                                                      > does everyone think of him? Worth seeing?
                                                      >
                                                      > Matt Williams



                                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.