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

loyalty oath

Expand Messages
  • Rateliff, John
    ... ... Well, it sounds like quite a good class to me; I d gladly take it if I were still in the area. But you
    Message 1 of 45 , Mar 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      <Beth Russell also wrote>
      > > It was a good session for the film-onliers because it was a new idea for
      > >them that Tolkien was tampered with.
      >
      <to which David wrote>
      > Maybe John Rateliff's coworkers should take this class.
      >
      Well, it sounds like quite a good class to me; I'd gladly take it if I were still in the area. But you must have misunderstood me re. my coworkers. They've read the book, and like it. They've seen the films, and like them. It's never occurred to them that they were supposed to scoff at the films because they'd liked the books; that's just silly. And they'd dismiss as ludicrous the idea that they can no longer enjoy the book now that they've seen the movies; many of them feel the movies enhanced their enjoyment of the books. That yr own experience was different is unfortunate but does not invalidate their experience. Janice and I hosted a post-movie party the weekend after each film's release where twenty to thirty friends came over to discuss what they liked and disliked about the films, places where Jackson had changed things vs. places where he'd left well enough alone, characterizations that had worked and ones that hadn't, favorite moments, worst moments, and the like. Some of them went back and re-read the books after each film because they couldn't wait a whole year to get another dose of the experience; a few who hadn't read the books before read them in the interrum so they'd know how the story came out.
      In short, Tolkien came through loud and clear through each installment of the film for them.


      > I don't want to catch those flies. I want them to . . . stop bothering us. This is a book-readers' society. If we try for a "balance" with the film-watchers, they'll overwhelm us through
      > sheer numbers and the lowest-denominator effect. Let them have their own
      > societies and their own fun. Those who come to us should be those who want
      > to know about the book.
      >
      I don't think we have to worry: the more we hang out the Unwelcome Mat, the more it'll drive away everybody who might want to join, book-fan and film-fan alike, solving that little problem. Besides, the film fans have TheOneRing.net and many another online site; they've built up their own community and started their own branch of Tolkien scholarship that in time will probably turn out to be just as valid as the one that grew out of fanzines. Why should they join MythSoc?



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Beth Russell
      ... From: Mike Foster [mailto:mafoster@direcway.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 4:22 PM To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [mythsoc] loyalty oath
      Message 45 of 45 , Mar 9, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        -----Original Message-----
        From: Mike Foster [mailto:mafoster@...]
        Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 4:22 PM
        To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [mythsoc] loyalty oath

        >From here in the sweet shires of farm country in Middle-Illinois, I can

        >attest to you that both the care of kine and the making of butter and
        >especially cheese is rather like, uh, work. And if Bombadil and
        >Goldberry are Ab-Original and Unfallen, why would they work?


        Two answers:

        1. Goldberry (at least) did work. She had a washing-day while the
        hobbits were there.

        2. The Lord labored six days.

        Beth
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.