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

Re: [mythsoc] loyalty oath

Expand Messages
  • Mike Foster
    Carl, How did you get the idea that some of this discourse was suggesting change to attract m-o-fans? Mike What _I_ was talking about was what I just stated:
    Message 1 of 45 , Mar 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Carl,
      How did you get the idea that some of this discourse was suggesting
      change to attract m-o-fans?

      Mike

      What _I_ was talking about was what I just stated:
      the idea that we have to change our behavior in order to _encourage_
      discussion by movie-only-fans (or at any rate avoid and possibility of
      _discouraging_ it).



      Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

      >On Mar 3, 2005, at 11:43 AM, Mike Foster wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      >>Dear Carl,
      >>'No chance' is not a wager I would take, because anything can happen.
      >>
      >>
      >
      >Good, we're on the same page then.
      >
      >
      >
      >>If one is not interested in a topic--mythopoeic literature--one won't
      >>linger long here at mythsoc thread.
      >>
      >>
      >
      >That's true only if the topic doesn't _become_ something _other_ than
      >mythopoeic literature: if _that_ happened (as well it could _if_
      >topicality is not maintained by moderation) then one might not only
      >linger, but solicit and attract still others. Which I thought was the
      >point of this discussion: the idea that we have some sort of
      >_obligation_ to attract movie-only-fans to participate in this list, or
      >at any rate to avoid possibly "discouraging" them by criticizing
      >Jackson's movies.
      >
      >
      >
      >>So I greatly doubt that this list--and I'm a newbie listling and don't
      >>bother with most--will turn away from its stated charter
      >>
      >>
      >
      >It won't if we a) agree that the topic of this list is in fact
      >mythopoeic literature; and b) support the moderator in judiciously
      >maintaining that topicality (while of course allowing _some_ leeway);
      >and c) don't send out a clarion call for movie-only-fans to come join
      >in and enrich us with their scholarship; and d) don't censor ourselves
      >from expressing criticism of Jackson's movies because someone somewhere
      >might be offended or discouraged. Or at any rate, that's my position,
      >and what I thought we were discussing.
      >
      >
      >
      >>--don't recall ever seeing that but no big deal that--of discussing
      >>mythopoeic literature.
      >>
      >>
      >
      >Well, I remember when it was argued that this list should avoid any
      >discussion of Christian themes in Tolkien's works, lest non-Christians
      >take offense and feel unwelcome -- this on a list especially focussed
      >on the writings of three famously _Christian_ authors. So I'm not so
      >sanguine as you that the stated charter of this list alone will suffice
      >to maintain topicality.
      >
      >
      >
      >>I think your fear of that happening is not one to lose sleep over.
      >>
      >>
      >
      >I neither harbor and "fear" nor have I have "lost any sleep".
      >(Patronizing much?) What _I_ was talking about was what I just stated:
      >the idea that we have to change our behavior in order to _encourage_
      >discussion by movie-only-fans (or at any rate avoid and possibility of
      >_discouraging_ it).
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
      >Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >


      [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.