Re: [mythsoc] loyalty oath
- On Mar 3, 2005, at 2:44 PM, Mike Foster wrote:
> Carl,Hm, let me think. Could it perhaps have been from _where I said it was
> How did you get the idea that some of this discourse was suggesting
> change to attract m-o-fans?
derived_? Namely, Bonnie, in her post of Feb. 23
> Hi David, and all of you:Can that be it? Or maybe I'm wrong? Hm. On the other hand, David B.
> It occurred to me this eve that I'm worried (probably co-dependently)
> about the possibility of discouraging film-led neo-scholars from
> feeling welcomed by our group--if we let too much of our "prejudices"
> leak out.
> We can have our emotions of indignation, frustration, condemnation;
> they're ours. We have a right to them. Somehow, however, we have to
> mask some of that animosity on their behalf when they show up at our
> events. We want them to feel they can grow and flourish in the
> Mythsoc. Honey, rather than vinegar.
seems to have derived the same idea from it
> Bonnie,But that was _that_ thread and this is _this_ thread. Well, gosh, now
> Let's distinguish "film-led neo-scholars" into two groups:
> a) those who have come to the book through the films, but have
> discovered that the book is better [the ones that Mike and John are
> insisting are so common];
> b) those who prefer the films or who either can't or won't tell the
> The first group we should welcome into the MythSoc. The second group we
> should not. They're welcome to do their own thing, but they should do
> somewhere else.
I'm just confused.
Oh wait, this then led to a further statement on the same theme by
David B., to which John Rateliff responded in... well, gosh, look at
that, the post that started this very thread that you subsequently
joined and in which we are conversing presently!
> > I don't want to catch those flies. I want them to . . . stopIsn't that interesting.
> 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
> > 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
> alike, solving that little problem. Besides, the film fans have
> and many another online site; they've built up their own community and
> 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.
- -----Original Message-----
From: Mike Foster [mailto:mafoster@...]
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: [mythsoc] loyalty oath
>From here in the sweet shires of farm country in Middle-Illinois, I canTwo answers:
>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?
1. Goldberry (at least) did work. She had a washing-day while the
hobbits were there.
2. The Lord labored six days.