Re: [mythsoc] loyalty oath (NOT!)
- Hey Carl & all:
I'm not suggesting any formal changes, just an extension of hospitality to
individual until we find out if they're interested in our line of study or
Then we let them know they may not be entirely comfortable with our
....unless they change their minds and decide to look into what we're about
more fully. I/we don't need those who refuse to "grow" intellectually. They
have other venues to cavort in. (Until they mature, if they do!)
I appreciate your dedication, all of you!!!!
"Carl F. Hostetter" wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2005, at 2:44 PM, Mike Foster wrote:[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > Carl,
> > How did you get the idea that some of this discourse was suggesting
> > change to attract m-o-fans?
> Hm, let me think. Could it perhaps have been from _where I said it was
> derived_? Namely, Bonnie, in her post of Feb. 23
> > Hi David, and all of you:
> > 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.
> Can that be it? Or maybe I'm wrong? Hm. On the other hand, David B.
> seems to have derived the same idea from it
> > Bonnie,
> > 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
> > difference.
> > 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
> > it
> > somewhere else.
> But that was _that_ thread and this is _this_ thread. Well, gosh, now
> 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 . . . 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.
> Isn't that interesting.
> The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
> Yahoo! Groups Links
- On Mar 4, 2005, at 2:37 AM, Bonnie Callahan wrote:
> Hey Carl & all:I agree with that entirely. (In fact, I wasn't aware that we'd been
> I'm not suggesting any formal changes, just an extension of
> hospitality to any individual until we find out if they're interested
> in our line of study or not.
unhospitable to any newcomer?)