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

Re: Fw: Tolkien film-thanks (and conference info)

Expand Messages
  • Anthony and Jessica
    Thanks Edith and Lynn for the info, just a thought to all about the Silmarillion Conference the below text refers to, Jessica and I are indeed working with St.
    Message 1 of 15 , Aug 15, 2006
      Thanks Edith and Lynn for the info, just a thought to all about the
      Silmarillion Conference the below text refers to, Jessica and I are
      indeed working with St. Francis College to organize this event. Our
      initial thought for a Guest of Honor, Keynote Speaker, Verlyn Flieger,
      unfortunately is unable to commit at this time, we have some thoughts
      in regards to someone else, but are open to suggestions from our
      fellow mythies who are more learned on the Silmarillion and its
      scholars than we are.

      Best,
      Anthony and Jessica


      > Subject
      > Tolkien film-thanks

      > BlankTo everyone who was kind enough to help with the Tolkien Society
      > enquiry on behalf of a lecturer - the course for which the film was
      being
      > sought is as follows:
      >
      > Honors Seminar "Tolkien the
      > Mythmaker" at St. Francis College (which is in Brooklyn, New York
      City),
      > this coming Spring term.
      >
      > In addition, we have the following information from St Francis College:
      >
      > Departments of English and Religious Studies of St. Francis College
      will
      > co-sponsor with the Northeast Tolkien Society a conference
      commemorating
      > the 30th anniversary of the publication of The Silmarillion. Stand
      by for
      > details. It will be April 20-22 at the College.
      >
      > More information about this conference will be made available in due
      > course, and among other places, it will be posted on the Tolkien
      Society
      > web pages.
      > Many thanks to all those who helped locate the film.
      > Best wishes,
      > Lynn
      >
      >
      >
      > Lynn Forest-Hill PhD
      > Education Officer
      > Tolkien Society
      >
      > Fellow of the Centre for Antiquity and the Middle Ages
      > University of Southampton
      > Southampton UK
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • John D Rateliff
      Has Michael O Brien s A LANDSCAPE WITH DRAGONS: THE BATTLE FOR YOUR CHILD S MIND (previously published as A LANDSCAPE WITH DRAGONS: CHRISTIAN AND PAGAN
      Message 2 of 15 , Aug 26, 2006
        Has Michael O'Brien's A LANDSCAPE WITH DRAGONS: THE BATTLE FOR YOUR
        CHILD'S MIND (previously published as A LANDSCAPE WITH DRAGONS:
        CHRISTIAN AND PAGAN IMAGINATION IN CHILDREN'S LITERATURE) been
        discussed on this list before? And if so can somebody point me toward
        that discussion? Just got a copy, but don't want to bore folks if
        it's already been thoroughly hashed out before I joined the list.

        --John R.

        current reading: ANCIENT EGYPTIAN LITERATURE vol. III, tr. Miriam
        Lichtheim
      • David Emerson
        Haven t heard of it before, but from the updated title, I take it this is one of those fundamentalist fantasy is anti-Christian screeds?? Either that, or the
        Message 3 of 15 , Aug 26, 2006
          Haven't heard of it before, but from the updated title, I take it this is one of those fundamentalist "fantasy is anti-Christian" screeds??

          Either that, or the marketing of acdemic books is getting WAY out of hand.


          -----Original Message-----
          >From: John D Rateliff <sacnoth@...>
          >Sent: Aug 26, 2006 3:09 PM
          >To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
          >Subject: [mythsoc] A Landscape with Dragons
          >
          >Has Michael O'Brien's A LANDSCAPE WITH DRAGONS: THE BATTLE FOR YOUR
          >CHILD'S MIND (previously published as A LANDSCAPE WITH DRAGONS:
          >CHRISTIAN AND PAGAN IMAGINATION IN CHILDREN'S LITERATURE) been
          >discussed on this list before?

          ________________________________________
          PeoplePC Online
          A better way to Internet
          http://www.peoplepc.com
        • Jonathan Michael Reiter
          That would be about right. Jonathan Michael Reiter jmr ... From: David Emerson To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 4:46 PM Subject: Re:
          Message 4 of 15 , Aug 26, 2006
            That would be about right.
            Jonathan Michael Reiter
            jmr
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: David Emerson
            To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 4:46 PM
            Subject: Re: [mythsoc] A Landscape with Dragons


            Haven't heard of it before, but from the updated title, I take it this is one of those fundamentalist "fantasy is anti-Christian" screeds??

            Either that, or the marketing of acdemic books is getting WAY out of hand.

            -----Original Message-----
            >From: John D Rateliff <sacnoth@...>
            >Sent: Aug 26, 2006 3:09 PM
            >To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
            >Subject: [mythsoc] A Landscape with Dragons
            >
            >Has Michael O'Brien's A LANDSCAPE WITH DRAGONS: THE BATTLE FOR YOUR
            >CHILD'S MIND (previously published as A LANDSCAPE WITH DRAGONS:
            >CHRISTIAN AND PAGAN IMAGINATION IN CHILDREN'S LITERATURE) been
            >discussed on this list before?

            ________________________________________
            PeoplePC Online
            A better way to Internet
            http://www.peoplepc.com





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Matthew Winslow
            ... John, I don t recall it being discussed here. ... While I disagree strongly with O Brien s conclusions, I must come to his defense that the book was much
            Message 5 of 15 , Aug 27, 2006
              On 27 Aug 2006 07:21:31 -0000, John wrote:
              > Has Michael O'Brien's A LANDSCAPE WITH DRAGONS: THE BATTLE FOR YOUR
              > CHILD'S MIND (previously published as A LANDSCAPE WITH DRAGONS:
              > CHRISTIAN AND PAGAN IMAGINATION IN CHILDREN'S LITERATURE) been
              > discussed on this list before? And if so can somebody point me toward
              > that discussion? Just got a copy, but don't want to bore folks if
              > it's already been thoroughly hashed out before I joined the list.

              John,

              I don't recall it being discussed here.

              Jonathan Michael Reiter wrote:
              > > Haven't heard of it before, but from the updated title, I take it this is one of those fundamentalist "fantasy is anti-Christian" screeds??
              >
              > That would be about right.

              While I disagree strongly with O'Brien's conclusions, I must come to
              his defense that the book was much more nuanced than that. Yes,
              O'Brien is an extremely conservative Catholic, but his argument is
              that certain symbols can never change in meaning, so a dragon is
              always evil and that anyone who tries to make a dragon good is wrong
              and committing sin. (Dragons, of course, being related to serpents,
              whom the Bible depicts as symbols of evil, not to mention the evil
              dragon from Revelation.) For O'Brien there is some redeemable fantasy,
              but that list is extremely limited. I haven't read the book in a
              number of years, so I can't recall what he found redeemable.

              --
              Matthew Winslow
              mwinslow@...
              www.xreal.org

              Currently Reading: The Mayor of Casterbridge by Thomas Hardy
            • David Emerson
              ... Well, he s got two assumptions there that are open to question. One, that symbols never change meaning, and two, that dragons are evil. Call me a heretic
              Message 6 of 15 , Aug 27, 2006
                >While I disagree strongly with O'Brien's conclusions, I must come to
                >his defense that the book was much more nuanced than that. Yes,
                >O'Brien is an extremely conservative Catholic, but his argument is
                >that certain symbols can never change in meaning, so a dragon is
                >always evil and that anyone who tries to make a dragon good is wrong
                >and committing sin.

                Well, he's got two assumptions there that are open to question. One, that symbols never change meaning, and two, that dragons are evil. Call me a heretic if you like, but aren't there ancient cultures in this world who view dragons as wise and good?

                emerdavid

                ________________________________________
                PeoplePC Online
                A better way to Internet
                http://www.peoplepc.com
              • Jonathan Michael Reiter
                Yes, I believe the Chinese, and Japanese... I am not sure about that, but I will go looking, for sure about that... Jonathan Michael Reiter jmr ... From:
                Message 7 of 15 , Aug 28, 2006
                  Yes, I believe the Chinese, and Japanese... I am not sure about that, but I will go looking, for sure about that...
                  Jonathan Michael Reiter
                  jmr
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: David Emerson
                  To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 10:30 PM
                  Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Re: A Landscape with Dragons


                  >While I disagree strongly with O'Brien's conclusions, I must come to
                  >his defense that the book was much more nuanced than that. Yes,
                  >O'Brien is an extremely conservative Catholic, but his argument is
                  >that certain symbols can never change in meaning, so a dragon is
                  >always evil and that anyone who tries to make a dragon good is wrong
                  >and committing sin.

                  Well, he's got two assumptions there that are open to question. One, that symbols never change meaning, and two, that dragons are evil. Call me a heretic if you like, but aren't there ancient cultures in this world who view dragons as wise and good?

                  emerdavid

                  ________________________________________
                  PeoplePC Online
                  A better way to Internet
                  http://www.peoplepc.com





                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • jef.murray
                  Symbols for a particular culture largely _don t_ change meaning...Jung s life work underscored this. And regarding other cultures, O Brien is basically dealing
                  Message 8 of 15 , Aug 28, 2006
                    Symbols for a particular culture largely _don't_ change
                    meaning...Jung's life work underscored this. And regarding
                    other cultures, O'Brien is basically dealing with occidental
                    tradition and myth, which consistently (until the 20th century)
                    depicted snakes and dragons as evil.

                    Regarding the notion that anyone trying to make a dragon
                    good is "committing a sin", I think that overstates O'Brien's
                    case. He suggests that trying to change the meaning of traditional
                    symbols confuses and can be hurtful, especially to children. This
                    is consistent with a pre-modern mindset, which suggests that there
                    _is_ such a thing as tradition versus "all things being relative".
                    All O'Brien is doing is pointing out the same things that virtually
                    any European would have told you prior to about 100-150 years ago.

                    And, like Tolkien and Lewis, O'Brien would largely consider himself
                    pre-modern in outlook, and quite proud of it(!).

                    Jef


                    --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, David Emerson <emerdavid@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > >While I disagree strongly with O'Brien's conclusions, I must come to
                    > >his defense that the book was much more nuanced than that. Yes,
                    > >O'Brien is an extremely conservative Catholic, but his argument is
                    > >that certain symbols can never change in meaning, so a dragon is
                    > >always evil and that anyone who tries to make a dragon good is wrong
                    > >and committing sin.
                    >
                    > Well, he's got two assumptions there that are open to question.
                    One, that symbols never change meaning, and two, that dragons are
                    evil. Call me a heretic if you like, but aren't there ancient
                    cultures in this world who view dragons as wise and good?
                    >
                    > emerdavid
                    >
                    > ________________________________________
                    > PeoplePC Online
                    > A better way to Internet
                    > http://www.peoplepc.com
                    >
                  • Mike Foster
                    Many readers, including quite possibly Lewis & Tolkien, would know about Kenneth Grahame s -The Reluctant Dragon-, and those familiar with Jef s art know he
                    Message 9 of 15 , Aug 28, 2006
                      Many readers, including quite possibly Lewis & Tolkien, would know about
                      Kenneth Grahame's -The Reluctant Dragon-, and those familiar with Jef's
                      art know he does quite good representations of rather benevolent dragons
                      as well: parenthetical observation.

                      Mike

                      jef.murray wrote:

                      > Symbols for a particular culture largely _don't_ change
                      >meaning...Jung's life work underscored this. And regarding
                      >other cultures, O'Brien is basically dealing with occidental
                      >tradition and myth, which consistently (until the 20th century)
                      >depicted snakes and dragons as evil.
                      >
                      > Regarding the notion that anyone trying to make a dragon
                      >good is "committing a sin", I think that overstates O'Brien's
                      >case. He suggests that trying to change the meaning of traditional
                      >symbols confuses and can be hurtful, especially to children. This
                      >is consistent with a pre-modern mindset, which suggests that there
                      >_is_ such a thing as tradition versus "all things being relative".
                      >All O'Brien is doing is pointing out the same things that virtually
                      >any European would have told you prior to about 100-150 years ago.
                      >
                      > And, like Tolkien and Lewis, O'Brien would largely consider himself
                      >pre-modern in outlook, and quite proud of it(!).
                      >
                      > Jef
                      >
                      >
                      >--- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, David Emerson <emerdavid@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      >>>While I disagree strongly with O'Brien's conclusions, I must come to
                      >>>his defense that the book was much more nuanced than that. Yes,
                      >>>O'Brien is an extremely conservative Catholic, but his argument is
                      >>>that certain symbols can never change in meaning, so a dragon is
                      >>>always evil and that anyone who tries to make a dragon good is wrong
                      >>>and committing sin.
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>Well, he's got two assumptions there that are open to question.
                      >>
                      >>
                      >One, that symbols never change meaning, and two, that dragons are
                      >evil. Call me a heretic if you like, but aren't there ancient
                      >cultures in this world who view dragons as wise and good?
                      >
                      >
                      >>emerdavid
                      >>
                      >>________________________________________
                      >>PeoplePC Online
                      >>A better way to Internet
                      >>http://www.peoplepc.com
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                      >Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Lezlie
                      ... I have to admit that I don t entirely agree with this (and, some modern Jungian scholar-practitioners don t either). Once, dragons in the west were
                      Message 10 of 15 , Aug 28, 2006
                        >
                        > jef.murray wrote:
                        >
                        > > Symbols for a particular culture largely _don't_ change
                        > >meaning...Jung's life work underscored this. And regarding
                        > >other cultures, O'Brien is basically dealing with occidental
                        > >tradition and myth, which consistently (until the 20th century)
                        > >depicted snakes and dragons as evil.
                        > >

                        I have to admit that I don't entirely agree with this (and, some
                        modern Jungian scholar-practitioners don't either). Once, dragons in
                        the west were associated with the symbols of Kingship (re: the
                        Arthurian Cycle, and also: Charlemagne). At some point in the Middle
                        Ages, they became a symbol of "carnal knowledge" and of greed and
                        "avariciousness" -- as per: the Seven Deadlies. (A medieval scholar
                        could probably pinpoint the exact manuscripts, heraldic devices,
                        illuminations, references and et. al., and tell us the years when this
                        change occurred.) My sense is that there has always been a split
                        between the ecclesiastical writings on dragons and the folk lore itself.

                        The symbol has changed in modern times, possibly due to the many
                        current writers & artists in fantasy who have jointly created a
                        powerful, mysterious, paradoxical creature of fire and air over a
                        rather long period of time. Some of those writers have delved very
                        deep into the myth and lore concerning the long history of dragons and
                        their cousins, and should not be discounted lightly.

                        There also seems to be a mingling of East and West in the changing of
                        the dragon as a symbol. (As we all realize that Eastern dragons are
                        very different than Western ones.) One wonders just what Jung would
                        write about it were he alive today -- as he had something to say about
                        just about everything, an essay (at the very least) I'm sure. <gentle
                        smile> .

                        Lezlie
                      • jef.murray
                        Yes, but we both know, Mike, that dragons are deceptive. _Looking_ benevolent is is not at all the same as _behaving_ in a benevolent fashion ;-) Jef ... about
                        Message 11 of 15 , Aug 28, 2006
                          Yes, but we both know, Mike, that dragons are deceptive.
                          _Looking_ benevolent is is not at all the same as _behaving_
                          in a benevolent fashion ;-)

                          Jef



                          --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, Mike Foster <mafoster@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Many readers, including quite possibly Lewis & Tolkien, would know
                          about
                          > Kenneth Grahame's -The Reluctant Dragon-, and those familiar with Jef's
                          > art know he does quite good representations of rather benevolent
                          dragons
                          > as well: parenthetical observation.
                          >
                          > Mike
                          >
                          > jef.murray wrote:
                          >
                          > > Symbols for a particular culture largely _don't_ change
                          > >meaning...Jung's life work underscored this. And regarding
                          > >other cultures, O'Brien is basically dealing with occidental
                          > >tradition and myth, which consistently (until the 20th century)
                          > >depicted snakes and dragons as evil.
                          > >
                          > > Regarding the notion that anyone trying to make a dragon
                          > >good is "committing a sin", I think that overstates O'Brien's
                          > >case. He suggests that trying to change the meaning of traditional
                          > >symbols confuses and can be hurtful, especially to children. This
                          > >is consistent with a pre-modern mindset, which suggests that there
                          > >_is_ such a thing as tradition versus "all things being relative".
                          > >All O'Brien is doing is pointing out the same things that virtually
                          > >any European would have told you prior to about 100-150 years ago.
                          > >
                          > > And, like Tolkien and Lewis, O'Brien would largely consider himself
                          > >pre-modern in outlook, and quite proud of it(!).
                          > >
                          > > Jef
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >--- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, David Emerson <emerdavid@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >>>While I disagree strongly with O'Brien's conclusions, I must come to
                          > >>>his defense that the book was much more nuanced than that. Yes,
                          > >>>O'Brien is an extremely conservative Catholic, but his argument is
                          > >>>that certain symbols can never change in meaning, so a dragon is
                          > >>>always evil and that anyone who tries to make a dragon good is wrong
                          > >>>and committing sin.
                          > >>>
                          > >>>
                          > >>Well, he's got two assumptions there that are open to question.
                          > >>
                          > >>
                          > >One, that symbols never change meaning, and two, that dragons are
                          > >evil. Call me a heretic if you like, but aren't there ancient
                          > >cultures in this world who view dragons as wise and good?
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >>emerdavid
                          > >>
                          > >>________________________________________
                          > >>PeoplePC Online
                          > >>A better way to Internet
                          > >>http://www.peoplepc.com
                          > >>
                          > >>
                          > >>
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                          > >Yahoo! Groups Links
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                        • Mike Foster
                          Never laugh at live dragons was one of the first proverbs Bilbo coined, after all. Mike ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          Message 12 of 15 , Aug 28, 2006
                            "Never laugh at live dragons" was one of the first proverbs Bilbo
                            coined, after all.

                            Mike

                            jef.murray wrote:

                            > Yes, but we both know, Mike, that dragons are deceptive.
                            >_Looking_ benevolent is is not at all the same as _behaving_
                            >in a benevolent fashion ;-)
                            >
                            > Jef
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >--- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, Mike Foster <mafoster@...> wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            >>Many readers, including quite possibly Lewis & Tolkien, would know
                            >>
                            >>
                            >about
                            >
                            >
                            >>Kenneth Grahame's -The Reluctant Dragon-, and those familiar with Jef's
                            >>art know he does quite good representations of rather benevolent
                            >>
                            >>
                            >dragons
                            >
                            >
                            >>as well: parenthetical observation.
                            >>
                            >>Mike
                            >>
                            >>jef.murray wrote:
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>> Symbols for a particular culture largely _don't_ change
                            >>>meaning...Jung's life work underscored this. And regarding
                            >>>other cultures, O'Brien is basically dealing with occidental
                            >>>tradition and myth, which consistently (until the 20th century)
                            >>>depicted snakes and dragons as evil.
                            >>>
                            >>> Regarding the notion that anyone trying to make a dragon
                            >>>good is "committing a sin", I think that overstates O'Brien's
                            >>>case. He suggests that trying to change the meaning of traditional
                            >>>symbols confuses and can be hurtful, especially to children. This
                            >>>is consistent with a pre-modern mindset, which suggests that there
                            >>>_is_ such a thing as tradition versus "all things being relative".
                            >>>All O'Brien is doing is pointing out the same things that virtually
                            >>>any European would have told you prior to about 100-150 years ago.
                            >>>
                            >>> And, like Tolkien and Lewis, O'Brien would largely consider himself
                            >>>pre-modern in outlook, and quite proud of it(!).
                            >>>
                            >>> Jef
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>--- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, David Emerson <emerdavid@> wrote:
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>>>While I disagree strongly with O'Brien's conclusions, I must come to
                            >>>>>his defense that the book was much more nuanced than that. Yes,
                            >>>>>O'Brien is an extremely conservative Catholic, but his argument is
                            >>>>>that certain symbols can never change in meaning, so a dragon is
                            >>>>>always evil and that anyone who tries to make a dragon good is wrong
                            >>>>>and committing sin.
                            >>>>>
                            >>>>>
                            >>>>>
                            >>>>>
                            >>>>Well, he's got two assumptions there that are open to question.
                            >>>>
                            >>>>
                            >>>>
                            >>>>
                            >>>One, that symbols never change meaning, and two, that dragons are
                            >>>evil. Call me a heretic if you like, but aren't there ancient
                            >>>cultures in this world who view dragons as wise and good?
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>>emerdavid
                            >>>>
                            >>>>________________________________________
                            >>>>PeoplePC Online
                            >>>>A better way to Internet
                            >>>>http://www.peoplepc.com
                            >>>>
                            >>>>
                            >>>>
                            >>>>
                            >>>>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                            >>>Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>[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]
                          • Berni Phillips
                            From: Matthew Winslow ... Most likely his own books. He has several several novels out, which I ve seen in Catholic bookstores (and
                            Message 13 of 15 , Aug 28, 2006
                              From: "Matthew Winslow" <bluewoad@...>
                              >
                              > For O'Brien there is some redeemable fantasy,
                              > but that list is extremely limited. I haven't read the book in a
                              > number of years, so I can't recall what he found redeemable.

                              Most likely his own books. He has several several novels out, which I've
                              seen in Catholic bookstores (and nowhere else). I read his FATHER ELIJAH:
                              AN APOCALYPSE, which was at least better than the LEFT BEHIND books.

                              Berni
                            • Diane Joy Baker
                              Actually, it s one I d like to read. ... From: Matthew Winslow To: MythSoc Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006
                              Message 14 of 15 , Aug 28, 2006
                                Actually, it's one I'd like to read.

                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: "Matthew Winslow" <bluewoad@...>
                                To: "MythSoc" <mythsoc@yahoogroups.com>
                                Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 11:39 PM
                                Subject: [mythsoc] Re: A Landscape with Dragons


                                > On 27 Aug 2006 07:21:31 -0000, John wrote:
                                > > Has Michael O'Brien's A LANDSCAPE WITH DRAGONS: THE BATTLE FOR YOUR
                                > > CHILD'S MIND (previously published as A LANDSCAPE WITH DRAGONS:
                                > > CHRISTIAN AND PAGAN IMAGINATION IN CHILDREN'S LITERATURE) been
                                > > discussed on this list before? And if so can somebody point me toward
                                > > that discussion? Just got a copy, but don't want to bore folks if
                                > > it's already been thoroughly hashed out before I joined the list.
                                >
                                > John,
                                >
                                > I don't recall it being discussed here.
                                >
                                > Jonathan Michael Reiter wrote:
                                > > > Haven't heard of it before, but from the updated title, I take it
                                this is one of those fundamentalist "fantasy is anti-Christian" screeds??
                                > >
                                > > That would be about right.
                                >
                                > While I disagree strongly with O'Brien's conclusions, I must come to
                                > his defense that the book was much more nuanced than that. Yes,
                                > O'Brien is an extremely conservative Catholic, but his argument is
                                > that certain symbols can never change in meaning, so a dragon is
                                > always evil and that anyone who tries to make a dragon good is wrong
                                > and committing sin. (Dragons, of course, being related to serpents,
                                > whom the Bible depicts as symbols of evil, not to mention the evil
                                > dragon from Revelation.) For O'Brien there is some redeemable fantasy,
                                > but that list is extremely limited. I haven't read the book in a
                                > number of years, so I can't recall what he found redeemable.
                                >
                                > --
                                > Matthew Winslow
                                > mwinslow@...
                                > www.xreal.org
                                >
                                > Currently Reading: The Mayor of Casterbridge by Thomas Hardy
                                >
                                >
                                > The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > --
                                > No virus found in this incoming message.
                                > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                                > Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.6/430 - Release Date: 8/28/2006
                                >
                                >
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.