Re: [mythsoc] it's not in Tolkien
- At 11:57 AM 5/5/2007 -0700, John D Rateliff wrote:
>The idea that Sauron is a disembodied eye is certainly aThat's interesting, but I'm not sure if Foster meant that Sauron was
>misperception, but it doesn't originate with Jackson. I remember
>refuting this point in discussions back in the late '80s, using
>Gollum's comment about the four fingers as my evidence. But the
>counter opinion was widely disseminated; cf. Foster's COMPLETE GUIDE
>TO MIDDLE-EARTH (pb edition, 1979) page 170, where the entry under
>EYE starts off with "The Eye of Sauron, the form in which he appeared
>in the Third Age" (emphasis mine).
physically only an eye. Same edition, near the end of the entry for
"After the ruin of his body in the destruction of Numenor, Sauron had the
form of a Man; his skin was black and burning hot. In the Third Age he
most frequently appeared as a fearsome, ever-searching Eye." (p. 441)
This was the same in the original edition. Both the phrase "form in which
he appeared" and "most frequently appeared", especially with the absence in
the "Sauron" entry of any suggestion that his body disappeared, suggest to
me that Foster was disinguishing between the image that Sauron projected
and his actual physical form.
>So while the idea might beSo I doubt it was so widespread, since although it may have come up a few
>mistaken, it has been a very widespread one for some time; there's no
>shame in a scholar's holding to it, though I think they're reading
>the evidence wrongly to do so.
times it's not common in print, and Foster is ambiguous. (I'd also add
that Foster can be flat-out wrong, as in the statement in the preface to
both editions, "I have not given death dates for those who have gone over
Sea, for they live still," which if accurate would mean that Sauron's lie
to Ar-Pharazon was true!)
>I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of keeping a Black List: weMy apologies. I intended to say that we should keep a list of the
>all make mistakes, and better to have those pointed out and corrected
>than assign the offender to oblivion, into which the persistent
>offenders will sink anyway.
mistakes, to see which ones are most common and thus most need refuting,
but this came out saying something quite different that I did not intend.
At 08:02 PM 5/5/2007 +0100, Larry Swain wrote:
>Not that I count as a Tolkien Studies scholar, but I do this as well, thoughLarry, I see that as good news. It means the films are already fading from
>surprisingly this semester there were only 2 students out of 20 who had seen
>any of the movies, and as I could tell from the essays, none of them watched
>the movies instead of reading the books (not that they all read all the
>books either, but that's another problem.)
consciousness. I predicted that 30 years from now the sfx will look
cheezy, but this is better than I hoped.
Oh, yes, students who hadn't read the books. In my stint guest lecturing
for a Tolkien class a couple years ago, I found the students well versed on
LOTR, but although the Silmarillion was assigned reading, they drew a blank
at questions like, "And why was Earendil so eager to get to Valinor? Does
At 03:43 PM 5/5/2007 -0400, Carl F. Hostetter wrote:
>> *Through a Dark Lens: Jackson's Lord of the Rings as AbjectThere's a difference?
>> Horror - R.D. Hall
>I got my Mythlore yesterday, and read this article right away. I was
>a bit disappointed, because from the title I expected it to be an
>essay on how Jackson's _LotR_ film is an abject horror, not on how it
>is a horror film. ;)
- David Bratman
- --- In email@example.com, David Emerson
>which a man from our present day
> >There was once a science-fiction story in
> >wakes up in the distant future and asks for ahamburger. The futurians
> >reply, "A hamburger is a citizen of theGerman city of Hamburg. Were you
> >cannibals in those days?"Kennedy being a jelly doughnut?
> Does this have something to do with John F.