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

two queries

Expand Messages
  • John D Rateliff
    So, I ve been going to the lecture series by Prof. Robin Stacey (J. R. R. Tolkien: The Story Teller s Story) being held on five consecutive Tuesday nights at
    Message 1 of 14 , Feb 7, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      So, I've been going to the lecture series by Prof. Robin Stacey (J.
      R. R. Tolkien: The Story Teller's Story) being held on five
      consecutive Tuesday nights at the University of Washington's Kane
      Hall. I missed the first one but have made it to the second, third,
      and fourth, and plan to attend the fifth and final talk on Tuesday
      the 12th.
      On the whole, I've enjoyed them. Each lecture is about two hours
      long, with a break in the middle. But a few odds and ends puzzled me,
      and I thought I'd ask here if anyone cd point me towards more
      information.

      First, when discussing the Inklings in her most recent lecture (which
      by the way drew heavily on Diana's book, which she praised by name),
      she told of an occasion when Tolkien and Williams happened to be
      lecturing at the same time and said that Williams drew a huge crowd,
      while the only person to attend Tolkien's lecture was the official
      note-taker. I don't remember ever having heard this story before, nor
      that there is any such thing as an 'official note-taker' at Oxford,
      never mind the fact that it was Tolkien himself who arranged for
      Williams to give lectures and set the schedule. Has anyone else come
      across this incident?


      Second, in the previous lecture about Tolkien's war experiences and
      his attitudes toward war, she went out of her way to refute those who
      have claimed that Tolkien was a pacifist. My question is, has anyone
      ever made such a claim? If so, where? It seems self-evident that JRRT
      was NOT a pacifist, although Frodo becomes one by the end of the
      book. Perhaps she was thinking of some early piece that came out in
      the pre-Carpenter days by someone who couldn't distinguish between
      the author and his characters?

      By the way, once the series is ended all five lectures will be
      available on a set of cds. The individual titles of the five lectures
      are

      1. "He had been Inside Language"
      2. "A Mythology for England"
      3. "The War to End all Wars"
      4. "A Fundamentally Religious Work"
      5. "Allegory and Farewell"

      and more information about them can be found at

      www.washington.edu/alumni/activities/lectures/2008history.html

      --JDR
    • Croft, Janet B.
      On the second question about pacifists - there s a section in my book _War and the Works of J.R.R. Tolkien_ on the hawk/dove interpretations of Tolkien - see
      Message 2 of 14 , Feb 7, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        On the second question about pacifists - there's a section in my book _War and the Works of J.R.R. Tolkien_ on the hawk/dove interpretations of Tolkien - see pp. 6-8. Phillip Helms is the example I used. In a 1986 piece in Minas Tirith Evening Star he read Tolkien as purely pacifist because of Frodo's attitude at the end. The thing that got me was that he actually quoted Tolkien's letters to his sons in the war but left out the bits where Tolkien expressed his pride in their service and his wish that he could be actively involved. Not to mention the bits where it was actually armed resistance that freed the Shire.

        Janet Brennan Croft
        Editor of Mythlore http://www.mythsoc.org/mythlore.html

        "Humans need fantasy to be human. To be the place where the rising ape meets the falling angel." -Terry Pratchett

        ________________________________
        From: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mythsoc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John D Rateliff
        Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:31 PM
        To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [mythsoc] two queries


        So, I've been going to the lecture series by Prof. Robin Stacey (J.
        R. R. Tolkien: The Story Teller's Story) being held on five
        consecutive Tuesday nights at the University of Washington's Kane
        Hall. I missed the first one but have made it to the second, third,
        and fourth, and plan to attend the fifth and final talk on Tuesday
        the 12th.
        On the whole, I've enjoyed them. Each lecture is about two hours
        long, with a break in the middle. But a few odds and ends puzzled me,
        and I thought I'd ask here if anyone cd point me towards more
        information.

        First, when discussing the Inklings in her most recent lecture (which
        by the way drew heavily on Diana's book, which she praised by name),
        she told of an occasion when Tolkien and Williams happened to be
        lecturing at the same time and said that Williams drew a huge crowd,
        while the only person to attend Tolkien's lecture was the official
        note-taker. I don't remember ever having heard this story before, nor
        that there is any such thing as an 'official note-taker' at Oxford,
        never mind the fact that it was Tolkien himself who arranged for
        Williams to give lectures and set the schedule. Has anyone else come
        across this incident?

        Second, in the previous lecture about Tolkien's war experiences and
        his attitudes toward war, she went out of her way to refute those who
        have claimed that Tolkien was a pacifist. My question is, has anyone
        ever made such a claim? If so, where? It seems self-evident that JRRT
        was NOT a pacifist, although Frodo becomes one by the end of the
        book. Perhaps she was thinking of some early piece that came out in
        the pre-Carpenter days by someone who couldn't distinguish between
        the author and his characters?

        By the way, once the series is ended all five lectures will be
        available on a set of cds. The individual titles of the five lectures
        are

        1. "He had been Inside Language"
        2. "A Mythology for England"
        3. "The War to End all Wars"
        4. "A Fundamentally Religious Work"
        5. "Allegory and Farewell"

        and more information about them can be found at

        www.washington.edu/alumni/activities/lectures/2008history.html

        --JDR



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • David Bratman
        ... This pings something in my memory - somewhere there s something about Tolkien and Williams either scheduling their lectures at the same time or not
        Message 3 of 14 , Feb 10, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          At 02:30 PM 2/7/2008 -0800, John D Rateliff wrote:

          >First, when discussing the Inklings in her most recent lecture (which
          >by the way drew heavily on Diana's book, which she praised by name),
          >she told of an occasion when Tolkien and Williams happened to be
          >lecturing at the same time and said that Williams drew a huge crowd,
          >while the only person to attend Tolkien's lecture was the official
          >note-taker. I don't remember ever having heard this story before, nor
          >that there is any such thing as an 'official note-taker' at Oxford,
          >never mind the fact that it was Tolkien himself who arranged for
          >Williams to give lectures and set the schedule. Has anyone else come
          >across this incident?

          This pings something in my memory - somewhere there's something about Tolkien and Williams either scheduling their lectures at the same time or not scheduling them at the same time, because ... and here the fleeting memory ends. No opportunity to look it up right now.
        • John D Rateliff
          ... Ah. Yes, that s probably the one. I actually had this on my shelves within reach (between Randal Helms second book and that awful one by the Hildebrandts)
          Message 4 of 14 , Feb 13, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            On Feb 7, 2008, at 2:57 PM, Croft, Janet B. wrote:
            > On the second question about pacifists - there's a section in my
            > book _War and the Works of J.R.R. Tolkien_ on the hawk/dove
            > interpretations of Tolkien - see pp. 6-8. Phillip Helms is the
            > example I used. In a 1986 piece in Minas Tirith Evening Star he
            > read Tolkien as purely pacifist because of Frodo's attitude at the
            > end. The thing that got me was that he actually quoted Tolkien's
            > letters to his sons in the war but left out the bits where Tolkien
            > expressed his pride in their service and his wish that he could be
            > actively involved. Not to mention the bits where it was actually
            > armed resistance that freed the Shire.

            Ah. Yes, that's probably the one. I actually had this on my shelves
            within reach (between Randal Helms' second book and that awful one by
            the Hildebrandts) but forgot about it in the thirteen years that have
            lapsed since I read it. On rereading it now, I see that he tries to
            convey what it was like to be there in the sixties and why antiwar
            activists of that era embraced JRRT's book. Which, of course, is
            quite a different thing from determining Tolkien's own attitude
            towards war and pacifism.

            By the way, I've now found and read CSL's "Why I Am Not A
            Pacifist", in the collection C. S. LEWIS: ESSAY COLLECTION & OTHER
            SHORT PIECES, ed. Lesley Walmsley [2000]. I highly recommend the
            collection, which includes a lot of ephemeral pieces that address all
            kinds of (then-) contemporary issues, but not the essay. Certainly I
            don't think CSL will convince anyone who doesn't agree with him
            already, nor do I think he intends to. Anyone really interested in
            the topic will want to read the essay for himself or herself, of course.
            For the sake of those who don't have the essay handy, re. the
            specific 'turn the other cheek' passage Lewis argues that this cannot
            have any military application, since "the audience were private
            people in a disarmed nation". For him, it applies only to "an injury
            to me by my neighbour and a desire on my part to retaliate". He does
            not link it to Peter's behavior in the Garden but instead to two
            passages in the epistles (Romans 13:4 and Ist Peter 2:14) which argue
            that Christians must be submissive before authority and obey their
            governments in all things.* His larger argument here is that majority
            opinion is against pacifism, which must therefore be wrong.
            He also argues that if the two people in the 'turn the other
            cheek' example aren't equals, Christ's admonition does not apply --
            for example, if a college student were to strike his tutor. I found
            this specific exemption highly amusing.

            --JDR

            *these come from the same passages that declare wives must be
            submissive to their husbands (1st Peter 3:1) and that governments
            rule by divine right ('Let every person be subject to the governing
            authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those
            that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the
            authorities resists what God has appointed'; Romans 13:1-2a).
          • Mike Foster
            For what it s worth, in the early drafts of the final chapters of _The Lord of the Rings_, narrating the events leading up to the scouring of the Shire, many
            Message 5 of 14 , Feb 13, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              For what it's worth, in the early drafts of the final chapters of _The
              Lord of the Rings_, narrating the events leading up to the scouring of
              the Shire, many of the defiant words and deeds are Frodo's. In
              revision, Tolkien transferred these to Pippin and more often Merry.

              --MAF

              -----Original Message-----
              From: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mythsoc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
              Of John D Rateliff
              Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 11:43 AM
              To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [mythsoc] two queries

              On Feb 7, 2008, at 2:57 PM, Croft, Janet B. wrote:
              > On the second question about pacifists - there's a section in my
              > book _War and the Works of J.R.R. Tolkien_ on the hawk/dove
              > interpretations of Tolkien - see pp. 6-8. Phillip Helms is the
              > example I used. In a 1986 piece in Minas Tirith Evening Star he
              > read Tolkien as purely pacifist because of Frodo's attitude at the
              > end. The thing that got me was that he actually quoted Tolkien's
              > letters to his sons in the war but left out the bits where Tolkien
              > expressed his pride in their service and his wish that he could be
              > actively involved. Not to mention the bits where it was actually
              > armed resistance that freed the Shire.

              Ah. Yes, that's probably the one. I actually had this on my shelves
              within reach (between Randal Helms' second book and that awful one by
              the Hildebrandts) but forgot about it in the thirteen years that have
              lapsed since I read it. On rereading it now, I see that he tries to
              convey what it was like to be there in the sixties and why antiwar
              activists of that era embraced JRRT's book. Which, of course, is
              quite a different thing from determining Tolkien's own attitude
              towards war and pacifism.

              By the way, I've now found and read CSL's "Why I Am Not A
              Pacifist", in the collection C. S. LEWIS: ESSAY COLLECTION & OTHER
              SHORT PIECES, ed. Lesley Walmsley [2000]. I highly recommend the
              collection, which includes a lot of ephemeral pieces that address all
              kinds of (then-) contemporary issues, but not the essay. Certainly I
              don't think CSL will convince anyone who doesn't agree with him
              already, nor do I think he intends to. Anyone really interested in
              the topic will want to read the essay for himself or herself, of course.
              For the sake of those who don't have the essay handy, re. the
              specific 'turn the other cheek' passage Lewis argues that this cannot
              have any military application, since "the audience were private
              people in a disarmed nation". For him, it applies only to "an injury
              to me by my neighbour and a desire on my part to retaliate". He does
              not link it to Peter's behavior in the Garden but instead to two
              passages in the epistles (Romans 13:4 and Ist Peter 2:14) which argue
              that Christians must be submissive before authority and obey their
              governments in all things.* His larger argument here is that majority
              opinion is against pacifism, which must therefore be wrong.
              He also argues that if the two people in the 'turn the other
              cheek' example aren't equals, Christ's admonition does not apply --
              for example, if a college student were to strike his tutor. I found
              this specific exemption highly amusing.

              --JDR

              *these come from the same passages that declare wives must be
              submissive to their husbands (1st Peter 3:1) and that governments
              rule by divine right ('Let every person be subject to the governing
              authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those
              that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the
              authorities resists what God has appointed'; Romans 13:1-2a).



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Lynn Maudlin
              ... It *is* interesting, living in a country which exists because our founding fathers (and mamas, too) said, hey, this is NOT right and here s why it s not
              Message 6 of 14 , Feb 13, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, John D Rateliff <sacnoth@...> wrote:
                >
                > *these come from the same passages that declare wives must be
                > submissive to their husbands (1st Peter 3:1) and that governments
                > rule by divine right ('Let every person be subject to the governing
                > authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those
                > that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the
                > authorities resists what God has appointed'; Romans 13:1-2a).

                It *is* interesting, living in a country which exists because our
                founding fathers (and mamas, too) said, "hey, this is NOT right and
                here's why it's not right and here's why God Himself would think it's
                not right" - and yet we have both Hebrew scriptures (Nebuchadnezzar
                himself in Daniel chapter 4 (specifically verse 17) and the NT stating
                that God establishes governments and even suffers the ungodly ones.

                So when there's a bad government, we need to ask what we're supposed
                to learn from it, are we being disciplined, etc... A challenge,
                because I think we're not supposed to be passive or defeatist about
                these things.

                -- Lynn --
              • Lynn Maudlin
                ... I don t know what you expect us to conclude from that, Mike - my own conclusion is that Frodo s journey was not that of a warrior and his sacrifice was not
                Message 7 of 14 , Feb 13, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Foster" <mafoster@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > For what it's worth, in the early drafts of the final chapters of _The
                  > Lord of the Rings_, narrating the events leading up to the scouring of
                  > the Shire, many of the defiant words and deeds are Frodo's. In
                  > revision, Tolkien transferred these to Pippin and more often Merry.
                  >
                  > --MAF

                  I don't know what you expect us to conclude from that, Mike - my own
                  conclusion is that Frodo's journey was not that of a warrior and his
                  sacrifice was not made with a sword. But I don't think that means
                  Frodo didn't support Merry and Pippin in *their* call to be brave
                  battling hobbits--

                  -- Lynn --
                • David Emerson
                  ... Yeah, but that s Old Testament -- the same document that says women are unclean and wearing clothes of different fabrics is a sin. Not to mention how
                  Message 8 of 14 , Feb 13, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    >It *is* interesting, living in a country which exists because our
                    >founding fathers (and mamas, too) said, "hey, this is NOT right and
                    >here's why it's not right and here's why God Himself would think it's
                    >not right" - and yet we have both Hebrew scriptures (Nebuchadnezzar
                    >himself in Daniel chapter 4 (specifically verse 17) and the NT stating
                    >that God establishes governments and even suffers the ungodly ones.

                    Yeah, but that's Old Testament -- the same document that says women are unclean and wearing clothes of different fabrics is a sin. Not to mention how horrible it is to eat cheesburgers, pork chops, or shrimp.

                    emerdavid

                    ________________________________________
                    PeoplePC Online
                    A better way to Internet
                    http://www.peoplepc.com
                  • David Bratman
                    Tolkien had already written Frodo renouncing the carrying of weapons in Mordor when he drafted the initial versions of the Scouring in which Frodo fights
                    Message 9 of 14 , Feb 13, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Tolkien had already written Frodo renouncing the carrying of weapons in Mordor when he drafted the initial versions of the Scouring in which Frodo fights Sharky in single combat and does other improbable things. It took Tolkien's conscious a while to catch on to what his subconscious was doing.

                      Lynn Maudlin <lynnmaudlin@...> wrote:

                      >--- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Foster" <mafoster@...> wrote:
                      >>
                      >> For what it's worth, in the early drafts of the final chapters of _The
                      >> Lord of the Rings_, narrating the events leading up to the scouring of
                      >> the Shire, many of the defiant words and deeds are Frodo's. In
                      >> revision, Tolkien transferred these to Pippin and more often Merry.
                      >>
                      >> --MAF
                      >
                      >I don't know what you expect us to conclude from that, Mike - my own
                      >conclusion is that Frodo's journey was not that of a warrior and his
                      >sacrifice was not made with a sword. But I don't think that means
                      >Frodo didn't support Merry and Pippin in *their* call to be brave
                      >battling hobbits--
                    • Mike Foster
                      .but at the top of the Roll in all accounts stand the names of Captains Meriadoc and Peregrin. Frodo had been in the battle, but he had not drawn sword, and
                      Message 10 of 14 , Feb 13, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        ".but at the top of the Roll in all accounts stand the names of Captains
                        Meriadoc and Peregrin.
                        "Frodo had been in the battle, but he had not drawn sword, and his chief
                        part had been to prevent the hobbits, in their wrath at their losses,
                        from slaying those of their enemies who threw down their weapons."

                        p. 365, "The Scouring of the Shire," _The Return of the King_,
                        Ballantine paperback edition.

                        Conclude what you will; the fact is that Frodo's heroism is finally not
                        that of a warrior. Why Tolkien revised his story thus is conjecture;
                        that he did so is fact.

                        _Pax vobiscum_
                        Mike

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mythsoc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                        Of David Bratman
                        Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 6:53 PM
                        To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Re: two queries

                        Tolkien had already written Frodo renouncing the carrying of weapons in
                        Mordor when he drafted the initial versions of the Scouring in which
                        Frodo fights Sharky in single combat and does other improbable things.
                        It took Tolkien's conscious a while to catch on to what his subconscious
                        was doing.

                        Lynn Maudlin <lynnmaudlin@ <mailto:lynnmaudlin%40yahoo.com> yahoo.com>
                        wrote:

                        >--- In mythsoc@yahoogroups <mailto:mythsoc%40yahoogroups.com> .com,
                        "Mike Foster" <mafoster@...> wrote:
                        >>
                        >> For what it's worth, in the early drafts of the final chapters of
                        _The
                        >> Lord of the Rings_, narrating the events leading up to the scouring
                        of
                        >> the Shire, many of the defiant words and deeds are Frodo's. In
                        >> revision, Tolkien transferred these to Pippin and more often Merry.
                        >>
                        >> --MAF
                        >
                        >I don't know what you expect us to conclude from that, Mike - my own
                        >conclusion is that Frodo's journey was not that of a warrior and his
                        >sacrifice was not made with a sword. But I don't think that means
                        >Frodo didn't support Merry and Pippin in *their* call to be brave
                        >battling hobbits--



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • David Bratman
                        Mike - You write in a tough fact-citing tone that sounds as if you re disputing something that I said, but I cannot figure out what it might be. Frodo s odd
                        Message 11 of 14 , Feb 13, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Mike -

                          You write in a tough fact-citing tone that sounds as if you're disputing something that I said, but I cannot figure out what it might be.

                          Frodo's odd and inappropriate behavior was, as I said, in the first draft, not the final draft. And then, as I wrote, "It took Tolkien's conscious a while to catch on to what his subconscious was doing." But when he figured it out, he wrote the excellent final text that you quote. Now isn't that marvelous, perhaps even more so than if he'd gotten it right the first time?

                          "Conclude what you will, the fact is ..." you write, but I never said otherwise. "That he revised [the story] is fact," you also write, as indeed it is fact, and I took the liberty of assuming readers of this list would know that, without my having to shake the Ballantine paperback edition of _The Return of the King_ at them.

                          David B.

                          -----Original Message-----
                          >From: Mike Foster <mafoster@...>
                          >Sent: Feb 13, 2008 8:10 PM
                          >To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                          >Subject: RE: [mythsoc] Re: two queries
                          >
                          >".but at the top of the Roll in all accounts stand the names of Captains
                          >Meriadoc and Peregrin.
                          >"Frodo had been in the battle, but he had not drawn sword, and his chief
                          >part had been to prevent the hobbits, in their wrath at their losses,
                          >from slaying those of their enemies who threw down their weapons."
                          >
                          >p. 365, "The Scouring of the Shire," _The Return of the King_,
                          >Ballantine paperback edition.
                          >
                          >Conclude what you will; the fact is that Frodo's heroism is finally not
                          >that of a warrior. Why Tolkien revised his story thus is conjecture;
                          >that he did so is fact.
                          >
                          >_Pax vobiscum_
                          >Mike
                          >
                          >-----Original Message-----
                          >From: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mythsoc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                          >Of David Bratman
                          >Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 6:53 PM
                          >To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                          >Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Re: two queries
                          >
                          >Tolkien had already written Frodo renouncing the carrying of weapons in
                          >Mordor when he drafted the initial versions of the Scouring in which
                          >Frodo fights Sharky in single combat and does other improbable things.
                          >It took Tolkien's conscious a while to catch on to what his subconscious
                          >was doing.
                          >
                          >Lynn Maudlin <lynnmaudlin@ <mailto:lynnmaudlin%40yahoo.com> yahoo.com>
                          >wrote:
                          >
                          >>--- In mythsoc@yahoogroups <mailto:mythsoc%40yahoogroups.com> .com,
                          >"Mike Foster" <mafoster@...> wrote:
                          >>>
                          >>> For what it's worth, in the early drafts of the final chapters of
                          >_The
                          >>> Lord of the Rings_, narrating the events leading up to the scouring
                          >of
                          >>> the Shire, many of the defiant words and deeds are Frodo's. In
                          >>> revision, Tolkien transferred these to Pippin and more often Merry.
                          >>>
                          >>> --MAF
                          >>
                          >>I don't know what you expect us to conclude from that, Mike - my own
                          >>conclusion is that Frodo's journey was not that of a warrior and his
                          >>sacrifice was not made with a sword. But I don't think that means
                          >>Frodo didn't support Merry and Pippin in *their* call to be brave
                          >>battling hobbits--
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                        • Mike Foster
                          David, Please don t take what I wrote as a disputation of or quarrel with your observations. I was addressing the original question of this thread, which was
                          Message 12 of 14 , Feb 14, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            David,
                            Please don't take what I wrote as a disputation of or quarrel with your
                            observations. I was addressing the original question of this thread,
                            which was whether or not Tolkien was a pacifist, which was the topic as
                            it originally appeared. I used the text because it was handy, and
                            "Conclude what you will" was a plural "you," addressed to the readers of
                            this thread related to the question of JRRT's pacifism. Whether he was
                            or was not-and I think he loathed war but realized that sometimes wars
                            must be fought-he revised his story so that Frodo was not a warrior in
                            the scouring of the shire, but rather one who sought to prevent needless
                            bloodshed.

                            Without a shake,
                            Mike

                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mythsoc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                            Of David Bratman
                            Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 12:47 AM
                            To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: RE: [mythsoc] Re: two queries

                            Mike -

                            You write in a tough fact-citing tone that sounds as if you're disputing
                            something that I said, but I cannot figure out what it might be.

                            Frodo's odd and inappropriate behavior was, as I said, in the first
                            draft, not the final draft. And then, as I wrote, "It took Tolkien's
                            conscious a while to catch on to what his subconscious was doing." But
                            when he figured it out, he wrote the excellent final text that you
                            quote. Now isn't that marvelous, perhaps even more so than if he'd
                            gotten it right the first time?

                            "Conclude what you will, the fact is ..." you write, but I never said
                            otherwise. "That he revised [the story] is fact," you also write, as
                            indeed it is fact, and I took the liberty of assuming readers of this
                            list would know that, without my having to shake the Ballantine
                            paperback edition of _The Return of the King_ at them.

                            David B.

                            -----Original Message-----
                            >From: Mike Foster <mafoster@hughes. <mailto:mafoster%40hughes.net> net>
                            >Sent: Feb 13, 2008 8:10 PM
                            >To: mythsoc@yahoogroups <mailto:mythsoc%40yahoogroups.com> .com
                            >Subject: RE: [mythsoc] Re: two queries
                            >
                            >".but at the top of the Roll in all accounts stand the names of
                            Captains
                            >Meriadoc and Peregrin.
                            >"Frodo had been in the battle, but he had not drawn sword, and his
                            chief
                            >part had been to prevent the hobbits, in their wrath at their losses,
                            >from slaying those of their enemies who threw down their weapons."
                            >
                            >p. 365, "The Scouring of the Shire," _The Return of the King_,
                            >Ballantine paperback edition.
                            >
                            >Conclude what you will; the fact is that Frodo's heroism is finally not
                            >that of a warrior. Why Tolkien revised his story thus is conjecture;
                            >that he did so is fact.
                            >
                            >_Pax vobiscum_
                            >Mike
                            >
                            >-----Original Message-----
                            >From: mythsoc@yahoogroups <mailto:mythsoc%40yahoogroups.com> .com
                            [mailto:mythsoc@yahoogroups <mailto:mythsoc%40yahoogroups.com> .com] On
                            Behalf
                            >Of David Bratman
                            >Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 6:53 PM
                            >To: mythsoc@yahoogroups <mailto:mythsoc%40yahoogroups.com> .com
                            >Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Re: two queries
                            >
                            >Tolkien had already written Frodo renouncing the carrying of weapons in
                            >Mordor when he drafted the initial versions of the Scouring in which
                            >Frodo fights Sharky in single combat and does other improbable things.
                            >It took Tolkien's conscious a while to catch on to what his
                            subconscious
                            >was doing.
                            >
                            >Lynn Maudlin <lynnmaudlin@ <mailto:lynnmaudlin%40yahoo.com> yahoo.com>
                            >wrote:
                            >
                            >>--- In mythsoc@yahoogroups <mailto:mythsoc%40yahoogroups.com> .com,
                            >"Mike Foster" <mafoster@...> wrote:
                            >>>
                            >>> For what it's worth, in the early drafts of the final chapters of
                            >_The
                            >>> Lord of the Rings_, narrating the events leading up to the scouring
                            >of
                            >>> the Shire, many of the defiant words and deeds are Frodo's. In
                            >>> revision, Tolkien transferred these to Pippin and more often Merry.
                            >>>
                            >>> --MAF
                            >>
                            >>I don't know what you expect us to conclude from that, Mike - my own
                            >>conclusion is that Frodo's journey was not that of a warrior and his
                            >>sacrifice was not made with a sword. But I don't think that means
                            >>Frodo didn't support Merry and Pippin in *their* call to be brave
                            >>battling hobbits--
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >



                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Lynn Maudlin
                            ... are unclean and wearing clothes of different fabrics is a sin. Not to mention how horrible it is to eat cheesburgers, pork chops, or shrimp. ... You do
                            Message 13 of 14 , Feb 14, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, David Emerson <emerdavid@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Yeah, but that's Old Testament -- the same document that says women
                              are unclean and wearing clothes of different fabrics is a sin. Not to
                              mention how horrible it is to eat cheesburgers, pork chops, or shrimp.
                              >
                              > emerdavid

                              You do know that's like waving a red flag in front of a bull, right?!
                              {grin}. Actually, the Hebrew scriptures say none of those things; the
                              Torah provides the Law given to the nation Israel - that law was never
                              given to the rest of the world, so mixing wool and linen is a sin for
                              *the Jews* (which I've heard described as mixing 'work' and 'rest' -
                              each is good, in the right place). Women are not unclean except during
                              their menses (and men were unclean after having a wet dream--). I'm
                              personally always intrigued by how "do not boil a kid in its mother's
                              milk" gets turned into "no meat and dairy in the same meal" but that's
                              certainly one way to make sure you never boil a kid in its mother's milk.

                              I was just reading the dietary laws in Leviticus this morning (such
                              timing!) and what strikes me is how God prohibited eating creatures
                              which 1) eat other creatures (predators, vultures, eagles, sharks,
                              etc.) and 2) eating creatures which consume filth (pigs will eat
                              anything if they're allowed, it's actually disgusting; things like
                              lobster & crab clean up the shallow seabed where waste accumulates)
                              and 3) eating creatures of especially high intelligence (dolphins,
                              whales).

                              I think some of the law was given to set the Israelites apart from the
                              nations around them and other parts of the law may have been given for
                              practical health reasons.

                              [/END TANGENT!!!]
                            • Lynn Maudlin
                              ... And Merry and Pippin s heroism *is* that of the warrior. I don t draw an over-arching conclusion from it, Mike, and I was trying to find out if *you* do,
                              Message 14 of 14 , Feb 14, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Foster" <mafoster@...> wrote:
                                >
                                >
                                > Conclude what you will; the fact is that Frodo's heroism is finally
                                > not that of a warrior. Why Tolkien revised his story thus is
                                > conjecture; that he did so is fact.
                                >
                                > _Pax vobiscum_
                                > Mike

                                And Merry and Pippin's heroism *is* that of the warrior. I don't draw
                                an over-arching conclusion from it, Mike, and I was trying to find out
                                if *you* do, what you find the significance to be. I think different
                                people's lives have different lessons, different experiences,
                                different requirements - both in real life and in fiction.

                                Happy Valentine's Day to you and your Jo-ness!

                                -- Lynn --
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.