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

Re: [mythsoc] two queries

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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.