HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: solovay@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay)
Subject: Elves and death (was Re: "Passing away" into the West)
Organization: People's Front of Judea
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:43:46 GMT

In article <1h4n29INNare@mirror.digex.com> dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz) writes:
>In article <uh311ae.724614395@sunmanager> uh311ae@sunmanager.LRZ-Muenchen.DE (Henrik Klagges) writes:
>[Beren] wouldn't have had to delay if men just sat around for 
>eternity as did elves.

Elves don't wait for eternity in the Halls of Mandos; they
eventually return to the upper world, to Valinor. Some even
return to Middle-Earth (notably Glorfindel).

The Silmarillion notes that Feanor was exceptional in that he
never returned to the upper world.

What isn't clear to me is why the elves have any fear of death.
F'r'instance, why do they go to all the trouble of maintaining
the havens and building ships to return to the West? Why not just
fall on their swords?  Cheaper, quicker, safer.
-- 
Andrew Solovay    
                "I know that, in America and under capitalism,
                 I am the freest woman in history."
                                --- Camille Paglia
From: Michael.P.Colburn@dartmouth.edu (Michael P. Colburn)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Subject: Re: Q: 'Illustrated Encyc. of Middle Earth' available?
Date: 30 Dec 92 21:55:04 GMT
 <1hsj0nINNiib@access.usask.ca>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1hsj0nINNiib@access.usask.ca>
friesend@jester.usask.ca (Darryl Friesen) writes:

>  - The illustrations are very poor (in my opinion). Many of them seem
>     'cheaply' done (ie. like you might find in a text book; black plus
>     one other color, little detail).  Some of the pen and ink sketches
>     are better though.

I sorta agree here, but for different reasons.  The illustrators used
several different mediums (lithograph, pen and ink, charcoal, etc) and
each illustrator (there are 8) have their own styles (impressionist,
realist, etc).  IMHO, this detracts from the reader efforts to
'picture' Middle Earth as one world.  The contrasting mediums and
styles almost give one the impression there is more than one Middle
Earth.  I think the book would have been more effective had there only
been one or two illustrators (like the illustrator (Robin Wood??) who
did "The People of Pern".  BTW, I don't agree that the illustrations
were 'very poor' (true, some were very simplistic, but that doesn't
necessarily make them bad)...IMHO, many were inappropriate for the
reasons I stated above.

> 
>   - There is a time line of Tolkien's life and works at the beginning
>     in which David Day misspells Tolkien's name twice. ie:
> 
>     1895  Mother (Mabel Tolkein) takes children back to Birmingham,
>                         ^^^^^^^
>           England. Father (Arthur Tolkien) remains in South Africa.
>                                   ^^^^^^^

Hmmm...in case any of you think Darryl has gone of his rocker (I'll
admit I did when I first read the above statement concerning spelling),
he is just pointing out the spelling error:  Tolkein - incorrect;
Tolkien - correct.  I think what threw me off was when he said Tolkien
was spelled incorrectly 'twice'...when I read further, I only saw one
misspelling.  The other mistake he was referring to was immediately
before this one:

         1892  John Ronald Reuel Tolkein born 3rd January.....

These mistakes were in the first two entries of this particular time
line.  IMHO, pretty shoddy proof reading when you misspell the guys
name right off the bat.

Overall, the book is enjoyable.  Day offers some interesting insights
and interpretations concerning material that is never totally developed
or explained by JRRT.  One example concerns a hotly debated topic on
this newsgroup, Tom Bombadil.  Day boldy opens his entry for TB: "Maia
master of Old Forest."

Mike Colburn                         =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dartmouth-Hitchcock                  "Pulu-see-ba-goomba" -- Gilligan 
Medical Center                       =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lebanon, New Hampshire  03756        :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: tchaboud@ens-lyon.fr (Thomas Chaboud)
Subject: Re:  Should LOTR Movie be Made?
Reply-To: tchaboud@ens-lyon.fr
Organization: Ecole Normale Superieure de Lyon
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:11:03 GMT

Although a newcomer to this group, I'm quite surprised
not to have read anything about Bakshi's LotR. 

Even considering you already have finished with that subject
a long time ago - this could be done in few words -, is not 
that aborted trial (RB never made the part II, as far as I know) 
a massive argument for never doing that again?

For those lucky ones who never saw part I, let's say it was
a 'hyperficial' glance on Vol.I and half of Vol.II.

I really don't want to see another hollywood jerk mistreat
Tolkien this way or worse, and this does include Spielberg.

Let JRR rest in peace.

Sorry for my english.
("Of course I'm French! Where should I have got this outrageous accent?"
						-- Monty Python's Holy Grail.)


					Tom.
From: mvoorhis@granite.WPI.EDU (Michael C Voorhis)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Subject: Re: ME maps
Date: 21 Dec 1992 19:27:56 GMT
Organization: RSUC -- Russell Street UNIX & Caffeine
NNTP-Posting-Host: granite.wpi.edu

In article <BzM3MF.B28@sci.kun.nl> heinr@sci.kun.nl (Hein Ragas) writes:
>Same goes for me.
>        Hein.
>        (heinr@sci.kun.nl)

I don't really care what ICE does in the lane of speculation, as long as
they publish their material as such.  They shouldn't publish their
materials as fact, they should put a disclaimer on it or something!  Sounds
really stupid, of course, to put a disclaimer on a piece of fiction,
stating that it is fictional with respect to another work of fiction which
fanatics (like myself) research as if it were factual...

I don't know.  I just object to ICE adding noise to the clear flow of
historical research on Middle Earth.  People will think that all of ICE's
MERP work is factual, when it isn't.  Tell me, anyone with the ICE stuff--
does ICE back up their work with citations from books?  *or* do they state
that something `is possible' or `is speculated' when they do NOT have actual
supporting data?  That would make me feel a little better...

	Mike
	(mvoorhis@wpi.wpi.edu)
From: Michael.P.Colburn@dartmouth.edu (Michael P. Colburn)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Subject: Re: Orcs in the Last Alliance
Date: 31 Dec 92 00:05:25 GMT
 <1hstthINNclo@hpsdlss3.sdd.hp.com>  
 <1992Dec30.223324.23629@netcom.com>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Dec30.223324.23629@netcom.com>
solovay@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay) writes:

> In article <1hstthINNclo@hpsdlss3.sdd.hp.com> (Christopher J. Amow) writes:
> >In article <lewchuk.725051295@therien>, lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael
> >Lewchuk) wrote:
> >> 
> >> dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz) writes:
> >> >	All living things were divided in that day, and some of every
> >> >	kind, even of beasts and birds, were found in either host, save 
> >> >	the Elves only.
> >> >Does this mean that there were orcs and trolls fighting for Gil-Galad
> >> >and Elendil in the last alliance?
> >>
> >> It is hard to imagine orcs fighting for the West, although I guess it
> >> could be so that an orc was treacherous enough to fight against Sauron.
> >
> >Since orcs were derivatives of the elves, it kind of seems to me that that
> >qualifies for two of the "same kind"
> 
> Nope nope nope. The quote (right up above, son! Read yer quoted
> material!) says that Elves were not divided; they were the only
> ones who did not fight for Sauron. Ergo and ipso facto Orcs are
> not being lumped in with Elves.
> 
> The Orcs etc. aren't a problem, IMHO. Orcs are treacherous enough
> to start with; the Quest would've failed if it hadn't been for
> the Orcish treachery in Cirith Ungol. Besides which, many Orcs,
> trolls, etc. might have decided that they were better off in
> their own caves then they would be as Sauron's pawns in the
> Darkness. (And I, for one, wouldn't blame them.) They might not
> have actually joined the Alliance-- I can't see them taking
> orders from Gil-Galad or Elendil-- but I can easily see groups of
> Orcs deliberately attacking Sauron's troops, which might make
> them qualify as part of the "host".

As orc were known to fight amoungst themselves and even cannabalized
each other, I too, can see this happening...

> To my mind, the bigger problem is the implication that some Ents
> fought for Sauron.

Well, how about the Ents/Alliance against the Huorns/Sauron...some
Huorns were known to be 'black-hearted' and 'rotten' (Old Man Willow),
so it wouldn't be hard to imagine them fighting for Sauron.  I realize
Ents and Huorns are two different races, but perhaps they had the same
roots. (ooo, terrible pun) ;-)

> -- 
> Andrew Solovay    
> 
> "I is not now, nor has I ever been, a Human Bein'!"
>                 ---Pogo Possum


Mike Colburn                         =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dartmouth-Hitchcock                  "Pulu-see-ba-goomba" -- Gilligan 
Medical Center                       =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lebanon, New Hampshire  03756        :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: solovay@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay)
Subject: Re: Orcs in the Last Alliance
Organization: People's Front of Judea
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:37:11 GMT

In article <suwandi.724960207@sfu.ca> suwandi@fraser.sfu.ca (Julian Suwandi) writes:
>dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz) writes:
>
>[some stuff in ref to Similarion]
>>	All living things were divided in that day, and some of every
>>	kind, even of beasts and birds, were found in either host, save 
>>	the Elves only.
>
>>Does this mean that there were orcs and trolls fighting for Gil-Galad
>>and Elendil in the last alliance?  Ents fighting on both sides?  Or
>>am I reading too much into this passage?
>
>That is interesting.. I doubt that the Ents would fight on either 
>sides at that time (cos they are a peaceful race and they don't get 
>'hasty':)

I can't believe that the Ents would fight for Sauron, since
Sauron had earlier destroyed the gardens of the Entwives (and
probably destroyed all the Entwives as well). But some of the
Huorns could easily have fought for Sauron.
-- 
Andrew Solovay    
                "I know that, in America and under capitalism,
                 I am the freest woman in history."
                                --- Camille Paglia
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: carlton@apollo.hp.com (Carl Hommel)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Subject: Re: Good and evil things (was Re: Technology and Morality in LOTR)
Date: 21 Dec 92 16:20:17 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

Joseph Dzikiewicz responds to:
>Hein Ragas writing:
>>_Nothing_ is inherently evil, and _nothing_ is inherently good.
>>(Challenge me on this one, if you dare. ;) )
>
>While I would agree that this is true in real life, I don't agree that
>it is true within LOTR.  Within LOTR, there is definitely a dichotomy
>between good and evil.
>The Valar are good.
>Melkor is evil.
Melkor started as a good, if prideful Vala.  Only over time did he became
the all-consuming baddie.   But I can't really argue this point.

>Elrond, Galadriel, and Gandalf are good.
>Sauron is evil.  
Elrond set a rather bride-price for Arwen, preventing her conjugal bliss
with Aragorn.

Galadriel was, according to which passage in Unfinished Tales you believe,
one of the instigators of the return of the Noldor to Middle-Earth.  She
was singled out as being too unrepentant to return to Aman at the end of
the First Age.

Gandalf did epitomise Good.  (Well, other then not suffering fools...)

>As to things, the Ring is definitely evil.
>I can't think off-hand of an example of something in LOTR that is
>inherently good.
I feel that the "goodness" of a thing depends on who creates it.  Eru
creates the world, which I presume is a Good Thing.

The Valar created the Two Trees, which are very good, and have a limited
potential for Evil.

Feanor, the greatest craftsman of the Noldor, but with some personal flaws,
created the Silmarils -  a good thing, with a greater chance for mischeff.

Finally, Sauron, a truely despicable dude, created the One Ring - which
is very hard to use for any Good purpose.

>No, I'm afraid that it is easier to be evil in LOTR then to be good.
The redemption of Galadriel occurred because she didn't take the easy 
way out, but chose to stay good.

Carl Hommel
carlton@apollo.hp.com
From: dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Subject: Re: Eowyn
Date: 23 Dec 1992 00:45:53 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <lewchuk.725049263@therien> lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk) writes:
>Another point: ever notice how widowers (Theoden, Denethor) who don't
>have any intention of "marrying and settling down" are all killed off?

Hmm, take Elrond as a counter-example.  Or Frodo.  Or Bilbo.
Or Treebeard, for that matter
(though he would be happy to settle down if an entwife presented herself).

I think you're reading too much into two isolated examples.
>
>To run
>from evil in terror was shown to be a failing, such as Frodo's lack of
>will at Weathertop, the fate of Frodo and Sam at Cirith Ungol, 

I don't get this last one.  Are you talking about running from Shelob?
But that didn't happen: Frodo never saw her coming and Sam ran at her.
Are you talking about Sam's hiding from the orcs who took Frodo away?
That wasn't lack of will, it was lack of knowledge that Frodo was alive.
Are you talking about Sam and Frodo fleeing from the tower of Cirith 
Ungol after getting past the watchers?  That seems like the height of
wisdom.  I hardly think they would have gained by hanging around waiting
for a Nazgul, and I don't think Tolkien is saying that they should do
so.

>I don't think he's reading way too much in.  It is clear that Galadriel
>does defer to Celeborn.  Whether he does this through deferrence or through
>wisdom is not clear.

You ever notice how much the marriage of Galadriel to Celeborn resembles
the marriage of Melian to Thingol?  In both cases, the man seems to talk
first, but the woman talks wisest.  

And remember, Galadriel spent a lot of time in Doriath in the first age.
In fact, that's where she met Celeborn, who was a kinsman to Thingol.
Maybe she picked up a thing or two on domestic relations from Melian...

(Come to think of it, I see parallels to this in my own marriage.  Now
if only I could figure out whether my wife once spent time in Doriath
or Lorien...)
From: friesend@jester.usask.ca (Darryl Friesen)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Subject: Re: Q: 'Illustrated Encyc. of Middle Earth' available?
Date: 30 Dec 1992 16:33:27 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
NNTP-Posting-Host: jester.usask.ca
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]

Len Charest (charest@Aig.Jpl.Nasa.Gov) wrote:
> While shopping in Boston last week I came across a large coffee table type
> book whose title was *something like* 'The Illustrated Encyclopedia of
> Middle Earth'.
> The book was organized around topics such as the geography of Middle Earth,
> flora and fauna, etc. I found it very interesting, but I didn't buy it
> because I assumed I could find it anywhere...
> 
> Well, now that I'm back in LA I realize what a mistake I made. I can't find
> it anywhere. The Books in Print database has no entry for this book by title
> or by keyword search on encyclopedia, middle, earth, tolkien, etc. Either
> this book is out of print or its printed outside the US.
> 
> Tolkien fans, help! If you can provide me with further information about this
> book, especially verification that it is in print somewhere, please e-mail
> me at
> the address below. Note: I am not looking for 'The Atlas of Middle Earth'.
> The book I saw was something different. TIA.

It's called "Tolkien: The Illustrated Encyclopaedia" (nope, that's not
a typo; the 'ae' are joined (I forget what that's called)) by David Day.

From the inside cover:

Collier Books
Macmillan Publishing Company
866 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022

ISBN:  0-02-031275-X

I don't think its out of print yet (it's a 1992 first edition).

I got mine for Christmas.  I haven't had a chance to look at it too
much, but from the little I've read it seems pretty interesting.  A
few things I didn't like though:

  - The illustrations are very poor (in my opinion). Many of them seem
    'cheaply' done (ie. like you might find in a text book; black plus
    one other color, little detail).  Some of the pen and ink sketches
    are better though.

  - There is a time line of Tolkien's life and works at the beginning
    in which David Day misspells Tolkien's name twice. ie:

    1895  Mother (Mabel Tolkein) takes children back to Birmingham,
                        ^^^^^^^
          England. Father (Arthur Tolkien) remains in South Africa.
                                  ^^^^^^^

   - Day often refers to the forces of evil (Morgoth, Sauron etc) as
     "satanic".  I think this is an _extremely_ poor choice of words.
     Again, just my opinion.


------------------------------------------------------------
Darryl Friesen            | Department of Computing Services
friesenda@sask.usask.ca   | University of Saskatchewan
------------------------------------------------------------
"In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit."
From: dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Subject: Re: Eowyn
Date: 21 Dec 1992 14:49:51 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <1992Dec16.233814@IASTATE.EDU> cffitzge@IASTATE.EDU (Charles F Fitzgerald) writes:
>
>What I think is the primary difference between Sam, Faramir, Frodo,
>Merry, Aragorn, etc. and Eowyn is that the males mentioned did not
>really ever wish to be warriors.  Certainly the hobbits (especially
>Sam and Frodo) never desired to go to war, and both Faramir and
>Aragorn seem to be less then enthusiastic about war as a way of life.

As a counter-example, consider Gimli.  He is fairly clearly a lover of
war, but he settles down afterwards to fixing gates, building roads, and
working on the glittering caves.

Also, we have no direct evidence whether Eomer continues warring or
not.  And if he does consider warring, maybe it's a sign that he still
has a touch of barbarism to him, and Eowyn is showing evidence of moral
superiority in settling down.  (Certainly the more advanced men of the
west all want to settle down and tend to business.)

Interesing post, though.
From: tjg01@thdhub.HomeDepot.COM (Terry Gardner)
Subject: Tom Bombadil
Organization: Home Depot USA, Inc.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:01:36 GMT
Distribution: alt

What was finally decided about the nature of Tom Bombadil? Didn't
Professor Tolkien indicate that he was a Valar, of a sort. Or was that
the Istari? Could he have been one of the Istari?

--
terry@HomeDepot.COM                      (404) 433-8211x5124 or (404) 941-8304

Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: pvs9@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (Praktikum Verteilte Systeme)
Subject: Re: ME maps
Followup-To: alt.fan.tolkien
Summary: Some comments on some maps, and a view on the South and East
Keywords: maps, ICE, MERP
Reply-To: pvs9@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (Praktikum Verteilte Systeme)
Organization: TU Braunschweig, Informatik (Bueltenweg), Germany
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:37:44 GMT

On the ICE MERP map :

Only the north-western corner of that map (that area also shown on the LOTR,
bound by Umbar in the south and the Sea of Rh^un in the east) is to be trusted.
The rest of the map is just fancy stuff which even contradicts Tolkien's
intention.  Tolkien never meant to create an *alien* world, he meant to depict
a (fictitious) earlier state of the *real* world.  There are sketches by
Tolkien which clearly show that the southernmost part of Middle Earth has the
shape of Africa.  In my opinion, the area where the LOTR takes place is to be
appended to the west of Europe.  The 'inner sea of Helcar' is the Mediterranean
Sea, Cuivi'enen is the Black Sea.  Umbar lay where now is Lisbon (Portugal).
The lands of the LOTR were drowned at a later time (probably the end of the
Fourth Age) in about the same way Beleriand was drowned at the end of the
First age.  The only problem with that are the British Isles which do not fit
into that well, but there is a solution mentioned somewhere in the Book of
Lost Tales, I think :  after Gondor, Rohan, Wilderland, Eriador and most of
Mordor were drowned, Osse dragged Tol Eressea back to Middle Earth.  During
that, the westernmost part broke off and became Ireland, while the main part
of Tol Eressea is now Great Britain.  The returning of Tol Eressea was
probably a reward for some faithful inhabitants of the area destroyed (similar
to N'umenor), perhaps the Rohirrim.  

On Karen Wynn Forstad's Historical Atlas of Middle Earth :

IMHO, these maps are of very good quality.  However, there are some details
where my opinion differs from the view presented in the atlas.  For example,
I think the southern border of the Shire lies closer to Sarn Ford.  But the
aspect discussed above is missing.  On one map, Cuivi'enen is shown as a lake 
somewhere in the far east, comparable in size to the Sea of Rh^un.  The map
of the jurneys of the N'umenoreans showing a rough image of the total of
Middle Earth does also miss that aspect;  the term 'Inner Seas', IMHO, refers
to the Mediterranean Sea (as I've said above).  The post-ringwar political map
is questionable.  Aragorn claimed sovereignty over all areas which once have
belonged to Gondor except Rohan, but it is the question if he really got those
areas under his sceptre.  Well, maybe he did, perhaps temporarily, perhaps
for all of his reign.  The question what happened to the Kingdom after 
Aragorn's death, is unanswered anyway.  Most probably, Umbar and Dorwinion fell
apart again, and maybe Arnor and Gondor were separated from each other.  We
don't know.

May Elbereth protect you !        Joerg Rhiemeier

Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: jgm@ais.org (jim miller)
Subject: For the Tolkiens:  12 Step Program for Coping with Parodies
Organization: Ann Arbor Information Society -- Toledo Annex
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 22:09:51 GMT


Is there any published reaction of Christopher Tolkien, or even
the big guy himself, to _Bored of the Rings_?  If not, do you
speculate that they read the book?  For those of you familiar
with C. Tolkien on any level, what do you think his reaction
would be to it?

-jim

-- 
* auzzie's 3 rules for meeting women *
1.  Seek simple women with common sense and a capacity for commitment.
2.  Stay away from women entangled in *any* way with another man.  Apply
    the word "entangle" broadly, and don't let them fool you.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien