HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mjw@cch.coventry.ac.uk (Alien)
Subject: Re: Thomas Covenant
Organization: Coventry University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:57:24 GMT

In article <1gl1s4INN25p@mirror.digex.com> dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz) writes:
>In article <7029@sersun1.essex.ac.uk> leitm@essex.ac.uk (Leith M F) writes:
>>>In article <Bz22E0.D7w@access.digex.com>, dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz) writes...
>>>>(Incidently, one thing I particularly liked about the Covenant books.
>>>>The protaganist felt genuinely guilty about killing orc-equivalents.
>>>>I found that a refreshing change after Legolas and Gimli's contest
>>>>at Helm's Deep to see who could kill more enemy cannon fodder.)
>
>>Oh my god, people aren't trying to apply political correctness to the 
>>slaying of orcs now, are they ? :-)
>>What you appear to be overlooking is that orcs *deserve* death generally.
>>Orcs delight in torturing their captured enemies (including defenceless women
>>e.g Finduilas was speared to a tree by an orc).  They also have no respect 
>>for other life, even of their own kin (e.g the Shagrat vs Gorbag conflict).
>>Furthermore, Gimli's and Legolas's folk  had both suffered dearly at the
>>hands of orcs; it is hardly surprising they want revenge really, is it ?
>
>A couple points on this.  First, cavewights in Covenant (the equivalent
>of orcs) were equally as evil and deserving of death.  Covenant, and
>Foamfollower the giant, still felt guilt over killing them.  I found that
>refreshing.
>
>(For another example of something similar, see the protaganists response
>to killing the storm troopers in the movie "Brazil."  First glee, then
>guilt when he realizes that he has just killed a fellow human.)
>
>Second, I thought that the way that Legolas and Gimli behaved at Helm's
>Deep was not from thirst for revenge.  It seemed to be more of a sporting
>contest.
>
>Third, the lack of guilt at killing in LOTR extends beyond killing orcs.
>No one seemed to mind killing Haradrim or Easterlings or any of the men in
>Sauron's army.  In fact, the only heroes of LOTR that seem to be in the
>habit of letting enemies live in potential combat situations are the 
>hobbits, starting with Bilbo holding back from killing Gollum.
>
>
>Let us not forget Gandalf's warning (undoubtedly misworded, as I quote
>from memory): "Deserve death!  I daresay he does!  And many who deserve
>life fail to get it.  If you are not ready to deal it out yourself, do
>not be so quick to judge."  Sounds kind of like another old saying that
>might apply: "Judge not lest ye be judged."
> 
>>I think orcs are supposed to be creatures so evil that there is no guilt in
>>slaying one. 
>>
>
>I agree with this.  I just found it refreshing in the Covenant books to
>have the characters equipped with a more discriminating moral code that
>allowed them to empathize with other creatures even when those other
>creatures do not necessarily deserve empathy.
>
>Finally, if a preference against killing sentient beings is "political
>correctness," then let us hope that the world become politically correct
>in the near future...
>
From: klaus@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question: LOTR Wizards
Date: 15 Dec 92 10:14:35 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen

jdliss@unix.amherst.edu (Jeff Liss) writes:

>Maybe someone can enlighten me about what the council of wizards'
>structure is really like.  Obviously the White is #1 and the Grey
>#2 ... but what about Radagast the Red?  How is all that determined?
>I don't know if it's every explained.

I think you are mixing up two things here. Saruman the white was
head of the order of wizards. No other offices within this order
is mentioned anywhere. The other members were Gandalf the grey,
Radagast the brown and the two blue wizards. It is said somewhere
that these were the cheifs among those wizards who came to the north
west of Middle-earth, so presumably there were others. The leader
of the order would have been appointed by the Valar.

The White council was made up of those otherwise called the
wise. That would be Saruman, Gandalf, Elrond, Celeborn, Galadriel
and Cirdan. There may be others, maybe Glorfindel or Erestor. I don't
think Radagast would bother to attend, even
if he was invited. This coucil was formed on Galadriel's initiative,
and she wanted Gandalf to be its leader. She was overruled, and Saruman
was elected. I wonder who voted for him? Somebody must have red ears!

>Also, what does Gandalf mean
>when he declares himself to the Balrog as "a servant of the Secret
>Fire"?

The Secret Fire is simply another name for the Flame Imperishable.

Klaus O K
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: jchokey@leland.Stanford.EDU (James Alexander Chokey)
Subject: Re: Eowyn 
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 20:56:04 GMT

In article <BzD3EK.IpJ@unix.amherst.edu> djweisbe@unix.amherst.edu (David Weisberger) writes:
>
>James Alexander Chokey (jchokey@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>: 	But in the end, she changes her mind.  She renounces her desires to
>: go out to battle, to travel, and to do all of the things that female 
>: characters just don't do in LOTR.  Instead, she decides that she'd be
>: quite content simply to do what all the other women in Middle-earth do--
>: get married, stay at home, and take care of domestic affairs.  By having
>: Eowyn, the only character who mounts a challenge to the ideology of female
>: domesticity in LOTR, renounce that challenge and happily accept the status
>: of a married stay-at-home, Tolkien is effectively saying that her initial 
>: discontent with that status was a youthful mistake.
>: 
>Alternate interpretation, same evidence: Tolkien suggests that battle and
>adventure might be necessary, but there are more important things.  Eowyn
>was wrong to see fighting as a desirable way of life.

	I think you're absolutely right.  Clearly, one of the grand themes
of LOTR is that fighting and adventure might be necessary, but only as a
means to protect homes, farms, forests, and other elements of domestic
existence.  This would be true for both men and women. The fact of the 
matter though is that for Eowyn, fighting is not merely seen an end of 
itself-- it is also a way of challenging the female role of domestic servant
and nurturer.  I don't think that's it's purely incidental that during her
conversation with Aragorn, she indicates her refusal to be a "serving-girl"
and a "dry-nurse."  Her language suggests that she really seems to understand
that in LOTR, domestic roles are assigned for women and vice versa.  The fact
that she has to disguise herself as a man to go off to battle seems to me
to be no less telling--  she realizes that she's taking on a male role.
For her to change her mind at the end of the War is not merely to reject
her desire to be a fighter and accept domestic life.  It is at one and the 
same time a statment of willingness to accept a "traditional" female role--
and that seems to me to be significant.

>
>Actually, Tolkien seems to value domestic, rural life much more.  But
>I'll stop with that thought, since it's really crossing into the
>technology thread.

	Once again, I think you're absolutely right.  It might actually be
kind of interesting to see how closely the two themes might be related--
to examine the degree to which technology and craft are "gendered" in either
a masculine or feminine way in LOTR.  I don't know how far one could go with
it but certainly could be interesting to find out . . .

	--  Jim C. <jchokey@leland.stanford.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: Michael.Versemann@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de (Michael Versemann)
Subject: Re: Racism Survives!
Organization: University of Oldenburg, Germany
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 12:05:50 GMT

cffitzge@IASTATE.EDU (Charles F Fitzgerald) writes:

>bil@ockforum.uoknor.edu writes
>>This whole issue of racism has become tedious. 
>No one is forcing you to read it.
true.

>No, they are pointing out the presence of racism in the works of
>Tolkien because it worries them.  These books are read by many
>different people of different ages, some very impressionable. What
>do these books teach?  This is an important and non-trivial
>question, the answer to which is of note to many of us.

As Tolkien said, in the foreword of LotR:
There is nothing to teach in this book,
it is just a story.
Michael
-- 
*****************************************************************************
*Name  : Michael Versemann                                                  *
*Login : Gwaihir                                                            *
*NF    : Romulus                                                            *
*Email : Michael.Versemann@aragorn.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de              *
*Voice : 0441/883047      02377/2797                                        *
*****************************************************************************
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Subject: Re: Balrogs vs. Ringwraiths ... and a questi
Date: 17 Dec 92 12:31:56 GMT
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs

In <1go2n2INNbn9@transfer.stratus.com> det@phlan.sw.stratus.com (David Toland) writes:

>BTW, someone asked if it was sexist to refer to the Balrog in the masculine.
>Well, Gandalf does so in relating his tale to Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli
>in Fangorn Wood.

"But when they desire to clother themselves the Valar take upon them
forms some as of male and some as of female; for that difference of
temper they had even from the beginning, and it is but bodied forth in
the choice of each..."  S. p21

Arien, the Maia who carries the Sun, is female, ".. a spirit of fire,
whom Melkor had not decieved nor drawn to his service."  p100
-- 
/|/-\/-\       The entire hall		Jerusalem
 |__/__/_/     is a very *** signature virus.
 |warren@      But the ***
/ nysernet.org is paranoid.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: XNFI <XNFI@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA>
Subject: RE: Musical score
Organization: McGill University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:04:05 GMT

In article <Bz01L6.657@umassd.edu> sodonnell@UMASSD.EDU writes:
>In all our talk of fulfilling charactor roles have we yet to discuss
>who would write the music to our dream version of the perfect LOTR
>film. I know I have the album home but don't remember the name of
>the album or the song but... Led Zeplin has a song which talks of
>Mordor and Gollum. Oh I'm embarrased to have forgotten it. Also
>I think Roger Waters could write a good score. My husband began
>reading Lotr when U2 came out with The October album, which he
>listened too repeatedly while reading LOTR. So he thinks
>they might do a nice piece. Hmmm I don't think so though.
> I think Clannad and/or Enya would do a lovely job.
> If I could have my pick of anybody, I'd like to see Robert Plant
>and Jimmy Page get together and do it. Any other thoughts????
>..................Sandy.
>
>
I would certainly recommend Vangelis and Ennio Morricone, who have
both proven themselves as great soundtrack composers.  Certainly
Enya, as well as Loreena McKinnit for Elven-like melodies.  Jon
Anderson from Yes also has mystical sense that would add much to
the story.

The Walking Tree
>.
>.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: J.R.R. Tolkien's full name is...
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:32:41 GMT

In <1992Dec10.232048.16584@news2.cis.umn.edu> rao@moose.cccs.umn.edu (Rao Akella) writes:

>..John Ronald Reuel Tolkien.

>I've started my third (only!) reading of LotR, and since I couldn't find
>his full name anywhere

Why it's right there on the title page.  You might have to spend some
time reading Appendix E before reading it, however.
-- 
/|/-\/-\       The entire kitchen		Jerusalem
 |__/__/_/     is a very Czarish apple.
 |warren@      But the cabbie
/ nysernet.org is not all that hungry.
From: laurence@cco.caltech.edu (Dustin Lee Laurence)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Subject: Re: Eowyn
Date: 17 Dec 1992 21:59:28 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:

>In article <1992Dec16.233814@IASTATE.EDU> cffitzge@IASTATE.EDU (Charles F Fitzgerald) writes:

>>...  It is to be assumed that there are
>>still enough perils left in the world to keep the warriors of
>>Rohan busy, that they may continue to live the existence that they
>>treasure so much.

>Good point. However, it's also clear that the Rohirrim, as warriors,
>are _inferior_ to Gondorians, precisely because liking war is a sign
>of degeneration.

Exactly.

>>Thus, Eowyn, by her choice to settle down to a pastoral livelihood,
>>is giving up her chosen career in favour of a more socially
>>acceptable one. 

>However, in Tolkien's universe, it's also a much higher status one--
>Tolkien believe's that it's objectively true that it's better to be
>a nurturer than a warrior, and that this is true for men as well as
>women.

Again, exactly.  Thank you, Nancy, for injecting some sense into this
thread.

>It's an ambiguous point because, on the one hand, there's the
>women-ought-to-be-nurturers theme where Tolkiens is conforming to
>society generally, and the _everyone_-ought-to-be-nurturers theme
>where (so far as I know) Toien was in strong disagreement with
>the way most people thought.

I would say that Tolkien appears to have believed that women in general
have better judgement and more wisdom than men in certain matters.
Tolkien (understandably) seems to take the Beatitudes very seriously, and
the attributes praised in the Beatitudes are rather feminine attributes
in European civilization (and most others that come readily to mind).

>Offhand, I think that the Eowyn/Faramir match may be the only example
>of a woman marrying up in LOTR. It does back up the opinion that an
>adventure is the only way of getting enough status/contact with one's
>betters to marry one of them.

Perhaps and perhaps.  As far as I can tell, Tolkien always felt that he
himself had "married up".  I have long assumed that this is the main
reason you see men doing the same in his fiction.  (How's that for
superficial lit. crit.?)

I do believe that he addresses this exact issue in _Letters_ somewhere.
Perhaps I'll attempt to look it up.

>Nancy Lebovitz
>nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu 

-- 
Dustin Laurence       "As sensitive and broad-minded humans, we must never
                       allow ourselves to be in any way judgmental of the
laurence@alice         religious practices of other people, even when these
caltech.edu           people clearly are raving space loons." -- Dave Barry
From: etalvio@vipunen.hut.fi (Samuli Talvio)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Subject: Re: Where do orcs go upon dying?
Date: 20 Dec 92 23:13:09 GMT
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

In <1992Dec17.160734.24800@ra.msstate.edu> paul@pj.tmc.edu (Thorongil) writes:

>Another question brought up on the List that I'm posting here to see
>what you think.

>If when elves die they go to the halls of Mandos, and orcs are nothing
>more than captured elves corrupted by Melkor, then do orcs have souls?
>If so, then upon death do they go to the halls of Mandos?

I take it that when Melkor corrupted elves into orcs he corrupted their
souls, and didn't destroy them. It is hard to believe that any intelligent
being doesn't have a soul at all. (Yes, I consider orcs intelligent beings
despite their dumbness.) :-)
I doubt that anyone with a corrupted soul would be accepted in the halls
of Mandos, but who else would take the orcs' souls after their death?
There must be some means of purification, for those poor elves who
eventually became orcs, or their descendants, are hardly to blame for
not being capable of resisting Melkor's power...
Anyhow, if so, it would morally be the right thing to do to kill orcs,
for that would both put and end to their misery in Middle Earth and
give a chance to their souls to be freed of evil.

Samuli

Life is a bitch, and a damn good one:
gives satisfaction to anyone who wants it.	(Apparently orcs are incapable
						 of wanting any REAL
						 satisfaction)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: jchokey@leland.Stanford.EDU (James Alexander Chokey)
Subject: Re: The Disclaimer
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 01:11:57 GMT

In article <1gb7eeINNijl@uwm.edu> paulg@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Paul A Gunderson) writes:
>In article <Bz3wLn.JxE@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> kelsey@jupiter.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Mike Kelsey) writes:
>>
>>Whatever you buy, *please* buy a Ballantine paperback edition, or a Houghton
>>Miflin hardcover.  As Tolkien points out in his preface to _The_Hobbit_, the
>>other American editions were pirate copies, and don't pay royalties.
>>HM/Ballantine is the authorized U.S. publisher.
>>						-- Mike Kelsey
>
>It would be very hard to buy anything but the Ballantine edition at this
>point.
>

	No.  The Houghton-Mifflin editions are still widely available in
the U.S. They're a bit more expensive, to be sure--  but they are sturdier
and they're out there.

	--  Jim Chokey <jchokey@leland.stanford.edu>



Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: sh666@selway.umt.edu (Dave)
Subject: Re: Lord of the Rings Movie (More information wanted)
Organization: University of Montana
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 22:11:44 GMT

Timothy Dalton as Aragorn!  I like it!!

Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: solovay@netcom.com (Andrew M. Solovay)
Subject: Book reviews (was Re: Tolkien Bio)
Organization: Jews for Melkor
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:01:46 GMT

In article <carl-091292094207@mac7.gsfc.nasa.gov> carl@class.gsfc.nasa.gov (Carl F. Hostetter) writes:
>In article <1992Dec8.212703.17162@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
>jchokey@leland.Stanford.EDU (James Alexander Chokey) wrote:
>> 
>> In article <CHRISLEY.92Dec8152355@black.oxford.ac.uk> chrisley@oxford.ac.uk (Ronald L Chrisley) writes:
>> >
>> >In article <carl-071292133702@mac7.gsfc.nasa.gov> carl@class.gsfc.nasa.gov (Carl F. Hostetter) writes:
>> >
>> >   My opinion: this is a book with 
>> >   a message, and the message is "stay away".
>> >
>> >"This is not a book for reading; it's a book for laying down and
>> >avoiding..."
>> 
>> "This is not a book to be tossed aside lightly; this is a book to be hurled 
>> away with great force."
>
>"There are entirely too many pages between the covers of this book".

And there's Abraham Lincoln's comment on a book:

"People who like this sort of thing will find this the sort of
thing they like."
-- 
Andrew Solovay    

"We all have faults, and mine is being wicked."
                --- The Duke of Coffin Castle
X-Subliminal-Message: Just say fhe
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 12:53:55 EST
From: Kevin Quentin Sullivan <KQS@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Subject: Re: Paths of the Dead
 <1992Dec13.205007.1993@news.acns.nwu.edu>

In article <1992Dec13.205007.1993@news.acns.nwu.edu>, j-germuska@nwu.edu (Joe
Germuska) says:

>little confused, too.  I don't have the books here to reference, but my
>take was basically this:  the dead in those paths had betrayed Aragorn's
>ancestors, and as thus, were unable to rest.  In preparation for the final
>battle, knowing he would need any and all allies, Aragorn lead his party
>through the paths in order to rally the dead -- by joining him in this

I think that Aragorn took the Paths for several reasons.

First, and most important to him (IMHO), they were a shortcut into the
southern part to Gondor.  "If Aragorn needs haste, bid him remember the
Paths of the Dead" was the message he got from Galadriel (?  I don't
have my books with me so I can't check the exact wording or
circumstances).  Aragorn saw the Black Fleet in the Palantir and had to
stop it before it got to Minas Tirith; if it joined with the host which
was about to attack the city then it would be almost invincible due to
sheer numbers.  If he had had to go around the White Mountains then the
fleet would have been well into Gondor before he could have reached it.
I suppose that had the Paths not been there, he could have asked Gandalf
to summon an eagle or something like that, but there were other
advantages to taking the Paths.

Second, he got the Dead as allies.  Not a bad bargain; he may have been
able to deal with the Fleet without the Dead, but he would have had a
lot more trouble!

Finally, it enabled him to rally the hosts of southern Gondor that
hadn't gone to Minas Tirith for fear that the southern raiders would
raid their land.  If Aragorn had teleported to the Black fleet and
single-handedly sunk all of the ships, he still wouldn't have had time
to rally the hosts of southern Gondor and bring them to Minas Tirith in
time to save it from Sauron's first host.  And the Captains of the West
needed the additional men so that Gondor would be sufficiently protected
from attack while the main army marched to Mordor.

     -Kevin

We're sorry, but the number you have dialed is imaginary.  Please rotate your
phone 90 degrees and try again.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: heinr@sci.kun.nl (Hein Ragas)
Subject: Re: Where do orcs go upon dying?
Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.4.19
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:37:34 GMT

In <1992Dec17.160734.24800@ra.msstate.edu> paul@pj.tmc.edu (Thorongil) writes:

>Another question brought up on the List that I'm posting here to see
>what you think.

>If when elves die they go to the halls of Mandos, and orcs are nothing
>more than captured elves corrupted by Melkor, then do orcs have souls?
>If so, then upon death do they go to the halls of Mandos?

>Thorongil

Orcs go, as far as I can remember, also to the Halls of Mandos. Only
a different section, I guess. ;)
At the end of time, all beings will return to M-E, to do battle one last
time. That's the way I remember reading it in the Silmarillion.

Makes one wonder, what is the use of a final battle when M-E will be no more?
I mean, what would the victorious armies do? And what would happen with the
creatures that would be killed during that battle. I mean, they're allready
dead!!

Hein

Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: djweisbe@unix.amherst.edu (David Weisberger)
Subject: Re: Bombadil
Organization: large
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 02:16:13 GMT

ROBERTSON, MATTHEW C (mcr0193@rigel.tamu.edu) wrote:
: 
: Doesn't it say somewhere that Tom was "eldest and first"?
: If so, wouldn't that mean Tom was Iluvatar?
: 
Nope, it would mean he was "eldest and first" in Middle Earth, not among
those who created it.  And shouldn't it be pretty clear by now that
we simply do not know who or what Tom was?

--
Davebo                    "Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard.
                           I just read the Daily News and swear by every word."
djweisbe@unix.amherst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: djweisbe@unix.amherst.edu (David Weisberger)
Subject: Re: The Hobbit
Organization: large
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 08:28:18 GMT

Marc A Renzoni (renzoni@acsu.buffalo.edu) wrote:
: My copy of the Hobbit has one of the great Eagles on the front of it 
: and what i think is Bilbo.  It's a gold cover, a real nice one..
: 
: Ren

The copy of The Hobbit I read was a green hard-cover which simply
said "The Hobbit" in black letters on the cover.  Other than maps,
there were no illustrations.  (Though maybe runes and a diagram
or two, by Tolkien.)  Isn't that best for a _fantasy_ book?

Along a similar line, the discussion of actors is interesting, but
I hope they never make a movie of Lord of the Rings.

--
Davebo                    "Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard.
                           I just read the Daily News and swear by every word."
djweisbe@unix.amherst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien