HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: paulg@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Paul A Gunderson)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Subject: Winged Hats on Kings
Date: 11 Dec 1992 22:50:23 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <1992Dec11.163120.9996@rchland.ibm.com> BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com writes:
>
>Anyway, I had promised to read _The Hobbit_ to my daughter so I'm going
>to pick up a new copy this weekend.  I haven't looked at the copies at
>the store lately but last time I did the covers of _The Hobbit_ and _LotR_
>were horrible beyond belief.  _The Return of the King_ had some geeky
>looking guy wearing a winged helmet on it.  Are these the only paperback
>editions available?  

I agree that these like most of the modern paperback covers of _The Hobbit_
and _LotR_ are ghastly.  The only covers I really liked were the ones Tolk
did himself.  Have you ever seen the old Pauling Baynes (sp?) covers?  I'm
sure that those taking serious drugs would *dig* them.

But, Tolk did mention that the Gondorian crown was Egyptian in style with
wings.  He even did a fairly crude drawing of it.

But you probably already know this...

>- Bill Seurer     Language and Compiler Development      IBM Rochester, MN
>  Internet: BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com    America On-Line: BillSeurer@aol.com

----
Paul Gunderson
paulg@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: stas@netcom.com (Stanislav Malyshev)
Subject: Re: Tolkien a Racist?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:03:38 GMT

In article <carl-141292091322@mac7.gsfc.nasa.gov> carl@class.gsfc.nasa.gov (Carl F. Hostetter) writes:
>In article <Bz4v2s.80K@comp.vuw.ac.nz>, Michael.Norrish@comp.vuw.ac.nz
>(Michael Norrish) wrote:
>
>> Leaving that to the side, there is still the issue of Tolkien's
>> ranking of his human races. Clearly the Elves are at the top of the
>> heap. The closer it is to the Valar, the better or more superior the
>> race. However, as James has pointed out, those races closer to the
>> divine are characterised as 'blond, blue-eyed' wonders, while the
>> unfortunate Easterlings and Southrons are dark and swarthy. In all
>> honesty, I think we have in these chacracterisations some evidence of
>> an underlying racism in Tolkien's worldview. 
>> 
>
><Insert favorite Anglo-Saxon epithet here>!!! Tolkien's entire
>mythology is based on a dichotomy of light and dark, and the
>gradations in between. Tolkien's races have the same gradation
>because of this fundamental division; the division does not
>exist because of Tolkien's view of the races. In Tolkien, Light
>is holy and pure; would you expect him to make his Light-elves
>jet black? I don't think so!

I absolutely agree.

And I would like to add that one has to have quite an unhealthy
PC-polluted mind to choose a racist interpretation over that
which uses the atomic (to literary devices) light-dark imagery,
which has been used probably since the beginning of story-telling.

>
>|===================================================================|
>|         Carl F. Hostetter      carl@class.gsfc.nasa.gov           |
>|                                                                   |
>|                    Ars longa, vita brevis.                        |
>|          The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.            |
>|  "I wish life was not so short," he thought.  "Languages take     |
>|  such a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about."  |
>|===================================================================|


-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stan Malyshev		|    Open up the windows and let the fresh air out,
stas@soda.berkeley.edu	|    said the television to the shackled children..
stas@netcom.com		|		- King Missile
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rwang@husc8.harvard.edu (Richard Wang)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Subject: Re: Witch-King and various other undead
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:23:23 GMT

>Ever notice that in Lord of the Rings, none of the undead ever identifiably
>killed anyone?  The Barrow-Wight and the Ringwraiths presumably wanted
>to either force hopelessness on people or turn them into undead.  The
>Ringwraths never harmed anyone, and neither did the Dead of Erech.  The
>Unseen Watchers of Minas Morgul also didn't seem to be able to do anything.
>Only Theoden's horse was killed by the RingWrath Lord.  Strange that such
>weapons of terror never killed anyone directly.  As Tolkien says, through
>a recount by Gimli, the Dead didn't need weapons because none could
>withstand them (their fear aura).

>					Michael Lewchuk
>					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA

Wait a minute.  The Witch-King certainly *tried* to kill Frodo by sticking
a Morgul-knife through his heart; he missed, and Frodo was brought just in
time to Elrond, greatest healer in all Middle-Earth.  He looked pretty
convincing when he was trying to kill Eowyn, too.  And probably the bolt
that killed Snowmane was aimed for Theoden, but missed.  Also, when the
Nazgul entered the Shire, the Rangers must have withstood them, for that
was their sworn duty.  I can't see Rangers running away from *anything*;
they took the Paths of the Dead pretty well.  So they most likely were
killed or routed by the Witch-king if the Nazgul were indeed able to enter
the Shire.

Richard Wang
rwang@husc.harvard.edu
From: klaus@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Subject: Re: Morality of slaying Orcs (was Re: Thomas Covenant)
Date: 17 Dec 92 13:10:46 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen

leitm@solb1.essex.ac.uk (Leith M F) writes:

>In article <1gl1s4INN25p@mirror.digex.com> dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz) writes:
>>I thought the game Legolas and Gimli played at the battle of Helms Deep
>>was not from thirst for revenge.  It seemed to be more of a sporting
>>contest.

Callous, yes, but that happens in war. How is that different from
fighter pilots counting kills? 

Klaus O K
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: Question: LOTR Wizards
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 21:11:42 GMT

cannell@churchill.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Eric.Cannell) writes:
>I am guessing that the color of a wizard's clothing has little to do with his 
>or her status on the White Council. After all, it is not clear how Galadriel or
>Elrond ranked. More than likely, status was higher for those who were more 
>ambitious, smooth talking, and to some degree stronger- but not necessarily 
>wiser (thus Galadriel's preference for Gandalf over Saruman). Also, the White
>of Gandalf is something much more than the white of Saruman in his beginning.

My guess would be that the color of a Wizard depended on his/her personality.
The White was probably the leader of the Council and head of the Order, but no
other color distinctions were mentioned.  Radagast is "the brown" probably
due to his affinity with animals.  I have no idea why the Blue Wizards are
blue.  Perhaps mass depression? :)
Saruman broke his "white" color and became "Saruman of many colors", a
scheming person of many personalities to ensnare people for his own ends.
In some sense, by doing this he seems to have lost much of his power by
losing his focus, and, thus, "divided he fell".
Gandlf the Grey Pilgrim -- always wandering, appearing and disappearing,
had the personality of grey smoke.
Gandalf renounces his position as "grey", a person interested in the affairs
of others who never interferes directly, but works from the shadows, for the
position of "white", a person directly visible, and directly opposed to
the dark force of Sauron.  I believe the Mouth of Sauron states this --
Gandalf used to interfere indirectly, now he interferes directly.

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: rao@moose.cccs.umn.edu (Rao Akella)
Subject: Re: Eowyn 
Reply-To: rao@moose.cccs.umn.edu
Organization: Colon Cancer Control Study, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:29:09 GMT



In article <1992Dec16.130927.3008@lgc.com>, mbs@zycor.lgc.com (Matt Shostak) writes:
> 
> [Tolkien] is not saying that at all.  He is merely describing what happened.

What exactly JRRT is saying may be (endlessly) debatable (and probably will
be), but he's NOT "merely describing what happened."  Tolkien made it all up,
and it didn't really happen.  So it's perfectly legit to analyze what he meant
by writing as he did.  Everyone does that with every serious literary work.

-- Rao Akella    <rao@moose.cccs.umn.edu, rao%moose@umnacvx.bitnet>
From: dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Subject: Good and evil things (was Re: Technology and Morality in LOTR)
Date: 18 Dec 1992 12:32:58 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <BzB3s8.AF9@sci.kun.nl> heinr@sci.kun.nl (Hein Ragas) writes:
>
>_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.  Elrond,
Galadriel, and Gandalf are good.  Sauron is evil.  

As to things, the Ring is definitely evil.  Use of it corrupts you,
takes over your soul, and eventually makes you a servent of Sauron.
Yes, it can be used for good, but it is still evil.

I can't think off-hand of an example of something in LOTR that is
inherently good.  The two trees of Valinor, perhaps?  Although one
could argue that, as they were used to help create the Silmarils
which caused much evil, they had a possibility of evil.

No, I'm afraid that it is easier to be evil in LOTR then to be good.
And thus things, and even excessive love for otherwise
good things,  can corrupt you, but they cannot redeem you.

It does seem, however, that the more powerful and valuable something
is, the more perilous it is.  One is much more likely to be corrupted
by the love of a Silmaril then by the love of a river pebble, and
there is more inherent danger in a Palantir then in an acorn.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Subject: Re: Technology and Morality in LOTR
Date: 16 Dec 1992 01:09:55 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

It seems that the lesson here is that technology is bad, magic is
dangerous and liable to be corrupted, and only good hobbit salt-of-the-earth
type behavior is ultimately safe.
From: paulg@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Paul A Gunderson)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Subject: The Disclaimer
Date: 11 Dec 1992 23:15:26 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

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.

The reason for the disclaimer was that George Allen and Unwin, Tolk's
British publishers, forgot or neglected to release an American edition of
_LotR_ when it first came out.  Tolk lost the USA copyright to the original
editon of _LotR_ bcause of this.

Ace Books could *legally* print _LotR_ in the USA without paying royalties.
They began doing so, as well as trying (not very hard at first, admittedly)
to come to some agreement with Tolk.  Houghton-Mifflin, Ballantine and Tolk
revised the original, got new copyrights and released the books with the
disclaimer on them.

As you know, controversy sells.  (Quisp vs. Quake; Tastes Great -- Less
Filling)  When the press got wind of this, the publishing battle of the
century was on!  People stopped buying Ace Books.  People started boycotting
stores that carried Ace Books.  People burned the Ace Books' edition of
_LotR_ and purchased Ballantine's.  (Probably, people bought Ace's version
just to burn them!)

Eventually, Ace wised up.  They stopped printing their edition.  (It was now
out of date anyway.)  They negotiated a settlement with Tolk.  They didn't
have to do, but it gave them *some* good press.

In fact, everyone made out like bandits in the affair.  _LotR_ would
probably have never made it out of cult status without all the noise.  Ace
made a bunch of money, Ballantine made great gobs of money, Tolk got greater
royalties than he otherwise would have.  And, he got a check from Ace that
he wasn't *legally* owed.

_The Hobbit_, on the other hand, never had the same situation.  I don't
think that my copy has any such disclaimer on it.

----
Paul Gunderson
paulg@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Subject: Re: Balrogs vs. Ringwraiths ... and a questi
Date: 17 Dec 1992 12:50:10 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <BzA985.2Hv@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> mdickey@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Gaelmeth) writes:
>Would someone care to give reference to more on Sauron's
>background. 
>background?
>Brevity is ok, as long as there are references.  But, if
>someone wants to, feel free to bring it all into light.
>

From the _Valaquenta_ in _The_Silmarillion_ in the section titled
"Of the Enemies":

	Among those of [Melkor's] servants that have names the
	greatest was that spirit whom the Eldar called Sauron,
	or Gorthaur the Cruel.  In the beginning he was of the 
	Maiar of Aule, and he remained mighty in the lore of
	that people.


The Balrogs were also Maiar, and so could be regarded as cousins
to Sauron.  (But for that matter, so was Gandalf.)

Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: jdliss@unix.amherst.edu (Jeff Liss)
Subject: Should LOTR Movie be Made?
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 04:31:22 GMT

All the talk of casting is very interesting, but some people have expressed
that no such movie should ever be made because it would ruin Tolkein's
vision, or that it would ruin one's ability to envision the characters
for oneself.  Well, I disagree.  The cartoon movies certainly don't affect
my imagination very much though I saw them before I read the books.  Those
images may stick in your head a little bit (Dune) but if you really love
the books, a reinterpretation won't faze you too much.  After all, some
people talk like making a movie would be some sort of attempt to replace
the books, which of course is impossible.

However, a movie ought to honor the books and stay true to their spirit;
otherwise, it's simply not worth doing it.  So, if you ask me, the movies
should never be made, unless it was going to be done right -- and in the
case of Lord of the Rings, "doing it right" is an extremely tall order.

As a proverbial filmmaker, I would have to have a deal with a studio
guaranteeing that all three movies would be made.  I do think that the
stories could be simplified into three longish movies without screwing
it up.  This kind of thing has to be absolutely sure-fire for a studio
to make that sort of commitment.  Back to the Future II and III were made
back to back without seeing the ticket sales of II.  The new Star Wars
trilogy will probably go this route.  In addition, the budget would
have to be tremendous.  I mean, call the Japanese companies.  Call 
Michael Jackson.  The sources of money would have to be various and
at least somewhat guaranteed.  On top of it all, the movies would have to
be tremendous successes, without fail.  Despite the loyalty of alot of
fans, I don't know that you can say that as many people would go to see
a good, arty version of Fellowship as would Terminator 2 or Home Alone.

So, forget it; unless something truly unusual develops it's way out of reach.
Even the mostly-cartoon Lord of the Rings, which was really pretty good,
couldn't get through half of it; and whatever bunch of folk singers did
The Hobbit ended up getting a hold of Return of the King -- blah.

Jeff
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Subject: Re: Silmaril in the Sky
Date: 16 Dec 92 03:42:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <14DEC199203033225@juliet.caltech.edu>, waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu (Broughton, Wayne Jeremy) writes...
>I don't know if this is common knowledge, but right around now and at
>least for the rest of this month the Silmaril on Earendil's brow is
>brilliantly visible.  In the west, not long (maybe an hour) after sunset,
>it shines brighter than anything else, our last glimpse of the light
>of the Two Trees.  I am writing this from the Los Angeles area, but I
>think the Eveningstar is visible for a long way both north and south 
>of here.  The other two Silmarils are lost to us, but check out the
>one in the Sky as Earendil continues to sail through the heavens.

	It's brilliantly visible from Buffalo, NY.  I knew immediately
what I was looking at, and I was reminded of the story of Earendil
because I've been reading this conference lately.

	Enjoy it while it's here!

Mark
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: solovay@netcom.com (Andrew M. Solovay)
Subject: Re: Balrogs vs. Ringwraiths ... and a questi
Organization: Jews for Melkor
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:56:57 GMT

In article <KETIL.92Dec14162659@spurv.ii.uib.no> ketil@ii.uib.no writes:
>
>
>The balrog facing gandalf didn't seem at all sure of itself when
>Gandalf mumbled something about being a 'servant of the dark fire' or
>some such.

Of course the Balrog was unsure. Gandalf's specialty was fire;
beyond which, he wielded the Elven Ring which gave mastery of
fire. Enough to put any Balrog off his feed.
-- 
Andrew Solovay    

"We all have faults, and mine is being wicked."
                --- The Duke of Coffin Castle
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: solovay@netcom.com (Andrew M. Solovay)
Subject: Re: Balrogs vs. Ringwraiths ... and a questi
Organization: People's Front of Judea
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:51:50 GMT

In article <15DEC199223295108@juliet.caltech.edu> waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu (Broughton, Wayne Jeremy) writes:
>
>Oh dear, sexism alert:  why did I refer to the Balrog as "he"?  How is
>"it" referred to in LotR?

As "he". Viz. _The_Two_Towers_, p. 134 ff., e.g.: "He was with me
still. His fire was quenched, but now he was a thing of slime,
stronger than a strangling snake."
-- 
Andrew Solovay    

"SILENCE = QUIET"
                --Girljock Magazine
From: mcr0193@rigel.tamu.edu (ROBERTSON, MATTHEW C)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Subject: Bombadil
Date: 13 Dec 1992 18:55 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rigel.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    


Doesn't it say somewhere that Tom was "eldest and first"?
If so, wouldn't that mean Tom was Iluvatar?
Just a thought...;-)
Matt







Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: kelsey@jupiter.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Mike Kelsey)
Subject: A question of respect and form
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 01:32:14 GMT

In this group, as in many, the regular posters are developing conventional
abbreviations for the common subject matter.  I have seen, for example,

	LoTR, LOTR, LTR		for _The_Lord_of_the_Rings_,
	The Sil			for _The_Silmarillion_,
	HoME, HM-E		for _The_History_of_Middle-Earth_ (series)

and others.  One that disturbs me is the use of "Tolk" for the Professor.
Maybe I was just brought up in too old-fashioned a household, but that strikes
me as somewhat disrespectful to a writer and thinker of his caliber.  I'm not
trying to put anyone down; it's been bothering me a bit, and the people who
post to this group seem sufficiently "mature" not to take it personally.
						-- Mike Kelsey
-- 
[  My opinions are not endorsed by SLAC, Caltech, or the US government  ]
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.  Attack ships on fire off
the shoulder  of Orion.   I've watched  C-beams glitter in  the darkness
near the Tannhauser Gate.  All these memories will be lost in time, like
tears in the rain."  -- Roy Batty
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: steph@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson)
Subject: Re: Technology and Morality in LOTR
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:36:05 GMT

In <1gquasINNne1@gap.caltech.edu> laurence@cco.caltech.edu (Dustin Lee Laurence) writes:
>steph@perseus.cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson) writes:

>>I think the ring is an *entity*, trapped in an object.  Not passive, and
>>possessed of semi-free will.

>It's certainly not an entity of it's own.  Like the Elven rings, it is at
>least partly a piece of Sauron's own innate power.  The advantage of the
>rings is that they allow their maker greater use of that power; the
>disadvantages, of course, are a major part of the plot.  What entity-like
>attributes it has derive from the fact that it is part of Sauron, given
>semi-independent existence.

I disagree -- while I do think it has part of Sauron's power, I don't believe
it is simply a tool for expansion of power.  As a matter of fact, I see very
little evidence that the Ring ever tried to get back to Sauron.  It would 
have been far happier with a suitable tool it could dominate (like Boromir)
than with the domineering Lord of the Rings.  And in the end, it was the Ring's
own pride that caused its destruction.

IMHO, of course.
-- 
Dale J. Stephenson |*| (steph@cs.uiuc.edu) |*| Baseball fanatic

  "It is considered good to look wise, especially when not 
   overburdened with information" -- J. Golden Kimball
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: airdg@castle.ed.ac.uk (Richard Grey)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Subject: Re: Is the Deluxe LOTR good?
Date: 14 Dec 92 22:50:21 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1g2qkfINNght@sauna.cs.hut.fi> logerius@psykoman.cs.hut.fi (Lord Logerius of Angmar) writes:
>
>			HI!
>
>
>	Hmm,yes, is the Deluxe edition how good?? Because they
>have run out in a local store and i'm thinking of ordering the set,
>but it is somewhat expensive and me being a poor student I would like 
>to know how good it is,before I let the book swallow my budget whole..

	Actually, the content is EXACTLY the same as any
	other LOTR script !!

	Seriously though, the book is nice to have and browse
	through - there are some really good piccies - but I
	couldn't imagine lying in bed trying to read it ! Also, 
	the pages are dead thin and the writing tends to come
	through from the other side, this just annoys me a
	trifle !

Richard.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  	   	         airdg@castle.ed.ac.uk
          _______   __   ______   __   __   _______   _______   _______
         / ___  /  / /  / ____/  / /  / /  / ___  /  / ___  /  / ___  /
        / /__/_/  / /  / /      / /--/ /  / /__/ /  / /__/_/  / /  / /
       / /\ \    / /  / /___   / /--/ /  / /--/ /  / /\ \    / /__/ /
      /_/  \_\  /_/  /_____/  /_/  /_/  /_/  /_/  /_/  \_\  /______/

	{ Edinburgh University Dept. of Artificial Intelligence }
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien