HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: davidy@sumax.seattleu.edu (Stimpson J. Cat)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Subject: Re: Where do orcs go upon dying?
Date: 20 Dec 1992 03:12:23 -0800
Organization: Seattle University
NNTP-Posting-Host: sumax.seattleu.edu

In article <1992Dec19.182435.11632@uwasa.fi> a70860@uwasa.fi (Carl Patrik Andila) writes:
>Carl F. Hostetter (carl@class.gsfc.nasa.gov) wrote:
>: In article <1992Dec18.144135.16398@uwasa.fi>, a70860@uwasa.fi (Carl Patrik
>: Andila) wrote:
>: > 
>: > Thorongil (paul@pj.tmc.edu) wrote:
>: > : 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 suppose they do, unless Morgoth grabs their souls on death, there
> [ Deleted arguments, references to Feanor & others ] 
>
>: There is no "birthright"; they can turn to the West, as Saruman did,
>: but they will likely be rejected, as Saruman was.
>: 

	I always assumed they went into the great void. I don't have any
proof of this I can recall offhand, but if they have no place else to go,
it seems the everlasting void would be their lot.

>
>	A related matter, the souls of Saruman, Sauron, and many others
>were denied entry into the land of the Valar -- but were did they go after
>that? Tolkien left a hole in his reasoning here it seems. Morgoth's case 
>appears to have been unique, no others were imprisoned in the same way.
>
>-Patrik    


		Morgoth was never "killed." The Valar always took him alive
in the pits of whatever dungeon he was trapped in. He was captured alive,
tried, and hurled in the fastness of Mandos. Whereas, Sauron and Saruman
were killed in actuality - Sauron killed twice, really, when his body was
destroyed in Numenor during the Downfall and again when Elendil and gil-Galad
slew him in front of the Black Tower. However, because the One Ring was imbued
with so much of his power and will, so long as it lasted Sauron also survived,
and could take on a new shape. Upon destruction of the Ring, this, the greater
part of his essence, was destroyed and Sauron perished in reality. Saruman,
of course, was slain outright by Wormtongue.   



					David L. Yee
				email to:davidy@sumax.seattleu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: a70860@uwasa.fi (Carl Patrik Andila)
Subject: Re: Where do orcs go upon dying?
Organization: University of Vaasa, Finland
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 14:41:35 GMT

Thorongil (paul@pj.tmc.edu) wrote:
: 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 suppose they do, unless Morgoth grabs their souls on death, there
is no mention of his doing this in any of the books. Thus they can claim
their birthright as descendants of the free peoples. The evil/semi-evil
elves of the first and second ages certainly did get to the Halls of Mandos.

-Patrik
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: jchokey@leland.Stanford.EDU (James Alexander Chokey)
Subject: Re: Tolkien a Racist?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 05:36:01 GMT

In article <1ggr4cINNk6u@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> rfd@po.CWRU.Edu (Richard F. Drushel) writes:
>
>	The Elves are *NOT* blonde, blue-eyed wonders!  From Appendix F:
>"They were tall, fair of skin and grey-eyed, though their locks were dark,
>save in the golden house of Finarfin..."  Blue/grey are arguable; but
>the Eldar were mostly dark-haired.

	Well, they certainly are fair of skin--  I don't think there's a 
single Elf in all of LOTR who is not described as "fair" at some time or 
another.  Elves' eyes are usually described as being either blue or grey. 
(Mostly because they have such an affinity with the sky, I think).  As for 
Elven hair, it does vary a lot.  No description is given of the first group of
Elves in the series (Gildor and his companions).  Glorfindel's hair is
long and "golden."  Elrond's is black, as is Arwen's.  Galadriel's, however,
is "golden" and Celeborn's is "silver."  I don't remember any passage where
Legolas' hair is described.
	The Elves may not be "blonde, blue-eyed wonders" but they clearly
are an extremely fair people in terms of skin and many, but not all, of them 
are as fair in their hair as they are in their skin.

	--  Jim C. <jchokey@leland.stanford.edu>
From: rsteele@adam.ll.mit.edu (Rob Steele)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Subject: Re: Good and evil things (was Re: Technology and Morality in LOTR)
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:59:41 GMT
Reply-To: rob@ll.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

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. ;) )

Okay.  Pphhtttt.  There.

No, really.  Middle Earth's moral system is theistic.  Everything was  
created good but some things later fell into corruption.  The higher  
and better a being was in the beginning, the deeper and more foul the  
fall.  Of course, the highest and best things were beings with  
personality, intelligence and will--that's what makes them so terrible  
when they're corrupted.

Now, there were very few, if any, things that were not touched by the  
fall so this far you are right, nothing (much) is _perfectly_ good.   
Everything is _inherently_ good but corrupted to a greater or lesser  
extent.  Nothing is perfectly evil either, perfect evil being a  
self-consuming nullity or non-existence that would not be observable if  
it's even possible.  Even the most evil being retains something of his  
original self.

To summarize, all things are inherently good but have the potential for  
evil.  Some things are realizing their potential for evil but have not  
got so far as to loose existence (a good) itself.

The important thing is the direction in which a thing is moving.
-------------------------------------------------------
Rob Steele                            rob@ll.mit.edu
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
244 Wood St., M-203
Lexington, MA  02173               These ideas are all borrowed.
617/981-2575
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: jclander@texas.mitre.org (Julian C. Lander)
Subject: Re: Aragorn
Reply-To: jclander@texas.mitre.org (Julian C. Lander)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:57:04 GMT


In article <Bz7K13.DDu@umassd.edu>, s13989bc@UMASSD.EDU writes:
|>   Arogorn lived for 210 years. he ruled for six-score years. This
|> makes you wonder how old he was physically rather than chronologically
|> when compared to the average man not of the Dunedain. What do you 
|> think?

There is some discussion of the aging process of the Dunedain in one
of the early Christopher Tolkein edited JRRT books.  It's either 
_Unfinished Tales_ (most likely) or one of the _Book of Lost Tales_
volumes.

The statement, which is made in reference to kings of Numenor, is that
they grew to manhood at normal rates and declined at the end of their
lives at normal rates (about 10 years from functionality to death sticks
in my mind).  The issue of whether 10 years is normal any more is a 
modern cultural one: longetivity varies between the UK and the US, and
there have been great strides since JRRT's heyday.  

I'd suggest, then, that from birth to about 20, Aragorn was indistinguishable
from anyone else in development speed.  From then to about 190, he aged
the equivalent of about 40 years (20 to 60), so roughly 1/5 the rate of
"normal" people.  Then from 190 to 210 he aged from 60 to 80 (or so) and died.
These numbers of conjecture; I made the breaks (at 20 and 60) up myself.

Frankly, I'd suspect that JRRT did not develop the idea in detrail beyond
the limited statement paraphrased above.   One thing to look at for more 
development is the table of kings of Numenor (in _Unfinished Tales_?), because
the early kings abdicated before entering old age.

Julian C. Lander
jclander@mitre.org
From: hbcs1010@blurt.oswego.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Subject: Re: Why all the fuss?
Date: 11 Dec 92 16:35:50 GMT
Organization: SUNY College at Oswego, Oswego, NY

In article <nca233_@rpi.edu>, schere@aix.rpi.edu (Mithrandir) writes:
> In article <1992Dec5.011619.27873@netcom.com> solovay@netcom.com (Andrew M. Solovay) writes:
>>
>>What's all the fuss about Tolkien? I mean, he was okay, but Lord
>>of the Rings is so talky, it doesn't really hold up against more
>>recent fantasy. Have any of you people read Terry Brooks's
>>"Shannarah" books? They've got everything LOTR has, and more of
>>it.
>>-- 
>>Andrew M. Solovay    
>>
>>"Of course you realize this means war."
>>                --- Bugs Bunny
> 
> War indeed.
> To the above post I reply "Oh PULEEEZE!"
> 
> I doubt the person who wrote th "Shannarah" books spent 50 years
> developing first a language (!) a people to speak it, than a history of
> those people.  Also, not one language, but several(!).
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Many are my names in many countries.  Mithrandir among the Elves, Tharkun to 
> the Dwarves; Olorin I was in my youth in the West that is forgotten, in the 
> South Incanus, in the North Gandalf; to the East I go not.




hi,just dropping in for a minute. why do i find a really good newsgroup like
this when my account's about to expire?

 anyway, i just wanted to say that the shannara series is such a blatant ripoff
of LotR that it isn't funny. seriously, look at it .......  you've got the same
basic  races, a mysterious  wizard-figure, abunch of more  or less ordinary
people who go on to save the world from the same type of evil, etc, etc,
etc...... you can't seriously put it on the same level as LotR.

$0.02 

-diedre
From: sam4628@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Subject: Re: Eowyn (was Re: Elf-human pairings)
Date: 15 Dec 1992 08:58 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Dec15.093243.17296@odin.diku.dk>, klaus@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) writes...
>jchokey@leland.Stanford.EDU (James Alexander Chokey) writes:
> 
> 
>>In article <1992Dec11.155406.7750@ra.msstate.edu> paul@pj.tmc.edu (Thorongil) writes:
> 
>>	And she also cops out at the end and decides that she would be
>>content just to marry a nobleman.  She starts off as a "battling woman," but
>>she renounces that status and ends up simply being a noble female for Faramir
>>to marry--  ultimately occupying the same functional role that Arwen does
>>for Aragorn.  The message imparted by Eowyn really seems to be that women
>>may want to go out in the world and be active like men are, but that ultimately
>>they'd really be more content just to get married and concern themselves with
>>domestic affairs.
> 
>Yes, Eowyn marries. So does Faramir. So does Aragorn. So did Beren, and
>Hurin, and Tour. Even Tulkas is married. Why is it a cop-out for Eowyn
>to marry?
> 
>Klaus O K

Also, has no one noticed that (when she gives up fighting and marries) she
marries a man who wasn't all that enamoured with fighting to begin with?
If she has "lowered" her standards, then Faramir had low standards to start
with.  Arguably (since the point is made that the love of battle for its own
sake is a lessening of men) her change of attitude is toward the more noble.
That she happens to marry someone of like mind may not even be relevant.
It's not like she married someone like Boromir, so that she could tend
house while he was out "winning glory".  The point I'm trying to make is
that (in Tolkien's universe) Eowyn didn't lower herself when she changed
her attitude; rather, she raised her standards.  Did any of this make sense,
or am I babbling? (be kind! :-)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Steven A. McCluney                 |"Strange women lying in ponds    |
| sam4628@zeus.tamu.edu              | distributing swords is no basis |
| I'm a grad student, so my opinions | for a system of government!"    |
|    are worthless anyway            |          Dennis, to King Arthur |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mnaka@buckaroo.ics.uci.edu (Merri L Naka)
Subject: Glorfindel: one or two?
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Keywords: Glorfindel
Date: 12 Dec 92 08:46:30 GMT

Here's something that I've been wondering about for a long time: A
Glorfindel is mentioned in The Silmarillion.  He's the one who saves
the day for the some of the Gondolindrim, fleeing from the destruction
of their city.  He's killed and his body is (saved by the eagles and)
buried up in the mountains.

Now in TLOTR, there is mention of a Glorfindel, who helps Frodo and
co. on their way to Imladris.

Question: Is the Glorfindel mentioned in TLOTR the same Glorfindel of
Gondolin, come back to Middle Earth?

Pardon me if this is mentioned in another book, but please let me know
if it is.  I've only read The Silmarillion and TLOTR, though both many
times!  :)

Thanks,
Merri

--
Merri Naka
mnaka@ics.uci.edu
University of California, Irvine
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Technology and Morality in LOTR 
Originator: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu
Reply-To: gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Organization: in your face!
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 23:47:41 GMT

In article <steph.724617618@perseus.cs.uiuc.edu> 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.

This is taken directly from the "Of the Rings of Power and the Third
Age" chapter of _The Silmarillion_:

Now the Elves made many rings; but secretly Sauron made the One Ring
to rule all the others, and their power was bound up with it, to be
subject wholly to it and to last only so long as it too shall last.
And much of the strength and will of Sauron passed into that One Ring;
for the power of the Elven-rings was very great, and that which should
govern them must be a thing of surpassing potency; and Sauron forged
it in the Mountain of Fire in the Land of Shadow.

It is clear that the Ring possesses some degree of free will of it's
own (as opposed to that of the bearer).
From: mcconnel@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu (Mike McConnell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Subject: Re: Racism Survives!
Date: 16 Dec 92 13:59:21 GMT
Organization: Kent State University

Doesn't Gandalf, at some point, suggest that one of Sauron's most evil mechan-
izations is in his ability to 'separate' the peoples of Middle-Earth and set them
at odds with one another.  This sounds like Tolkien is making and anti-racist
statement IMO.

Mike McConnell
Dept. of Mathematics
Kent State University
From: Ari.Huttunen@hut.fi (Ari Huttunen)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Subject: Re: Other series?
Date: 13 Dec 92 01:36:02
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: cardhu.cs.hut.fi
In-reply-to: rwang@husc8.harvard.edu's message of 11 Dec 92 21:23:59 GMT

In article <rwang.724109039@husc8> rwang@husc8.harvard.edu (Richard Wang) writes:

! Ursula LeGuin's Earthsea Trilogy.  Excellent, if a little preachy in my
! eyes.

These are some of the best books I've read. At least I remember them
that way. It's been many years since I read those.

Another good series is The Winter of the World -trilogy by Michael
Scott Rohan. Neither this nor the previously mentioned Earthsea
try to imitate Tolkien, which is a good thing since you can't 
make it better than he has done it.

I'm also currently reading Guy Gavriel Kay's "The Summer Tree". There's
a writing at the back saying: "The only fantasy work I know which
does not suffer by comparison with the Lord of the Rings". This book's
quite good but it does suffer by the comparison. 

...............................................................................
Ari Huttunen				 Darth Vader sleeps with a Teddywookie.

You find a scroll of .signature anti-virus. <more>

You read the scroll. <more>

You feel an urge to copy the contents of the scroll to your .signature. <more>

You feel protected.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: rlm2910@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (OnedayTasmaniawillruletheworld!)
Subject: Re: Tolkien a Racist?
Reply-To: rlm2910@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 04:16:05 GMT


	Briefly, I don't think that Tolkien was a racist, I imagine most people
notice that most of the heroes are "caucasian" but that would make sense based
on many of the things Tolkien said describing his works.
	In his first writings Tolkien saya that one of his reasons for writing
the stories that would become the Sil. is to write a history for England. He
felt it did not have proper legends concerning the origins of people in
England. It is risky to link this with the much later LotR I know, but I assume
(personally) that he still felt he was continuing that story to some
degree. I believe most ancient legends and myths probably show the creators
of those legends, and those who hand them down, as superior to all other
people no matter who they are. Since the story of the War of the Ring is
portrayed as series of legends , possibly about those people who would become
the celltic/germanic people, It makes sense that they will be portrayed as
superior to those other peoplles around them.
	Or maybe I am just rationalizing because the good guys in the book are
"nordic" and the bad guuys are "swarthy" and Ican't stand to think that one of
my favorite authors was racist (if you want to apply today's views to older
ones, a wwhole other argument)


	Rich M.

	"I'll show you the life of the mind!"
		-Charlie

Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: s13989bc@UMASSD.EDU
Subject: Re; reign of Aragorn
Reply-To: s13989bc@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:29:01 GMT

in my last post I requested toe lenght of Aragorn's kingship. Well after I
posted I found it . Sorry for the wasted space. In case anyone wanted
to know his reign lasted six score years. That's quite a while for a
greying weather worn Ranger!!! Thanks anyway. And sorry again.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: Where do orcs go upon dying?
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 00:56:46 GMT

craig@b11.b11.ingr.com (Craig Presson) writes:
>Origin stories for all of the races would definitely be grist for the
>FAQL. In particular, I don't think what you say here is attested; I
>remember statements about the Orcs being made _in mockery of elves_ or
>some such, in similar vein to the creation of Dwarves from stone by
>Aule. Same argument, lesser importance, for Ents>>Trolls. I'll try to
>find the textual support for this ... all/any welcome to beat me to it.

The only person who supports this is Fangorn, and he might be wrong
about the origins of Orcs and Trolls (but then again he might not be).

>-- Craig Presson

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: case@infonode.ingr.com (Bill Case)
Subject: Re: Should LOTR Movie be Made?
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:18:52 GMT

In article <BzA9wB.5zD@unix.amherst.edu> jdliss@unix.amherst.edu (Jeff Liss) writes:
>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.

It has a big affect on me if I see movies after the book.  In books,  my 
imagination fills in the gaps and allows me to fashion characters which I 
think fit the story.  A subsequent, explicit visual presentation will 
obliterate that supplied by my imagination.  I loved "Little Drummer Girl", 
then saw the movie and found short, squatty people in roles where my 
imagination had had long lanky characters.  Diane Keaton wasn't MY heroine.  
Yet after that movie,  my characters were lost -  Obliterated by the movie.  
I remember when Charlie Brown first walked and talked.  It was all wrong,  
yet I can't recall how MY Charlie Brown talked.  I have been forced to adopt 
someone's else's view of how he talks.  granted,  I'm at the radical fringe 
on this.  I'm reading the Hobbit and LotR to my daughter,  and the Hobbit 
book has this awful rendering of what Bilbo Baggins looks like.  I don't
want her to see that because I want her to have her own Bilbo Baggins.
LotR is manna to the imagination.  Movies are created by imaginative
people,  but the medium steamrolls over the viewer's imagination.  They 
don't leave gaps for the imagination.

Bill "guess my weight and height" Case
case@ingr.com
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
From: erikt@sci.kun.nl (Erik van de Tier)
Subject: Re: The movie...
Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 11:23:45 GMT

>Who would you like to see direct a LoTR movie?
>My vote would go to...
>1) Martin Scorsese
>2) David Lynch (could be interesting...)
>3) George Lucas (if he promised not bastardize it into some
>                 'kids' movie)
>What does everyone else think out there in netland?

I think Ridly scott (I hope I spelled his name right!) should be on that
list !!

________________________________________________________________________
Erik van der Tier (erikt@sci.kun.nl)
From: genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Subject: Re: Please, Sir, I want some more.
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:53:28 GMT
Organization: Department of Industrial Engineering

Thus spake paulg@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Paul A Gunderson):
>
>>	3) Patricia McKillip's "RiddleMaster" trilogy.
>
>I have read LotR some twenty times, founded a JRRT fan club in high school
>(17 years ago), and read almost everything Tolk & son Chris wrote.  I had an
>order in for _The Silmarillion_ seven months before it was released.
>
>All this is a prelude to saying that I like this series better than LotR.
>I still weep while reading it.  And I first read it after I became jaded
>with fantasy books.

I would be the last person to deny Paul his enjoyment in this series, for
it is truly a day to celebrate when anyone find a book that they get this
much pleasure out of.  But let me counterweight Paul's statement by saying
that I tried, I really tried, to enjoy this series, but I could never find
any point to it.  It went on and on (to nowhere I could discover), and the
characters did things (for reasons I couldn't fathom), but that's about it.

But I did remember another book:  if you have a strong stomach, Orson Scott
Card's book "Hart's Hope" will put you through an emotional wringer that is
worth the pain.


-- 
       David Tate        |"Out of the dugout endlessly swinging,
 dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu | Out of the manager's throat, the sound fundamentals,
 Prof. of Story Problems | Out of the six-month season..."            
 Member ORSA, TIMS, SABR | 	Walt "Lefty" Whitman
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien