Posted on 03/14/2002 5:07:26 AM PST by HairOfTheDog
This is a continuation of the infamous thread New Zealander Builds Hobbit Hole originally posted on January 26, 2001 by John Farson, who at the time undoubtedly thought he had found a rather obscure article that would elicit a few replies and die out. Without knowing it, he became the founder of the Hobbit Hole. For reasons incomprehensible to some, the thread grew to over 4100 replies. It became the place for hobbits and friends of hobbits to chit chat and share LoTR news and views, hang out, and talk amongst ourselves in the comfort of familiar surroundings.
In keeping with the new posting guidelines, the thread idea is continuing here, as will the Green Dragon Inn, our more structured spin-off thread, as soon as we figure out how to move all the good discussion that has been had there. As for the Hobbit Hole, we will just start fresh, bringing only a few mathoms such as the picture above with us to make it feel like home, and perhaps a walk down memory lane:
Our discussion has been light:
It very well may be that a thread named "New Zealander builds Hobbit hole" will end up being the longest Tolkien thread of them all, with some of the best heartfelt content... Sorry John, but I would have rather it had been one with a more distinguished title!… post 252 - HairOfTheDog
However, I can still celebrate, with quiet dignity, the fact that what started as a laugh about some wacko in New Zealand has mutated and grown into a multifaceted discussion of the art, literature, and philosophy that is Tolkien. And now that I've managed to write the most pompous sentence of my entire life, I agree, Rosie… post 506 - JenB
Hah! I was number 1000!! (Elvish victory dance... wait, no; that would be too flitty) … post 1001 - BibChr
Real men don't have to be afraid of being flitty! Go for it. – post 1011 – HairOfTheDog
Seventeen years to research one mystical object seems a bit excessive… post 1007 - JenB
Okay...who's the wise guy who didn't renew Gandalf's research grant?… post 1024 – Overtaxed
To the very philosophical:
…Judas Iscariot obviously was a good man, or he wouldn't have been chosen to be one of the Apostles. He loved Jesus, like all of the Apostles, but he betrayed him. Yet without his betrayal, the Passion and Crucifixion would never have occurred, and mankind would not have been redeemed. So without his self-destruction infinite good would not have been accomplished. I certainly do not mean this to be irreverant but it seems to me that this describes the character of Gollum, in the scenes so movingly portrayed above… Lucius Cornelius Sulla
To fun but heartfelt debates about the integrity and worth of some of the characters…
…Anyone else notice how Boromir treats the hobbits? He's very fond of them but he seems to think of them as children - ruffling Frodo's hair, calls them all 'little ones'. He likes them, but I don't think he really respects them… post 1536 - JenB
Yes... Tolkien told us not to trust Boromir right off the bat when he began to laugh at Bilbo, until he realized that the Council obviously held this hobbit in high esteem. What a pompous dolt… post 1538 - HairOfTheDog
…I think almost every fault of his can be traced directly back to his blindness to anything spiritual or unseen. He considers the halflings as children, because that is what they look like. He considers the only hope of the ring to be in taking it and using it for a victory in the physical realm. He cannot see what the hobbits are truly made of, he cannot see the unseen hope of what the destruction of the ring might mean--the destruction of Sauron himself, and he cannot see the unseen danger that lies in the use of the ring itself… I just feel sorry for Boromir--he is like a blind but honorable man, trying to take the right path on the road but missing the right path entirely because he simply cannot see it… post 1548 - Penny1
Boromir isn't a jerk, he's a jock… post 2401 – Overtaxed
-----------------------------------------
Oh, I think by the time Frodo reaches the Cracks, he's not even himself anymore! I think he's not only on the brink of a dangerous place physically, he's on the brink of losing himself completely during the exchange with Gollum. But for some reason, the take-over isn't complete till he actually has to throw the Ring in. The person speaking to Gollum is not Frodo, but the "Wheel of Fire" that Sam sees. After the Ring is destroyed, Frodo not only comes back to himself, but comes back with the unbearable (to him) knowledge of what it's like to be completely without compassion. I think that's why it's so important to him to be compassionate in the Shire… post 2506 - 2Jedismom
…Regarding Frodo's compassion... it's a little too much at the end. Even Merry tells him that he's going to have to quit being so darn nice. But you're right. He's learned a lesson about evil that very few ever learn since it wasn't an external lesson but an internal one. (Those kinds of lessons have the greatest impact) Not only did he totally succumb to it, but he was rather ruthless to my little Smeagol… post 2516 - carton253
Well that Frodo was a big mean bully! (to Smeagol)… post 2519 – Overtaxed
So as you can see, everything JRR Tolkien (and Peter Jackson) is welcome here in our New Row, our soon-to-be familiar New Hobbit Hole…; philosophy, opinion, good talk and frequent silliness.
just got done stuffin' my face with mucho barbeue...we had a farewell lunvh here for a couple of Marines... think I'll quietly slip into a food coma...then run till I pass out to work it off...and so I can drink pints tonite...
Do you at least run in a safe place? - I would hate to see you layin' on a sidewalk somewhere until you recover!
Stop comparing Harry Potter to The Lord of the Rings. . . . Rowling's series is elitist kiddie fare that serves to make modern American children even more narcissistic than they are, and Tolkien's is a masterpiece and—this is crucial—a completely adult tragedy with profound moral and religious implications.Mark Gauvreau Judge commentator, Baltimore City Paper
In an effort to deflect concerns about Rowling's books, Potter supporters have consistently likened the Harry Potter series to the works of J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis. This has been done continuously through an unending stream of news stories, interviews, and book reviews. The following statement by Judy Corman, spokesperson for Scholastic Press (J.K. Rowling's U.S. publisher), is typical: "There's something these parents are missing, which is it's a magical book. It takes its place along the best in classic literature for children, along with . . . The Chronicles of Narnia [C.S. Lewis] and Lord of the Rings [J.R.R. Tolkien]." A similar comment appeared in a Knight Ridder News Service story: "Rowling's books are not so much anti-Christian as they are fully Christian, drawing on the legacy of fellow British writers C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, whose popular tales about the magical lands of Narnia and Middle Earth were written as Christian allegory."
But such a position is seriously flawed. Most obviously, because the fantasy tales of Tolkien and Lewis fall within the category of mythopoetic literature, meaning that they take place in worlds disassociated from the real world in which we live. As Dr. Curt Brannan of Washington's Bear Creek School District observes: "[In Lewis' and Tolkien's works] there is no confusion in the child's mind . . . that these are mythical characters in a mythical place." The Harry Potter books, however, are not mythopoetic. Unlike Lewis' and Tolkien's creations, Rowling's world is our 1990s world, complete with contemporary forms of occultism (e.g., astrology and divination), and references to persons and events from our own human history (e.g., Nicholas Flamel, Hand of Glory, Witch Hunts). Rowling's novels also use a vastly different definition of "magic" than the one used by Lewis and Tolkien. Furthermore, the Harry Potter series promotes a concept of right and wrong that is radically altered from the one presented by Lewis and Tolkien. In the works Lewis (and Tolkien) issues of "morality and integrity are at stake and dealt with as important and significant concerns."
Tolkien, for instance, illustrates right and wrong/good and evil not only through the choices his characters make, but how those choices affect others. His stories raise issues involving the consequences of disobedience, the merits of self-sacrifice, the detrimental effects of negative emotions (e.g., pride, greed, lust, unforgiveness, etc.), and the need to fulfill one's responsibilities for the benefit of others, even when those responsibilities are difficult and painful.
Lewis' tales offer similar morality lessons. The most obvious example involves the disobedience of Edmund Pevensie, a little boy whose errant ways subject him to the power of the wicked White Witch. To rescue Edmund, Aslan offers himself as a sacrifice on the ancient Stone Table. Although he is killed, Aslan rises again through a "deeper" magic unknown to the witch. This sacrificial love convicts Edmund of his evil ways, and he repents of his sins. Ultimately, the once mischievous Edmund is transformed by Aslan's love into Narnia's "King Edmund the Just." In the Harry Potter series, however, morality is presented inconsistently. Bad characters turn out to be good. Good characters turn out to be bad. Misbehavior is condoned as long as the eventual outcome is either fun or rewarding (e.g., Harry's lying and disobedience). Good deeds bring about evil results (Harry shows mercy by sparing Pettigrew's life, but this eventually leads to the rising of Voldemort and the murder of Cedric). Harmful deeds are committed to bring about positive results (e.g., Sirius Black, while in the form of a dog, drags Ron into a secret corridor beneath a tree, breaking Ron's leg in the process, in order to get Harry to follow and learn the truth about Peter Pettigrew). In short, Rowling's moral universe is a topsy-turvy world with no firm rules of right and wrong, or any godly principles by which to determine the truly good from the truly evil.
Having never read any of Harry Potter I was wondering if any of you agreed with the above.
I did that watching the Leonids last year....does that count?
Do you prefer instrumental or vocal, slow or fast, very traditional or somewhat modern?
I like a lot of 'em, actually, but just ordered Shantalla, Patrick Street/Compendium, and The Bothy Band/Live in Concert. (Three CDs is a major splurge, but I still have a TON on my wish list, and for $7, I can't help it!)
You can listen to a LOT of their albums (full albums, not samples) online here.
Whistle Note: OT, this would be a GREAT time to pick up Joannie Madden's CD ("A Whistle on the Wind")...it's a good 'un!
That's nice...loverly imagery. Thank you SO much for SHARING!
NOT!!
I've heard cuts from it on Spinner.com. I'll look into it as soon as I get on a computer with a soundcard.
And if you like solo Irish fiddle, Kevin Burke's "In Concert" CD is wonderful!
Someday I need to get me one o' those! Though my usual m-o is to play one CD over and over and over and over until I'm completely sick of it, and then move on to another...so I'm not sure if I'd get full use out of a changer!
My Daddy loved to hunt. His favorite was 'primitive weapon season'; he poured his own shot for his muzzle loader and everything. His favorite was bow hunting, though. Must have been his Cherokee heritage coming through. He'd set up a target in the backyard and practice. Even when I was in college taking archery classes, I couldn't pull that string back on his bow!
My brothers got together one Christmas and gave Daddy what he called a 'pop gun', then took him out hunting a little while later. It was the first and only time he ever killed a deer. My oldest brother said he came out of the woods with the biggest smile on his face just dancing a jig when he realized he'd gotten the deer.
But he still loved primitive weapons because he said they gave the deer a sporting chance!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.