Tolkien's Middle-Earth: He was just Beorn this way

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > The Book Barn > Tolkien's Middle-Earth: He was just Beorn this way

e X: Feb 23, 2013; cool but crude

I am super confused about the order the episodes go in. The first episode of the podcast on the itunes page seems to be about the Old Forest and the earliest episode is a letter answering one. What exactly is the right order here?

e X fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Jul 27, 2017

# ? Jul 27, 2017 14:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 08:14

sassassin: Apr 3, 2010; by Azathoth

Data Graham posted:

I keep waiting for him to talk about how transgressive and iconoclastic LotR was at the time of writing

It wasn't, really. Most of the story elements were considered throwbacks at the time of writing.

# ? Jul 27, 2017 16:02

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

sassassin posted:

It wasn't, really. Most of the story elements were considered throwbacks at the time of writing.

I suspect that's a matter of which tradition you're coming from and comparing it to. If you're expecting Arthurian heroism, a Hobbit is revolutionary; if you're expecting modern psychological realism, an archetypal aragorn or gandalf might be both throwback and transgressive. If you're an Inkling you might be sick of all the goddam elves.

Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Jul 27, 2017

# ? Jul 27, 2017 16:30

Data Graham: Dec 28, 2009; 📈📊🍪😋

I've become more amused recently at seeing stuff in context like Sam listening at the window like something out of a 1920s British stage farce.

# ? Jul 27, 2017 17:06

Xibanya: Sep 17, 2012; Clever Betty

By the way, have any of you got favorite essays on the works of Tolkien or favorite collections of essays? I'd like to read some, preferably goon-vetted.

# ? Jul 27, 2017 17:32

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

Data Graham posted:

I feel like the piss story, ah, strayed somewhat from the point I was trying to make

Anyway, aside from the field trips if there's one real annoyance I have with the podcast it's that there doesn't seem to be any purpose to it. No thesis he's trying to prove. I keep expecting him to say "Now this scene is interesting because it proves the following thing about Tolkien's worldview or contributes to the following broader picture of Middle-earth"; but he doesn't really do that. He's diving super deep into every line of dialogue not to analyze its broader meaning, but to tease out the minutest details. It's like the opposite of analysis, it's like pure appreciation.

Which I guess is fine; I suppose I would be equally annoyed if he had an axe to grind and a grand overarching thesis that he was trying to convince us of about how Tolkien thought about War or about how the Ring is a metaphor for this or that. Lord knows that sort of thing pisses me off a lot more most days. But even so, in my post up there I found myself typing the word interesting twice, and both times I hated myself for it, because it's just such an uninteresting thing to say. A scene or a bit of dialogue has to be worth breaking down to the molecular level for some reason other than its being interesting, right? And while he certainly does a good job mining every sentence for its last vestige of textual meaning, he hardly ever connects it to anything larger or more meaningful, like to indicate what it reveals about Tolkien's mind or about the context in which he's writing or anything, except occasionally to note "Hey, this alludes back to this other similar line that Bilbo said".

I keep waiting for him to talk about how transgressive and iconoclastic LotR was at the time of writing�a reluctant timid protagonist instead of a mythic semi-divine hero, trying to get rid of a talisman of power instead of seeking it out, tropes of Edwardian aristocracy turned on their heads by being cast as the pretensions of a sheltered class of silly naifs. I wanted him to point out the things that struck me when I first read it, like the pains he took to point out how old Bilbo is and how long-lives hobbits are (fifty, to a kid, sounds like a ridiculous age to think about a guy just starting to become grown-up) and how Gandalf was ancient-looking in The Hobbit timeframe and now, 80 years later, looks only marginally older. Wow! That blew my mind as a kid; to me, either you had people who aged normally or you had demigods who were immortal and never-changing, you didn't get things like old wizards who were apparently thousands of years old and still kept getting older. These were all new inventions as far as I could tell, and they certainly are archetypical. But the professor hardly touches on those sorts of broader observations, and it kind of irks me. But then I guess that's what Christopher Tolkien and John Rateliff are for, right?

I'd say the woolgathering and nit picking and theory spinning is the interesting (in the sense you use it) part.
You don't have to kill the frog, dissect it, and read the augurs of its organs every time you see a frog. Sometimes you could just appreciate it for its own beauty as a frog, marvel at how it moves, or be entranced by its song. These are appreciations that can transcend our ability to quantify our experience and overwhelm our ability to answer every. single. possible. question. down. to. its. smallest. constituent. part.
And that's OK.

# ? Jul 27, 2017 23:19

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

The professor does discuss in depth those topics in some of he other 4000 hours of podcasts .

This podcast tho is a 10 year project to go line by line

# ? Jul 28, 2017 00:04

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

Some where on the multiple feeds is a lecture from another professor who just concentrates on comparing Tolkien to then contemporary literature and what can before

It's in there somewhere

# ? Jul 28, 2017 00:08

Tollymain: Jul 9, 2010; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

i ran into a couple of neat-looking tumblr posts of analysis of the legal ownership of the ring seguing into aragorn's royal inheritance

i'm curious as to this thread thinks of them

# ? Jul 28, 2017 14:40

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

Tollymain posted:

i ran into a couple of neat-looking tumblr posts of analysis of the legal ownership of the ring seguing into aragorn's royal inheritance

i'm curious as to this thread thinks of them

The analysis of rights mattering seems valid and relevant to me but I'm sad he didn't go further into the actual legal claims.

To break it down there are basically three clear legal claims to the ring:

1) saurons as creator

2) isildur's by right of conquest / battle

3) deagols by right of finder's keepers

And a fourth arguable legal claim:

4) Bilbo's as an innocent purchaser (from gollum via riddle game).

There's a concept in law that innocent third party purchasers can sometimes gain title to stolen goods,, if they bought them innocently in ordinary course of business. Bilbo *kinda* did this, via the riddle game. He also *kinda* has a claim on the ring as an independent finder (like deagol) and kinda by right of battle (since gollum tried to kill him, although it wasn't in a war).

Bilbo then passes on his claim to Frodo. So Frodo has an *arguable* claim, legally, in a way that say Boromir doesn't.

Note that this is despite the fact that Smeagols' claim was never legitimate, since he just stole it.

# ? Jul 28, 2017 17:31

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

Tollymain posted:

i ran into a couple of neat-looking tumblr posts of analysis of the legal ownership of the ring seguing into aragorn's royal inheritance

i'm curious as to this thread thinks of them

I like them, especially the rights mattering parts.

I think Isildur's justification of his right to the ring as a weregild is bogus. Weregild is not taken, it is offered and (usually) accepted. Weregild doesn't come into play in war.

The ring is war booty, and the law of takers keepers applied. You've got to push into the modern era to get much advancement (or even just laying it out) regarding the law of booty.

# ? Jul 28, 2017 18:50

Kassad: Nov 12, 2005; It's about time.

joat mon posted:

I think Isildur's justification of his right to the ring as a weregild is bogus. Weregild is not taken, it is offered and (usually) accepted. Weregild doesn't come into play in war.

It is meant to be a flimsy excuse, I think. It's a sign of the ring's hold on Isildur that he's invoking any excuse to take and keep it (see also: "it's my birthday present" and "I won it in a riddle game"). No one calls Isildur out on it for obvious reasons.

# ? Jul 28, 2017 19:05

SHISHKABOB: Nov 30, 2012; Fun Shoe

The riddle game being a sort of sacred force was one of my favorite parts of the hobbit.

# ? Jul 28, 2017 19:08

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

Yeah, each successive claim is definitively weaker than Sauron's. There is only one true Lord of the Ring. But there are matters of degree.

Gandalf even points out somewhere that one reason Frodo was able to hold out so long is that he was freely given the ring as a gift. He didn't have to justify anything to himself; he came to the ring with clean hands. The only person who takes the ring with a.greater degree of innocence . . . is Sam.

# ? Jul 28, 2017 19:14

Gorn Myson: Aug 8, 2007

I'd like to see LOTR adapted into a court drama now.

# ? Jul 28, 2017 21:56

Trin Tragula: Apr 22, 2005

I checked out the podcast. I can't remember the last time I've laughed so hard. It's brilliantly and remorselessly and relentlessly thick and stupid and it seems to be aimed at people whose reading level is somewhere above Dick and Jane, but below Enid Blyton. Like, at about 30 minutes into episode 4, Mordor gets mentioned for the first time, and so he goes back and points out that readers should have already read the "three rings..." poem already and so will have vaguely heard of Mordor. Then he reads the "one ring to rule them all..." bit out loud. Then he says this.

quote:

Let's review. What do we know about Mordor? We know that shadows lie there, and that presumably that's where the...binding goes on, that's where you'll be brought when you're ruled by the Dark Lord, and found by the Dark Lord, brought by the Dark Lord, and bound, and presumably all of these things, the end destination of all these things is the Land of Mordor. Where the shadows lie. And yes, we have the Dark Lord on his dark throne. In the Land of Mordor. So we have it associated with "the Dark Lord", "his dark throne", uh, "shadows lying"...and by the way, I just love that, you know, "where the shadows lie." What a perfect line that is! It's like, it's not just where the shadows lurk, or the shadows are. Like, they lie there. Like, they're just...waiting...for something. Who knows! I just love the verb "lie", about the shadows. Those are the rumours we as readers have heard. So when it's invoked, it's not a complete blank for us. We don't know that much, we don't know who the Dark Lord is, we don't...but it doesn't sound good, right? The finding, and the binding, and all that stuff, sounds kinda bad. "Mentioning the binding by the ring with no explanation is just totally creepy." I totally agree!

Sorry folks, but if you've read this:

quote:

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men, doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

And you feel that this is a good and cromulent and meaningful explanation of what that poem means and what its significance is:

quote:

Let's review. What do we know about Mordor? We know that shadows lie there, and that presumably that's where the...binding goes on, that's where you'll be brought when you're ruled by the Dark Lord, and found by the Dark Lord, brought by the Dark Lord, and bound, and presumably all of these things, the end destination of all these things is the Land of Mordor. Where the shadows lie. And yes, we have the Dark Lord on his dark throne. In the Land of Mordor. So we have it associated with "the Dark Lord", "his dark throne", uh, "shadows lying"...and by the way, I just love that, you know, "where the shadows lie." What a perfect line that is! It's like, it's not just where the shadows lurk, or the shadows are. Like, they lie there. Like, they're just...waiting...for something. Who knows! I just love the verb "lie", about the shadows. Those are the rumours we as readers have heard. So when it's invoked, it's not a complete blank for us. We don't know that much, we don't know who the Dark Lord is, we don't...but it doesn't sound good, right? The finding, and the binding, and all that stuff, sounds kinda bad. "Mentioning the binding by the ring with no explanation is just totally creepy." I totally agree!

then you really shouldn't be allowed outside without adult supervision. There's no analysis there, nothing to shed any light on it, just a load of meaningless bloviation; he reads the poem, and then he reads out some of the individual words, and then clarifies that "the individual words" means "the individual words" and not "the individual, Words". Complete word salad. Like a Donald Trump speech. And it takes nearly five minutes! Five minutes to do the podcasting equivalent of this:

Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Jul 31, 2017

# ? Jul 28, 2017 21:57

Red Dad Redemption: Sep 29, 2007

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

The analysis of rights mattering seems valid and relevant to me but I'm sad he didn't go further into the actual legal claims.

To break it down there are basically three clear legal claims to the ring:

1) saurons as creator

2) isildur's by right of conquest / battle

3) deagols by right of finder's keepers

And a fourth arguable legal claim:

4) Bilbo's as an innocent purchaser (from gollum via riddle game).

There's a concept in law that innocent third party purchasers can sometimes gain title to stolen goods,, if they bought them innocently in ordinary course of business. Bilbo *kinda* did this, via the riddle game. He also *kinda* has a claim on the ring as an independent finder (like deagol) and kinda by right of battle (since gollum tried to kill him, although it wasn't in a war).

Bilbo then passes on his claim to Frodo. So Frodo has an *arguable* claim, legally, in a way that say Boromir doesn't.

Note that this is despite the fact that Smeagols' claim was never legitimate, since he just stole it.

smeagol as a thief can't convey more title than he has and probably does not have conveyable voidable title for ucc purposes, so bilbo and frodo may have problems if sauron files suit. perhaps there is an adverse possession or statute of limitations angle

# ? Jul 28, 2017 21:58

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

You can't adversely possess against the government, so Sauron, as Dark Lord of Middle-Earth, would ultimately win out there, yeah.

# ? Jul 28, 2017 22:14

Kassad: Nov 12, 2005; It's about time.

I'm curious who would even be able (legally or otherwise) to arbitrate this dispute, actually.

# ? Jul 28, 2017 22:22

skasion: Feb 13, 2012; Why don't you perform zazen, facing a wall?

Podcast dude's LOTR close read definitely isn't super insightful most of the time and tends to get insanely bogged down in minutiae. I don't think he is benefiting from having an unlimited amount of time to go through the text, he is lacking structure and economy. His series on the History of Middle-earth is a bit better because he can't spend more than a couple months on any individual book and has to focus on what is important instead of waffling about how much he likes a single verse of poetry for two hours followed by an hour of wandering around an MMO.

His Dune series is poo poo though. Really complete garbage.

# ? Jul 28, 2017 22:24

Ynglaur: Oct 9, 2013; The Malta Conference, anyone?

Kassad posted:

I'm curious who would even be able (legally or otherwise) to arbitrate this dispute, actually.

I'd say Manwë already weighed in.

# ? Jul 28, 2017 22:24

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

The dune series was loving fantastic

Oh well different strokes for different folks

# ? Jul 28, 2017 23:19

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

I have quite literally almost unlimited podcast time due to driving so if he wants to take 4000 hours to go line by line it's all good to me.

# ? Jul 28, 2017 23:20

elise the great: May 1, 2012; You do not have to be good. You only have to let the soft animal of your body love what it loves.

Yeah the... plodding pace and meandering quality have been great for me-- occasional gems in the middle of some dude nattering on for hours about something I love but don't expect to be tested on. I can knit or drive or just tune the gently caress out and never, ever feel like I need to back up a few minutes because I got distracted peeing and missed a crucial line. It definitely fills a podcast niche for me, and occasionally delivers some perspective or detail I hadn't considered before, so I've enjoyed it a lot.

MMO tours and all.

Also my husband loathes it so I never have to worry about "letting him catch up" (which is why I'm stalled in the fourth arc of Adventure Zone).

# ? Jul 28, 2017 23:39

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

The whole analysis of the conspiracy was awesome

Tolkien really thought about his poo poo

Also loved the slow breakdown of the crickhollow conversation and the truth being revealed to frodo in degrees

# ? Jul 28, 2017 23:41

Data Graham: Dec 28, 2009; 📈📊🍪😋

What the hell is his "SilmFilm" series that's clogging up the podcast listing?

I tried listening to a few minutes of one, but even after skipping to a few random places in the middle I couldn't figure it out. Is he and a friend spending two-hour chunks of time publicly planning out the story blocking and budgeting and set design and poo poo for a hypothetical Silmarillion TV series? Because that's the impression I got.

# ? Jul 29, 2017 00:10

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

Skip it

# ? Jul 29, 2017 00:11

Data Graham: Dec 28, 2009; 📈📊🍪😋

Okay I mean like, here's Episode 10. The one with the infamous "thinking fox" scene. Frodo and Sam and Pippin are leaving Hobbiton. The professor first covers how Frodo is in no hurry to leave, how he's totally casual about setting out at a leisurely pace and with no sense of urgency; then he covers him overhearing the Gaffer talking to the Nazgul right around the corner from his doorstep, and how Frodo thinks it's just a nosy neighbor. Then the three of them head out and set up camp under some trees, and there's all this talk from the prof carefully pointing out all the details of the scene that show how they're not bothering to set a watch, they're lighting a fire, they're not covering their tracks or anything, and a fox and other various animals come by to comment on how unusual it all is to see some hobbits wandering around outdoors. He spends a lot of time talking about the three hobbits' different viewpoints on their setting out, their different personalities and characterizations and attitudes toward the journey, and that's great.

But none of it builds to a unifying point! It would have taken like what, three extra minutes to tie this whole episode up with a thematic bow: "Here the material we've covered in this episode shows you two things: it's foreshadowing, i.e. all their casual behavior is meant to paint a picture of ease and leisure that is nonetheless seen as unusual and remarkable by everyone who happens to notice them, which is contrary to what they're hoping to do, so you can surely expect this to bite them in the rear end later; and secondly, it's meant to create a callback for you to think about later, to recall with a shudder! Remember when that Black Rider came to the Gaffer's door, within earshot of Frodo? You didn't realize at the time who or what it was, you had no way of knowing, but now that you're looking back on it from Rivendell or wherever, doesn't it just creep you the hell out to think of how close a call that was?"

That would have been a great way to tie the whole episode together! But he doesn't do anything like that. It's like, why bother giving titles to the episodes and preparing notes to talk about if you're not going to try to demonstrate something with the material you cover in a given lesson? Something to conclude from it? Isn't that what teaching is supposed to be?

# ? Jul 29, 2017 01:47

sassassin: Apr 3, 2010; by Azathoth

Black riders are way creepier in the books than the shrieking bedsheets Viggo sets on fire.

# ? Jul 29, 2017 02:10

Trin Tragula: Apr 22, 2005

Data Graham posted:

Isn't that what teaching is supposed to be?

Good teachers, as a rule, tend not to resign from actual jobs at reputable institutions so they can set up their own ersatz sub-degree-mill vanity projects/extended commercials for an MMORPG so they can verbally masturbate without fear of interruption

vvv if that's true then he's even more of a loving idiot than I previously gave him credit for vvv

Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Aug 1, 2017

# ? Jul 31, 2017 13:53

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

lol I don't think lotro is paying him a dime.

# ? Jul 31, 2017 13:55

sassassin: Apr 3, 2010; by Azathoth

euphronius posted:

lol I don't think lotro is paying him a dime.

You don't need to be paid to advertise something.

Drink Coke.

# ? Jul 31, 2017 14:47

RoboChrist 9000: Dec 14, 2006; Mater Dolorosa

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

You can't adversely possess against the government, so Sauron, as Dark Lord of Middle-Earth, would ultimately win out there, yeah.

I seem to recall, years ago, another thread having had the discussion on who legally owned the Ring. I believe the ultimate conclusion, and one I subscribe to, is that the Ring is not property but intelligent and that the final take-away is that the Ring kidnapped Bilbo and Frodo.

# ? Aug 1, 2017 07:57

Data Graham: Dec 28, 2009; 📈📊🍪😋

Yeah this Return of the Shadow series (https://mythgard.org/academy/the-return-of-the-shadow/) is more my speed. Well, for commute purposes I'll probably do them both in parallel as they're apparently intended; but I really like the contextualized and evolutionary stuff here.

Jesus but I want to stab the guy every time he goes TSK though

# ? Aug 1, 2017 10:48

sassassin: Apr 3, 2010; by Azathoth

RoboChrist 9000 posted:

I seem to recall, years ago, another thread having had the discussion on who legally owned the Ring. I believe the ultimate conclusion, and one I subscribe to, is that the Ring is not property but intelligent and that the final take-away is that the Ring kidnapped Bilbo and Frodo.

That's the least effective kidnapping of all time, then.

The ring was kidnapped but after 50 years managed to call for help and engineer an escape (but was killed in the process).

# ? Aug 1, 2017 16:05

Lemniscate Blue: Apr 21, 2006; Here we go again.

sassassin posted:

That's the least effective kidnapping of all time, then.

The ring was kidnapped but after 50 years managed to call for help and engineer an escape (but was killed in the process).

Try again.

# ? Aug 1, 2017 16:25

my bony fealty: Oct 1, 2008

sassassin posted:

Black riders are way creepier in the books than the shrieking bedsheets Viggo sets on fire.

Yeah forreal. The Witch King has my favorite spooky line in the book, to Eowyn -

A cold voice answered: "Come not between the Nazgul and his prey! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye."

Sauron does not treat POWs well

# ? Aug 1, 2017 16:59

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

sassassin posted:

That's the least effective kidnapping of all time, then.

The ring was kidnapped but after 50 years managed to call for help and engineer an escape (but was killed in the process).

The ring is clearly semisentient at best. If sentient, due to it's limited intelligence, it would likely qualify as a Vulnerable Adult. All involved parties (with the possible except of Deagol) therefore have committed either exploitation or abuse of said vulnerable adult, and therefore should be sentenced appropriately, including the possibility of detention in Tol Erressea.

# ? Aug 1, 2017 17:05

SHISHKABOB: Nov 30, 2012; Fun Shoe

Yeah except the ring is evil and it can get hosed for all I care.

# ? Aug 1, 2017 20:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 08:14

Teriyaki Hairpiece: Dec 29, 2006; I'm nae the voice o' the darkened thistle, but th' darkened thistle cannae bear the sight o' our Bonnie Prince Bernie nae mair.

All the stuff a page or two ago about Aragorn being a canny politician ignores the way he sets things up at the end. He gives Faramir Ithilien and command of an elite group of troops but he also says that Faramir and his descendants will continue to hold the office of Steward of Gondor. That's loving stupid.

It's a recipe for terrible instability in the future if you have a King who is the boss of Gondor and Arnor but then directly under him somebody who gets an inherited title to all of Gondor, a private army of elite troops, and their own little country where they can plot and scheme and build whatever they want.

# ? Aug 2, 2017 22:21

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > The Book Barn > Tolkien's Middle-Earth: He was just Beorn this way

«‹›456 »