I'm off to Cleveland in the morning and won't be back until late Thursday. So no bloggy for me until Friday or so. I'm sure the rest of the guys will step up and fill the gap.
In the meantime, I've been watching this beastly storm system making its way across the Midwest and on into the Northeast. From what I can gather, the weather won't be quite bad enough in Cleveland tomorrow to cancel flying. However, it will be bad enough to guarantee a simply beastly trip.
Regular readers will remember my past references to my fear of flying. And indeed, it is due to my posting that we Llamas hold the No. 4 position out of 4.6 mil on a google-search of "I hate flying". However, it's been a while since I've had cause to rant about this. If I read the signs aright, tomorrow is going to provide ample justification for a fresh outburst of terror-induced bloviation.
Who knows? Perhaps we'll move up to medal rank.
1
Hmmm...can't recall if the Cleveland Airport runways dead end into the lake..fear not if they do, I'm sure the salt trucks will be out and about early to keep the panes skidding about down to a minimum.
Turner had the sailors bound him to the mast so that he could capture the true feeling of the storm. I don't suppose the captain would allow you to be bound to the wing tomorrow, would he? Oh well...
Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at December 02, 2007 08:42 PM (R6Dg8)
2
I'd put landing in Cleveland a touch ahead of landing at Reagan National, where you keep getting lower and lower while all you see out the window is the Potomac river.
"Um, excuse me Mr. Pilot Guy, but shouldn't we be landing on land and not water."
Posted by: rbj at December 03, 2007 01:34 PM (UgG6+)
Jeez, you Catholics have got a thing or two to learn about hymn-singing.
At Mass this morning, we were served up four stock 18th and 19th Century numbers, all the tunes being quite familiar to me although some of the words were a bit different. It seemed that my ex-Presbyterian RCIA friend and my humble Anglican self were the only two in the congregation who had any desire whatever to serve them up at any volume greater than a barely-audible mumble.
And let me tell you that when a congregation has to rely on my feeble pipes to carry it, it's got some serious problems.
1
Some of us take the injunction to "Make a joyful noise unto the Lord!" with great seriousness.
Posted by: Tregonsee at December 02, 2007 07:31 PM (UUXm7)
2
Patience, Robbo -- Gregorian chant is coming back.
My parish last year sang "A mighty fortress is our Lord" and I had to chuckle as I pointed out to Mrs. C. that the author was Martin Luther. I asked her whether she knew if the Tridentine anathemas had ever been removed.
Turns out, it was just a big misunderstanding -- see section 41.
I received from the Vatican this weekend my Latin edition of the liturgy of the hours, and I have to say, if Catholics do hymns poorly, it is only because the old Latin ones were taken away from us by the "spirit of Vatican II". Warbling through Marty Haugen, Dan Schutte, et al., (who as hymn authors more properly belong under the ban than Luther), has beaten the stuffing out of just about every Catholic congregation's collective will to sing. I, for one, would rather sing patriotic anthems in a Soviet labor camp than some of the St. Louis Jesuits' numbers.
Benedict has breathed a new seriousness into the Mass with the rejuvenation of the Extraordinary rite. Music is the next step. My hope is that my old school Jesuit-educated father gets to smile in heaven as he sees me get to sing "Tantum Ergo" (Makes your hair grow!, as he and his brothers used to jest) just like they used to in the old days.
But in the meanwhile, please keep singing . . .
Posted by: The Abbot at December 02, 2007 08:12 PM (QBuXz)
3
Yes-indeedy, "Sing out, Louise!" (what's that from?)
As you know, I can hum a few bars of the exasperation with the dreck of the '70s. Today our ragtag choir tackled a bunch of stuff, and the congregation is beginning to show a thirst for it. Mostly old standard stuff like Proulx, and the Danish Amen (gotta start with the easy stuff). This finally comes after a few years of having a music director/organist who successfully drove away all the sourpuss choir members unused to change; and a couple of years of complaints about the "pomp" and "volume" when he plays a particularly glorious piece. Now the idea of "ceremony" is slowly emerging from the fog to take its rightful place in the liturgy.
And boy, do we sing out! We're also processing in with the others, and standing smack in the front for the opening hymn and Gloria before retreating to the loft - maybe that will make more people sing out, too.
We're just now waking from our loooooong national nightmare perched "On Eagles Wings", so pray that St. Cecilia can goose us back to life!
Posted by: Monica at December 02, 2007 08:53 PM (FAGPc)
4
Well, I belted out "Joy To The World" this morning. And I go to a Presbyterian (PCA) church.
Posted by: GroovyVic at December 02, 2007 09:01 PM (DVkb2)
5
I'm in my Catholic church's choir, and cantor as well.
I'm guessing you sang O Come O Come Emmanuel, Wake O Wake To Greet The New Morn, and other Advent staples.
It's a little early for Joy To The World!
Not all Catholic churches are the same when it comes to parishioners singing. Sometimes they need a good choir to lead them, and lots of encouragement.
Posted by: Nice Deb at December 03, 2007 01:45 AM (OaU9X)
6
That's just because the singing gets in the way of the liturgical dancers....
ducks
Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at December 03, 2007 11:17 AM (ozFcL)
7
I do miss the singing of my old church, although the musical selection was often terrible. In Churches of Christ all music is sung a capella and in four part harmony, it's very different from the Catholic way.
Posted by: Jordana at December 03, 2007 02:36 PM (y21Vp)
After a much heated debate at our regular staff meeting yesterday, Father NNNN has requested that while he is stationed at St. Ignatius we DO NOT sing "Missa Emmanuel".
As a priest and celebrant of the mass it is with in his power to make this request and as much as Monsignor YYYYY and I tried to change his mind, we failed.
If you wish a further explanation for Father NNNN's decision, you will have to discuss it with him personally as he offered me no liturgical reason.
I am very sorry for any confusion this may cause but it is out of my hands. We will have to substitute other mass parts for his masses. We can continue to use Missa Emmanuel for Monignor YYYYY and Monsignor ZZZZZ.
Whassup wit dat? I did a little search, and found that perhaps Father objects to the "parody" form of the Proulx Missa Emmanuel (repeatedly using the tune from "O Come, O Come, Emmanuel."): http://cantatedeo.blogspot.com/2006/11/parody-masses.html
Does anyone else have any thoughts or opinions on singing familiar tunes, or whatever else this might be that's objectionable?
Posted by: Monica at December 04, 2007 12:29 PM (6iAPu)
10
I go to a Catholic church here in the deeeeep South. All the new stuff (i.e. post Vatican-II) during Mass is met with near silence. The hymns that do the best for congregation participation are (not surprisingly) the ones I associate more with Lutheran or Methodist (and some Anglican), rather than "the new stuff." Sometimes they even slip in a ("Real") Catholic hymn I remember from the 50's and early 60's (pre Vatican-II). Those are met with mixed participation. (I went to Catholic school in South Jersey/Joisey from K-8th ending in '61.)
Posted by: Dan at December 04, 2007 07:52 PM (1TsNY)
to "effect jurisdiction" over defendants in criminal cases, in the immortal words of Roger Groot, a law professor of Robbo's and mine. This case from the FOX News website has it all, rich defendants on the lam in the United Kingdom wanted for fraud and tax evasion in the United States, connections to famous people, and references to the time-honored profession of bounty-hunting.
1
Nice drive by Elway to give Stanford the lead, especially that throw on 4th and 17. Gets lost in the history, unfortunately. Presages what he was to do in the NFL.
Last year's Oklahoma-Boise State game was pretty close to being this great, what with the halfback option pass and then the Statue of Liberty call for the win. I remember saying "this is the greatest finish in a college football game evah..."
The band on the field makes this one, though. Sweet.
Posted by: The Abbot at December 04, 2007 02:07 PM (b1/bF)
Obviously, the self-advertising department of the New Republic is unaware of the editorial content of their own rag. The following screencap from page 15 of their crow sandwich, having to eat the words of their "Baghdad Diarist"'s fabulistic libelous crapola, is absolutely priceless:
Schadenfreude Yips! from Gary:
Excuse me. If I may.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...ehem...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1
I would compare TNR's statement about Beauchamp continuing to stand by his story, and Beauchamp's statements to Army investigators, that apparently were to the effect that he did not stand by his earlier statements. I'll bet Beauchamp is real popular with his on again, off again, on again, whatever statements.
Posted by: kmr at December 02, 2007 11:44 AM (3i2Pe)
2
If they had done this back in -- what, August? -- there would have been no scandal.
It's not the crime, it's the coverup. It's not the sin, it's the hubris.
Posted by: The Abbot at December 02, 2007 02:51 PM (QBuXz)
The fallout from the neutron bomb that was Lions for Lambs continues:
This summer, UA secured a $500 million film financing fund from Merrill Lynch to finance 15-18 films over five years. MGM put up the equity portion of the fund, likely meaning $50 million to $60 million. That way, MGM owns UA titles. Harry Sloan's MGM owns 65% of UA; Wagner and Cruise own the rest.
Wagner said that "Lions" represents everything that the revitalized UA stands for, and that its importance extends beyond just box office haul. She said the film helped UA secure the Merrill Lynch fund.
"We do recognize that it hasn't performed as well as we would have liked, but we don't regret making it. I think it's very important that a film company be judged by a slate of films, not just one film," Wagner said.
"It was a Robert Redford film that was timely, relevant and engaging. It represented the very essence of the United Artists legacy, and it made perfect sense for it to be our first movie," she continued. "You have to look at us as a start-up company. We had zero assets. The cupboard was bare. Now we have one movie in our library, a movie we are very proud of."
"Lions" is hardly the only film that underperformed this fall, or that will lose money. Other disappointments include New Line's political drama "Rendition," DreamWorks-Paramount's Ben Stiller laffer "The Heartbreak Kid," U's "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" and Fox-Walden's "The Seeker: The Dark is Rising," to name some examples.
UA insists that "Lions" is in no way a reflection of Cruise's star status, and that it wasn't a Tom Cruise movie, per se.
The movie's unprecedented $40 million cost (equivalent to about $120 million as of 2006) and poor performance at the box office ($3,484,331 gross in the United States) generated more negative publicity than actual financial damage, causing Transamerica Corporation (United Artists' corporate owner at the time) to become anxious over its own public image and withdraw from film production altogether.
1
Hello Robert Redford. Of course you are much smarter than those of us who wallow in the cultural abyss of fly over country but you might consider one piece of advice. Have it tatooed on your forehead so you can read it every morning when you shave.
People go to the movies to be entertained NOT to be lectured to.
Posted by: Tbird at December 01, 2007 02:25 PM (td7/y)
2
Maybe the next time Bob Redford makes another smug, pretentious, pile of crap for a film (Oh, and he will too. Count on it), he should make sure there are lots of nekid babes of the Fredricks of Hollywood vareity in it. You know, for,,,um,,,,context.
Posted by: stillers at December 02, 2007 03:46 AM (blNMI)
3
Using film to promote personal beliefs makes me puke. Flee when you see it. These people think they actually make a difference. It's an indication of how bright they really are.
Posted by: Gordy at December 07, 2007 01:07 PM (EOL5D)
1
I've used that description for a close friends wedding reception twenty years ago...
Posted by: kmr at December 01, 2007 01:31 PM (3i2Pe)
2
Best wedding reception I've been to in the last few years was the one with the matching bottles of Caymus Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon and Caymus Conundrum on the tables (plenty more when those were gone, too), held in two Napa mansion bed and breakfasts, over a four day long weekend (too many guests for one mansion, so our friends rented two that abutted).
Not sure it snowed food but it certainly rained drink.
Posted by: The Abbot at December 02, 2007 02:58 PM (QBuXz)
Capt. LLama is going through a tech upgrade around their house, and has asked me, his son, for advice on a topic that is delicate: how exactly does one extract oneself from AOL?
They're going the cable modem/wireless route, which I've got a handle on what they need. But the big question is, if you cancel your AOL service, can you keep your AOL email address? I've pointed out that it is awfully expensive for just an email address, the key being not having to send around an announcement of the new address to a free account on yahoo, gmail or the like. I don't think he uses the AOL IM features so that's not a problem I believe (although easy to remedy, as ou just install their IM software separately).
Advice/suggestions are appreciated, keeping in mind that Capt. LLama is a regular reader so keep your AOL jokes to a minimum.
I just went through this routine. My wife is the AOLaholic and can't seem to warm to any other interface... so when we switched to cable, we phoned AOL at their service number and asked them what to do to downgrade to a level just one step above the free service, this way she not only keeps here e-mail address but still gets to go to all the customary stitching, jewelry and other boards of interest. I think we are paying $10 a month for this priviledge.
If all you want is to keep the e-mail address, I think you get that with the free AOL service and there is a way to switch to it online. Expect to also make some phone calls when nothing happens the first or second try, their customer service was not much to call India about. Also, I think you get much more advertising and pop ups on the "free" service, that is the trade off versus maintaining a minimum paid service.
Hope this helps.
Edward
Posted by: Terrapod at December 01, 2007 12:10 PM (3kj+O)
2
Gmail has integrated chat if he needs the IM. But it only works with other Gmail users. That said, there are other free IM interfaces he can use - Yahoo for one.
If you need an invite, let me know.
Posted by: jen at December 02, 2007 04:22 PM (NcuXj)
3
In addition, IIRC most of the free e-mail services (I'm pretty sure including Gmail, Yahoo, and Hotmail) all include utilities for importing your email address book from the sinking ship.
Posted by: Boy NamedSous at December 04, 2007 02:15 AM (wl24l)
4
I kept AOL at the cheapest level for years, because I wanted to keep my email address, etc. Then, about a year and a half ago I decided it wasn't worth it at all and called up to cancel entirely. To my surprise, I was informed that I got to keep my same email address, etc., with no problem at all. I just go to aolmail.aol.com and access it just like a Yahoo or Hotmail account. Free email, same account name, no problem.
Posted by: House of Payne at December 04, 2007 06:59 PM (LCuJO)
Today is the 133rd anniversary of the birth of the Right Hon. Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill. In celebration, nip on over to the Churchill Centre and have a jolly good browse.
Personally, I've always been one of those people who likes to believe that Churchill was indeed King Arthur returned from his sleep on the Isle of Avalon to save Britain in its darkest hour.
Here's Churchill's May 13, 1940 address to the House of Commons:
On Friday evening last I received from His Majesty the mission to form a new administration. It was the evident will of' Parliament and the nation that this should be conceived on the broadest possible basis and that it should include all parties.
I have already completed the most important part of this task.
A war cabinet has been formed of five members, representing, with the Labour, Opposition, and Liberals, the unity of the nation. It was necessary that this should be done in one single day on account of the extreme urgency and rigor of events. Other key positions were filled yesterday. I am submitting a further list to the king tonight. I hope to complete the appointment of principal ministers during tomorrow.
The appointment of other ministers usually takes a little longer. I trust when Parliament meets again this part of my task will be completed and that the administration will be complete in all respects. I considered it in the public interest to suggest to the Speaker that the House should be summoned today. At the end of today's proceedings, the adjournment of the House will be proposed until May 21 with provision for earlier meeting if need be. Business for that will be notified to MPs at the earliest opportunity.
I now invite the House by a resolution to record its approval of the steps taken and declare its confidence in the new government.
The resolution:
"That this House welcomes the formation of a government representing the united and inflexible resolve of the nation to prosecute the war with Germany to a victorious conclusion."
To form an administration of this scale and complexity is a serious undertaking in itself. But we are in the preliminary phase of one of the greatest battles in history. We are in action at many other points-in Norway and in Holland-and we have to be prepared in the Mediterranean. The air battle is continuing, and many preparations have to be made here at home.
In this crisis I think I may be pardoned if 1 do not address the House at any length today, and I hope that any of my friends and colleagues or former colleagues who are affected by the political reconstruction will make all allowances for any lack of ceremony with which it has been necessary to act.
I say to the House as I said to ministers who have joined this government, I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many months of struggle and suffering.
You ask, what is our policy? I say it is to wage war by land, sea, and air. War with all our might and with all the strength God has given us, and to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.
You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs - Victory in spite of all terrors - Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.
Let that be realized. No survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge, the impulse of the ages, that mankind shall move forward toward his goal.
I take up my task in buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men. I feel entitled at this juncture, at this time, to claim the aid of all and to say, "Come then, let us go forward together with our united strength."
And were all the blood, toil, tears and sweat worth it? Well, I'll bet ol' Winston rests much better knowing that he's made the West safe to fret about killer Christmas Tree allergies.
I kid. I kid! Sort of.
YIPS from Steve-O:
Oh. My. Goodness. Why I love the intertubes in one easy lesson: listen to Sir Winston Churchill here.
FURTHER YIPS from Steve-O:Jackpot.
1
Sigh, they just don't make 'em like that anymore, though Thatcher & Reagan come very close.
And to combine this post with the preceding one, the food police would have a heart attack with Sir Churchill's diet. And drinking. And smoking. And living to the ripe old age of 90.
Posted by: rbj at November 30, 2007 02:03 PM (UgG6+)
A consumer group prodded the Food and Drug Administration yesterday to regulate salt as a food additive, arguing that excessive salt consumption by Americans may be responsible for more than 100,000 deaths a year.
The government has long placed salt in a "generally recognized as safe" or GRAS category, which grandfathers in a huge list of familiar food ingredients. But in an FDA hearing yesterday, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) urged the agency to enforce tougher regulations for sodium.
Doing so "lays the foundation for saving tens of thousands of lives per year," said CSPI Director Michael Jacobson in an interview after the hearing. It "just has tremendous potential to health and to cut health-care costs."
CSPI first petitioned the FDA in 1978 to regulate salt in food more closely and has since sued the agency unsuccessfully in federal court twice over the ingredient. A 2005 petition to the FDA by CSPI prompted the agency to hold hearings yesterday to review sodium chloride's status in food.
"After 25 years of inactivity, the FDA is taking the salt issue seriously," Jacobson said. "They're really gathering information . . . and getting an earful from all sides."
The average American consumes 3,353 milligrams of sodium every day -- more than twice what the Institute of Medicine says is adequate for healthy people and 1,000 milligrams more than the 2,300 milligrams set as a daily limit by the 2005 U.S. Dietary Guidelines. The intake considered adequate is far lower: 1,500 milligrams for those 9 to 50 years old; 1,300 milligrams for those 51 to 70, and 1,200 milligrams for people 70 and older -- or less than what is found in a ham and Swiss cheese sandwich on whole wheat with mustard.
The article goes on to state that the current proposals seem to be aimed at limiting the salt content of processed foods, but you watch: This is the thin end of the wedge. Next thing you know, they'll be standing over my table counting the number of shakes I use (which is quite a few, as I luuuuv teh salty).
(BTW, who else out there was frightened by the above-pic'd salt monster from Star Trek when they were kids? Most Trek beasties I could take or leave alone, but this one scared the bejaysus out of me.)
Yips! to fellow saltophile Rachel.
***And really, I wouldn't. I have no sweet tooth whatsoever. Can't stand sugar.
1
Argh! I HATE the food police. My youngest son has CF and he is on a high salt and high fat diet. He physically needs the extra calories and sodium. The weirdest moment in my life was when a dietitian told me it would be ideal if I could get Max to eat 1/2 a stick of butter a day. Potato chips and salty pretzels are health food for him.
Posted by: Sarah G. at November 30, 2007 10:21 AM (Pp4ZX)
2
That salt vampire scared the crappydoodle out of me!
Posted by: Chai-rista at November 30, 2007 10:27 AM (ERCKE)
3
And in the category of broad sweeping statements: "Salt intake is closely linked to stroke, kidney disease and high blood pressure."
Drastically reducing sodium intake will reduce high blood pressure in some people. As stroke and kidney disease are linked to hypertension, I guess there's some link to sodium intake, but saying "closely" and implying if a healthy person reduces his sodium intake, he'll reduce his chance of stroke is a bit much.
And these groups tend to want all processed foods gotten rid of, working by the death of a thousand cuts. I'm unimpressed.
Posted by: owlish at November 30, 2007 11:20 AM (r7QO3)
Posted by: jen at November 30, 2007 11:37 AM (NcuXj)
5
I'm always reminded of Peej O'Rourke's line about how too much of ANYthing is bad for you. He suggests sticking your head in a bucket of pure spring water for half an hour and seeing what happens.
Posted by: Robbo the LB at November 30, 2007 11:46 AM (fKpiB)
6
I also found the salt monster to be the most scary.
The monster I loved the most (felt sorry for, and empathized with) was the Horta (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Horta). I'm pretty sure I cried about their plight.
Posted by: Lynellen at November 30, 2007 11:59 AM (XCx4q)
7
Jeez, again? Haven't we gone through this before? Wasn't it 10 or so years ago that the health nazis got on the too much salt kick. Then trans-fats or something knocked it off the "what's going to kill you now" list? Now they're re-cycling this crap.
Oh but it gets even better. The International Agency for Research on Cancer is going to declare overnight shift work as a possible carcinogen.
How's that?
Posted by: Tbird at November 30, 2007 12:24 PM (VANOp)
8
Tbird: I heard that about overnight workers, too. And I thought the same thing: someone is going to push for legislation making it illegal to work between midnight and 8 am.
Posted by: Rachel at November 30, 2007 02:08 PM (gOoPZ)
9
No sweet tooth here either. But these nannies in jackboots will have to pry the nam pla out of my cold, dead fingers.
On the subject of salt in science fiction, my favorite quote comes from Futurama (source of many, many quotes). Here's Bender, a robot with no sense of taste, cooking a meal for Fry:
Fry: That's the saltiest thing I've ever tasted! And I once ate a big heaping bowl of salt!
Bender: There's nothing wrong with that food. I used 10 percent less salt than the lethal dose.
Fry: Hmm. Maybe I shouldn't have had seconds....
Posted by: utron at November 30, 2007 06:18 PM (CgIkY)
10
It makes one wonder about the implications of Matthew 5:13.
Vade retro, salt monster.
Posted by: The Abbot at November 30, 2007 07:26 PM (QBuXz)
11
I'm not sure, and by that I mean no one has actually tested us but, I THINK we have a low salt diet.
My mother was diagnosed with high blood pressure about 20 years ago and we were not permitted to put salt into any dish. She would liberally shake some kind of fake salt over her plate.
Well, it is all a matter of what you are used to. I think, althought once again I am not sure, that we use little salt in our food. It would be interesting to find out what our salt intake is.
Posted by: Babs at November 30, 2007 08:20 PM (iZZlp)
12
Did I mention that my husband absolutely craves deli olives and pepperoni? Total salty land...
Posted by: Babs at November 30, 2007 08:23 PM (iZZlp)
13
*says nothing while sharpening his chef's knife*
Posted by: Boy Named Sous at December 02, 2007 01:29 AM (t+Vew)
Yesterday, Robbo and I got into a little discussion over a part of "The Fellowship of the Ring" that caught his attention - specifically a description of the fireworks dragon at Bilbo's "long expected party". The odd use of the phrase "passed like an express train" apparently smacked him in the face like a wet, cold fish (so juicy sweeeet) as express trains were certainly not known to the world of Middle-Earth.
Naturally, I've given this some further thought (as I'm prone to do) and it got me considering another reason for its presence in the early part of the story.
When Tolkien began writing The Lord of the Rings, his early intention was to merely scribe a sequel to his first book and further explore the world of hobbits rather than paint a portrait of Middle-Earth on so wide a canvass as a three volume work. The author's early drafts of the first few chapters were much similar in style and tone to "The Hobbit" than the darker tale that it would become. When he wrote "The Hobbit", it was written from the point of view of an omniscient narrator who tells the story in a very informal way. Tolkien actually intended the tale to be read to children. As such, descriptions like "express train" were certainly appropriate for that kind of story-telling.
As The Lord of the Rings evolved into essentially a "translation" of an ancient text written long ago, "express train" does seem to be a glaring editorial error. So in that sense, I think Tolkien had in fact overlooked this reference. However, there are other parts of the early chapters that - to me - seem a little out of place. For example, there is a passage in Chapter Three - "Three is Company" featuring a fox thinking aloud his observation of sleeping hobbits which seemed strange to me. Allow me to quote myself:
Now this whole business of a sentient animal mulling over the peculiar behavior of these hobbits seems really out of place. It's almost as if Tolkien was reprising the lighter narrative tone he used in The Hobbit. And there are certainly no other incidents of animals expressing their thoughts to the reader. You don't get inside the head of a horse of the Riddermark thinking, "Gee, isn't this odd that I should be mounted by a shield maiden of Rohan and a hobbit dressed as the king's esquire? Quite strange, indeed! Oh well, off to the battle now." Personally, in the arduous process of editing and rewriting his various drafts, I think this is something that could have stood to be left out. But I suppose it at least suggests how unconcerned Frodo was at this point in his journey.
So I see certain elements of the beginning of "FOTR" as being almost a throwback to "The Hobbit". In that sense, Tolkien may or may not have made a conscious decision to leave them in. But, considering the vastly intricate editing process that Tolkien needed to do time and again at the beginning of his writing, I'll cut him a little slack.
Or course, now that it's been pointed out it will probably bother me every time I re-read it.
1
The tail end of ROTK, where they have the scouring of the Shire, they need to get rid of what Sauron has done to the Shire: turning a bucolic land into an industrial wasteland, with machines belching out smoke. So it is possible that there was some country in Middle Earth where there were steam engines and trains. Perhaps a lesser theme in LOTR is the conflict between the almost Medieval past and the industrial future. One could almost get a sense of Tolkien's longing for a time when war was fought hand to hand rather than by machines.
Posted by: rbj at November 30, 2007 09:50 AM (ybRwv)
2
Or foreshadowing that one day machines would become the dragons of the day.
Posted by: Gary at November 30, 2007 09:52 AM (PLHs9)
3
I have always taken the position that the "express train" quote is used as a translation of some other untranslatable concept - and I am sticking to that.
Posted by: steve at November 30, 2007 11:02 AM (RRswE)
4
There is a scene he cut from the end of the ROTK where Bilbo and Frodo are walking on the beach at the Grey Havens. And then they see it, sticking out of the sand. The head and arm of the Statue of Liberty.
Not an imagined past -- it's the future, man.
Our future.
"Take your filthy paws off me, you damn dirty elves . . . !"
Posted by: The Abbot at November 30, 2007 12:33 PM (b1/bF)
5
The narrator of Lord of the Rings is speaking to his audience of 20th Century readers. Read the "Regarding Hobbits" section (or whatever) of the prologue. It speaks at length about how Hobbits are not as numerous as they were in days of yore and they are even less likely to be seen by us "big people" today.
He is describing things as we (or 20th Century British readers) would understand things.
This is common in the 3rd person narrative form of the novel. The narrator knows things - and the reader knows things - that the people in the story will never know. If this was written as Frodo's memoir, then the use of descriptions that called on 20th Century references would be a problem.
Besides, there are many problems in the books. There are in most books. That doesn't mean they aren't great books.
Posted by: Zendo Deb at November 30, 2007 01:10 PM (CeZF7)
6
Oh, nobody is denying the books' greatness. We're just being hyper-finicky.
As to narrator and audience, what you say is true. But Tolkien is otherwise generally so good about keeping his narration within what the tech kids would call the parameters of Middle Earth that his insertion of this particularly non-Middle Earthian simile has always stuck out to me.
Posted by: Robbo the LB at November 30, 2007 01:45 PM (fKpiB)
7
In the original draft, he also made reference to things being written in "elf-latin." No joke.
The implication being that Elvish in Tolkien's universe, Elvish had the same role for hobbits and men that Latin had for medieval lay-people -- the language of mystery and magic.
He struck that out for obvious reasons -- there being no Romans in Middle Earth, there was also, clearly, no Latin.
Elvish, too, was based on Tolkien's knowledge of Finnish.
Posted by: The Abbot at November 30, 2007 07:31 PM (QBuXz)
You Keep Using That Word. I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.
The nurse pushing teh anti-corporal punishment bill in Massachusetts I noted the other day seems a bit confused by the kerfluffle she's started:
Kathleen Wolf said she just wanted to bring attention to the overly harsh punishment of children — but instead touched off a frenzied debate about whether Massachusetts should ban spanking.
Wolf's bill, "An Act Prohibiting Corporal Punishment of Children," was swiftly dubbed the "anti-spanking bill," sparking an angry response from parents who feared slapping their child on the bottom could soon become a crime.
But Wolf, who concedes the bill has no chance of becoming law, says she simply wants the state to better define when punishment degenerates into abuse.
"Spanking isn't abuse. Spanking isn't the main issue. It's about using physical force against children for punishment," said Wolf.
Emphasis added. Let's go back and have another look at the text of the bill:
(a) For the purposes of this section, the following words shall, unless the context indicates otherwise, have the following meanings: -
“Child”, any person under eighteen years of age.
“Corporal punishment”, the willful infliction of physical pain or injurious or humiliating treatment.
(b) It shall be unlawful in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for any adult to inflict corporal punishment upon a child.
(c) The infliction of corporal punishment on a child may be a basis for a finding of abuse and neglect.
Well I'm just an ol' country lawyer, but I'd say that if you aren't willfully inflicting physical pain on your child, you aren't really spanking him. And vice versa. This bill doesn't better define abuse so much as lower the bar waaaaaay down. Wolf is either being extremely duplicitous or extremely naive.
Fortunately, there seem to have been a few adults in attendance at yesterday's hearing:
Lawmakers said beating children with belts and extension cords would likely cross the line into child abuse under current law. Sen. Karen Spilka, co-chairwoman of the committee on Children, Families, and Persons with Disabilities, said the state needs to do more to combat child abuse, but isn't about to ban spanking.
"We are not going to be coming into people's homes as Big Brother planting little TV cameras or watching what parents do," she said.
Clive Staples Lewis was born this day in 1898.
My quote-of-the-day-email-guy notes this passage from the end of Chapter 3 of Lewis' Mere Christianity:
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic... or else He would be the Devil in Hell... let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher."
(The quote puts my QOTDEMG's nose out of joint, but I believe that Lewis is spot on.)
I was first given an anthology of Lewis' writings when I was a first year law student. And I remember quite clearly that it was only in reading him that I finally began to grasp any notion of what was really meant by Faith. Of course, Lewis never became a Catholic himself, but it's quite safe to say that he was largely responsible for my first tottering steps towards the banks of the Tiber, and has continued at my side even as I splash about in its waves. However, I'd recommend him to anybody, regardless of their particular denomination.
The eldest Llama-ette and I also make the Chronicles of Narnia our primary bedtime reading. This year, we've gone all the way through the cycle, and are now (on the insistence of the gel), reading them in reverse order. Currently we're in The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, and the gel talks ominously of starting the whole business all over again once we've finished The Magician's Nephew. I think, I think, that the morals of the stories are starting to sink in on her. (She seems particularly interested in characters such as Edmund and Eustace who turn from their former, rotten selves with Aslan's help.) However, I also happen to know that she loves the Brit inflections I put on the children's speech. Recently, she said, "You know, Dad, you sort of sound like that when you talk." She meant it as a compliment, but I was a bit startled to be caught out in my pretentious Anglophilia by a mere nine year old.
1
Knowing both your respect for CS Lewis as well as your current transition, do you have an opinion on the current "Golden Compass" debate, i.e. not that the movie is overtly anti-Catholic/Christian but that it would serve as an inducement for parents to buy the books which include part 2 and 3 which reputedly are far more indicative of Pullman's stated hatred of Lewis?
Posted by: Mike at November 29, 2007 02:36 PM (Mv/2X)
2
Well one of the main justifications for making a film of a book - especially a kids' film - is that it will encourage the kiddies to read the book, so I don't see why that wouldn't happen here as well.
Of course, it's a free country. And of course there are going to be parents who don't know or don't care about the anti-Christian flavor and just take the "Whatever, at least the kid's reading" stance. And I suppose there will be some parents who actually like the idea of feeding their kids some anti-Christian reading material.
All I can say is that we're not that sort of parents.
Posted by: Robbo the LB at November 29, 2007 03:59 PM (fKpiB)
3
I think the Pullman series being made into a film is unusual in that most kids' movies are made because the books are widely read and there is a demand for it.
I've never met anyone who's read Pullman. I think without the book's ideological bent, it would never have been made. I think it will be a failure for the reason that there's really no established fan base.
Except for, you know, Satan. I mean, I'm sure he'll go see it.
:-) I kid.
I think the net effect might ultimately be to make people say "What is this magisterium, and how do I get to be a part of it"?
Posted by: The Abbot at November 30, 2007 05:17 PM (b1/bF)
Black Snake Moan (2006)
I'm finally going to do it. I'm going to review the movie that most recently dropped my jaw in wordless astonishment until I forgot to pick it up off the floor. I'm full of spoilers, so if you want to see this movie - stop reading.
My best Truly-Bad-Film-buds, Mr. and Mrs. Keysunset, had come over to my house to watch it. Mr. Keysunset and I were particularly keen for a big, greasy helping of Truly Bad Southern Gothic Film with Politically Incorrect Gravy. We loaded Black Snake Moan into the DVD player and took our movie consumption places.
The film opens with archival footage of bluesman Son House telling the camera about what makes the blues the blues. He riffs on his guitar and lectures when he's not singing. Then we get color - the actual film - with myriad scenes of a skeletally-thin Christina Ricci rubbing her "rebel coot" on everything that doesn't run from her. Before you know it we're inexplicably transported back to Son House and his Ken Burns Blues Moment. The whole movie works this way.
"Oh, I get it!" Mr. Keysunset shared. "This is a documentary."
I hate plot summaries, but I have to do the bold stroke version so you'll be able to appreciate what we witnessed. Rae (Christina Ricci) is telling her boyfriend (Justin Timberlake) goodbye with her leg-hug when the actual film starts. He's shipping out for Iraq, but literally before the dust of his bus out of town settles Rae scratches her itchy place again with another fella. I lost count of how many guys she hugs in her special way before she goes after her boyfriend's best friend late in the evening of that same day. The best friend beats her violently and throws her body out of the car in front of the house of bluesman Lazarus (Samuel Jackson).
Lazarus is a God-fearing, broken-hearted man. He wants to cure Rae of her dirty panties and her crop-top. So he chains her to his radiator. I know this set-up sounds priceless. Who could ask for more in an exploitation film? A middle aged black man chains a young, helpless white woman to his radiator. But not for sex. No ma'm! It's for her own good!
The only problem is . . . this isn't an exploitation film. Oh, it starts out as one, but less than halfway through it whips around on us, like the proverbial black snake. We, the Truly Bad Film lover, were all ready for a hot tumble with this film and no regrets. But it turns out . . . this film wants us to fall in love with it and have its baby.
Halfway through the film Lazarus lets Rae off the chain. But she continues to live with him and begins to learn self-respect. A local preacher stops by. Lazarus discovers he has a self-possessed lady-friend who is falling for him. Next thing ya know its a mashup: My Fair Lady and some sappy thing where the embattled couple finally make it together on heart. It's sincere. And sentimental.
Thanks to the Keysunsets for the My Fair Lady insight. Its too true. Rae gets tamed and Laz takes her out to the 'ho down (emphasis on Ho) where Rae proves that she can dance nasty, but not actually do the nasty. As we all know, that's the mark of a true lady!
And then . . . God help me . . . there's a wedding.
Through a series of events I'm too lazy to describe, Rae marries Justin Timberlake, who is exactly as screwed up as her, in a totally different way. Because two people with crippling emotional problems is a party, whereas one is just sad. Or something. Instead of a wedding ring he . . . get this . . . puts a GOLD CHAIN around her waist. Its a symbolic a chastity belt.
Oh the avalanche of Women and Gender Studies degrees this movie will impel! It warms my heart to think of all the young gals bent over their notebooks, hammering out those dissertations condemning patriarchal Lazarus and his old (Testament) school ways. Whole chapters will be written on the cuckolded and emasculated Timberlake character as compared and contrasted with the cuckolded yet Blues-empowered Lazarus.
Yes, people. The Blues will resurrect you. The Blues will restore your virginity so you can wear white to your wedding. The Blues will heal you and make you whole. Black Snake Moan could have merely settled for exploitation. It could have just had fun showing off Rae's boobs and her barely clad pelvic region as she slutted around on her chain. But it goes way beyond that because - even though its sappy it has soul. I loved this Truly Bad blend of excess and heart. And I will watch it again. Ay-men!
This movie was such a truly bad classic that pieces of it still crop up in Keysunset house dialogue.
I'll watch it again with ya!
LOL!
A big tall sweaty glass o' iced tea to you, sweetness!
Posted by: keysunset at November 29, 2007 02:59 PM (et6My)
5
"It warms my heart to think of all the young gals bent over"
Yeah, me too.*sniff*
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
Posted by: Richj at November 30, 2007 01:14 AM (aTTga)
6
"Rae scratches her itchy place again with another fella"
Why doesn't she just use a hair brush taped to a plunger like the rest of us?
Nice job, Chai. I may have to rent this movie. And maybe even watch it.
Posted by: moistrub at November 30, 2007 11:57 AM (2sg3y)
7
This movie is brought to you by Craig Brewer. Who also brought you the movie HUSTLE AND FLOW. Which in turn produced the Academy award winning song IT'S HARD OUT THERE FOR A PIMP. Which was written and performed by two Memphis rappers who would have better served society had they become pimps. There are those in the Memphis "scene" who are still ga-ga about ol' Craig despite this monumental bomb. This shows one the depths to which the cultural scene in Memphis has sunk since
Elvis went under.
Posted by: Tbird at November 30, 2007 12:43 PM (VANOp)
8
"The Blues will restore your virginity so you can wear white to your wedding."
Yeah, but in good taste, the gloves and veil should be gray.
Posted by: ken at November 30, 2007 05:39 PM (ueTby)
I don't recall having ever seen anybody else mentioning this before, but one of my very few literary gripes with Tolkien is over a passage very early on in The Fellowship of the Ring in which he describes the fireworks display at Bilbo's 111th Birthday Party. It reads, in part:
And there was also one last surprise, in honour of Bilbo, and it startled the hobbits exceedingly, as Gandalf intended. The lights went out. A great smoke went up. It shaped itself like a mountain seen in the distance, and began to glow at the summit. It spouted green and scarlet flames. Out flew a red-golden dragon - not life-size, but terribly life-like; fire came from his jaws, his eyes glared down; there was a roar, and he whizzed three times over the heads of the crowd. They all ducked, and many fell flat on their faces. The dragon passed like an express train, turned a somersault, and burst over Bywater with a deafening explosion.
Emphasis added. This has always rankled me. Even if you accept Tolkien's general narrative flow, which progresses from a child-friendly description of life in the Shire (and here I'm thinking of the fox's commentary on finding Frodo, Sam and Pippin asleep in the woods near Hobbiton) to a far deeper, darker account of the history of Middle Earth (as LOTR eventually becomes), I believe sticking in a railway simile is just not on. Did Tokien do this as a deliberate hook? Or was he just being sloppy? (Gary - I'm calling you out for your opinion on this.)
Just thought I'd mention it. And yes, I'm reading the furshlugginer books again.
UPDATE: I changed "reader-friendly, almost shallow" to "child-friendly" because that's much closer to what I meant.
Of course, it is well-known that "the tale grew in the telling" and I think the Abbot is right that this section must be one of the earliest. I suppose I'm just a little surprised that what with all the evolutions, amendments and rewrites, this particular simile survived. I cannot recollect anywhere else in LOTR where Tolkien uses a similar, completely non-Middle Earth, term.
Geekery Yips! (And Shameless Side-Blog Blegging) from Gary:
OK, I'll bite at this one. My first instinct is to say the Oxford Don was being sloppy. I mean, I don't know how many words fill the 1000 page epic but you'd think he'd make an incongruous error or two in the lot. But when you read about how meticulous he was about revisions in his Introduction you kind of have to accept the idea that it was intentional. But then, Robbo, I would ask you - what other metaphor (or is it a simile?) could he use that was in line with what was around in Middle-Earth at the time? The only thing I can think of that would describe the roar and charge of a dragon (even if it's a faux-dragon) would be...well, a dragon. Maybe a fell beast, but the reader is not yet familiar with those at that point.
I'll give you credit for catching it though. Goes to my feeling that no matter how many times you read the book you can still find stuff you never noticed before.
And while we're on the subject...any one interested in reading chapter-for-chapter some of my own insights on the work should head over to -
And to piggyback on The Abbot's comment below, how on earth can you have vinification (i.e. "Old Winyards") in a place that's roughly equivalent to being above the 30th 50th parallel in the Northern Hemisphere? A strong, red wine made in that microclimate? Highly unlikely, I say.
Yips! back from Robbo: I appreciate your point. (And it's a simile - "like" or "as", you know.) My advice would be to chuck it altogether. "The dragon passed in a thunderous blaze," for example, would get the image across as well.
1
That's one of those phrases that betrays the author's original intent for the book -- a sequel to the Hobbit, written for English children of the 1940s.
The line about the express train must have been one of the earliest parts written. It is as out of place as the Narnia streetlamp.
There is a line in The Hobbit early on about Bilbo putting his thumbs behind his braces, also, that always nagged me -- although as far as I can tell, suspenders were a nineteenth century invention.
Also consider tea and pipeweed -- unknown in England before trade with India and the discovery of the New World, yet ubiquitous by Tolkien's time. He explains pipeweed reasonably well in the Appendices, but unless he's talking about herbal tea, then trade in Middle Earth was more advanced than anyone knew. Were the Southrons shipping tea to the Grey Havens? I'm sure some geek has written a doctoral thesis on the economics of Middle Earth (I know people have mocked the economics of Harry Potter), but until the advent of reliable ships, the limited liability shipping firm, and the concept of insurance, trade in Europe was a pretty haphazard thing until the eighteenth century, when luxuries like Tea and Tobacco became commonplace.
But let's not go there, shall we?
I have the copies of the first draft of the trilogy that Christopher Tolkien released as "The Return of the Shadow, The Treason of Isengard, and the War of the Ring. It is pretty remarkable how the book was transformed over the years. For instance, Aragorn was -- I kid you not -- originally a rogue Hobbit named Trotter. As he rewrote, he conceived of the book differently, and rewrote some more.
Posted by: The Abbot at November 29, 2007 08:21 AM (QBuXz)
BTW, I have to go to Cleveland next week. What does one.....do there (apart from grumble about the weather)?
As usual, any tips on eateries and the like would be welcome.
I heard John Waters interviewed on NPR yesterday. He was listing his DVD favorites. Of course, I'd never seen any of them and the only one I'd heard of was David Cronenberg's Crash, which I may watch one day, if I'm ever feeling particularly iron-stomach-ish.
I'm linking the page with his picks, not so that you can run out and rent the films John Waters likes, but so you can listen to the interview. The most interesting thing about his interview was when he said that he played "car accident" as a child. Listen to the interview (linked at the top of the page) to hear the voice of the interviewer as he asks, incredulously, how one plays "car accident." In his answer Waters' begins talking about his development as a storyteller. It made me wish the whole interview had been about that.
Another interesting moment comes when Waters talks about what he finds offensive and over-the-line in film. You might have assumed, like me, that there was nothing too outré for John Waters. But, we would be wrong. That part of the interview is linked below the photo.
1
John Waters is simply an excellent interview, funny and intelligent. I heard a great one on NPR when he was pimping his CD 'Valentines Day With John Waters', a compilation that included (no shite) the song 'Johnny Are You Queer?' Classic stuff.
Posted by: Dan at November 28, 2007 12:48 PM (9/Szu)
2
I could have lived out the rest of my life quite happily without ever knowing who that guy is, though the playing car crash bit was funny. I was only into playing doctor... and not of crash victims.
Posted by: Hucbald at November 28, 2007 11:08 PM (8QuuY)
3
Anyone else hear the complaint letter this a.m. (Thursday) from an NPR listener who was upset with John Waters' listing of Crash. Apparently he's a racist & sexist who promotes violence. Who knew?
I swear, the liberals are beyond parody.
Posted by: rbj at November 29, 2007 01:55 PM (UgG6+)
Schadenfreude Yips! from Gary:
