Discussion page updated

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 19:32:03 GMT, "Christopher Kreuzer"
<spamgard DeleteThis @blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

 >"Belba Grubb From Stock" <barbb DeleteThis @dbtech.net> wrote in message
 >news:2ejo21lk1bnuol34n3pt6rl18s6ioopkej@4ax.com...
  >> Sorry for the long delay but I'm in the midst of a big move and it's
  >> been hard to find time for this. Anyway, now the page is updated and
  >> I've also put in the Appendices per the discussion we had in the
  >> "About The Siege of Gondor" thread. This last is not written in
  >> stone, especially the final discussion, and all suggestions, comments
  >> and corrections are invited. Also, for those who have already
  >> volunteered, I hope the dates aren't a problem.
 >
 >In case anyone is wondering what this discusssion page is:
 >
 >http://parasha.maoltuile.org
 >
 >Thanks for the update, Barb!
 >25th April should be fine for me.

You're welcome -- thanks for contributing to the set-up and
volunteering. And, too, thanks for putting up the URL -- forgot that
rather important piece of information (blush).

Barb<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Discussion page updated 

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 19:32:03 GMT, "Christopher Kreuzer"
<spamgard.TakeThisOut@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

 >"Belba Grubb From Stock" <barbb.TakeThisOut@dbtech.net> wrote in message
 >news:2ejo21lk1bnuol34n3pt6rl18s6ioopkej@4ax.com...
  >> Sorry for the long delay but I'm in the midst of a big move and it's
  >> been hard to find time for this. Anyway, now the page is updated and
  >> I've also put in the Appendices per the discussion we had in the
  >> "About The Siege of Gondor" thread. This last is not written in
  >> stone, especially the final discussion, and all suggestions, comments
  >> and corrections are invited. Also, for those who have already
  >> volunteered, I hope the dates aren't a problem.
 >
 >In case anyone is wondering what this discusssion page is:
 >
 >http://parasha.maoltuile.org
 >
 >Thanks for the update, Barb!
 >25th April should be fine for me.

PS: I was not at all certain about what to call the last discussion.
As you know, I'd been thinking of "Publishing 'The Lord of the Rings'"
earlier,and with Troels' suggestion and your volunteering for that
challenging AI(i), put it at the end rather than at the beginning of
this series, but that title seemed too restrictive when I went with
the page update. "Wrap-up" was pretty puny, it seems to me now, and
so I've changed it to "J.R.R.Tolkien and 'The Lord of the Rings.'"
This allows a wider scope for discussion, I think, and there is more
material regarding "The Lord of the Rings" than "The Hobbit" (chiefly
the Foreword to LOTR -- I am not sure of the major thrust of the
content of 'Letters' yet). Is open discussion the best format for
that, I wonder....

Barb<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Discussion page updated 

Belba Grubb From Stock <barbb.RemoveThis@dbtech.net> wrote:

<font color=green>  >> <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://parasha.maoltuile.org</font" target="_blank">http://parasha.maoltuile.org</font</a>>

 > PS: I was not at all certain about what to call the last discussion.
 > As you know, I'd been thinking of "Publishing 'The Lord of the Rings'"
 > earlier

<snip>

 > I've changed it to "J.R.R.Tolkien and 'The Lord of the Rings.'"

Sounds good.

 > This allows a wider scope for discussion

Slightly wider...

 > Is open discussion the best format for that, I wonder....

Not sure. I would be inclined to try and find someone to start it off. I
am sure people who know /Letters/ and the publishing and writing history
backwards and forward could be persuaded... I also think you need to
clearly distinguish between the story-external and story-internal bits.
Are you intending that discussion to be how Tolkien came to write and
publish LotR and how he decided which bits to put in the Appendices
(external), or do you mean why he decided to create a fictional history
within the story for how the story was transmitted to us (the Red Book
and all the story-internal stuff)?

Though thinking about these 'open discussions' (I like the idea), I had
the thought that the 'Tale of Years' discussions could be open format.

Though even for the 'open format' ones (just the indices at the
moment?), you will need someone to start the thread. I guess that would
be you!

Christopher

--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Discussion page updated 

Slightly out of order...

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 00:23:52 GMT, "Christopher Kreuzer"
<spamgard.DeleteThis@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

  >> Is open discussion the best format for that, I wonder....
 >
 >Not sure. I would be inclined to try and find someone to start it off. I
 >am sure people who know /Letters/ and the publishing and writing history
 >backwards and forward could be persuaded...

There are such people here on AFT and RABT and this would be a chance
for them to really shine, wouldn't it.

 > I also think you need to
 >clearly distinguish between the story-external and story-internal bits.
 >Are you intending that discussion to be how Tolkien came to write and
 >publish LotR and how he decided which bits to put in the Appendices
 >(external), or do you mean why he decided to create a fictional history
 >within the story for how the story was transmitted to us (the Red Book
 >and all the story-internal stuff)?

Yes.

;^)

Seriously, this was my springboard for that vision of the last
discussion:

Me:
  >> Week 1: Publishing the Lord of the Rings (to include the matter that
  >> finally was published as Appendix AI(i).

Troels:
 >I'd say that the 'Publishing . . .' should rather be done with the
 >foreword (and, if possible, with /Letters/) as the textual basis, and
 >the matter of A (general) and AI(i) should be dealt with separately.

And then you came in with an excellent plan to handle A1(i) and that
solved the whole dilemma of how to get into the appendices without
also dragging in "The Akallabeth" and other matter from "The
Silmarillion."

I liked Troels' suggestion, though, and thought it would fit quite
well at the end; I'm not sure how everyone feels about bringing
"Letters" into it. I think any LOTR/TH related material in that
collection would be acceptable, as opposed to other material published
by CJRT, because it was the author himself answering people's
questions and comments about the published works during his lifetime.

"Published" is the key here, I suppose. And that could address both
facets of the matter that you've brought up here.

  >> PS: I was not at all certain about what to call the last discussion.
  >> As you know, I'd been thinking of "Publishing 'The Lord of the Rings'"
  >> earlier
 >
 ><snip>
 >
  >> I've changed it to "J.R.R.Tolkien and 'The Lord of the Rings.'"
 >
 >Sounds good.
 >
  >> This allows a wider scope for discussion
 >
 >Slightly wider...

It should be wider still?

 >Though thinking about these 'open discussions' (I like the idea), I had
 >the thought that the 'Tale of Years' discussions could be open format.

I could be wrong, but haven't we been using it that way throughout the
weekly discussions? This would be a chance to give it ordered and
therefore total focus, thereby supplementing the ancillary "dates"
discussions we've been having to date as well as exploring matter that
hasn't ever been mentioned in the text (Aragorn giving Arwen the Ring
of Barahir on Cerin Amroth, for instance) and examiningg the text
closely using this unique lens (for instance, was "the twenty-first of
April a hundred years ago last Thursday" the correct date for Thrain's
departure).

 >Though even for the 'open format' ones (just the indices at the
 >moment?), you will need someone to start the thread. I guess that would
 >be you!

=

You think so? To me, open format means just that, somebody just
sounds off about some song and/or verse that they like or dislike or
don't understand; others with similar interests reply while yet others
talk about something else. I expect Donald Swann will be woven in
there somewhere, and the group Troels has told us about (I'd have to
look up their name again), and so forth.

I am starting to wonder about having to do some of the appendices,
though -- the initial spate of volunteers has trickled off to
nothing. We're okay through the first part of May, though, and so I
won't post an alert note just yet.

Barb

Everything in life is unusual until you get accustomed to it.
-- The Scarecrow, "The Wonderful World of Oz"<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Discussion page updated 

Belba Grubb From Stock <barbb.DeleteThis@dbtech.net> wrote:
 > Slightly out of order...
 >
 > On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 00:23:52 GMT, "Christopher Kreuzer"
 > <spamgard.DeleteThis@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
 >
 > <snip>
 >
   >>> Is open discussion the best format for that, I wonder....
  >>
  >> Not sure. I would be inclined to try and find someone to start it
  >> off. I am sure people who know /Letters/ and the publishing and
  >> writing history backwards and forward could be persuaded...
 >
 > There are such people here on AFT and RABT and this would be a chance
 > for them to really shine, wouldn't it.

Can you hear the stampede of volunteers?

<snip>

   >>> I've changed it to "J.R.R.Tolkien and 'The Lord of the Rings.'"
  >>
  >> Sounds good.
  >>
   >>> This allows a wider scope for discussion
  >>
  >> Slightly wider...
 >
 > It should be wider still?

No! I meant that you had already widened the scope of the discussion to
quite frankly leviathan proportions! Which is good, of course...

  >> Though thinking about these 'open discussions' (I like the idea), I
  >> had the thought that the 'Tale of Years' discussions could be open
  >> format.
 >
 > I could be wrong, but haven't we been using it that way throughout the
 > weekly discussions? This would be a chance to give it ordered and
 > therefore total focus, thereby supplementing the ancillary "dates"
 > discussions we've been having to date as well as exploring matter that
 > hasn't ever been mentioned in the text (Aragorn giving Arwen the Ring
 > of Barahir on Cerin Amroth, for instance) and examiningg the text
 > closely using this unique lens (for instance, was "the twenty-first of
 > April a hundred years ago last Thursday" the correct date for Thrain's
 > departure).

Hmm. You seem to be, um, volunteering for something...

I, for one, would be interested to hear what you have to say about this.
My mind is boggling already at this obscure Thrain reference. And I'm
already having to restrain myself concerning something amazing (to me at
least) that I discovered in an obscure footnote in Appendix A... <sits
on hands>

  >> Though even for the 'open format' ones (just the indices at the
  >> moment?), you will need someone to start the thread. I guess that
  >> would be you!
 >
 > =
 >
 > You think so? To me, open format means just that, somebody just
 > sounds off about some song and/or verse that they like or dislike or
 > don't understand; others with similar interests reply while yet others
 > talk about something else.

I don't think I'm understanding what you mean by open format. I thought
you just meant anyone chips in with what they want to say, and there is
no introduction or summary or starting set of questions. Even in what I
am thinking 'open format' means, you still need someone to post a thread
with the correct title, and say "start posting folks".

Christopher

--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Discussion page updated 

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:42:24 GMT, "Christopher Kreuzer"
<spamgard.DeleteThis@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

 >Belba Grubb From Stock <barbb.DeleteThis@dbtech.net> wrote:
  >> Slightly out of order...
  >>
  >> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 00:23:52 GMT, "Christopher Kreuzer"
  >> <spamgard.DeleteThis@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
  >>
  >> <snip>
  >>
   >>>> Is open discussion the best format for that, I wonder....
   >>>
   >>> Not sure. I would be inclined to try and find someone to start it
   >>> off. I am sure people who know /Letters/ and the publishing and
   >>> writing history backwards and forward could be persuaded...
  >>
  >> There are such people here on AFT and RABT and this would be a chance
  >> for them to really shine, wouldn't it.
 >
 >Can you hear the stampede of volunteers?

It must have deafened me -- I can't hear a thing. ;^)

 >
 ><snip>
 >
   >>>> I've changed it to "J.R.R.Tolkien and 'The Lord of the Rings.'"
   >>>
   >>> Sounds good.
   >>>
   >>>> This allows a wider scope for discussion
   >>>
   >>> Slightly wider...
  >>
  >> It should be wider still?
 >
 >No! I meant that you had already widened the scope of the discussion to
 >quite frankly leviathan proportions! Which is good, of course...

I hope that by then we'll have most of the whale behind us (g). One
also has to also look ahead, to a "Silmarillion" discussion, should
such a thing be established (and time's a-flying -- this present
project will be finished by the end of August). Perhaps at least some
widening is needed before a new focus can reappear, especially given
JRRT's early desire to publish his Silmarillion material and how it
all turned out.

   >>> Though thinking about these 'open discussions' (I like the idea), I
   >>> had the thought that the 'Tale of Years' discussions could be open
   >>> format.
  >>
  >> I could be wrong, but haven't we been using it that way throughout the
  >> weekly discussions? This would be a chance to give it ordered and
  >> therefore total focus, thereby supplementing the ancillary "dates"
  >> discussions we've been having to date as well as exploring matter that
  >> hasn't ever been mentioned in the text (Aragorn giving Arwen the Ring
  >> of Barahir on Cerin Amroth, for instance) and examiningg the text
  >> closely using this unique lens (for instance, was "the twenty-first of
  >> April a hundred years ago last Thursday" the correct date for Thrain's
  >> departure).
 >
 >Hmm. You seem to be, um, volunteering for something...

Gardening, laddie, just gardening. It's springtime and seeds must be
planted, y'know.

Think I will volunteer for "The Heirs of Isildur" (though if anyone
else is burning to do that, I will gladly step aside between now and
the end of April); that will give us two weeks into it and perhaps
people will by then have seen what can be gotten out of this (quite a
bit!).

 >I, for one, would be interested to hear what you have to say about this.
 >My mind is boggling already at this obscure Thrain reference. And I'm
 >already having to restrain myself concerning something amazing (to me at
 >least) that I discovered in an obscure footnote in Appendix A... <sits
 >on hands>

Yes, yes, go on....this happens quite a bit with the appendices, I've
found, at least when one has read the story a very many times. For
quite a few times through at first, though, I did skip them or just
browse through the LOTR-related highlights and avoided "dreadful"
appendices like the calendars (which confused me) or the writing
(which I could not use). As mentioned, only when I got the BGFS
moniker recently did I discover the wonderful family trees.

All of which is to say that I think it is going to be difficult for
people to warm up to the appendices, at least early on; any and all
enthusiasm is precious and to be highly encouraged. Looking forward
to hearing about that obscure footnote in A; and the kinship links and
other interesting stuff Aelfwina has discovered among the hobbits;
what Odysseus has discovered about the phillologist's curious
fascination with time as well as tongues; and....

   >>> Though even for the 'open format' ones (just the indices at the
   >>> moment?), you will need someone to start the thread. I guess that
   >>> would be you!
  >>
  >> =
  >>
  >> You think so? To me, open format means just that, somebody just
  >> sounds off about some song and/or verse that they like or dislike or
  >> don't understand; others with similar interests reply while yet others
  >> talk about something else.
 >
 >I don't think I'm understanding what you mean by open format. I thought
 >you just meant anyone chips in with what they want to say, and there is
 >no introduction or summary or starting set of questions. Even in what I
 >am thinking 'open format' means, you still need someone to post a thread
 >with the correct title, and say "start posting folks".

Oh, right, I see what you mean now. Takes a while for things to
penetrate this thick skull sometimes. Yes, something like that is
needed; I can certainly do that, or one of the Co-Founding Fathers if
they are around then.

Barb<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Discussion page updated