March 25 is "Tolkien Reading Day"
or so they say:
March 25 is the date that Sauron, the evil overlord, is overthrown in Tolkien's "Return of the King."
http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/25/geek-out-happy-tolkien-reading-day/?hpt=T2
I used to read the whole darn thing about once, twice, or m ore a year. I stopped after about 35 readings. Now I re-read occasionally, skipping much of the first half of Fellowship (only really gets interesting after Bombadil); and skimming over Frodo and Sam's endless journey into Mordor. :p:
... and skimming over Frodo and Sam's endless journey into Mordor. :p:
But that's most romantic part! :D
well, there's plenty of Frodo/Sam fic out there, if that's your cup of tea. Besides, if I skip to the end, "I'm glad you're here with me, Sam. Here at the end of it all." It's plenty romantic!
I'm sorry, but the short guys gettin' it on doesn't do much for me. :right:
so get out your copies and read this authentic 20th century genius today!
I'm sorry, but the short guys gettin' it on doesn't do much for me. :right:
More of a Harry and Draco fan?
Jim/Blair! Duncan/Methos! Clark/Lex! G/Sam!
(cough) I mean . . . back to Tolkien!
Ahem. Rule 34.
No Potter, more scifi. No doubt my kinks aren't your kinks.
I've been reading the Dickens out of Tolkien and have moved on to Robert E. Howard (Lovecraft's pen pal and second-most only to Tolkien in scope of influence over generations of derivative material). I had thought of Tolkien as the godfather of Dungeons and Dragons, but I'm branching out. My friends are telling me I need to read Robert Jordan, but I'm concerned about straying too far from the classics. Also listening to Homer on audio books.
Whatchyoo Tolkien about, Mr D?
My friends are telling me I need to read Robert Jordan, but I'm concerned about straying too far from the classics.
Meh. Not the best in the genre, by a very long shot. The first few books are decent, but it goes way downhill after that, and continues to do so to this day, even under another author.
Have you read George R.R. Martin? Because that's where you need to be. I promise.
Said the Keats scholar! Hah!
Is there anyone who read more than one third of Lord Foul's Bane? I know several who have started it, but none who finished it.
I never said I was a Keats scholar. I was making fun of Keats scholars!!
(I'm a Plathian scholar - way, waaaaay worse. Your worst nightmare. )
So long as you don't sthart mouthing plathithudes.
I never said I was a Keats scholar. I was making fun of Keats scholars!!
(I'm a Plathian scholar - way, waaaaay worse. Your worst nightmare. )
OMG.. My youngest daughter was assigned a semester long project last year on Sylvia. She was not impressed. (She did ace it though.) You are a scarey scarey person Brianna! :)
Said the Keats scholar! Hah!
Is there anyone who read more than one third of Lord Foul's Bane? I know several who have started it, but none who finished it.
Yeah, I read the first three Thomas Covenant books when I was 17. I liked Lord Foul's Bain, the rest sucked. I liked Robert E. Howard, too.
Said the Keats scholar! Hah!
Is there anyone who read more than one third of Lord Foul's Bane? I know several who have started it, but none who finished it.
I read them all about the same time as Spexxvet. I enjoyed them, and I sometimes think about the White Gold Wielder when I'm climbing down through the boulders, bumping my heel against the rock to make sure I've put my foot down as far from the edge as possible.
I *might* even have one or more of them downstairs somewhere still.
I *might* even have one or more of them downstairs somewhere still.
I still have them. My 17 year old son couldn't get through the first one. He read The Hobbit between 2nd and 3rd grade, and loved the Sword, Elfstone, etc. of Shannara books. Didn't like ol' T-Cov, though.
OMG.. My youngest daughter was assigned a semester long project last year on Sylvia. She was not impressed. (She did ace it though.) You are a scarey scarey person Brianna! :)
I'm hurt!
What didn't impress your daughter? the person or the poetry?
Her position is that Plath is only famous because she killed herself. The Emo thing has lost its allure through over-use in the present generation.
Her position is that Plath is only famous because she killed herself. The Emo thing has lost its allure through over-use in the present generation.
Oh no!
Ariel was a tour de force! The poetry is phenomenal!! Not the lurid details of her life - !!
She's too young to see that.
This is a kid who instinctively figured out what utter nonsense Catholicism was at about 10 years of age... it took me about 30 more years than that. She is perceptive to the point that I worry about her.
This is a kid who instinctively figured out what utter nonsense Catholicism was at about 10 years of age... it took me about 30 more years than that. She is perceptive to the point that I worry about her.
:) a smart cookie.
IMHO the poetry would stand without the salacious details of the poets life.
"Viciousness in the kitchen" is a truly great line. :)
I agree with Griff's very wise daughter. Read her back in HS and again after college...
Plath = meh.
opinions are like...well, you know. :rolleyes:
Yep, I know and we have some of them here.
I've never been a fan of the dark crap. Life is too short and its far more enjoyable to focus on the positives.
There is a difference between cynicism and stoicism, though. Life isn't just positives, and dwelling only in happy places doesn't really prepare you for much of what is likely to happen.
I read them all about the same time as Spexxvet. I enjoyed them, and I sometimes think about the White Gold Wielder when I'm climbing down through the boulders, bumping my heel against the rock to make sure I've put my foot down as far from the edge as possible.
I *might* even have one or more of them downstairs somewhere still.
My experience was about the same as yours. I made it through about 3 of them and really enjoyed them, but couldn't get into them after that. I still occasionally think about the self checking and painstaking behavior like the heel bumping. Must suck to be a leper.
opinions are like...well, you know. :rolleyes:
Smiles! Everybody has one! ;)
My experience was about the same as yours. I made it through about 3 of them and really enjoyed them, but couldn't get into them after that. I still occasionally think about the self checking and painstaking behavior like the heel bumping. Must suck to be a leper.
My friend and I still say "Don't touch me!"
There is a difference between cynicism and stoicism, though.
I said
focusing on the positives. That is very different than "dwelling only in happy places"
If there's a Tolkien Reading Day, then I won't do it. Don't like him, but that's not why.
I'm kind of anti-days things, anyway. I smoke every Great American Smokeout Day, even in years when I've quit.
If there's a Tolkien Reading Day, then I won't do it. Don't like him, but that's not why.
I'm kind of anti-days things, anyway. I smoke every Great American Smokeout Day, even in years when I've quit.
So, where do you stand on "joining" things?
I've been hearing more and more "religious" people whose definition of God is virtually identical to my own. What is it, I wonder, that makes them feel compelled to join what is essentially a social club, based on these beliefs, whereas I myself emphatically state NO THANK YOU to such a proposition.
My running theory is that some people are just "joiners" ...
I realize the question was directed at wolf, but I, for myself, I, sir, am not a joiner.
most emphatically NOT a joiner.
It's difficult for me to even go to AA meetings. They usually piss me off. This has nothing to due with sobriety - it has to do with being a non-joiner. I leave before the effing Lord's prayer. UGH. CanNOT stand.
So long as you don't sthart mouthing plathithudes.
duck-billed plathithudes?
I feel the same about the "special days" -compelled to do the total opposite.
Me too. We should form a club or something.
sure, I'm in as long as there aren't any meetings, emails or any of that shit.
Nerds.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
sure, I'm in as long as there aren't any meetings, emails or any of that shit.
Okay, but you're still doing the tax books! :D
So, where do you stand on "joining" things?
I've been hearing more and more "religious" people whose definition of God is virtually identical to my own. What is it, I wonder, that makes them feel compelled to join what is essentially a social club, based on these beliefs, whereas I myself emphatically state NO THANK YOU to such a proposition.
My running theory is that some people are just "joiners" ...
I do join things on occasion, but am very selective about it.
Like they have to give me a nice backpack or drink bottle, or reusable shopping bags with a nice picture of a panda or a baby tiger on them or something ...
Even if I were Christian, I wouldn't join one of those social sorts of churches. I handle my access to deity more directly and personally, actually.
Actually, the Cellar is one of the few things that I've joined and stayed joined to consistently.
Even if I were Christian, I wouldn't join one of those social sorts of churches. I handle my access to deity more directly and personally, actually.
My theory is that THE ONLY THING that makes you "a Christian" is that you belong to the social club. My evidence is that I have identical beliefs to people who call themselves "a Christian" while I do not. There is no substantive disagreement. The label itself is the only thing that the label describes.
My theory is that THE ONLY THING that makes you "a Christian" is that you belong to the social club. My evidence is that I have identical beliefs to people who call themselves "a Christian" while I do not. There is no substantive disagreement. The label itself is the only thing that the label describes.
I take the opposite point of view. A lot of people who call themselves Christian, aren't. That includes a lot of people "in the club". They will know we are Christians by our love.
If the distinguishing feature is by your particular brand of love, or the display thereof, can I assume the logical extension that "others" would not be capable of the same? If not, then there is no true category defined. But if so, then I take offense to the suggestion on a deep, fundamental level.
Help me reconcile this information?