Tolkien in General

Them cat people are insufferable. Tolkien only mentioned cats ONCE, and now they think the whole damn book is about them.

I know right. Dem cats!

halfwise wrote:But your essay was not intending to impose your idealogy on Tolkien's world; it was intended to show something that Tolkien may have been blind to because of his idealogy.  I think (though I may be wrong) that Forest is complaining about people who are so wrapped up in their own world view that they don't realize it's in conflict with Tolkien's world view.

It's pretty clear what Forest was complaining about.

I wasn't born yesterday, halfy, and I'm capable of pattern recognition when switching tabs between sites where I'm still active and get accused of being a poseur because I'm trans and don't keep that firewalled from my fannish interests, and Forumshire where people say very similar things except they can only make those complaints in generic terms because there's no one left to aim them at directly.

what on earth do you mean? seriously bemused by these accusations.

Mrs Figg wrote:what on earth do you mean? seriously bemused by these accusations.  

Which part?

"Forumshire where people say very similar things except they can only make those complaints in generic terms because there's no one left to aim them at directly."

That part.

You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about this subject. No doubt acquired from the frustrations of arguing online about divisive topics. That's understandable, and nothing productive can come from talking about it further!

I mean that when people on, for example, TORn complain about the scourge of "fake fans" supposedly overrunning Tolkien fandom, they are able to point to specific people as examples of this (until the mods come in, characteristically trigger-happy with the delete button). I am one of the people they can point to. When folks on Forumshire make very similarly worded complaints about fake fans, they don't necessarily have anyone on this site they can use as an example, but pattern recognition means I can infer I fit the bill. Or I would if I wasn't already known as an actual person rather than a crude stereotype, but being "one of the good ones" only because I have friends here is not flattering when someone identical to me but without a personal history in this community wouldn't be given the same courtesy.

But actually, it's worse than that. Those trigger-happy TORn mods mean I don't have to listen to anyone over there talk about how trans people are mentally ill, as you did last week (though I've no doubt plenty of them agree with you). Are you surprised the only openly trans member of Forumshire thinks this site has become unwelcoming? Not to imply that one comment sealed the deal—when I say I wasn't born yesterday, I mean I know what "opposing worldviews from Tolkien's own," to quote Forest, is typically used to mean. Then multiply this by at least the 4.5 years since ROP was first rumored and the tenor of political discussion throughout Tolkien fandom took a nosedive.

I've no doubt this will be brushed off, or people will think I'm hysterical, or they'll insinuate (as they have in the past) that I'm just petulantly refusing to tolerate others disagreeing with me. That's fine. I normally hold to my resolve to keep my mouth shut during my intermittent lurking here, and probably should have done so last night, but Forest's framing of his complaint was too "good" to resist. Believe it or not, I wish everyone here well, though honestly the performative befuddlement that anyone would find deliberately exclusionary rhetoric to be unwelcoming offends me more than the rhetoric itself.

Forest Shepherd wrote:nothing productive can come from talking about it further!

Simul, but agreed. I'll see myself out.

Eldy wrote:

Forest Shepherd wrote:nothing productive can come from talking about it further!

Simul, but agreed. I'll see myself out.

Don't leave! We can talk about other stuff.

Edit: Read the post above. Yeah idk, it's all pretty fucked.

Eldy wrote:

But actually, it's worse than that. Those trigger-happy TORn mods mean I don't have to listen to anyone over there talk about how trans people are mentally ill, as you did last week (though I've no doubt plenty of them agree with you). Are you surprised the only openly trans member of Forumshire thinks this site has become unwelcoming?

If you mean me, I would like you to give me the exact words where I said trans people were 'mentally ill' because at zero point did I say that. I mentioned gender dysphoria as a disorder, which it is, and is a fact and not an attack. This is set out and codified by the NHS, but certainly I wouldn't take it on myself to diagnose anyone. If talking about facts is unwelcoming quite frankly that is not my fault. But being made to feel bad because I wish to talk about facts and not 'feelings' is part and parcel of the usual attempts online to shut down debate and stifle anyone who questions gender identity politics. I get its a sensitive issue but lets not fling mud. As you may know I am a gender critical feminist, or terf, as TA's like to call us. But I think that in all my debates here I have spoken with respect, good faith, not used hyperbole and generally tried to rein in my opinions. I was also shut down in one thread which is fair enough. Forumshire is not the place for this discussion.

It is nearly impossible to keep feelings out of it. Maybe someone can, but I certainly can't. I may be wrong and cynical, but I can't imagine that being done without excluding the people being talked about. And that is a worrying thought. ...which yet again is a feeling. Even when choosing which facts to accept, feelings are involved.

I can't read your views without hearing the eccho of homosexuality being a mental illness, a phase, something you'll grow out of, something to protect the children from, and that does make me feel a great deal of things. That was also facts,  that was also doctors and scientists and law makers saying so. Warning bells is all I hear. History repeating itself again and again. I know I cannot decide what is right to do, and when to take meds and when not to. I don't have the knowledge, I can't properly decifer medical papers. I shouldn't sit her and pretend to have any answers.

What I can say for a fact is how pround I am of my daughter (14yo) who supports her non-binary class mate and use their pronouns and their prefered name without any fuss. As she should do.

Does all this mean the topic shouldn't be discussed? Probably not, but I can't do it without feelings. I do hope we can try to assume the best of people, even when things may sound bad or hostile. We don't have the best track record here with... "debates", like the Moffat war.

I was going to say the same thing regarding "facts". It's in the wording: it's a fact that up until about 30 years ago women were considered (by so and so academy or what have you) to be worse than men on math and better in language. That fact that it was declared so didn't make it a fact. The relationship between biology and psychology is just too damn complicated.

Amarië wrote:

I can't read your views without hearing the eccho of homosexuality being a mental illness, a phase, something you'll grow out of, something to protect the children from, and that does make me feel a great deal of things. That was also facts,  that was also doctors and scientists and law makers saying so. Warning bells is all I hear. History repeating itself again and again. I know I cannot decide what is right to do, and when to take meds and when not to. I don't have the knowledge, I can't properly decifer medical papers. I shouldn't sit her and pretend to have any answers.

What I can say for a fact is how pround I am of my daughter (14yo) who supports her non-binary class mate and use their pronouns and their prefered name without any fuss. As she should do.

Does all this mean the topic shouldn't be discussed? Probably not, but I can't do it without feelings. I do hope we can try to assume the best of people, even when things may sound bad or hostile. We don't have the best track record here with... "debates", like the Moffat war.

if you see echoes of my arguments being equal to homosexuality being a mental illness then you don't understand what a gender critical feminist is. And quite frankly I object to being put in the same category of bigots who deny homosexuals the right to existence. I am associated with the LGB Alliance who fight for the rights of gay people who are being threatened and erased by gender ideology, in particular Lesbians.
As for your daughter, It is only polite to use preferred pronouns but that doesn't mean someone can force another to believe in biological impossibilities. Such as the mantra and lie that trans women are women, because they are not women. Feelings are dangerous in this instance, because they interfere with the logical part of the brain. I also am not keen on the implication that because I disagreed vehemently with Petty over Doctor Who I am somehow 'bad or hostile' to trans people. I have no beef with trans people, I have beef with the chemical castration of children and the vicious and hostile hounding, cancelling and shutting down of anyone who refuses to drink the gender ideology kool-Aid.

You said very clearly you didn't consider homosexuality an illness, I don't think anybody is implying that.

I'm saying the arguments have eccohs of arguments used to spread fear against gays/women/vaccines/political beliefs/comic books/video games. And also lion and tigers and bears and such of course, but I am trying to explain what makes warning bells ring in my head.

Who is mentiones as a case where we have been arguing, fighting, slamming doors, throwing accusations and generally being anything but calm debaters of fact. As there, there are oposites sides which appears far apart, and there will be arguments and wild fires while we try to find common ground. Or it could go super smooth, but I am a sceptical creature.  I am the same person as in the Who thread, even if some lessons have been learned.

Who was years ago and I for one have learned by that experience to bite my tongue and chill out over trivial matters. The gender thing is not a trivial matter though, and I have strong opinions about the protection of children.

"I'm saying the arguments have eccohs of arguments used to spread fear"

But what arguments exactly? My arguments are that trans people should be treated with respect, that they have every right to live and present how they want, as is only right in a civilized society. I have no problem with being polite and using pronouns. But any hint at questioning gender ideology is usually met with a ton of bricks being thrown and accusations of 'genocide', transphobia, and hatred which are also thrown out if the questioning tries to go any deeper than the approved mantra. I don't follow mantras and I don't follow Scientology-like brainwashing cults either. Basically, adults can do what the heck they like but keep the kids out of it until they are legally able to decide for themselves. That's it really, nothing too extreme imo.

{{ Blimey I turn my back for five minutes and not only does it all kickoff but, Eldy only goes and turns back up!! I heard unsavoury rumours you were moonlighting on TORN of all places

On the subject matter theres a few times of late I'd rather been hoping Eldy you'd have turned up, as I felt at crucial points in recent discussions having insight from someone we all know and can trust the words and intent of, and give first hand accounts, would have been most useful.
I personally have lots of questions I dont feel just talking with non-trans folk can answer so apart from the obvious, missing you being on the forum and contributing in general, I also miss your presence on the specifics of this particualr topic. So I know this one is tricky, and of course iin your case deeply personal, but no-one learns anything from shouting from their own box (of which I of course am as guilty as any), too much of that in the modern world, its in discussion, debate, empathy and understanindg we all find the liveable middle ground. So please lass, don't be a stranger. A little Eldy wisdom always goes a long way. }}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{ Blimey I turn my back for five minutes and not only does it all kickoff but, Eldy only goes and turns back up!!  I heard unsavoury rumours you were moonlighting on TORN of all places    

On the subject matter theres a few times of late I'd rather been hoping Eldy you'd have turned up, as I felt at crucial points in recent discussions having insight from someone we all know and can trust the words and intent of, and give first hand accounts, would have been most useful.
I personally have lots of questions I dont feel just talking with non-trans folk can answer so apart from the obvious, missing you being on the forum and contributing in general, I also miss your presence on the specifics of this particualr topic. So I know this one is tricky, and of course iin your case deeply personal, but no-one learns anything from shouting from their own box (of which I of course am as guilty as any), too much of that in the modern world, its in discussion, debate, empathy and understanindg we all find the liveable middle ground. So please lass, don't be a stranger. A little Eldy wisdom always goes a long way. }}

I agree, having the opinions from Eldy would be a useful part of any debate otherwise its one sided. I am open to debate as long as everyone comes at it with the assumption of good faith. I certainly am, even if my opinions are the opposite of everyone else I respect your views.

I am glad you're saying that. I will go out on a limb and say that having read that she and others like her is a danger to children and women might have lead her to believe otherwise...

We can only hope she will be back. But perhaps she might appreciate not having to battle for trans rights at every place she comes to, got to be tiresome to defend yourself all the time.

(Am out travelling now, I plan to return to this discussion later.)

No, I didn't say that trans people are a danger to children, I said that chemical and surgical experiments on children is dangerous. As regards dangers to women, what I mean by that are things like a biological males allowed to join a women's rugby team and serious injuries to the women resulting. This has actually happened in Guam, so it isn't just hypothetical. It is common sense stuff which seems to be beyond the pale in some quarters of the left media.

{{ I was nosing through letters in a random fashion when I came upon a bit with Tolkien describing the Shire- he said it was a north Oxfordshire village of about the time period of Victoria's jubilee.

So I decided to first get the date for the Jubilee- 1887- obviously getting photos of this period is tricky, however fortunately the artist Turner grew up in Oxfordshire, and though in his ealy years he was more interested in painging 'progress' ie the growing towns of the area he did do some rural stuff that gives an indication of North Oxfordshire about that time (Turner was painting till 1862. So whilst we can assume some further modern encroachment as you will see shortly its still a 99% rural area, so its unlikely thre was huge change to most of the area in the 50 years between Turner painting and Tolkiens youth there).

So when we think of the Brandywine River it may be somewhat like this-



Whilst the mill was probably in Tolkiens mind more like the one near his childhood home its setting was probably somewhat similar to this-



But what I found interesting was if you look at modern North Oxfordshire on google earth it looks like this-





and from modern photos of the area-





Now what first struck me was the mass field system, most of the land is farmland, and how modern that was, was it like that in Tolkiens day? and heres the interesting bit- yes it largely was. In fact the field boundaries in England are amazingly unchanged from the Neolithic farmers who first set them out. Archeology has shown that 8 times out of 10 the modern field boundaries match the records from Doomsday Book (1086) and the evidence from excavation points to most of thefield sytems being about 1500- 2500 years old.

Why is this fact interesting? Well consider the Shire. The hobbits moved into this region about 1601 of the Third Age, but they werent the first. In fact the land they would call the Shire was originally the breadbasket for the northern kingdom, it was they who built the bridges such as over the Brandywine, and it was they who cleared the land and laid out their fields in 3320 of the SA. In otherwords the fields and landscape of the Shire was created approx 2000 years before the Shire we know. Mirroring almost exactly the look of North Oxfordshire whose fields of Tolkiens youth were likewise first set out 2000 ago by a long gone and largely forgotten people. And like those lost neolithic farmers their culture is gone too leaving behind only reminants, standing stones, burial mounds ect- just as there are around the Shire left by the lost North Kingdom.

In short this is what the Shire should like like. Lots of fields laid out in similar fashion as above dotted with small villages and hamlets and the occasional larger town such as Michel Delving.

But it just amazes me that not only did Tolkien base the Shire on the landscape of his childhood but he accounted for why that landscape looked as it did and put a version of that real history into his own creation to explain why the Shire looks like N. Oxfordshire. }}

Excellent!

Trees. That's what Jackson's Shire is really missing. Not nearly enough trees!

{{ I'm not a fan of the look of Pjs Shire, its presented as tiny when infact the Shire is actually really big, larger than Oxfordshire by several times in fact and approx the size of the Midlands in England. Also the mill is rubbish in PJ's, it wouldnt function it has no millpond or water channels to direct water into the wheel, its just stuck in a muddy river. There arent any proper fields or farmland at hobbiton, just scrubby grass everywhere, as you note nowhere near enough trees (and NZ doesnt have the right sort of trees for the look anyway) and of course the grass is all wrong! Hobbits like neatness and order, they are English basically and so love their lawns and gardens, thats why Frodo has two gardeners working for him. Hobbits should be trying to outcompete their neighbours for the nicest, neatest most ordered garden or the neighbours will gossip about them. PJ's Shire looks like no one cares at all, its overgrown and wild looking. }}

Agreed Lord Pettance.

I thought Jackson would bring Tolkien's illustration The Hill:Hobbiton Across the Water to life . . .

. . . but he didn't.